I am sorry, the dynamics of power that seem to pool around technology  
makes me a little touchy.  I was just curious to know what these  
"computational processes" actually are.  I find it interesting that  
notions about computing (Wiener, von Neumann) come from thoughts  
about and the modeling of biological processes and human thought,  
cybernetics for instance.  Isn't programming just articulating to the  
computer what you want it to do?

...go to the store to buy milk...  if it's raining, wear a rain coat,  
otherwise take a jacket...  wait on the corner for the light to turn  
green, if it doesn't scratch your head until it does, etc... and  
object oriented- go to the store to by x... etc...

and like you say, this is pretty comprehensible to many.

I think it is important to take a tactical approach and look at what  
people are using newer media and technologies for, because artists  
are using these tools, even inventing or playing off of their uses-  
communication, distribution, personal and interpersonal authorship,  
social computing and interaction, mobility, location, participation,  
bricolage, etc.  So I agree that there should be an appreciation, a  
passion even, for these things to find their way to the surface in  
curation.

I really like how Rosanne portrayed her practice as facilitator or  
mediary, which seems to make sense in terms of negotiating the very  
specific work of an individual with an audience or institution.  In  
my opinion, the most interesting movements in art were  
interdisciplinary, they grew between disciplines like music, art,  
film, theater, etc.  I think the curator of new media must move  
beyond institutional boundaries that lay claim to and  
compartmentalize (or departmentalize) creative practices.  This is  
the case with the Internet and will be the case as mobile, ubiquitous  
devices continue to develop, requiring a departure from the  
institution?  Are curators of new media more independent, tactical  
and collaborative between institutions, disciplines or cultural formats?

I don't know if there has been discussion about this on this list,  
but I am curious to know if others think ideologies or techniques of  
new media are antagonistic to the curation practice?  If we consider  
some of the mythology of new media- interactivity, participation,  
generative content, distribution, live process and the fundamental  
blurring of the lines of consumer-producer as really challenging the  
notions inherent in old media.  New media seems to be exhausting the  
fixity of the boundaries of the old media dichotomy of performer/ 
spectator or author/audience, or in this case curator/audience?  Can  
anyone speak of work that encourages or develops these fault lines?

Andrew


On Mar 2, 2006, at 12:00 PM, Simon Biggs wrote:

> I wasn't trying to suggest that computational processes are  
> mysterious or
> have any special status. Actually I was suggesting the  
> opposite...that they
> are technical and conceptual elements that are comprehensible to
> non-experts, just as painting techniques are, if you are bothered  
> to find
> out what they are (eg: what is involved in glazing in oils or the  
> opposite
> approach required in tempera). Critics, curators, artists (well,  
> painters at
> least) and other relevant professionals are expected to know this  
> stuff, not
> necessarily as expert technicians but enough that they can  
> appreciate the
> means of production of a work and the implications of that.
>
> Given this it is not a great expectation to assume the new media art
> professionals, or at least those addressing digital media, should  
> have an
> equivalent appreciation of digital technologies. At the heart of  
> that are
> "computational processes" or, if you prefer, theories of  
> computability.
>
> The reason why this seems to be an issue is that conventionally  
> critics,
> curators and artists are not expected to be familiar with the work of
> scientists like Turing or von Neumann, just as they would not be  
> expected to
> be aware of the work of the chemists at Kodak. This opens up a  
> whole lot of
> issues about how much you need to know to have an appropriate  
> appreciation
> of something. That will depend to what purpose you are applying the
> knowledge. I know photographers who know very little about the  
> chemistry of
> what they do and yet they manage to make decent photo's. I also  
> know some
> who have made it part of their expertise to know as much as they  
> can about
> this and about the history and inner workings of the technology  
> they use. In
> most cases it seems to me that these latter photographers are at an
> advantage and their work usually seems to benefit from that knowledge,
> although not always. The knowledge is never enough.
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 02.03.06 16:05, "Andrew Bucksbarg" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> What are these mysterious "computational processes"?
>>
>> This reminds me of a job interview (Art dept.- new media), where I
>> was asked, "do you write your own code?"  Later, I thought I should
>> have asked him if he builds his own computer processors, paves his
>> own freeways, mills his own pencils and programs in machine language.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> (BTW- I don't think using the term "list lurker" is a positive method
>> of getting others to engage.  In fact, I think it encourages a divide
>> between those who have agency to speak and those who are "passive"
>> spectators.)
>>
>> On Mar 2, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>
>>> One of the first things curators and audiences need to take on
>>> board with a
>>> lot of work done in the digital media domain (of course this is
>>> only part of
>>> the new media domain) is that quite a bit of it is either
>>> predicated on,
>>> takes into consideration or technically utilises computational
>>> processes.
>>> Comprehending how this work is made, why and to what purpose can be
>>> difficult if one has little understanding of computation.
>>>
>>> So, to the list of media tropes you initially proposed (moving
>>> image, sound,
>>> space) you could add computation/process. The reasoning here is
>>> similar to
>>> that which would argue that you cannot understand and critique
>>> painting if
>>> you have no knowledge of its technical, historical and procedural
>>> characteristics. You do not critique a painting as an image. You
>>> need to
>>> take all these other factors into consideration as well.
>>>
>>> This does not mean you need to know how to program a computer (or
>>> indeed
>>> paint a picture) but it does imply a comprehension of the principals
>>> involved.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02.03.06 00:04, Beryl Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many curators of new media art come from a background in video
>>>> art.  So=20=
>>>>
>>>> how do curators (and the audience, and the artists) get from an=20
>>>> understanding of video to an understanding of the different=20
>>>> characteristics of public art, interactive images, net art,
>>>> robotics,=20
>>>> activism, art/science or biotechnology? How are these different to
>>>> the=20=
>>>>
>>>> characteristics of video. Video curators might be expected to have
>>>> good=20=
>>>>
>>>> grasp on 'time', but what else is expected for curators of new
>>>> media? =20=
>>>>
>>>> Do video curators neglect 'the audio'? And how about 'space' -
>>>> public=20
>>>> space that is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon Biggs
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>
>>> Professor of Digital Art, Sheffield Hallam University
>>> http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/
>>
>
>
>
> Simon Biggs
>
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>
> Professor of Digital Art, Sheffield Hallam University
> http://www.shu.ac.uk/schools/cs/cri/adrc/research2/