I agree with Simon's approach here and think that knowledge of the
principles of programming should be a key component of media art
education. It is a precondition for cooperation or consultation between
artists and computer scientists. It, at least, narrows the cultural and
linguistic gap slightly. A basic understanding of the fundamentals of
programming is essential for cultural practitioners (artists, curators
and critics alike) also because today there are hardly any media that
are not digital. To grasp the properties (and histories) of digital
media thus becomes unavoidable. This could also be argued for painting
with practitioners using Photoshop to alter their images. The world of
images around us is heavily technologized also, as Simon points out. In
addition, some contemporary performance work is based on algorithmic
principles in a Fluxus-like manner.
It is hard for me to imagine a competent cultural worker today who
successfully bypasses a basic understanding of computing.
Trebor
http://collectivate.net/journalisms/
>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/
>
>
|