 |
 |
Ornithology is for the birds as criticism is for the artists. Barnett Newman I always forget off the top of my head whether Newman said art or artists, but in either case, I think the point is to question the value of taxonomy. I agree with Josephine that there is value in specificity, so that the unthinking conflation of net art, net.art, web art, Internet art etc. can become a more nuanced discussion. But I understood the starting point/desire to be a more rigorous discussion of specific artworks, trends, etc., and I'm conflicted about how useful "naming" discussions are in this regard. Perhaps we could introduce the conept of "TAN" - temporary autonomous nomenclature, which is is useful for a specific discussion but not necessarily "everlasting." That said, for my own curatorial/critical practice, I tend to focus around two concepts: the network and computability. I also shy away from considering these "unique" or necessary and prefer the idea of "distinctive" from David Antin's early essay on the distinctive properties of video. Regarding computability, which might equate, roughly, to the notion of "code art," I think Simon is right to bring it back to Turing, who considered a "computer," a person who made calculations, and the Turing machine to be a language machine. What is interesting (and unique?) about the computer is its ability to manipulate language. What is interesting about code is that it is a language. The low hanging fruit from Lev's title "The Language of New Media," is, I would argue, that new media is language-based. It is about computability (and the corollary is that language has an arbitrary relationship to the physical world, which corrals a whole other set of discussions). What is interesting about both computability and the network is that neither has to be specific to what we "historically" understand to be net art or interactive art. It is here that Josephine's idea of looking at the art world through the lens of contemporary practice becomes more viable, for me. The use of the Fibonocci Series by Mario Merz and many of the Arte Povera artists becomes much richer through the lens of the idea of computability, but it does not make him/them computer/digital/net artists. s Steve Dietz Curator New Media Walker Art Center > -----Original Message----- > From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/ > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Simon Biggs > Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:32 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: February's topic: artist/critic/curator > > > Josephine wrote: > >Code is, as you know, the foundation of all computer communications, all > >interfaces and all digital representations. Code is like the genetic > >make up of the digital world and it is created by humans. I myself see > >code art as a specialized area in net art most of all. In it artists > >examine and experiment with the language people use to make computers do > >things. The term 'code' can however be perceived in a very broad sense, > >just like the term 'network'. There are dress codes, codes of behavior, > >social and political codes, just to name a few. > ----- > Arguing that code art is part of net art is clearly incorrect. As Josephine > says, code is what underlies all computer communications, and also all > computer applications. It is not dedicated to networks and there are many > artists for whom coding is the primary creative medium but are not working > with the net; all those artists out there doing interactive art, generative > art, etc. So, let's not see all digital art as a sub-set of net art...it > is, to use Josephines own heirarchical categorising taxonomy, rather the > other way around, with net art being a sub-genre of digital art. > > I also think that it can be illuminating to use metaphors, such as > comparing computer code to genetics (suggesting that genes are bio-code) > but it is also dangerous. They should be used with great care and carefully > contextualised. > > The point that code is made by humans...this is very important. > > Chris wrote: > >I would suggest that neither of these labels 'net art' or 'code art' > >necessarily has anything to do with computers or electronic networks. > ----- > A very good point and one that can be developed further. If one goes back > to Turing's earliest experiments in computability you will find that the > earliest devices he was creating were manual (eg: the user had to manually > manipulate the system) and non-electrical. That is, they were made of bits > of paper and matchboxes. So, one can argue that computers themselves, in > their basic conceptualisation, also have nothing to do with electronics or > networks. The computer was, first and foremost, an idea; an idea about what > language could become. > > Net art I agree is art made on, with or for networks and, specifically, the > hybrid computer/telecommunications network we call the internet. Code art > (as an artist who has been making programmed artworks for over 20 years I > must say that I hate this name and hope it doesn't stick) is art made using > programming. It may or may not involve the use of a computer. > > I saw a piece the other day by a pair of artists whose names I have > forgotten (probably American's, although one of them had what seemed a > Vietnamese name) where a short story had been written entirely in Java code > syntax. It was very clever in that the grammatical status of the words > defined how they fitted into a more or less correct Java syntax. It was > clear that the resulting text/code would have never compiled or executed > (if it had been written in LISP I think that it could have been jigged to > run), but that wasn't the point. Formally it was correct and it drew ones > attention to how programming is just another form of writing and that it > can also be read for its own sake, not just by the compiler that will turn > it into inaccessable executable code. The text was even beautiful in a > strange way...almost erotic in its emergent subtexts. In a way this work > was the inverse of those projects where artists/writers, create programs > that automatically write texts. A very interesting contrast. > > Josephine wrote: > >The web is a part of the net, not the other way around. The web came > >into being around 1994, the internet in... help me anyone! > >1980something. It was then called 'the shiny shopping mall of the net' > >because its visuals looked so much more like tv then the text > >environments of the early net did. The net is basically an 'empty' > >structure of loads of computers linked to eachother which can be used > >via all kinds of software (code) to do all sorts of things. Doing email, > >chatting, exchanging files (from sound and visuals to text) and all > >kinds of search methods... go to a real techie/nerd to show you > >everything. It's fascinating. There is an entire world behind the > >browser, which is one of the reasons the Browser Day was initiated for > >instance. > ----- > The net has been around a long time. I first used a computer connected to > another computer over a phone network (using an acoustic coupler) back in > 1979. That was not the net, but such technology represented the building > blocks. The net itself is defined by what are called protocols. The central > protocol is called IP (unsurprisingly, that means Internet Protocol) and > that describes all the rules and conventions required for a network of > computers to communicate using a telecom infrastructure (that is, not just > a network of wires or whatever, but a network defined by the various > telecom conventions). You should remember that not all networks are IP > networks. Computer networks have been around a lot longer than the > internet...the internet is just that network that employs IP, allowing for > levels of extensibility, robustness and flexibility that other network > systems can only dream of. The Pentagon's brief to DARPA when it asked them > to develop the internet was to create a communications system that was > predicated on those characteristics, as well as the requirement that it be > virtually indestructable. Well, DARPA did a good job I think. The fact that > it is hard to put an exact date on the creation of the internet is that its > emergence as a technology was incremental and people will argue about what > was the definitive development. > > The Web is also not a simple thing to define. Was Ted Nelson's idea of the > hyperlink and hypertext its origin, or Tim Berner Lee's idea of the > hyper-reference and http (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol)? More that a decade > seperates these development, with Nelson the earlier. It is even possible > to say that Mark Andriessen created the web as he built the first graphical > browser for using it (Mosaic). Whatever, I think one can safely say that > the web began around 1991 with the development of http, html and the > browser all converging at that time. The internet, as we know it today, > predates that by around 15 years...and computer networks have been around > since the 50's. > > I am sure that somebody else will have far more precise dates and times > than I suggest above...but I suspect somebody else will have equally > authoritive dates and that they will be quite different... > > Josephine wrote: > >"Are knitting or embroidery code art?" There have been cases of > >'cyberknitting', though these have mostly been people performing all > >kinds of ritualistic (?) fiddling with wires in those cheerful days of > >netdotart. Maybe knitting is a forerunner of code art ;) ? > ----- > Chris might be refering here to Ada Lovelace who wrote what many consider > to be the first piece of executable code...inspired by the French automated > and programmable (via the use of punch cards) Jacquard looms of the > time...the 1800's. These looms inspired Charles Babbage to develop his > automatic calculating machines...with Ms Lovelace then writing the code to > make them work. So, I think that here Chris is trying to argue that "code > art" (I hope I do not have to use this term many more times) predates the > development not only of computers but even electricity and the telegraph. > > To attempt to try and kill off the term "code art", or at least to further > qualify it and hopefully render it less useful, one can talk about > generative art. This practice has been around a long time and has a little > documented lineage, in its computable form, going back to the 60's. A > number of artists and composers use the term with ease to describe what > they are doing. Almost all generative art employs code in some form or > another and is predicated on the idea of making art by making programs that > will then generate the next stage of the process, whether that is the final > output or just another step in the process. "Code art" could be seen as a > conceptually closely overlapping definition or even, in large part, a > sub-genre of this practice...although it is conceivable to make "code art" > that is non-computable, as the above Java text example shows. > > best > > Simon > > > > Simon Biggs > > [log in to unmask] > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ > The Great Wall of China @ http://www.greatwall.org.uk/ > Babel @ http://www.babel.uk.net/ > > Research Professor (Digital Media) > Art and Design Research Centre > School of Cultural Studies > Sheffield Hallam University > Sheffield, UK > http://www.shu.ac.uk/ > >