just to say I thought your response was really interesting
& to comment:
>I think it is also important for artists (artist-programmers) to work
>jointly ...Seibig gets an initial configuration
>produced by the DRAKULA program as the basic motif and "repurposes" this
>with photo-optical transformations.
This kind of collaboration is really interesting, especially where current
artists might use an artist's program like auto-illustrator to make their
work rather than 'photoshop.. heh, historical precedent ;)
>In these examples of works, I feel it is important to present (as in
>exhibit, curate, critic) the process and the algorithm itself as part of
>the output (the Zuse-Graphomat or Benson drawing board output).
>Also, algorithm as art seems to me like "art as research and documentation"
>and to be really effective in exhibitions, need to be presented as
>research, as documentation, then as art. I can imagine how much dialogue
>there must be between the artists and the curators to be effective here,
>and how much background research (and process) material the artist must
>provide that may become essential to the presentation of his work to an
>audience (whatever the venue or context).
not sure about this though, in terms of the order -
maybe *art* first, with appreciative documentation of the code and the
possible collaborative process between artist and engineer/programmer
I reckon it has got to work as art first
C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.