>Aren't the definitions and "regulations" involving the use of a software
>artwork part of the concept?
>If so, is it possible / neccesary / advisable to form a set of rules that
>define the way software art be dealt with?
as with any artistic practice, fixed rules would not help, but an exchange
of experiences and a comparison of conditions might help to create a good
and informed curatorial practice.
software art is only just coming into focus, so it is early days to
describe, let alone critique its presentation. we have developed a
description of software art for the transmediale competition that excludes
applications of software like director or shockwave; what is interesting in
software are, in my view, is that it is an artistic practice that takes
code as its material and that uses programming as a way to 'shape' the
code. the result can be open, algorithmic processes that articulate the
rigid and the open dimensions of digital processes, they can highlight the
technical or the socio-cultural dimensions of technology and do this in the
very 'language' of the digital machines themselves. software might be the
ultimate medium of creativity in a digital environment.
besides the transmediale.01 site, some examples of software art can be found on
digital_is_not_analog.01 - http://www.d-i-n-a.org
Reena Jana: Real Artists Paint by Numbers