Andreas Broeckmann says that
>software art is only just coming into focus, so it is early days to
>describe, let alone critique its presentation.
While I would agree that it is only just being appreciated in its own right
(software as art), and it is great that Transmediale have acknowledged this
art form, aren't there examples of artists developing their own computer
software during the 20th century which give precedents for making,
appreciating and exhibiting this kind of work?
There is a danger that if this 'lost history' of artists programming
computers is not rediscovered, that their multiple and different strategies
and approaches will be ignored in favour of a more singular definition.
Also, why was their work not appreciated? Why did it fail to, or succeed in
fitting into the art world context? Did the artists want it to fit into
this context or were they trying to _engineer_ a new kind of context for
As Anthony Huberman puts it:
>What makes software come alive is precisely its social life: how these set
>of instructions are interpreted and enacted.
As such, I really like the critique of different pieces of software & how
to see them by AB:
>the best way to
>experience it is to interact with the programme on a regular PC which can
>but need not be your own. pieces by JODI and nn are probably best
>experinced on your own machine because they play with your emotional
>attachments to what's on it.
While appreciating that Transmediale is about what is happening *now*, I
just wanted to make this point within the broader curating new media