Andreas,

I am convinced (at least up to now) that history (society, culture ...)
and tools come together in a production, work, "piece" of art. 

There is a term stemming from the first half of the 19th century and the
development of philosophy between Hegel and Marx (just to name two sides
of many coins). In German it is called "Aufhebung" as known "aufheben"
as verb and "aufgehoben" as participle, which is the step after Thesis
and Anti-Thesis to move to the Syn-Thesis. These german words imply
three different meanings: (to make go away / to abolish / to cancel) -
(to pick up / to lift / to move to a higher level) - and (to bear / to
preserve / to embrace). 

In other words, in art works/productions/pieces history and tools can be
seen as always coming together in this triad. 

I see the computer as a totally different tool from all other tools.
There were very few tools before, which were similarly new and different
- like the mechanical clock or the abacus. These machines are not for
forming or deforming matter directly like all other tools we have
invented. They have an internal working which has nothing to do with
what their output "does". A sledge hammer or a soldering iron effect
matter directly by the energy passing through it. A computer's internal
working (that is where energy is consumed)has no meaning at all, but
needs translation and interpretation - like through digital-analog
conversion of all sorts (printers, loudspeakers, computer screens,
moving robots or molecules etc.) We are not capable of evaluating the
inner function of a computer unless this has been converted in some form
or other for our senses (even a logic analyzer to see if the gates are
working alright is such a translation). Unless the inner workings of
computers are translated into the realm of our senses, we have no way to
evaluate if, for instance, we wrote the program correctly or if we made
a mistake. To put it into more radical terms: The input and the output
of computers are totally disconnected - we can map humidity to RGB, DNA
to sound or data and mathematical formulas to weather predictions, or -
like in the case of a logic analyzer - we transpose the incredibly speed
of the internal functions of chips into the realm of speed which our
eyes can perceive, analyze and evaluate. 

Now, assuming I was able to convey in this terse, condensed way what I
think - this means that computers in the arts provide a totally new tool
and instrument. The quality of this tool provides a very strict internal
formal structure and functionality while at the same time allowing a
totally arbitrary (or open) connection between input and output
(certainly within the technical construction of the computer itself -
but never the less, if no connection has been set-up (programmed)
between input and output for each individual little "thing" the computer
does, we are lost, we have lost it).

This "new" tool has an immense effect on the arts. It brings it's own
conditions, restrictions, opportunities, challenges, limitations etc
etc. And exactly these conditions are setting it aside from all other
tools in the arts. Coming back to the description of the German term
"Aufhebung" above, this may mean that a "piece" of art utilizing the
computer will hopefully take the computer and abolish, preserve and
bring to a higher level what this tool offers. If we want to analyze
media art, we can take this approach.

And exactly because the computer does require a set and defined
connection between input and output so that we can perceive, experience
and interpret it's output, this tools implies a new "aesthetic field" at
the same time as it denies as specific association with any aesthetics
direction. As we know computers can simulate new compositions by Bach,
print out scanned pictures by Rembrandt, can turn 3-d scans of
sculptures by Michelangelo into new 3-d copies of the same material, can
create pop-songs automatically (for years now with Band-in-a-Box). I see
all these approaches as highly interesting to discuss the computer as
new tool because they are just mimicking what can be done in the "analog
world". These approaches are thus totally non-interesting in an artistic
sense. 

To put it to an extreme: What can be done without a computer, does not
have to be done with a computer (as opposed to: What can be done with
computers, does not have to be done without them.) 

All this has as a consequence, that media art is not a genre, does not
imply a style, but is part of "contemporary art". Like oil paintings
have a certain set of tools to "distribute oil paint on surfaces", there
is a wide range of different directions this kind of paint has used to
create. Again, the reflection of tool and history shapes what we do. So
indeed, the computer is not as "limited" as oil paint, surfaces and
means to get the oil paint all over - on the contrary the arbitrary
setting (within formal logic restriction) requires in each work to set
the "limit", the boundary conditions until we can "see" or "hear" or
"feel" something. And I would like each piece using a specific tool to
have that very tool, its history and potential, to be an integral part
of the work - the work would not have been possible otherwise, the tool
is made disappear at the same level as it is embraced and moved to a new
level.

So the "artistic evaluation" of a piece created with computers does not
set the piece aside from other artistic endeavors. It does not at all
stand outside of what one believes "art" to be. It is not separated -
but its is a new tool which has very extreme consequences for the work
in and with this medium as an artist - and for us looking, experiencing
and navigating within these new spaces/pieces/works. But if the piece is
not worth my time and heart-beats (a parameter set by me, and which I
should challenge and be challenged by - which as a curator I have to be
able to communicate about), if I don't want to confront myself with a
piece/work/production a second time - then all intellectual discourse
will not help. Though, as last statement, I do believe we learn a lot
from works we think are bad - but we learn the most from works, which
are mediocre - but we don't always want to learn, right - I would rather
be drawn into "good" works.

    Johannes






-----Original Message-----
From: Curating digital art - www.newmedia.sunderland.ac.uk/crumb/
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andreas
Broeckmann
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 4:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Discussing 'Media Art'

johannes,

if i follow the argument here correctly, what you say is that music
(and by analogy we can say for our current discussion: art) made with
digital devices is fundamentally different from acoustic forms of
music, and that it is different not because of styles or genres, but
because of the basic technical conditions of the digital apparatus,
right?

but does this technical description say anything about the artistic
dimension of the work, would you also say that it takes works made
with digital devices into a 'different aesthetic field'? (in that
case, it would be an argument, i assume, for setting 'media art'
apart from non-digital forms of artistic production?)

before i venture into arguing agains this i'll wait to see whether i
understood you correctly.  ;-)

greetings,
-a


>It is becoming clear that "electronic music" and "computer music" means
>neither genre nor style, neither form nor sound, neither structure nor
>construction. This area can also not be clearly differentiated in the
sense
>of instrumentations such as the string quartet, piano or symphony
orchestra
>can, nor can genres such as the symphony, musical comedy, violin
concert or
>sound installation refer to it. In its technical, historical and
aesthetic
>conditions, the material of "music out of the electric socket" stands
in a
>completely different context to the music it produces as compared to
the
>case of acoustic musical instruments. This is because, first, the
computer
>ushered in a completely new idea of what a tool can be, which also
changed
>the idea of the "instrument" in the sense of music. Secondly, it is
also
>because tone/sound is no longer produced directly with the player's
breath
>or body. The physical-acoustic relationship has fundamentally changed.
The
>representatives of diverse directions may claim for themselves that
they
>have always held the professorship for the true artistic use of
electronic
>media. And, for history, it may make sense to apply the term
"electronic
>music" to only certain areas that can be clearly demarcated by their
>aesthetics. Yet even the term "computer music" includes different
>definitions that stand opposite each other. Almost 20 years of the
>digitalization of electronic sound production and manipulation into a
broad
>and easily accessible commercial base documents how we no longer need
to
>discuss if technology is being or should be used musically. Instead, we
need
>"only" talk about how it is used.  And this relates directly to the
cultural
>context in which it resonates, from where it originates and for which
it is
>used.