thanks for the suggestions.
> I find treating artworks as quasi-subjects is a mystification (they
> are a medium of communication, not an expressive subject), but it's a
> very tempting one.
i share your opinion about mystification, and was more interested in the
technical question whether images can be made to "perform" (as in
process) in the same way that text is made to perform (as software
code). i understand that the way in which computers process information,
they are dependent on this information coming in as strings of binary
code, right? and in that sense, a programming environment like "Piet" is
a different way of encoding (textual, linear) digital code.
(i was also thinking of metaphorical treatments of images "as code" in
works like Sebastian Lütgert/Robert Luxemburg's "The Conceptual Crisis
of Private Property..." (2003), or the acoustic interpretation of images
as in Atau Tanaka's "9m14s Over Vietnam" (1998)).
Am 18.03.14 03:18, schrieb Rob Myers:
> On 17/03/14 12:13 PM, Andreas Broeckmann wrote:
>> I'm not sure how relevant the question is, but are there instances of
>> *images* performing as software code?
> There's piet:
> Or using errors in image handling libraries as an exploit:
> I find treating artworks as quasi-subjects is a mystification (they are
> a medium of communication, not an expressive subject), but it's a very
> tempting one.
> - Rob.