 |
 |
Dear Fatima 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). I agree! >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 greetings Sarah http://www.content-type.org.uk C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.