nettime's_api on Thu, 25 Apr 2002 12:42:01 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> un-plugged-in digest [sawad, fahey, napier] |
Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH (3A / 3) Sawad <sawad@utensil.net> "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <askROM@graphpaper.com> napier <napier@potatoland.org> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:58:19 -0400 From: Sawad <sawad@utensil.net> Subject: Re: <nettime> GENERATION FLASH (3A / 3) >A software artist re-uses the language of modernist abstraction and design >lines and geometric shapes, mathematically generated curves and outlined >color fields to get away from figuration in general, and cinematographic >language of commercial media in particular. Instead of photographs and clips >of films and TV, we get lines and abstract compositions. In short, instead >of QuickTime, we use Flash. Instead of computer as a media machine a >vision being heavily promoted by computer industry (and most clearly >articulated by Apple who promotes a MAC as a ³digital hub² for other media >recording / playing devices), we go back to computer as a programming >machine. > >Programming liberates art from being secondary to commercial media. The >similar reason may be behind the recent popularity of ³sound art.² While >commercial media now uses every possible visual style, commercial sound >environments still have not appropriated all of sound space. While rock and >roll, hip-hop, and techno have already become standard elevator music (at >least in more hip elevators such as the Hudson Hotel in NYC), it seems that >the rhythm-less regions of sound space are still untouched at least for >now. Lev, I don't know that programming is as liberatory as is stated here. If anything, programming holds the possibility of involving one in a different set of relations to product(ion), as well as to a different class of worker. I've made some references to this other relation elsewhere. Mentioning Flash already seems to undermine this libertine vision you want to advance. Although the Flash spec were released by Macromedia a few years ago, and is considered "open," as far as I understand it people working with Flash are still very much using the tools provided by a Macromedia. I have seen very limited software libraries written in Java and C (one by Paul Haberli) which allow C programmers (and at some point Java programmers too) to create Flash-generated imagery on-the-fly from within their C programs, but I get the sense that this type of programming is not what you mean when you talk about Flash. Flash remains essentially "media," as you define it, much as Quicktime. I don't think that scripting separates it from being so. For that matter, some "programming" is also possible using Quicktime. In many ways, for programmers, Quicktime is much more useful because Apple provides an extensive C library through which to access its functionality, which extends far beyond making digital videos. In fact, what is so interesting about Quicktime is that it is not old-media (film, video, sound) specific. Rather, in many ways it is more of a protocol for creating, playing, and delivering *time-based information*. In theory, one can do much more with Quicktime than what artists have tended to use it for. This is not simply a limitation of Quicktime, but of artists as well. Mostly of artists and the systems within which they learn. Anyway, one can also access Quicktime from within Java, as Apple has made a set of classes for doing that easily: Quicktime for Java. I am not defending Quicktime, simply pointing out some problematic issues in the distinctions you are making between programming and media. I also think that many non-artist programmers would resist referring to Flash as a programming language. Well, they would giggle. Programmers tend to think of C/C++, Fortran, Basic, Java as their materials. To be sure, there is a bravura at work there. Programmers tend to work with programming systems or libraries in order to create their applications, but Flash still seems very much tied to the development environment Macromedia sells. Furthermore, this issue of liberation through programming seems somewhat more Romantic than it needs to be. One of the linguistic issues which programming languages have made so apparent is the citational dimension of all languages, be they social, mathematical, or programmatic. "A software artist re-uses the language of modernist abstraction and design lines and geometric shapes ...." Similarly, programmers very often learn to program by copying and modifying other programs and, on a more abstract level, algorithms. (Beth Stryker and I delivered a paper earlier this year at CAA in Philadelphia which sketched out some relations between programming algorithms and notions of space and representation in general.) Advanced programmers use these same techniques. They also utilize software libraries (talked about earlier in the case of Quicktime) which contain code which can be referenced ("called") from within one's (own) code. In other words, programmers are always already indebted to other programmers. The whole GNU project depends on this structure of debt. I don't disagree that there is an element of liberation to be studied here, but it is not a simple one, and certainly not one that is merely oppositional. While it is true that Flash currently is implemented upon a vector-based set of routines, your use of its attributes to characterize all software art is simply synecdoche. "A software artist re-uses the language of modernist abstraction and design lines and geometric shapes, mathematically generated curves and outlined color fields to get away from figuration in general, and cinematographic language of commercial media in particular. Instead of photographs and clips of films and TV, we get lines and abstract compositions. In short, instead of QuickTime, we use Flash." There is no reason that software art cannon use/create "images" in the narrowly defined sense of "pictures," or any other form we identify from our experiences with so-called old-media. Through software one can create images or effect any number of sensuous phenomena. Your position vis-a-vis the "modernism" effected by the Flash protocol, which is designed to deliver compressed animation over relatively narrow bandwidth seems to me mistakes technological limitations for an iconoclastic morality. Sawad >To return to the topic of new modernism. Of course we don't want to simply >replay Mondrian and Klee on computer screens. The task of the new generation >is to integrate the two paradigms of the twentieth century: (1) belief in >science and rationality, emphasis on efficiency, basic forms, idealism and >heroic spirit of modernism; (2) skepticism, interest in ³marginality² and >³complexity,² deconstructive strategies, baroque opaqueness and excess of >post-modernism (1960s-). At this point all the features of the second >paradigm became tired clichés. Therefore a return to modernism is not a bad >first step, as long as it is just a first step towards developing the new >aesthetics for the new age. > >PART 3B will be posted shortly.] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "Christopher Fahey [askrom]" <askROM@graphpaper.com> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH (3A / 3) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:36:00 -0400 I agree with Eryk that NN/m9ndfukc/nato epitomizes the "software artist" to a certain extent, but there are several mitigating factors I would like to add to this discussion: FIRST, programming is hard work! The "individual-artist-genius" model of art criticism is hard to apply to Manovich's vision of this new "software artist" creature simply because programming is commonly done by more than one person. While individual artists like Praystation or Golan Levin may often work individually, we are increasingly seeing software artwork produced collaboratively. Multi-artist collaborations (like Alex Galloway's Carnivore collaborations) and murky artist collectives (the excellent c404) are able to produce works greater than the sum of their parts - also, they can frequently achieve greater name recognition as a group than as one person. It is widely believed that NN/m9ndfukc/nato may be at least five different people, any one of whom might have a hard time achieving that kind of notoriety by themselves. The amount of labor and specialized skill it takes to produce certain kinds of software artworks is comparable to the labor in making a film or a building. And like with films, it is often impossible to attribute the artistic vision of a single person to the final digital product. This "collaborative model" borders on a kind of "corporate model". Jon Ippolito recently advocated that digital artists should give up on making money as artists and keep their "day jobs". I would extend that idea even further to say that the production of software art is so similar to the production of commercial digital products that the two modes benefit from close proximity. It is not uncommon to find that digital artists have day jobs working for digital companies, or to find artists who actually OWN or are principals of a commercial enterprise closely linked to their artistic production (examples include http://www.futurefarmers.com, http://www.netomat.net/, http://www.c404.com, and even my own comparatively staid http://www.behaviordesign.com). Increasingly we are seeing artists who do not hide their day jobs from the art world, who are not embarrassed by their day jobs - and these artists tend to be digital artists. This is not to say that I exactly buy into the McElroy model of marketing artwork as a corporate product (to me his position often reads like a parody of the artist's aversion to corporate thinking), but I do agree that the separation of art and commerce is unnecessarily artificial and does not lend itself well to the production of software artworks of any level of complexity above D.I.Y. I do not think that complexity=quality, but I do know that many artists (like myself) have dreams and visions of building artworks that are simply beyond the ability of a single person to realistically complete. While this has always been true for many art practices(fabricators and artists assistants are common even among plain ol' oil painters), it is particularly true for digital artists who cannot specialize in every digital production tool in the world. Someday we may have digital artists with their own (paid) programming staffs in much the same way a Nam June Paik likely has a nice little staff of fabricators and video technicians. This also ties quite closely with Ippolito's advocating that artists employ the General Public License method of copyright/patent-free production. The GPL itself was born out of the idea that building software products *requires* large teams of people: If a large team of developers is producing something just for fun, then they at least need some assurance that one of the members of the team won't just take the whole product and sell it as their own. The GPL allows development teams to form without worrying about who is the real "owner". And online source control systems like CVS provide the infrastructure for developers to work as close-knit virtual teams without stepping on each other's toes and without corporate management. While I find the collaborative model more politically interesting than the "single-auteur-genius-with-a-staff-of-technical-assistants" model, I would also give my left arm to have five hotshit programmers working for me building my most elaborate ideas. SECOND, I think that "software artwork" needs to be subdivided somewhat. I think the net/not-net debate is less important than the interactive/non-interactive debate. We are living in a moment where we see an increasing number of artist-programmers whose work manifests as either "Autonomous Algorithm" or "Interactive Experience". "Autonomous Algorithm" describes a work that is entirely self-contained, where the software is executed and it does its thing regardless of what any human audience does to or with it. This category includes a wide variety of works, from 'artificial life' applications to automated data visualization systems to even plain old fashioned video and film and performance. Actions occur over time according to a pre-arranged plan. The plan may be simple, as is the case with a video, or it may be very complex, influenced by intricate algorithms, dynamically scraped data, random seeds, etc. Such works often have some interactivity to allow the user to browse through the product or change perspectives, but this interaction is not critical to the overall concept. "Interactive Experience" includes everything from mouse-following Flash toys to Playstation games. In such a product, the interactivity is central to the experience. The user is invited to be involved, and the artist's intention/emotion/message is communicated through the user's actions and decisions. The experience can be physically immersive, visceral, or tactile... or it can be psychologically immersive or suspenseful. I am essentially trying to make a distinction between experiences that are meant to be *seen*and those that are meant to be *used*. It is my feeling that the Interactive Experience model is the only truly new art form because it alone introduces a fundamentally new and different kind of experience to humanity. Browsing and clicking freely from page to page on a web site and seeing different pictures, animations, and texts only scratches the surface of what interactive artworks really can be. Browsing, in fact, is not even the same as using or playing. AutoIllustrator and NATO, or Quake III and Grand Theft Auto II, are qualitatively different kinds of things from most web sites - they invite the user to stop being a viewer and to start forming goals and plans entirely within the context of the app/game. They involve a mental transformation, a mode change in the mind. They ask the user to invest a bit of their own consciousness into the machine's protoconsciousness, to put a stake in what the program does next. Just as experiencing traditional media is different from experiencing unmediated real life (this difference is disappearing in our media-saturated world, but this was not the case 100 years ago when seeing a movie was a jarring experience), experiencing interactive media is different from traditional media in a fundamental phenomenological way. -Cf [christopher eli fahey] art: http://www.graphpaper.com sci: http://www.askrom.com biz: http://www.behaviordesign.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:16:06 -0400 From: napier <napier@potatoland.org> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: GENERATION FLASH (3A / 3) >>> Lev Manovich wrote: >Thirty years of media art and post-modernism have inevitably led to a >reaction. We are tired of always taking existing media as a starting point. >We are tired of being always secondary, always reacting to what already >exists. > >Enter a software artist the new romantic. Instead of working exclusively >with commercial media and instead of using commercial software software >artist marks his/her mark on the world by writing the original code. An interesting term: "original code". Is this: machine language (binary) assembly language BIOS calls OS API calls C, C++ Java Flash Actionscript, Lingo HTML, DHTML, Javascript, Perl A programmer can code in any one of these. What distinguishes hard-core coding from soft-core is the level of access to features. To an assembly level programmer Java is a lightweight language, but to an HTML programmer Java is hard-core coding. The more power, flexibility and control a language provides, the more we think of the language as "original code". Is IOD "original" code (written in Lingo, the programming language of Shockwave -- a commercial product). Is Netomat "original" (where screens are generated by a scripting language that is built on XML and Java). These authors of these works have found a point in the technology where they can accomplish their goals. IOD could be implemented inside the browser, using Perl, GIF images and Javascript. Is this less a product of code than the same piece written in Lingo? >Programming liberates art from being secondary to commercial media. As much as I'd like to believe this... Progamming may produce new forms outside of commercial media, but programming puts the artist into new relationships with other existing forms. If I dabble in 3D rendering then my work could be competing with Pixar, Toy Story, and Shrek. Can I accomplish what teams of Silicon Graphics programmers can pull off? No, but that's not my role as an artist. A low tech example: Is an rtmark sabotage secondary to the corporate image being sabotaged? The two are certainly related, and the sabotage can be seen as a reaction to the corporation. But this sort of action has it's own presence as well, it's own aesthetic impact, that relies on leveraging existing forms, much as software artists leverage existing forms. Artists look for leverage points in the technology. Flash is one such point, where powerful features are available with relatively little effort. Comparatively, Java has lagged behind in usage because of it's steeper learning curve, despite being versatile, powerful, and an early standard in browsers. There is a prejudice that a downloadable EXE is "real software", maybe because it appears to be more like the corporate software products we're familiar with. Yet this is a 1980's approach to software. For years software has been breaking into pieces that can talk to one another through specialized programming interfaces. Today the browser is an engine that can be embedded in email clients, Word documents, and spreadsheets. Software components provide services to other software components, and languages frequently become the glue that connects pre-fabricated components together. To use these powerful and complex tools the software artist has to find ways to create maximum impact with relatively little coding. Very few artists have access to a team of eager programmers. And many artists are unwilling to invest the time to learn low level languages like C, given the inevitable dent it will make in the time they spend on aesthetic issues. The artist has to decide where they will operate within this structure of interdependent software. HTML is a form of high-level code that instructs the browser environment, much as Java can instruct the Windows OS, or assembly code can instruct a chip. All of these code forms require investment of learning time, and provide access to features of the computer. The question is not "does the artist write code". The question is: how much leverage does the artist get from their knowledge. What is the bang-for-the-buck of HTML vs. Java, or C++. What this means, though, is that the artist never completely "rolls their own" software. The artist never gets back to the world of pigment, oil and canvas. In the medium of software, there is always interdependence. Even suppose that I find a team of C programmers that are happy to code low level graphics routines for me, then I become dependent on that team, still a far cry from the romantic image of a solitary studio painter. My role as an artist is to crack open the technology and find the humanity at work under the tech veneer. If I can do that with a Perl script, then I will. When that form is too limiting, then I turn to Java. But any tool I use requires that I work in relationship to other tools, environments, products and media. mark napier@potatoland.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net