Re: [-empyre-] experience Vs commerce

Damien Everett wrote:
> Tho I don't believe all artists need to work on 
> lower level programming...

i didn't mean to suggest this as a "must," just as a solution to the
vagaries of "the upgrade." though i will add that my personal taste
99.99% of the time leans towards the artist/coder. perhaps its because i
am one, but i think i would feel the same regardless of my technical
status. and its not really "code" that is the determining factor here, i
simply like to view work that in some way exemplifies how deep all this
stuff can be.

melinda wrote: 

> > if i worked in a flat media i wouldnt want to
> > learn how to make paint and brushes, tho i'd be happy to stretch and prime
> > canvases before i started a painting, as well as talk about it's relation
> > to other areas of culture.

though a reasonable analogy, it all depends on what you equate "stretch
and prime" to. for me, the os and low level graphics renderer is the
paint and brush manufacturer, the scenegraph api is the "stretching and
priming" and my code are the brushstrokes.

Patrick Lichty wrote:

> My argument is that the trendiness of the programmer artist is merely
> fashion, and although helpful, it isn't neccessary.  No matter how much
> technical prowess you put behind something, without a contextual frame, it
> all lies flat - is stillborn.

it seems we have been down this road on numerous occasions, but i'll
have to, once again, disagree with your notion of "trendiness" (big
surprise).  nam june paik, though not an electrical engineer, knew a
little about how a TV worked (mostly through trial and error, the
standard artist's practice).  he knew if he clipped this resistor it
would produce that result, if he put a magnet over here, the TV image
would distort around its field.  his tech knowledge had everything to do
with the concept/theory as well as the final execution of the work. he
wanted to make interactive TV, to do so, he HAD to know some of the
tech. its a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, would he have had the
notion in the first place if he didn't feel it could be accomplished?

perhaps its just my crusty modernist leanings, but i strongly feel that
the exploration of the medium on a technical level, no mater what that
level is, informs and in many ways determines the theoretical and
conceptual basis of the work. find the concept through the medium,
rather than shoehorn a medium to demonstrate a concept. if the
germination for the concept comes from the medium itself, then you know
its the right medium to employ to execute the concept. again, it doesn't
matter at what level, the point being to start somewhere and probe.
simple curiosity should logically lead someone of artistic temperment to
probe deeper.  the deeper you go, the freer you are.
> > maybe ascii artists had it right, and maybe thats why we are all 
> > singing the praises of chunky 2d graphics earlier- becuse it 
> > actually doesnt need to be complex to be good.
> I agree.
so do i in theory, as long as you are only trying to deliver a simple
message. i think it completely impossible to deliver a complex message
via ascii art. to deliver a complex message, you need a complex
mechanism. what is a complex mechanism? something made from *numerous*
simpler things.


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.