Re: [-empyre-] RE: Jim/Brendan: art/code transparency

[joncates <joncates@criticalartware.net>]

in Subject: [-empyre-] RE: Jim/Brendan: art/code transparency
Felix wrote:
> {Just one quick notion at the beginning because I think the project is still
> slightly misunderstood: loungelab does not deal with open source as art
> (open source art). It believes the the theory of open source may work as a
> model for artistic collaboration: Most of our artists -filmmakers, video
> artists, media activists, designers, choreographers, video and sound
> artists- do not deal with computer code!}

This is a very interesting aspect of the project, in that you have 
attempted to apply the Open Source model to non-digital arts. When I 
first read the call for lounge|lab I assumed that in the context of 
backup you would be focusing on digital arts and new media artists. 
But clearly you had much more interdisciplinary and/or 
transdiciplinary models in mind.

in Subject: [-empyre-] RE: Jim/Brendan: art/code transparency
Felix wrote:
> The documentation and publication of computer source code always thinks the
> progress, the next programme, the improvement; the transparency in order
> others can work on it(Jim: you described that for yourself).

Not necessarily, another reason to open source something is to allow 
for unexpected redirection to occur in someone else's interpretation 
of your source. This redirection or reuse does not require 
"improvement".

in Subject: [-empyre-] RE: Jim/Brendan: art/code transparency
Felix wrote:
> Of course it's
> very useful to document the code here. But: Users who do not have the wish
> to work on the code won't find it necessary to have a look at the source
> code; if the software works satisfying there is no need to, and there is not
> more appreciation from non-programmers if they understand the structure
> below the surface (it's getting complicated instead of complex).

This raises the issue of Open Source as a socio-economic and 
political position. The process is meant to encourage 
non-hierarchical distribution methods, resource sharing and profit 
models while contributing to a community which gathers around these 
ethical engagements.

in Subject: [-empyre-] RE: Jim/Brendan: art/code transparency
Felix wrote:
>  Do we need to hang a text next to any art work if we want to
>  create open art?

That technique seems to me to be a good way to close the work (in 
terms of reception, reuse, etc) as practiced in the usual gallery 
fashion of distribution and annotation. Of course, when 
Conceptualists hung the text as the work itself the dynamic opened.
I'm very curious to know how you feel lounge|lab achieved a 
non-institutional environment.
Jon
--
/**
* <JonCates>
* <http://www.criticalartware.net>
*  <joncates@criticalartware.net>
**/