Re: [-empyre-] old discussion, new discussion

[klas oldanburg <noemata@kunst.no>]

05/01/2004 05:52:53, Henry Warwick <henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Basically, at their most optimal functioning, Science examines and
>explains "How" and Art provides a vision of "Why". 

Why, on the contrary, this is crazy... how, science being "Why" and art 
"How" -

   why: 1. for what? for what reason, cause, or purpose?
   how: 1. in what way or manner; by what means?
   (random house webster's dict)

>Why "How"?
>Art about Science.

Art theory?

>How "Why"?
>Neuroscience.

Any art?

>The art of "How"?

Still art?

>The science of "Why"?

Philosophy of science?

>Art points a direction, Science provides the transportation to get you
>there.

Still worse, no direction for art, but maybe transportation to get you 
there (nowhere/anti-gravitation).

>Heed art, use science.

heed logic, use art, make out

>Perhaps our present history is shaped/distorted/transformed by 
neoplatonic imagination in an aristotelean universe?

OK, science being imagination, and art the universe part.
Science being a subset of art, of imaginary solutions?

So I'd rather say there's no reason, cause or purpose to art, if 
anything there are ways, manners and means (to get to out of reason, 
taking care of the void, etc).

.

offbeat
Maybe this touches upon the notion or naming of 'new media art' -
the fluidity, fusion, confusion of genres and disciplines, etc - why not 
take the opportunity to formulate the 'no media'? - like when all is 
media, nothing is media - or maybe a more formal argument that 'new 
media' is no media at all, or selffullfilling towards it like an 
explosion, or like generating media, embedding media? An old time 
manifesto of the way of no media intuitionist school of manners and 
means might be needed, maybe of why it shouldn't be made, other as a 
joke?

.

my dog: - art is just playing around using whatever in a perpetual how 
and wow.
my other dog: same goes for science, only the experimentation is 
subsetted by its why and woe.
both: then 'why' is a subset of 'how', causation a subset of what's 
happening or not? or not?
(old dogs teaching new media)


__
klas O,
lay 'pataphysician
@ the no media school


disclaimer - no offense was intended writing this mail )