Re: [-empyre-] new media's name - who cares?

[jonCates <joncates@criticalartware.net>]

Peter Luining <email@ctrlaltdel.org> wrote:
>btw a while back there was quite some discussion on nettime about how to 
>refer best to new media. 

thanks for bringing that conversation into play here Peter.

along similar trajectories are:

the rhizome.org conversation "software art vs. programmed art"
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=10531&text=20519#20519

in which / l i z a sabater  states in relation to her thoughts on
[discussing/explaining] Mark Napier's [works/projects]:

"I've been in the dubious position of correcting people's praises at MNs
"amazing precision" at "controlling" all the "pictures" that happen on the
screen with his work --as if we could predict, least to say, control something
like net flag or Waiting Room. And as anybody who works closely with software
developers knows, bugs are the gods reminders that, you're code may be perfect
but the platforms, OSs and even the hardware are all fallible. 

So programmed as in systematic, predetermined, closed and unchangeable does not
really work with art that is created with software applications with the express
purpose of the artwork. Hence my use of artware. Etymologically speaking, it
makes sense."

++

the discordia.us thread "software art in verbose mode"
http://www.discordia.us/scoop/story/2003/5/7/01822/82040

in which amy alexander  states:
"there's no dichotomy between programmers and artists."

++

the recent eu-gene thread "Programming As Art Again" which stems (in part from
the earlier) "[Fwd: [microsound] 'Code as Art'" thread 
http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene

that i referenced earlier in "Subject: [-empyre-] (n) formative states". all
these threads [intertwine/diverge] in fascinating ways + display various
[stances/positions/motivations] for naming + playing the name game. 

who cares? as TLC said in "Shout", for 01 "i care alot".

//jonCates
 ---> criticalartware coreDeveloper
http://www.criticalartware.net