RE: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction

["rich white" <counterwork@blueyonder.co.uk>]

chris

I think what I was trying to say about the 'hand' or 'touch' of the
artist was that, for example, a line 1 pixel thick, black (hexadecimal
000000) and drawn from x,y coordinates 12,56 to 254,163 will look pretty
much the same on everyone's browser, depending on screen resolution and
hardware quality, regardless of who programs the function to draw it.
I'm not doubting that as artists we draw with computers; we make marks
upon the screen, we erase them, we redraw them again. my concern (and
interest) is that these marks are copyable to a degree that is as close
to perfect as possible. the difficulty lies not in where we put the
marks, but how they are perceived.
I like your point about a .gif of your images not being the same as the
browser-made. I think this is a very important distinction to make
between representations of your work. I must admit that I had a look at
the source code of your pages, just to see the almost endless table
tags. however, I can also copy that code and paste it on my own page.
the image that this would display would be exactly the same as yours. is
this a copy? or is it your work, but moved? if I copied and pasted the
code into another html file and posted it on my own site would that be
the equivalent of stealing a picture and hanging it in my front room?
I'm thinking a lot lately about the perception of computer generated
images as a medium. I've started making a series of drawings just using
programs like photoshop - drawing from scratch and seeing what happens.
they're not ready to show yet, they're a bit derivative! and I'm unsure
about the validity of such marks, what value do they have? these are
questions I'm trying to address through the work.
I'm interested to know what the other guests feel about the
computer-made mark, especially as you have very different visual
methods.
on a more on-track note - what do you think about the way that you
present yourselves via your weblog. from what I can gather two of you
use your real names and the other two use pseudonyms. is this a
conscious effort to create an 'artist' persona? the weblog has created
an environment where people can present themselves however they wish to,
and they can be as honest or as dishonest as they please. do you feel
compelled to be honest or lie? to exaggerate or be modest?

I think that's enough for now.

rich
www.counterwork.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
[mailto:empyre-bounces@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Chris Ashley
Sent: 06 June 2005 06:30
To: soft_skinned_space
Subject: RE: [-empyre-] we-blog introduction


Hi Rich,

> great work and great questions.

Thank you very much.

> problems of originality in net.art. archive of this
> work can be seen
> here http://www.counterwork.co.uk/create/remove/.

I will do my my best to look through this in the next
few days.  Thanks for this.

> the idea that the work is not complete until viewed,
> thus making the
> artwork the file that appears on the browser?

I'm feeling this way, too, though I think for me the
work exists in two ways, much like the difference
between how a painting in the artist's studio can be
different- in appearance and in meaning- from when it
enters a more formal context.  I view the drawing as
WYSIWIG and in the browser, and most viewers only see
it in the browser.  The potential, however, for the
viewer to see it raw, as code, is important to me, and
why I argue that a GIF of one of my images is not the
same as a browser-made image.

> help?) there is no room for 'the hand of the
> artist'.

Well, what is "the hand?"  Often people ask of digital
artists- I've been asked this a lot- is how can
drawing in code be really like drawing, but there is a
physical aspect to the work.  When I make these
drawings they don't feel machine made.  There really
is an adding and taking away, a strecthing and
fitting, and trying something out and erasing it, that
is very much like drawing.  It is a physical process,
and it is problem solving.  There is a hand and eye in
that.  And in imagery like mine I think there is some
kind of "hand," though certainly it isn't obviously
gestural, there isn't what we commonly call "touch." 
But there are gestures, and space and color can be
personal- is this touch?  This is worth discussing
more, I think.  If you look at the work of my fellow
panelists there are aspects there that I would think
to call touch or their hand.  Let's talk more about
this.  Tom?  Abe?  jimpunk?  What do you think?

>
http://www.counterwork.co.uk/create/remove/create/README001_originalityi
ndigitalart.htm.

Great, more to read.  Thanks.

Chris
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre