[-empyre-] Forward from Ben Bogart: Techne and Concept -- WAS: reply to Ben Bogart

Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net> · Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:57:30 -0800

This message was received in rich text format.
c

From: "B. Bogart" <ben@ekran.org>

Date: March 7, 2006 1:21:42 PM PST

To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>

Cc: Millie Niss <men2@columbia.edu>, soft_skinned_space  
<empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>

Subject: Techne and Concept -- WAS: reply to Ben Bogart

I would not reduce the problems of "digital art" only to techne. There
is indeed a strong fetishisation of technology in these forms, but I
would argue not any more than the fetish of the art "object" or the
canvas surface or the "concept" itself.
The formation of "ideal" structure in programming should be seen no more
or less important than the exhibition of a score of music, or a tub of a
specially designed pigment. Structure in itself is something of value,
but certainly different than a Pollack. It is a part of a whole.
Artists working with electronic and computer media do engage in a
discourse with previous forms, but it is not an engagement in only the
artistic discipline. Computer science is a discipline in some sense, but
unless its considered in a multidisciplinary context it is largely
pointless. Computer science becomes meaningful only because of content,
when it deals with areas such as intelligence, language, vision, etc...
Programming is about nothing it itself. Consequently artists working in
this engage in disciplines outside of Art, as many artists from many
disciplines do.
I think the discussion is a little shifted from what I was thinking as
"concept" vs "technology" when I say technology I am not referring to
the code itself, but the set of logical steps that "do" something. What
you ask the technology to do is the central concept of new media, at
least on the same level of the big picture about why your asking it to
do that. What is the "content" of a technological system beyond what it
does with its internal symbols and what those internal symbols refer to?
There is also the issue of abstraction, what a computer "does" depends
very much on what level your looking at, bits, machine code, low-level,
medium-level and high-level languages. The "concept" also occupies this
multi-level space of abstraction.
On the note of code AS art, Doug Back as exhibited hand-drawn schematics
of robotic projects.
I should mention that I am less and less concerned with making "Art" and
more and more thinking about the creative application of technology.
.b.
G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:
gh responds:
The problem with digital art is it's focus on techne.  A large amount

of digital art doesn't engage art history or the art world at all but

rather presents itself as the newest form of creativity that   
obsoletes

all previous forms. Digital art often insists that it be  judged by  
it's

own rules so that for instance, well formed code or a  greatly

simplified bit of perl is supposed to be considered on an  equal  
footing

with a Jackson Pollack. What digital artists disregard  is that  
Pollack

engaged in a rigorous discourse with previous art  forms. He  
painted WPA

and regionalist murals, he studied and produced  both Surrealist and

Cubist paintings and drawings before he got to  his drip paintings.  
It's

not enough to say that digital art has an  affinity with Conceptual  
Art

that is only a starting point to a  discussion. What is really

interesting about New Media and Digital  Art is that it can engage  
in a

discourse and critique of art forms  such as painting, sculpture,  
sound

art, video and so on. It is a way  to critique the system without

necessarily succumbing to it. That  particular dynamic is also a  
problem

with New Media. It means that  New Media stands apart and is often

ghettoized by the art  establishment. What many artists are doing  
now is

going backwards  into the art world with their digital tools.
On Mar 6, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Millie Niss wrote:
I have a real problem with the way contemporary art deals with "the

concept."  I agree entirely with your definition of technology (and

your example of paint as the technology of a painting) and I do not

like art that focuses only on the concept to the detriment of the

actual implementation of an artwork.  I do not understand how your

work could deserve to be rejected from "too much emphasis" on the

technology...  (I do think a work of art could have a concept which

isn't sufficiently original or well-developed to merit inclusion  
in  a

show.  But I don't think that given a good concept, one can ever

devote too much effort to getting the technology right.  In   
practice,

works of art are eventually declared ready to exhibit so  one doesn't

spend an infinite amount of time on the implementation,  but there

almost always is room for improvement...)
From my vocabulary you may be able to detect my computer   
background...

In software development, a program has "algorithms" (analogous to   
the

"concept" of a work of art) and "implementation" (ie the

"technology": how the algorithm is realized on an actual computer,

using a specific computer language with a compiler for a specific

hardware and operating system, etc.) In big companies, sometimes

different people deal with algorithms and implementation (a   
"software

architect" designs software algorithms and structure  while

programmers actually write code), but everyone agrees that  you do  
not

have good software if you have good algorithms but a bad   
implementation.
In new media art that is influenced by conceptual art, there  
seems  to

be a view that all that matters is the concept.  I have seen  very

well-regarded web art that uses web pages that are poorly  designed

with buttons and forms that don't work etc.  This reminds  me of the

whole debate about whether an artist needs to know how to  draw (e.g.

in relation to the abstract expressionists).  I have no  opinion on

that -- if an abstract painter is incapable of drawing a  classical

nude with charcoal, I don't care -- but I do think that  if an art

work INVOLVES drawing, then the artist needs to know how  to draw (or

should collaborate with someone who can draw).  I just  don't accept

that "only the concept counts."  I think the  overemphasis on the

concept is one reason why the general public  has lost patience  
with art.
I do not think, when looking at a painting by Jackson Pollack, "any

four-year-old could do that" (because in fact it is quite hard to

produce splattered paint in a way that actually looks good), but   
when

amateurish work shows up in major museums I cringe and worry  for the

future of art. This seems to happen much more in new media  than ini

traditional art.  I have seen really terrible computer  work in major

museums, whereas I doubt these museums would display  conceptual art

that includes really bad drawing or painting or  sculpture.
I think maybe some curators do not know enough about computers to  be

able to properly judge new media...  Until we have a generation  of

arts administrators who are trained in new media and computer

technology, there will be some very silly curatorial and funding

decisions made.  The kind of art history education that was offered

in universities when I was a student (I was not an art history

student, but I took some art history and was aware of what other

students were studying) is not good preparation for judging  software

art.  Perhaps things have changed in the decade+ since I  graduated

from college, but when I was in school (in the early  90's) computers

were already in use all over the campus and new  media art was  
several

decades old.  But art history survey courses  ended with the  
Cubists...
When I see web-based art with really incompetent use of the
technology, I get impatient.  I do not demand that all artists know
web technology and programming just because I am interested in  those
things, but I DO ask that all art that actually USES these
technologies use it in a competent fashion. In web art, there are
many collaborations, and it is quite common for people who are not
computer experts but are skilled in various art media to work with
others who have programming and software skills, so I do not think
asking artists to use the computer well would exclude "art people"
who don't like math and technology from new media art.  (Plus I do
not understand why anyone who has a problem understanding computers
or does not like them would even WANT to do digital art!)
By asking new media art to use the technology well, I do not mean

that new media artists cannot subvert, parody, deconstruct,   
question,

rebel against etc. the usual ways of making web sites and   
software (I

enjoy work that does this) but they need to be able to  make a

technologically sound site when that is their intention.   There is

really no excuse for web sites that actually don't work  unless the

artist's specifuc intention is to show buggy software.   I doubt this

is the case when the buggy web sites (that display  error messages

when you click links or buttons, or have forms that  do nothing at

all) are artists' home pages or portfolio sites...
Millie
From: "B. Bogart" <ben@ekran.org>

Date: March 6, 2006 8:31:22 AM PST

To: sostrow@gate.cia.edu, soft_skinned_space

<empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>

Cc: soft_skinned_space <empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>

Subject: Re: [-empyre-] technology as material

So a wonderful opportunity came about, a festival conference on the

theme of "Architecture and Responsiveness". Unfortunately we were

quickly rejected to show the work at the festival due to the  
fact  that

our proposal showed that "we spend a lot of time and energy on the

technology and very little on the concept." I've been struggling  
with

this idea of technology vs concept since. It seems there is a huge

disconnect between by own artistic interests/ideals and that of

institutions that present themselves as the most ideal venues for  
the

exhibition of electronic media.
For me technology is any (tool) that makes any (opaque) process

transparent (to someone). I think technology is the material of

creative

process. The way a painter would mix pigments is a technological

process. It is made transparent because once the paint is mixed   
then

the

painter is able to use it without needing to consider the process of

making it. The complex technology that defines the shapes of musical

instruments, whose whole need not be understood in order to make   
sound

using it.
Technology is nothing but the manifestation of concepts.
If a concept is not realized (made manifest) through text
(words/symbols), through a machine (computer) or through physical
action
how can it have any value? How can it have meaning without
technology to
make it part of the world?
Would a critic deem a painting as poor because the artist spend  too

much

time developing the colours on the canvas? Or say a piece of  
music is

not valid because it depended too much on the physical playing of an

instrument?
Can creative process even happen if there is not tangible form   
that the

evolving concepts take?
So is the "Concept" the remnants of Modernity, replaced by the

"Technology" of the postmodern? Or is the "Concept" simply a   
method of

sorting those artists that *do* from those that "create" and  
leave  the

implementation to others?
B. Bogart
www.ekran.org/ben