[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 66, Issue 26

Tue May 25 13:26:33 EST 2010

Hi all,

I totally agree that the concept of material should be understood in a
broader sense as Antoine points out. I believe it´s clear in most of the
pieces in the exhibition some examples of what he mentioned about “processes
as something that can be created, manipulated, fine tuned, using programs. A
material for creation. In a way that´s what I was questioning (my questions
were not rhetorical) and it´s not easy to find a solution for that. In my
understanding if we understand process in the way Antoine points out when
describing his idea of material in this case (maybe there´s a better word
for that, as some of you may suggest) we could find ways to expand the idea
of process and bring more of this development into the exhibition sphere.
Johannes asked about ways of showing processes to the audience in a
interesting way. I believe that a good example was having the
¿Interactivos? workshop as a project that is part of the “Process as
Paradigm”. Following Baruch comments, I also agree that it implies some
institutional issues, but I believe that we´re having interesting examples
of how institutions are understanding the importance of thinking beyond the
finished piece is becoming clearer. Many works with art and biology already
have it in performances where you have a piece for exhibition but also a lot
of material (texts, videos) that mention the processes that generated the
piece, not to mention public performances as we´ve seen with Adam Zaretsky
or Symbiotica, just to mention a couple. I can also mention again the
project ¿Interactivos?, an open space for collaborative thinking and
development (or as the organizer´s define it: “a research and production
platform for the creative and educational uses of technology”), that just
won the 2010´s Special Mention for Interactive Art.

Regards,
Raquel

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:00 PM, <empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>wrote:

> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
>        empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Process as paradigm : material, paradigm, media
>      (Antoine Schmitt)
>   2. Re: Process as paradigm - welcome more invited guests
>      (Antoine Schmitt)
>
>
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 00:51:38 -0400
> From: Antoine Schmitt <as at gratin.org>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm : material, paradigm,
>        media
> Message-ID: <90AADB39-C522-4E6B-9EDC-220C925CA1D3 at gratin.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Hi,
>
> on the issue of 'material', I want to argue that indeed a process can
> be seen as an artistic material. I mean material not in the sense of
> hardware, but in the sense of what is manipulated by the artist while
> creating the artwork. I mean that I meant material in the english
> sense, not in the french sense.. ;) For example, in painting, the
> material is paint. In literature, the material is letters. In music,
> the material is notes, or directly an instrument (in the broad sense
> of something that creates sound = vibration of air). In dance, the
> material is movement of a human body. In these three latter examples,
> like with processes or programs, the boundaries between the idea in
> the mind of the author, the storage of the artwork (musical score,
> book, source code file), the performance of the artwork (by a
> computer, a piano interpret, a reader reading a book), the physical
> existence of the artwork (the muscles of the dancer moving, the air
> vibrating, the pixels moving, the servomotors turning, the networks
> electricity flowing), the reception of the artwork by the audience
> (the ears vibrating, the eyes being struck by light), the effect on
> the audience (the thoughts being triggered by the poetry, the music,
> the process, the idea, the context, etc....), these boundaries are
> rather fuzzy, and I think that the notion of physicality is not the
> most relevant nor the most problematic to discuss.
>
> What I wanted to point out is that process is not only a paradigm, an
> analysis tool for the mind, but that it is also something that can be
> created, manipulated, fine tuned, using programs. A material for
> creation.
>
> Another discussion (can of worms) would be to discus whether it is a
> media or not.
>
> Personnaly, and in short, I think not...
>
>
>
> Le 20 mai 10 ? 22:18, baruch gottlieb a ?crit :
>
> > One more point I would like to raise, and it is more of a personal
> > one.  I don't think it is fair to describe processes as a material
> > for art. Materials are, for me, always something physical, so
> > processes themselves must become physical first for them to be a
> > material. In French they have the wonderful convergence in the word
> > 'materiel' which means both 'material' and 'hardware'
> >
> > Now I don't think anyone would argue that hardware is a material for
> > art, but the question is really whether (keeping to the
> > informational/instruction/programming paradigm) software is a
> > material for art.   My opinion is that software cannot be a
> > material.  It can generate a material but it is not, itself a
> > material, unless it is printed out or on a screen as code. I may be
> > completely off base here, but I think that software is like an idea
> > and ideas are not materials, until they actually appear in a
> > material form, at which point they can be appropriated for any
> > purpose.  So I would say rather than 'process is a material for
> > art', 'processes generate material art'.   Here we might get into
> > the old debate about whether code is literature or engineering or
> > something else..
> >
>
> ++ as
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 01:07:21 -0400
> From: Antoine Schmitt <as at gratin.org>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm - welcome more invited
>        guests
> Message-ID: <C22D232C-80D2-4FDA-9B34-83A913856392 at gratin.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed";
>        DelSp="yes"
>
> Hi,
> I thought that Susanne had made the point in her first post that
> process art (that deals with the creation process of the artists)
> should not be confused with "processual art", where the artistic
> material is a process, i.e. a system in action. And that the
> exhibition, as well as this current discussion, deals only with
> processual art and not process art... (Not that I don't find process
> art interesting, but if we want to stay focused......)
>
> Le 19 mai 10 ? 23:08, Raquel Renn? a ?crit :
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Sorry for the delay in joining the discussion, I had some health
> > issues and was not able to follow the discussion until now.
> > For me it?s interesting how the topic Process as Paradigm open to
> > different level of discussions, from generative art to art and
> > nature. That?s why I feel that it should be OK to ask something not
> > related to a specific piece of the Laboral?s exhibition. Since I?ve
> > been working at labs and with different groups of artists that
> > relate art, science and technology, I?m thinking about how we could
> > incorporate some of the process that are being generated in these
> > new centers? There are many groups developing very good work that
> > are not reduced to a piece or have their process as the main thing
> > in their work. Is it really possible to have it in a exhibition in a
> > way that can be revealing and stimulating to the visitors or we
> > should always have "complete" pieces to be shown as usual? Could
> > this new scenario be incorporated in what we?re discussing in terms
> > of process being a new paradigm for arts?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Raquel Renn?
> > Postdoctoral Research Fellow
> > Mackenzie University
> > www.raquelrenno.com
> > www.zzzinc.net
> > -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> ++ as
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100524/e42fcc86/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 66, Issue 26
> **************************************
>

-- 
Raquel Rennó
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie
www.raquelrenno.com
www.zzzinc.net
-------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20100525/5c9d1060/attachment.html>