[-empyre-] Process as paradigm: Time/Tools/Agency

[davin heckman]

I really like this idea, Antoine: "Like Philip Galanter said somewhere
some time, 'In medieval times painting was about God. With the
Enlightenment painting was about man. In Modern times painting was
about paint. And now in Postmodern times painting is about painting.'
I don't know where we stand now in Art History, but there is no reason
why processual art should (or should not) be about processes (or
processing)."

But maybe, another way of saying this (painting about
God--->man--->paint--->painting--->) is to say that the history of art
is a developing encounter with agency.  As philosophers have chased
down concepts like "truth," perhaps artists remain engaged with the
idea of practical agency.  And, at its most basic level, isn't working
from concept to artifact a process of giving form to an impulse
against the backdrop of material limitation?

Davin

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Antoine Schmitt <as at gratin.org> wrote:
> Dear Yann,
>
> I think that our respective opinions are not incompatible...
>
> Just to be precise, I indeed consider that programs, computers and processes
> are an artistic mean (call it a tool, medium, material, whatever, we can
> argue interestingly on the best notion..). Then with this mean, we as artist
> do address subjects, themes, have intentions, talk about something. And with
> processual art, we can address any theme, including the theme of programs
> and computers.
>
> I understand and agree with your idea that computers, internet and programs
> today constitutes an environment for us humans, that blends into the real
> environment of atoms (and moreover a "programmable environment" which is a
> nice concept). This is very interesting and new and contemporary, and even
> "real shit". But, but, but, there is no reason that any processual artist
> _should_ address this subject when using programs and processes as an
> artistic material.
>
> Like Philip Galanter said somewhere some time, "In medieval times painting
> was about God. With the Enlightenment painting was about man. In Modern
> times painting was about paint. And now in Postmodern times painting is
> about painting."
>
> I don't know where we stand now in Art History, but there is no reason why
> processual art should (or should not) be about processes (or processing).
>
> But of course, it is very tempting, practical and adequate to use it just
> for that, especially in a world, as you say, that is more and more
> processual itself, and where the process paradigm (point of view) is more
> and more prevalent. In a world where God, man, processes, processing and
> processors tend to become just the same thing.
>
>
>
>
> Le 28 mai 10 à 19:58, Yann Le Guennec a écrit :
>
>> Antoine Schmitt a écrit :
>>>
>>> Le 25 mai 10 à 06:38, christopher sullivan a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> a computer IS a tool
>>>
>>> Of course a computer is a tool, like anything else that an artists uses
>>> to create the artwork, like paint or programs.
>>> The fact is that it is a very special tool because it executes programs
>>> that implement processes. Programs and processes provide the artists with a
>>> new way to make artworks. I think that this new way is radically new, but
>>> this is another discussion. It is new and different. And we like it
>>> (indeed).
>>
>> So, from a materialist perspective, if you consider for example that there
>> is a computer in your car, one in your cellphone, both communicating with
>> satellites, and computers from your cellphone operator,  and computers from
>> your car provider, and other systems on the road, etc... softwares and data
>> are able to circulate from one point to another in this network, with or
>> without your knowledge. Do you consider this kind of system is a tool or an
>> environment ? Something you can use or something you are in ? Surely both, i
>> think this is more like an environment, an usable environment, like a forest
>> or city, but an environment. Today's "cloud computing" and "ubiquitous
>> computing" are going that way. And considering that all radio communications
>> (Wifi, GSM, bluetooth..) ,are literally going through our bodies, we are now
>> physicaly living *in* computers.
>>
>> But when i say that a computer is an environment and not (just) a tool, i
>> think more about the logic contained in computed processes, based on boolean
>> logical doors. When you use such tools, you must accept them, and adapt your
>> mind to this kind of processes, your mind is in the process, the process
>> surrounds it, it's an archetypal environment made of binary digits and
>> processors.
>>
>> At another level, this logic is now everywhere in the social, economical,
>> political space. All these spaces are computed, processed by processors, and
>> that's why we really live now in the computer, and that's why i can't see it
>> just like a tool anymore.
>>
>> So now the question could be: how is integrated processor's logic in
>> processual art ?
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Yann
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> ++ as
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre