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

[christopher sullivan]

Hi, good for us all to get a bit steamed.
on serious shit, blood, guts, love, hope. etc.

One other take here is, not everything that is important to the
journey of the human species, world, is the best stuff to make art about.
recycling, fashion, prison, trash-waste, sustainability, homelessness, for
instance, are prevalent art topic that continues to bore me as work.
    I find this true with collaborations with doctors, scientists, often as
well(this kind of art was born out of artists finding out they could get NEA
humanities money with such art) and university money to collaborate with
different departments) of course from all strange beginnings good things are
made as well. 

but the question is, does it have to be art to be important, why not recycle,
and that is a good thing, and then go make some art..help at risk youth look
for new opportunities, but why does it have to be turned into some kind of
visual art? I believe sometimes we have to respect that art is just a small
fraction of human useful activities.
I respect a good dentist as much as a good artist. 

Chris.

 



Quoting Antoine Schmitt <as at gratin.org>:

> 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 processable 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


Christopher Sullivan
Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
112 so michigan
Chicago Ill 60603
csulli at saic.edu
312-345-3802