>>>>The thing that GP and livecoding share in opposition to the traditional
>>>act of
>>>>writing software, is that they are more concerned with the program being
>>>part
>>>>of a dynamic process. Nothing is ever finished.
>>>
>>>That is funny to see that this could also be said of the computer as
>>> being
>>>a fundamental part of the artifact (or a performance) as opposed to
>>> merely
>>>being used to create art. This is highly interesting when trying to
>>>establish a relationship between art and technology, is not it ?
>>
>> Whould you say that this changes what is considered to be the medium
>> of the art?
>Well that is the obvious observation yes, however my point is more to see
>the computer as an artist :).
>> What is left as a carrier (or, more mathematical maybe, as an
>> invariant)?
>Not sure to understand that question :)
>> What role would you give the computer or the algorithm
>> there - is ist like an externalized thinking world?
>That is what is interesting! what is the role of technology in Art ?
>Should we divide them in two different field ? Have they not been only one
>in the past ?
>Another way to look at it is to say that Art is a language that human
>beings use -as Technology- to express emotions. When I say "as Technology"
>is to consider Technology as another species along with Human Being using
>Art to espress itself; DeLanda puts it like this:
>
>"Human beings could be seen as no more than that of industrial insects
>pollenating robotic flowers that did not possess, during a segment of
>their life, any reproduction organ"
what would be the difference, in your opinion, between a computer and
a paintbrush? Where does the urge in a computer come from to express
itself? (I don't mean this ironical)
--
.
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 15:26:25 BST