>>>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"
interesting is not it ?
Alex
Received on Wed Apr 13 2005 - 15:20:54 BST