Hi Pall, As a fairly recent netbehaviourist I'm kinda saddened that justifying existence is still a thing for digital artists (esp here)...
For my music practice I think of code (Pd mainly) as instrument and laptop as tool. Anyhow, this 'wrong-ness' puts me in mind of some Gavin Bryars pieces, where things like chinese-whispered scores, near-impossible realisations over vast dimensions and inaudible content form the various pieces - most often with great titles (his website seems to be down so can't share many links but e.g. https://britishmusiccollection.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/scores//3098w.pdf or a realisation of one here: http://www.pores.bbk.ac.uk/issues/issue5/poetry-and-music/JamesSaundersandJohnLely Music's good (experimental esp.) for this kinda thing... Re the pixel -- I'm maybe overthinking but isn't it then an object (which is fine) but not a pixel (it would perhaps require defining physical image resolution, which, for me, is kinda interesting conceptually also. Hmmm:) Cheers, Julian P.S. Can I do a quick fanboy thing and say The Longest Line was one of my favourite pieces of 2019 <:hands>. On 22/09/2020 17:07, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour wrote: > As some on this list know, for many years, I've been pushing the notion > that programming code should be viewed as an artistic medium when it's > used to create art. The artist molds it into shape, as they would with a > lump of clay, until it takes its final form. When I've discussed these > ideas, I've always gotten a lot of pushback. People will say that > programming code is a tool, like a paintbrush, not the medium, like > paint. I don't agree. This notion has piqued my interest again in the > wake of a rising trend where artists are creating graphic images by only > using HTML/CSS (e.g. https://a.singlediv.com/ , > https://diana-adrianne.com/purecss-francine/ ). > > The problem with computer programmed art, however, is that it requires a > computer. In my mind, there really hasn't been any justifiable reason to > display computer programmed art on anything other than a computer... > unless it adds something significant to the work. And this is something > interesting that has recently occurred to me. I came up with this really > simply piece: > > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/notApixel/ > > And have decided that this piece, although based entirely on computer > programming code, will work better when divorced from the computer and > the browser's interpretation of the code. On my 4k screen, it's > practically impossible to see the red pixel in the center. If I remove > the work from the environment that interprets the code, I'm free to > determine the size of a single pixel: > > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/notApixel/notApixel.png > > And I could choose to produce that piece in any physical material I > want. It could be a block of wood glued to a panel of wood. What > determines the size of a pixel of wood? What determines the result of a > hexadecimal color code when it's been removed from the computer? If the > code is to be interpreted in wood, what does #f00 mean? > > My main point is that with the example shown above, the piece can be > made to work better at a conceptual level than it would if it were not > removed from the browser environment. > > I'd love to hear other people's ideas on this. I did just write this all > off the top of my head, so if I'm rambling and things don't make sense, > just ask and I'll do my best to clarify. > > Pall Thayer > > -- > ***************************** > Pall Thayer > artist > http://pallthayer.dyndns.org > ***************************** _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
