Pall,
I've really enjoyed this thread, and I've been sitting here scratching
my head trying to think how to express my ideas about it. The piece of
yours that I've been looking at is 'Square with content flipping on two
axes', which has got a q and a p opposite each other, and a d and a b
opposite each other, inside a square, like this:
q p
d b
Every now and again they twitch slightly: and it's only when you read
the code, and reflect on the title of the piece, that you realize
they're changing places every few seconds, either left-to-right or
up-to-down, and the slight twitch is the only outward sign of this,
because their symmetry is precise enough for them to step into one
another's positions almost invisibly, almost without a disturbance.
Probably, it occurs to me, the piece would be even more perfect if the
slight twitch could be eliminated: then there would be no outward sign
at all of what was taking place, and the meaning and action of the piece
would be entirely latent, entirely in the mind and understanding of the
beholder.
It seems to me that what makes this piece work is that it's exploring
the difference between what we see on screen and what's actually
happening inside or behind that on-screen image, in terms of code and
its execution. Ordinarily when you read a piece of text on a screen you
just read the text, as if it were print on paper; you don't think about
the digital process which puts it in front of you; but in the 'Square
with content flipping on two axes' that inner process, which is always
there, is foregrounded, and we feel as if a new dimension has been
opened up for us inside or behind the flat visual shape we are looking
at. On top of which, of course, there are parallels with concrete
poetry, and there's an element of pure aesthetic pleasure, exploring the
geometry of the typeface you're using.
With your piece 'This is not a pixel', the same kind of thing is
happening. What we seen on screen us just a red speck. In order to
understand the red speck we have to look at the code, and understand
that it's instructing the computer to locate the pixel right in the
middle of your 'canvas' and turn it red. So it's not a pixel, it's a
spot of redness generated by a piece of code. Again there's a reference
to other art, namely Magritte's 'Ce n'est pas une pipe', but again it's
a digital equivalent: whereas Magritte's painting asks us to recognise
that a painting of something is never the same as the thing itself, your
piece is reminding us that what appears on-screen never gets there
without code and execution of one kind or another. We ignore it most of
the time, but it's always there. And again, there's an element of pure
aesthetics, exploring the possibilities of what can be done by working
with code in this way.
I do like the idea of making an equivalent to this piece by printing it
on a t-shirt or sticking a square piece of wood on top of another piece
of wood - but I think the meaning of such an equivalent would be quite
different. It would be translating something born-digital into the realm
of sculpture and DIY (or design, if you did the t-shirt); the code
wouldn't actually be executing; it would be one medium commenting
ironically on another, rather than an exploration of the digital medium
itself.
Edward
On 24/09/2020 19:05, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour wrote:
Hi all,
Here's another "sketch" where I'm sort of wrapping my head around
these ideas. Used my dog, Hambae, for this one.
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/hambae/
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:48 AM Pall Thayer <pallt...@gmail.com
<mailto:pallt...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Bruno. Didn't you and I share a hotel room in Bergen, NO many
years ago?
I think I get your point. Yes, programming code is like a
blueprint in a way. That blueprint then gets interpreted by a
computer or software and then turns into an action. A movie or
play script is also a blueprint but one that gets interpreted by
humans. Obviously, a human "interpretation" of something is going
to be a lot more flexible than a computer's interpretation of
code. Therein lies the main difference between those two
schematics. What I'm proposing is a bit of a hybrid. If I feel
that my own (human) interpretation of a piece of code is going to
make the outcome somehow better (or just different, if people
prefer), then I'm going to do so from the perspective of a human
who knows full well how the code will perform when interpreted by
the computer. So it's still grounded in a more restrictive outcome
than a movie or play script. If I allow myself too much freedom in
my interpretation, then I might as well abandon the programming
code part and we're basically back to 60s conceptualism. I'm
looking for something similar but different.
I do believe that the text of programming code can stand on its
own as works of art and have pursued that angle for several years
in my Microcodes (http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/microcodes/) and
Object Oriented Art Code
(http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/stealthiscodeart/). I see the ideas
that I'm pitching here as my "logical next step".
Best r.
Pall
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:53 AM Bruno Vianna via NetBehaviour
<netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
<mailto:netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>> wrote:
hi Pall
I don't know if I'm playing devil's advocate or standing for your
point, but it comes to my mind the idea of a blueprint, which
is not
exclusive to code. Wouldn't a script for a movie, the lines of a
play, be also forms of laying out a final shape? And these codes
(text) are also self-standing pieces of art? I could go even
further
and think of the frames of a movie compared to the screened
result in
a session.
In case, the argument is very interesting.
Bruno
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:13 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour
<netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
<mailto:netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>> 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
<mailto:NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
<mailto:NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
--
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
*****************************
--
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
*****************************
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
