I completely agree with your contribution. We are playing with semantic fields referring to some classical art practices, and doing so, we are trying to see and understand what can be art today, how can it be reshaped by networked practices. I hope, and think, it's still an open field. We are jumping around the lazy brown (refers to XX century explosion of arts forms ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_quick_brown_fox_jumps_over_the_lazy_dog Corrado Morgana a écrit : > All convenient metaphors. Software appropriates useful terms, from Photoshop > to Flash to Maya we have Canvas, Stage, sculpt , extrude etc.. etc... We > draw and paint because that is the suitable metaphor based on an interface > that communicates it's technicity in the most lean and efficient manner > > If we discuss something coming from a discourse of image making then it's > practically impossible to avoid such language. Unless we enter the realm of > computational image making where process is important and we can talk about > algorithmic, computational and network issues. Platform studies > (http://platformstudies.com/ ) for an extreme example anyone? > > To fully enable a digital discourse we should be using terms like rasterise, > vectorise, state change and compute. There are practictioners and > commentators who do. I have no problem with either discourse and have > dabbled in both software and painterly linguistic camps. > > Digital art is also a contentious term. Artists who use digital > technologies, claiming to be digital artists without any reference or > acknowledgement however small, be it critical or explicit, that their work > actually engages with digital discourse who merely adopt software as a > transparent tool is an issue. Remembering the amount of applications from > traditional video artists to a significant Media Arts festival a few years > ago; of course they could be part of it, they were all digital artists > because they use Final Cut Pro. > > I'm not saying anyone on this list fits these categories but we are in a > pluralistic and dialogic arena. Terms are interchangeable and useful when > necessary. > > Best > > C > > -----Original Message----- > From: netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org > [mailto:netbehaviour-boun...@netbehaviour.org] On Behalf Of Yann Le Guennec > Sent: 15 March 2010 5:51 PM > To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity > Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] A statement > > So according to what you've been told, the good one (terminology) would > be a digital one, using terminology specific to technology (coding, > networks,...) ? > > What i see in the way you use words , and in your work, is a convergence > between painting and cinema (as references to themselves), and this > convergence occurs in digital networks. Maybe that's what we are > talking/writing about: the space and time where we live. > > There's something occuring at a greater scale, outside and in the > artworld, it's the need for a flat screen on the wall to put some > pictures. That's also what painting is about, not the screen, but the > need for it. According to our vision of history, it was already there in > Lascaux (for example) > > http://cyberechos.creteil.iufm.fr/cyber1/histoire/lascaux/Lascaux.jpg > > > Jim Andrews a écrit : >> Concerning dbCinema, I've been told that my use of the terms 'brush' >> and 'nib' and 'canvas' are inappropriate. Because they situate the >> piece in a painterly scenario that isn't the right one. >> >> But, given what dbCinema does, that language is actually the most >> useful language, it seems to me. It provides people with the most >> easily understandable and relevant terminology to start to understand >> what dbCinema does and how it works. >> >> ja http://vispo.com/dbcinema >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Yann Le Guennec" <i...@x-arn.org> >> To: "NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity" >> <netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:46 AM >> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] A statement >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> Thanks for your feedback, maybe you're right. I'm thinking about >> 'painting' not from a technical point of view, involving some defined >> kinds of support and materials, but from a more conceptual one, as >> an historical and pictural practice in art. From this point of view, >> there is no reason to not talk about 'networked painting' like we can >> talk about 'oil painting', the technology is different, but i think >> we act in the same artistic field. >> >> Furthermore, maybe the "digital revolution" is the moment in time and >> space where 'painting' as an art practice will be more profoundly >> re-defined. In fact, i'm more interested in confronting and opening >> concepts and words than strictly refer to them in a predefined and >> closed signification. So, it's an open discussion and set of >> thoughts. >> >> >> ‘the computer is no more than a tool that helps painting to shake off >> the deadweight of an ossified classical heritage. Its immense >> combinatorial capacity facilitates the systematic investigation of an >> infinite range of possibilities.’4 4 Jean-Michel Place, ‘Vera >> Molnar, Regard sur mes images’, in Revue d’esthétique, n° 7, Paris, >> 1984. >> http://collection.fraclorraine.org/parcour/showtext/1?lang=en&wid=422 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> martin mitchell a écrit : >>> Hello. >>> >>> Please separate the idea of painting from the creation of digital >>> images it's a contradiction and makes it difficult for people to >>> understand what digital artists are creating........... >>> >>> Martin Mitchell. >>> >>> Crispy Nails Animation Studio. >>> >>> http://www.crispynails.co.uk/ >>> >>> On 15 Mar 2010, at 15:41, Yann Le Guennec wrote: >>> >>>> My work is about the evolution of painting in a networked >>>> environment, both physical and digital, present and distant, in >>>> time and space. I make what i call "variable paintings". They >>>> address classical themes such as Landscape or Still life. These >>>> paintings are not paintings in the sense of concrete objects, but >>>> digital pictures produced online by networked devices. This >>>> approach does not exclude the possibility of making physical >>>> objects from digital pictures, but the composition of these >>>> pictures is made online and should primarily be seen online, for >>>> example projected in an exhibition space connected to the >>>> internet. All devices are built on almost the same model. Visual >>>> sensors (eg: photography, stills from video) are taking pictures >>>> in an environment, these pictures are transformed by online >>>> softwares and then shown to the spectator. Variations in this >>>> main model allow each device to address more specific >>>> problematics in the field of "networked painting". >>>> >>>> http://www.yannleguennec.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour >>>> mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour >>> mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing >> list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> >> _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing >> list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org >> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour >> > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
