martin,
yes, clearly there is a material and physical difference between a work
created on a computer and a work painted by hand. i'd venture that all
following this list are aware of these differences. the argument against
you, from what i can tell, is that vocabulary is (or can be) a free range
chicken. the extremely literal occupy the narrowest hall.
take the word 'dashboard' for instance. its origin:
"In a wagon, the horses would throw clumps of mud off their hooves when
they would "dash"(or run).
The dashboard was the board on the front that kept the mud off the
passengers."
perhaps someone from the early 1900s would be flipping wig about the use of
the term "dashboard" to describe a futuristic control panel that holds
speedometers, tachometers, odometers and fuel gauges.. but let's be
honest, in growth it helps to associate the ideas of the future with the
ones of the past, regardless of their literal ties. this seems easy math.
oh, and to clarify, there is no "real" math involved here.
sweet language!
brian
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, martin mitchell <martinmitc...@mac.com>
wrote:
>
> Simon ..... maybe you missed some links yesterday, I was merely
establishing traditional meaning of painting in Wiki Dictionary as a base
line to work from but did find your statement contradictory because painting
is a three dimensional physical act compared to computer art or art inside
of code that enact three dimensional illusion with pixels on a monitor....
to me there is a physical and intellectual difference between the two forms
of self expression.The language surrounding computer art, software generated
images, direct coding etc' appears to be struggling to identify itself with
a clear and distinctive terminology ............. using the social-cultural
brush is like walking into a cul-de-sac while trying to climb Mt Everest.
There is a material and physical difference between painting and computer
imagery on a computer ones paint brushes do not dry out and become
unusable...!
> Have Fun.
> Martin.
> On 16 Mar 2010, at 11:27, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
> I am sorry but it was you, not me, that suggested there was a
contradiction between painting and digital imaging. I was trying to clarify
that there is a difference but not a contradiction. The main point of my
argument is that in these days of post-convergence technologies there is
little to be gained from employing material media-specificity as a prime
determiner of difference. We need to expand what we understand as defining
what a medium can be to one that is primarily engaged with the
socio-cultural. Therefore, the cinema is no longer about film (as in
celluloid) and video/TV about the video signal as both have been replaced by
largely digital production processes and delivery systems. Nevertheless,
cinema remains cinema and TV remains TV. They remain so because of how they
are engaged, not due to their technological substrate. The same is true of
painting. All of this can exist within the network paradigm of media. Again,
there is no contradiction.
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> Simon Biggs
>
> s.bi...@eca.ac.uk si...@littlepig.org.uk Skype: simonbiggsuk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http://www.eca.ac.uk/
> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
http://www.elmcip.net/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: martin mitchell <martinmitc...@mac.com>
> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:43:59 +0000
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] A statement
>
> Simon.
>
> There is a difference not a contradiction ...........
> To be more constructive there is an undeniable difference between painting
in traditional description and computer developed images, there is also
another debate within your sweeping statements concerning idea 'what is
art'........ also, Cohen is interesting example because he wanted to move
away from traditional painting but employ a studio assistant to do his
paintings via software language [ he writes code for own App' ] and
originally his own digital printer, in his own words 'software generated
figurative art'.
> David Smith was pissing on steel before Andy Warhol had asked someone to
move a silk screen squeegee across silk....
> As for the anal statement have no wish to enter your pontificating
personal world!
>
> martin
>
> On 15 Mar 2010, at 19:39, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
> I see no contradiction between painting and being digital. The art just
has to involve discrete systems in some manner. There is nothing in the rule
book that says it has to involve a computer. Mez’s work is digital but can
be done with pencil and paper. Also, painting no longer has to involve
paint. Warhol’s piss and rust metal plates were just that, metal plates he
pissed on and left to rust. They were then presented as effectively
paintings. To really mix things up Cohen’s paintings made with Aaron are
both paintings (made with paint) and computer art (made by computer). These
days it pays not to be anal about definitions. There will always be an
exception that shows you are wrong.
>
> Best
>
> Simon
>
>
> Simon Biggs
>
> s.bi...@eca.ac.uk si...@littlepig.org.uk <x-msg://100/
si...@littlepig.org.uk> Skype: simonbiggsuk http:// <http:/>
www.littlepig.org.uk/ <http://www.littlepig.org.uk/>
> Research Professor edinburgh college of art http:// <http:/>
www.eca.ac.uk/
> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
http:// <http:/> www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
http:// <http:/> www.elmcip.net/
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: martin mitchell <martinmitc...@mac.com <x-msg://100/
martinmitc...@mac.com> >
> Reply-To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org <x-msg://100/netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >
> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:52:56 +0000
> To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity <
netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org <x-msg://100/netbehaviour@netbehaviour.org> >
> Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] A statement
>
> 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:// <http:/> www.crispynails.co.uk/ <http://www.crispynails.co.uk/>
> <http:// <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:// <http:/> www.yannleguennec.com/ <http://www.yannleguennec.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org <x-msg://100/NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> http:// <http:/> www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org <x-msg://100/NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org>
> http:// <http:/> www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour <
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour>
>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
SC009201
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
SC009201
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
glimpsecontrol.com
baiowulf.com
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
