greetings if i understand you, one of your indirect points is that artists need to get more scientific. this seems correct to me [art has always been practiced by leading scientists, think of einstein and his violin]. and at the same time, this does not mean to ignore imagination- it means you must do everything.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Derek Holzer <de...@umatic.nl> wrote: > This is a classic example of the ongoing (mis)communication(s) between > artists and scientists. > And far too many artists lack the training to engage with the > real media of their work and instead hire technicians to realize it for > them. as most of us know, traditional artistic training does not cover what tech savvy artists need to know: - how to program [something] - how is information stored and retrieved using [relational] data bases - what is the network like both as artistic medium [there is some activity here] and for propaganda purposes and for all artists: - what is the role of money in art culture [a subsidiary to: what is the role of money in my life] ? but learning how to do art is hard enough. and understanding technology from a tools perspective is hard enough. so why is it that any artist will take this upon themselves? because it's necessary to their art works. [that's enough] -- \js : "verbing weirds language." -calvin [http://or8.net/~johns/] _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list