--- On Thu, 12/23/10, Mathieu Bouchard <ma...@artengine.ca> wrote:
> From: Mathieu Bouchard <ma...@artengine.ca> > Subject: Re: [PD] [PD-announce] Piksel video report: Sonification of IT > censorship technologies > To: "Derek Holzer" <de...@umatic.nl> > Cc: pd-list@iem.at > Date: Thursday, December 23, 2010, 2:51 AM > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Derek Holzer > wrote: > > > This is a classic example of the ongoing > (mis)communication(s) between artists and scientists. In > this case, I think Mathieu is confusing the purpose of art > with the purpose of a scientific paper. > > That's right, the purpose of art is to have no purpose. > Thus spake Captain Haddock, as he explained why he had > bought a large plexiglas sculpture of the letter H, in > Tintin's (unfinished) opus 24 : > http://www.decitre.fr/gi/16/9782203017016FS.gif > > ;) > > > One's aim is to establish and demonstrate facts, the > other to explore possibilities and inspire imaginative (and > often non-linear) connections. > > That's a typical Romantic conception of it. Before that > time, art and technique were largely interchangeable words > (they still can be, depending on context), and a lot more > people knew that the word «technique» comes from classical > greek «τέχνη», which has several meanings including > «art» and «craftsmanship». In Romantic times, an > anti-scientific strand of artists took over, who were really > obsessed by their emotions. Which strand of composers are you talking about? > We are still under that > influence, but the reason we're having this discussion is in > part because there is a partial reconvergence of art and > science happening these years. Some may call it a > confusion. > > I think that it's pretty clear that to establish and > demonstrate facts, one needs to explore possibilities and > inspire imaginative (and often non-linear) connections. It's > so intertwined, that it's necessary. > > Nevertheless, in the scientific culture, much of the > «artsy» part of the job has been swept under the carpet > although the job's greatest successes depends on it. (I > guess that this would be why Einstein appears in that book > about creativity that was mentioned some days ago) > > > For me, far too much of this art-science stuff errs on > the side of technical demonstration. > > If technical demonstration can be one of the many purposes > of art, ... Gallery contents of the last century is one long > argument that art can be anything at all and always escapes > any definition. > > I too think that art errs a lot : someone needs to pee in > Duchamp's urinal, imho. We just don't quite agree on which > art is erring. > > Yet at once, I don't wish that Marco's work had been a > technical demonstration ; it's not what I said. My wish is > about valuing the possibility to sense the input through the > output. That does happen to be a necessary feature of > scientific visualisation and/or sonification, but it doesn't > mean art can't have this feature. > > > The flip side of that coin is that poetry is often > unquantifiable ("program me something sad" says the media > artist to their trusty technician) and causes segfaults in > engineer-type brains ;-) > > It's more like "program me something interesting" and then > the engineer-type brain suspects he's being asked to be the > artist, and that the nominal artist is in fact some kind of > curator except he gets the credit for the whole thing. > > But that's the worst case : usually it's a lot more > pleasant than that, and the artists' requirements are > usually very graspable. > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > | Mathieu Bouchard ---- tél: +1.514.383.3801 ---- > Villeray, Montréal, QC > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at > mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list