Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-28 Thread Max Herman via NetBehaviour 

Not sure if this relates, but I read an interesting article about turbulence 
and vortices lately.  Apparently these are rather difficult subjects to study 
in physics.

One image was about twisted or helical structures which appear in turbulence a 
lot (but also other phenomena).  Apparently there is a lot to study in how when 
a helix twists, it "removes" helicity from its medium, and when it un-twists, 
it imparts helicity back to the medium.  This to me is interesting, and kind of 
analog.  Could it be something like a Newtonian law of conservation of 
information, or karma?

I don't know if reality can ever be said to be analog or not, is everything 
always digital as in quantum states and all, what it means to say that for 
example a bacterium is analog rather than digital.  But it interests me, is 
there a tension between digital processes and analog environments?  How does 
this tension move and change?  That is, if there is a meaningful difference 
between digital and analog phenomena.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/an-unexpected-twist-lights-up-the-secrets-of-turbulence-20200903/


From: NetBehaviour  on behalf of 
Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 12:56 PM
To: NetBehaviour for networked distributed creativity 

Cc: Pall Thayer ; Edward Picot 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

Hi Edward,

And thanks for the comments on my work. I appreciate it.

The whole point of the qpbd piece, as well as some of the others in that 
series, is to get people to try to make sense of the code, regardless of 
whether they are programmers or not, in an effort to understand the work. 
There's also a circle that simply spins around its own center... obviously, you 
don't see that it's rotating unless you read the code.

I like your phrase, "One medium commenting ironically on another" and see quite 
a bit of potential in that. What I was initially thinking about was, what if 
the running program doesn't do the work justice (as with the almost invisible 
red speck). Can I just remove it from the computer and make a "better" version 
by, essentially, running the program in my head and make whatever comes out of 
that process? But the idea of one medium commenting on another opens it up 
more. If I follow that idea, then I'm not necessarily working on a "better" 
version of the running program, but rather a "different" version of the running 
program. An idea that comes to mind is that I could write a javascript object 
that draws random lines on the digital canvas in shades of green. But instead 
of presenting the work on a computer, print it on a surface and mount a flower 
pot with grass growing in it. Same thing, right? It's an object that draws 
lines in shades of green. I'm not sure if it's "better" than the program 
running on a computer but it definitely creates an interesting dialog between 
the two components.

At any rate, my primary goal with these experiments has always been to try to 
get the viewers to have to engage with the code in one way or another and to 
try to make sense of it in an effort to make sense of the artwork.

Best r.
Pall

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:23 PM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour 
mailto:netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org>>
 wrote:
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 
di

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-28 Thread Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
Hi Edward,

And thanks for the comments on my work. I appreciate it.

The whole point of the qpbd piece, as well as some of the others in that
series, is to get people to try to make sense of the code, regardless of
whether they are programmers or not, in an effort to understand the work.
There's also a circle that simply spins around its own center... obviously,
you don't see that it's rotating unless you read the code.

I like your phrase, "One medium commenting ironically on another" and see
quite a bit of potential in that. What I was initially thinking about was,
what if the running program doesn't do the work justice (as with the almost
invisible red speck). Can I just remove it from the computer and make a
"better" version by, essentially, running the program in my head and make
whatever comes out of that process? But the idea of one medium commenting
on another opens it up more. If I follow that idea, then I'm not
necessarily working on a "better" version of the running program, but
rather a "different" version of the running program. An idea that comes to
mind is that I could write a javascript object that draws random lines on
the digital canvas in shades of green. But instead of presenting the work
on a computer, print it on a surface and mount a flower pot with grass
growing in it. Same thing, right? It's an object that draws lines in shades
of green. I'm not sure if it's "better" than the program running on a
computer but it definitely creates an interesting dialog between the two
components.

At any rate, my primary goal with these experiments has always been to try
to get the viewers to have to engage with the code in one way or another
and to try to make sense of it in an effort to make sense of the artwork.

Best r.
Pall

On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:23 PM Edward Picot via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> 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.

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-27 Thread Edward Picot via NetBehaviour 

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 > 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-24 Thread Alan Sondheim 


Hi - It's been recognized for a long time that code itself can be a work 
of art in all sorts of ways - the book Critical Code Studies covers some 
of that I think; there was also a whole movement early on of Perl poetry 
that was simultaneously literature and runnable programs; there have also 
been productions and studies of untoward languages, including ones that 
were invisible early on - and now that area has developed tremendously. I 
used to have the urls for those but don't at the moment unfortunately. The 
production of the pixel is an interpretation; it would also run of course 
without a screen at all. Not that it matters, but I did a lot of 
programming with a TI59 programmable calculator years ago; some of them 
were short and were taken to be works of art such as a steady state which 
had the command 'return' and nothing else. There's also codework, which 
I've emphasized that I meant runnable code that intersected/interfered 
with its surface production, a kind of grit. So I'm not sure what 
distinction you're making here? And thanks, Alan - really interesting 
discussion -




On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 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
 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
   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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-24 Thread Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
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  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> 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
>>  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
>> > *
>> >

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-24 Thread Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
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> 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
>  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
> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
>

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-24 Thread Bruno Vianna via NetBehaviour 
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
 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
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-23 Thread Max Herman via NetBehaviour 
houlder and cascading in 
little rivulets below her neckline.  These are analogous to the coursing fluids 
that vivify the woman's body.  Leonardo could not but have projected his 
knowledge of the inner into the description of the outer."

[Martin Kemp of Oxford University, from his 2017 book Mona Lisa, video 
here<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtYhVk7qsSI>.]

To Kemp's mentions above, I would add that the sleeves are spiral vortices, the 
veil has a sine wave or helix profile, and the neckline embroidery includes 
four examples of vorticity chains.  Leonardo designed clothing and also 
invented machines to make rope and yarn including the first "flying shuttle"; 
which is understandable as textiles drove the economy of Florence in his day.

https://www.museodeltessuto.it/leonardo-eng/?lang=en
https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/atlantic-codex-codex-atlanticus-f-12-recto-leonardo-da-vinci/wgFadw51N1bC6g




From: NetBehaviour  on behalf of 
Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 4:10 PM
To: Julian Brooks 
Cc: Pall Thayer ; NetBehaviour for networked distributed 
creativity 
Subject: Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

Hi Julian,
Don't get me wrong. I'm not really trying to justify the existence of anything. 
Rather, I'm trying to justify my own notion that I've created some art with 
computer programming that works better outside of the computer and digital 
realm.

Thanks for your comment on The Longest Line. I appreciate it. And I'm glad you 
brought it up because it's a good example to bring into the discussion. As I 
see it, The Longest Line couldn't possibly exist in any other form than it is 
presented in. It's made for the web browser and even borne out of web culture 
(the infinite scroll). I can't think of any other means of presenting it and 
having the piece actually "work". However, my experiment with the single pixel 
on the screen doesn't work even though it's constructed with web technology and 
conceptually borne out of digital concepts (the pixel). It's too hard to see 
the pixel, causing the art work to be far less interesting than it could be. 
So, my first reaction was, screw it, I'll just make the "pixel" a 10x10 pixel 
square even though the code presented is for a 1x1 square. But I always get too 
involved in the conceptual side. That part of me thought, "No, you can't do 
that. The code says 1x1, therefore the pixel must be 1x1." That's when it 
occurred to me that I could, for instance, turn it into a tee shirt design. It 
would still show the code but, since it's no longer on a computer screen, I get 
to determine the size of the pixel. Which got me to thinking, hey... what about 
creating work with code as my medium but instead of a computer or software 
interpreting the codes, I can interpret them in my own head and construct them 
any way I want. So, I really just began this discussion to justify my own 
conceptual choices. But I'm glad people can apply the ideas in different ways.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:03 PM Julian Brooks 
mailto:li...@julianbrooks.net>> wrote:
Hi Pall,

As a fairly recent netbehaviourist I'm kinda saddened that justifying
existence is still a thing for digital artists (esp here)...

For my music practice I think of code (Pd mainly) as instrument and
laptop as tool.

Anyhow, this 'wrong-ness' puts me in mind of some Gavin Bryars pieces,
where things like chinese-whispered scores, near-impossible realisations
over vast dimensions and inaudible content form the various pieces -
most often with great titles (his website seems to be down so can't
share many links but e.g.
https://britishmusiccollection.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/scores//3098w.pdf
or a realisation of one here:
http://www.pores.bbk.ac.uk/issues/issue5/poetry-and-music/JamesSaundersandJohnLely

Music's good (experimental esp.) for this kinda thing...

Re the pixel -- I'm maybe overthinking but isn't it then an object
(which is fine) but not a pixel (it would perhaps require defining
physical image resolution, which, for me, is kinda interesting
conceptually also. Hmmm:)

Cheers,

Julian

P.S. Can I do a quick fanboy thing and say The Longest Line was one of
my favourite pieces of 2019 <:hands>.



On 22/09/2020 17:07, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-22 Thread Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
Hi Julian,
Don't get me wrong. I'm not really trying to justify the existence of
anything. Rather, I'm trying to justify my own notion that I've created
some art with computer programming that works better outside of the
computer and digital realm.

Thanks for your comment on The Longest Line. I appreciate it. And I'm glad
you brought it up because it's a good example to bring into the discussion.
As I see it, The Longest Line couldn't possibly exist in any other form
than it is presented in. It's made for the web browser and even borne out
of web culture (the infinite scroll). I can't think of any other means of
presenting it and having the piece actually "work". However, my experiment
with the single pixel on the screen doesn't work even though it's
constructed with web technology and conceptually borne out of digital
concepts (the pixel). It's too hard to see the pixel, causing the art work
to be far less interesting than it could be. So, my first reaction was,
screw it, I'll just make the "pixel" a 10x10 pixel square even though the
code presented is for a 1x1 square. But I always get too involved in the
conceptual side. That part of me thought, "No, you can't do that. The code
says 1x1, therefore the pixel must be 1x1." That's when it occurred to me
that I could, for instance, turn it into a tee shirt design. It would still
show the code but, since it's no longer on a computer screen, I get to
determine the size of the pixel. Which got me to thinking, hey... what
about creating work with code as my medium but instead of a computer or
software interpreting the codes, I can interpret them in my own head and
construct them any way I want. So, I really just began this discussion to
justify my own conceptual choices. But I'm glad people can apply the ideas
in different ways.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 4:03 PM Julian Brooks 
wrote:

> Hi Pall,
>
> As a fairly recent netbehaviourist I'm kinda saddened that justifying
> existence is still a thing for digital artists (esp here)...
>
> For my music practice I think of code (Pd mainly) as instrument and
> laptop as tool.
>
> Anyhow, this 'wrong-ness' puts me in mind of some Gavin Bryars pieces,
> where things like chinese-whispered scores, near-impossible realisations
> over vast dimensions and inaudible content form the various pieces -
> most often with great titles (his website seems to be down so can't
> share many links but e.g.
>
> https://britishmusiccollection.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/scores//3098w.pdf
> or a realisation of one here:
>
> http://www.pores.bbk.ac.uk/issues/issue5/poetry-and-music/JamesSaundersandJohnLely
>
> Music's good (experimental esp.) for this kinda thing...
>
> Re the pixel -- I'm maybe overthinking but isn't it then an object
> (which is fine) but not a pixel (it would perhaps require defining
> physical image resolution, which, for me, is kinda interesting
> conceptually also. Hmmm:)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Julian
>
> P.S. Can I do a quick fanboy thing and say The Longest Line was one of
> my favourite pieces of 2019 <:hands>.
>
>
>
> On 22/09/2020 17:07, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-22 Thread Julian Brooks 
Hi Pall,

As a fairly recent netbehaviourist I'm kinda saddened that justifying 
existence is still a thing for digital artists (esp here)...

For my music practice I think of code (Pd mainly) as instrument and 
laptop as tool.

Anyhow, this 'wrong-ness' puts me in mind of some Gavin Bryars pieces, 
where things like chinese-whispered scores, near-impossible realisations 
over vast dimensions and inaudible content form the various pieces - 
most often with great titles (his website seems to be down so can't 
share many links but e.g.
https://britishmusiccollection.org.uk/sites/default/files/migrated/scores//3098w.pdf
or a realisation of one here:
http://www.pores.bbk.ac.uk/issues/issue5/poetry-and-music/JamesSaundersandJohnLely

Music's good (experimental esp.) for this kinda thing...

Re the pixel -- I'm maybe overthinking but isn't it then an object 
(which is fine) but not a pixel (it would perhaps require defining 
physical image resolution, which, for me, is kinda interesting 
conceptually also. Hmmm:)

Cheers,

Julian

P.S. Can I do a quick fanboy thing and say The Longest Line was one of 
my favourite pieces of 2019 <:hands>.



On 22/09/2020 17:07, Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 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
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-22 Thread Bjørn Magnhildøen via NetBehaviour 
Enjoying the thread,

why see the potential pixel as a failure - or the blue line on a blue
background? from another point of view they're too perfect, a perfection
that renders invisible, no distinction between figure and background.
couldn't this rather emphasize the code aspect of the work as opposed to
the visual?

i was also thinking about a 'digital diagonal', which when made of pixels
you could prove that couldn't exist. the length of a line created by a
pixel-diagonal wouldn't be the square root of vertical+horizontal, but just
their addition. for many years i thought i'd be taking the shortest route
by going diagonally from a to b through the city, but i was wrong. if the
city is perfectly squared it doesn't matter which route you take from a to
b, the total distance is the same, vertical+horizontal.

bjørn

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:51 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> Or perhaps something like ontology beats epistemology every time! :-)
> (which brings actually my own work emphasizing the body permeating digital
> media, the body as fundamental, not cyborgian attachments, no matter the
> tacit knowledge involved.)
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 1:39 PM Pall Thayer  wrote:
>
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> Thanks for the input. I did a search for 'abacus art' and some
>> interesting stuff came up.
>>
>> It's interesting to think about the pixel as having potential, especially
>> when that potential is failure. And, I guess that's really what I'm
>> considering. That is, creating pieces that don't work in their "natural"
>> environment, the browser. For instance, if I create a web page that uses
>> javascript to draw a blue line on a blue background, the line isn't going
>> to be visible. It fails to produce the work in a compelling way because my
>> compositional considerations (the dynamics between the line and the
>> background) are lost. But if I "interpret" that code in wood and glue a
>> block of blue wood onto a blue panel, the line will be visible. It
>> strengthens the composition. So, it could be argued that the environment
>> that is intended to interpret that code fails while the same interpretation
>> in a physical material produces a completely different and possibly better
>> version.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:39 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour <
>> netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:
>>
>>> It's interesting when the two come together; I'm thinking of work I've
>>> done (and I'm sure others have) with abacus/abaci? - they're an odd mixture
>>> (today) of digital and analog of course, and when I was teaching (= allowed
>>> to teach), I used them to develop the idea of potential wells, errors, and
>>> so forth. The movement of a bead could be considered the change of a pixel,
>>> particularly in the 1 position.
>>> I hope it's possible to develop the idea of the physical somehow -
>>> within the browser or other active digital environment, the pixel is always
>>> already potential; I keep thinking of things like a lead cube on a matrix
>>> that's heated so maybe in a century it falls off its support...
>>>
>>> fascinating, Alan
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour <
>>> 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

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-22 Thread Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour 
Hi Alan,

Thanks for the input. I did a search for 'abacus art' and some interesting
stuff came up.

It's interesting to think about the pixel as having potential, especially
when that potential is failure. And, I guess that's really what I'm
considering. That is, creating pieces that don't work in their "natural"
environment, the browser. For instance, if I create a web page that uses
javascript to draw a blue line on a blue background, the line isn't going
to be visible. It fails to produce the work in a compelling way because my
compositional considerations (the dynamics between the line and the
background) are lost. But if I "interpret" that code in wood and glue a
block of blue wood onto a blue panel, the line will be visible. It
strengthens the composition. So, it could be argued that the environment
that is intended to interpret that code fails while the same interpretation
in a physical material produces a completely different and possibly better
version.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:39 PM Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> It's interesting when the two come together; I'm thinking of work I've
> done (and I'm sure others have) with abacus/abaci? - they're an odd mixture
> (today) of digital and analog of course, and when I was teaching (= allowed
> to teach), I used them to develop the idea of potential wells, errors, and
> so forth. The movement of a bead could be considered the change of a pixel,
> particularly in the 1 position.
> I hope it's possible to develop the idea of the physical somehow - within
> the browser or other active digital environment, the pixel is always
> already potential; I keep thinking of things like a lead cube on a matrix
> that's heated so maybe in a century it falls off its support...
>
> fascinating, Alan
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour <
> 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
>> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>
>
> --
> *=*
>
> *directory http://www.alansondheim.org  tel
> 718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com , sondheim ut
> gmail.com *
> *=*
> ___
> NetBehaviour mailing list
>

Re: [NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately

2020-09-22 Thread Alan Sondheim via NetBehaviour 
It's interesting when the two come together; I'm thinking of work I've done
(and I'm sure others have) with abacus/abaci? - they're an odd mixture
(today) of digital and analog of course, and when I was teaching (= allowed
to teach), I used them to develop the idea of potential wells, errors, and
so forth. The movement of a bead could be considered the change of a pixel,
particularly in the 1 position.
I hope it's possible to develop the idea of the physical somehow - within
the browser or other active digital environment, the pixel is always
already potential; I keep thinking of things like a lead cube on a matrix
that's heated so maybe in a century it falls off its support...

fascinating, Alan

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour <
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
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>


-- 
*=*

*directory http://www.alansondheim.org  tel
718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com , sondheim ut
gmail.com *
*=*
___
NetBehaviour mailing list
NetBehaviour@lists.netbehaviour.org
https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour