[PD] [OT] [artists/developers]
jcates at artic.edu
Thu Dec 4 19:45:26 CET 2003
on Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:37:16 -0500 Marc =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lavall=E9e?=
<odradek at videotron.ca> wrote:
>There's no osmosis between code and the art it can support. I have
>worked enough with artists to >understand that software and machines
>are not considered artistic when used to create art.
that depends (on the ppl involved, context, process, etc). some
[artists/developers] are engaged in [programming/artmaking] equally,
others more or less so in any direction. then there are the
collaborations which may be more or less collaborative.
>Programmers abused by artists are not artists. Maybe working "with"
>artists makes a difference, but I >don't believe it's very
>significant, only more cheerful.
this issue of abuse vs collaboration is important + so inflected by
our social-technological perspectives. some ppl feel that the idea of
cooperation between separate specialists (i.e. the "artist" +
"programmer") can only lead to inequities + exploitations while
others find situations like this can be equitable. i suppose it all
has to do w/the [goals/aspirations/intent/attitudes] of those
involved + the way the interactions are [framed/contextualized].
>PD is for me a work of art; I don't really care how it's being used,
>but since art can be created with the >help of PD, it makes it even
>more interesting, not more artistic. I used PD for automation more
>than art, >and for the joy of programming.
thats a wonderful articulation. i am personally very interested in
tool-building as an artform when the [toolset/codebase/system] itself
is considered an artwork as well as having the ability to function as
an authoring environment for [more/further/associated/independent]
* <joncates at criticalartware.net>
More information about the Pd-list