Sorry but I tried to post this via the online form to follow the thread
but it doesn't seem to be working… or this is going to dupe.. whatev.
+++
re: need to know programming to be a digital artist?
This has been a discussion around here for a while. Here's a short post
on my blog from.. it's says august of this year, but that can't be
right… oh well the blog is f'd up:
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/programming_and_digital_art.html
In the post I argue that to make the analogy btw 'code' and 'paint' is
faulty. The real analogy is between 'code' and 'form', that is, knowing
programming as a digital artist is akin to knowing 2d formal theory as
a painter (color, shape, line etc).
Obviously a painter doesn't need to understand 2d form to be a painter
(a quick tour of Chelsea will prove that). One doesn't need to know it
to be a *good* painter either (Darger being a somewhat flawed example).
One doesn't need to know programming to be a digital artist. So the
question goes back to what GH said, look at a thing in a larger
discourse (not nm art, not digital art – but art) and decide if you
think it's good.
But some types of work need programming skills by the artist and even
the audience. I think much net art, if you don't *really* understand
how the Internet works, you won't get. If part of the subject of the
work is computer languages, the Internet or if computation is part of
the work the audience won't understand it if they don't grasp certain
concepts.
I think GH is arguing for a 'big tent' sort of philosophy – include
everyone working in digital art? But that begs the question if we're
urging folks to remove nm art from the nm ghetto, then why would you
want to be in the tent at all?
On the other hand, there's nothing more annoying than having computer
programmers look at nm or software art and judge it using standards of
programming rather than look at it as art. For example, when Galloway
released Carnivore, it was slashdotted. Many of the geeks there judged
it by it's (to them) rather simple structure ('it's just a wrapper to
some tcp-ip sniffer tool, etc blah, blah, etc'). They obviously missed
the point.
===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===
Digital art is an extremely broad term. It's a bit like saying that
all sculptors have to know how to carve stone or that all painters
have to know how to draw. However, although both of these statements
sound quite absurd, it is possible to find a tiny shimmering of truth
in them. Both of these things provide a fundamental understanding of
the respective fields. Call me old-school, but I still believe that
drawing is a fundamental artistic process and when I meet someone
with a degree in visual arts who has never drawn a nude or still life
in an academic setting, I find that absurd. To me it's like learning
multiplication without learning addition first. I'm not saying that
to be an artist you have to be good at drawing, just familiar with it
as a process of visualizing things. In the same way, I think that
programming is a fundamental process in digital arts. You don't have
to be good at it, but it will give you added insight into how a
computer works. It tells you what's going on under the hood and the
more artists know about their medium, the more compelling the work is
going to be. Remember when various institutions were soliciting ideas
from artists for internet-based artwork? They always said that the
artist wouldn't have to produce the work, they could get a computer
programmer to do that. The artist just had to provide the idea. All
of that work was garbage. Something gets lost in the translation
between artist and programmer. G. H. Hovaginyam's statement,
"Computer programing and art are two different methods of thinking
and perception." is right as long as your talking about computer
programming by a computer programmer and art by an artist. But an
artists methods of thinking and perception remain the same whether he/
she's painting, sculpting, writing or programming. So, no. A digital
artist doesn't need to know how to program. However, I think he/she
would only benefit from knowing about programming and the more the
better. However, if we change the discussion to programmed art,
specifically. Then yes, the artist needs to know how to program.
Pall
On 10.11.2005, at 17:22, t.whid wrote:
> Sorry but I tried to post this via the online form to follow the
> thread but it doesn't seem to be working… or this is going to
> dupe.. whatev.
>
> +++
>
> re: need to know programming to be a digital artist?
>
> This has been a discussion around here for a while. Here's a short
> post on my blog from.. it's says august of this year, but that
> can't be right… oh well the blog is f'd up:
>
> http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/
> programming_and_digital_art.html
>
> In the post I argue that to make the analogy btw 'code' and 'paint'
> is faulty. The real analogy is between 'code' and 'form', that is,
> knowing programming as a digital artist is akin to knowing 2d
> formal theory as a painter (color, shape, line etc).
>
> Obviously a painter doesn't need to understand 2d form to be a
> painter (a quick tour of Chelsea will prove that). One doesn't need
> to know it to be a *good* painter either (Darger being a somewhat
> flawed example). One doesn't need to know programming to be a
> digital artist. So the question goes back to what GH said, look at
> a thing in a larger discourse (not nm art, not digital art – but
> art) and decide if you think it's good.
>
> But some types of work need programming skills by the artist and
> even the audience. I think much net art, if you don't *really*
> understand how the Internet works, you won't get. If part of the
> subject of the work is computer languages, the Internet or if
> computation is part of the work the audience won't understand it if
> they don't grasp certain concepts.
>
> I think GH is arguing for a 'big tent' sort of philosophy –
> include everyone working in digital art? But that begs the question
> if we're urging folks to remove nm art from the nm ghetto, then why
> would you want to be in the tent at all?
>
> On the other hand, there's nothing more annoying than having
> computer programmers look at nm or software art and judge it using
> standards of programming rather than look at it as art. For
> example, when Galloway released Carnivore, it was slashdotted. Many
> of the geeks there judged it by it's (to them) rather simple
> structure ('it's just a wrapper to some tcp-ip sniffer tool, etc
> blah, blah, etc'). They obviously missed the point.
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/
> subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/
> 29.php
>
–
Pall Thayer
p_thay@alcor.concordia.ca
http://www.this.is/pallit