a reply to Manovich's "<a href="/cgi/to.cgi?t=267">The Death of Computer Art</a>"

In response to Lev Manovich's article about the convergence of the art
world and the computer art world [RHIZOME CONTENTBASE, 10.23.96], I
would just like to forward this thought: If you don't think that the
"art world" and the "computer art world" are going to converge, just
look at Laurie Anderson's new CD, "Puppet Motel". It, I believe,
contains all of the criteria that you set forth as being artistic and
Duchampian. In addition, I feel it is simplistic to describe
"postmodernism" by the three charcteristics you list, however, assuming
that your description of "Turing-land" is accurate, compare it with the
first films ever made as examples of attempts to create with a new
artistic(?) technology. When the film camera was first invented, they
just shot footage of people running and waving and trains going by and
stuff.

"Puppet Motel" is art as is "Scrutiny in the Great Round" by Tennessee
Rice Dixon. The coming convergence that you suggest will happen
(computers, communication, and television), should also herald by
necessity the growth of the computer (or the combination technology) as
a new artistic medium. Just imagine this: As the computer and
television combine and eventually create an affordable product, what if
visual art adapted to the medium in the same way that popular music
adapted to recording. You would go buy your favorite visual artist's
latest CD or cartridge or whatever the format is for the equivalent of a
$14.95 music CD today. […] It is my opinion that the future computer
art will be somewhere in between the movie, the album, and the game.

This is not to say that it will replace more traditional art forms, such
as painting. Quite simply it won't because there is too much money tied
up in something like painting. People are going to protect their
investments. Painting may eventually be thought of in the way that most
people think of classical music today. God knows it seems like
everybody is ready to write off painting as an exhausted medium.
Sculpture has almost been written off as such. My feeling is that the
people saying that everything has been done are approaching it from the
wrong direction. In order to truly appreciate a form of art such as
painting, you have to love the medium. Then if every artist is an
individual and is honest about their feelings, then every painting will
be individual. The person who sees less just isn't looking hard enough
or doesn't really care. You never hear anybody saying that everything in
Haiku has been done. Do you?

It is my opinion that if computer art, at this point, doesn't meet your
standards for "Duchamp land", it is because it is not art, it never was
art, to refer to it as such is mistaken, the term "computer artist" is
loosely applied, in short I guess its just a matter of semantics. You
are trying to compare apples and oranges. But, anyway, the fine art
family I think will move into the computer neighborhood, like it or not.

As a matter of fact, a true Duchampian might present a computer running
"leisure suit larry" or something, as art.

Another disconnected thought- Several years ago there was an exhibition
in the Museum of Modern Art of Pop Culture as Art, currated by the new
director. Is it not possible that they could run an exhibition of
computer games as a new language or art form? The difference it seems
between what you term as "computer art" and fine art is not so much
content as intent.

Another disconnected thought- Just because fine art is approached from
one way generally right now, doesn't mean it will always be (art patrons
are trendy).

Another disconnected thought- there are "Computer Art" shows that deal
with the fine artist using the computer as a medium (check out
http://www.thing.net/~pomaga/) at which if the computer were to crash
the participants might consider it as you say a "wonderful dada-like
accident" (maybe not-that's a whole other discussion)

anyway, just some thoughts.