[NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately
sondheim at gmail.com
Tue Sep 22 18:32:47 CEST 2020
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...
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:12 PM Pall Thayer via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour at 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:
> 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:
> 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
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
*directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel
718-813-3285**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour