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

Julian Brooks lists at julianbrooks.net
Tue Sep 22 22:03:08 CEST 2020

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.
or a realisation of one here:

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:)



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
> *****************************

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list