[NetBehaviour] Some things I've been thinking about lately
lists at julianbrooks.net
Tue Sep 22 22:03:08 CEST 2020
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:
> 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
More information about the NetBehaviour