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

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 15:48:39 CEST 2020

Hi Bruno. Didn't you and I share a hotel room in Bergen, NO many years ago?

I think I get your point. Yes, programming code is like a blueprint in a
way. That blueprint then gets interpreted by a computer or software and
then turns into an action. A movie or play script is also a blueprint but
one that gets interpreted by humans. Obviously, a human "interpretation" of
something is going to be a lot more flexible than a computer's
interpretation of code. Therein lies the main difference between those two
schematics. What I'm proposing is a bit of a hybrid. If I feel that my own
(human) interpretation of a piece of code is going to make the outcome
somehow better (or just different, if people prefer), then I'm going to do
so from the perspective of a human who knows full well how the code will
perform when interpreted by the computer. So it's still grounded in a more
restrictive outcome than a movie or play script. If I allow myself too much
freedom in my interpretation, then I might as well abandon the programming
code part and we're basically back to 60s conceptualism. I'm looking for
something similar but different.

I do believe that the text of programming code can stand on its own as
works of art and have pursued that angle for several years in my Microcodes
(http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/microcodes/) and Object Oriented Art Code (
http://pallthayer.dyndns.org/stealthiscodeart/). I see the ideas that I'm
pitching here as my "logical next step".

Best r.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:53 AM Bruno Vianna via NetBehaviour <
netbehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org> wrote:

> hi Pall
> I don't know if I'm playing devil's advocate or standing for your
> point, but it comes to my mind the idea of a blueprint, which is not
> exclusive to code. Wouldn't a script for a movie, the  lines of a
> play, be also forms of laying out a final shape? And these codes
> (text) are also self-standing pieces of art? I could go even further
> and think of the frames of a movie compared to the screened result in
> a session.
> In case, the argument is very interesting.
> Bruno
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 7:13 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:
> >
> > 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
> > *****************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > NetBehaviour mailing list
> > NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at lists.netbehaviour.org
> https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour

Pall Thayer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20200924/ae16e571/attachment.htm>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list