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

Pall Thayer pallthay at gmail.com
Thu Sep 24 20:05:54 CEST 2020

Hi all,
Here's another "sketch" where I'm sort of wrapping my head around these
ideas. Used my dog, Hambae, for this one.


On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 9:48 AM Pall Thayer <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Pall
> 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
> artist
> http://pallthayer.dyndns.org
> *****************************

Pall Thayer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.netbehaviour.org/pipermail/netbehaviour/attachments/20200924/5ec0f2c6/attachment.htm>

More information about the NetBehaviour mailing list