Well that aged like milk.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
51–60 of 88 posts
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#52A lot of people seem to be missing the relevance of this critique to NFTs. It's actually uncannily prescient, politically and economically.
and similar to NFTs the artists involved in early computer art also faced harassment
"Indifferent as many critics and curators were, there were some responses to computer art that were considerably more severe. In fact, computer art has aroused the kind of extreme resentment that characterized many of the idolatry controversies scattered through the history of art. Beyond the sabotaging of computers, physical attacks have been made on artists for their involvement with such devices, and the careers of art curators have been significantly damaged by their participation in computer art exhibitions. Though it is commonly accepted that computer art was unpopular upon its arrival, many are unaware of the level of vitriol directed toward computer artists. In a case reaching the levels of harassment and personal attack, Grace Hertlein reported that she was called a “***” and “traitor” by a fellow artist, who saw her choice of medium as morally questionable and as a complete rejection of authentic artistic traditions"[1]
All sounds very similar to whats happening to a lot of artists thanks to Memo Akten's cryptoart.wtf name and shame site.
[1]: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/when-the-machine-...
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#53As a high school student in the mid-1980's, I was the first to submit "computer art" to a county art contest. There being no appropriate category, it was submitted as a "print" (via previously unheard-of use of a dot-matrix printer, metal impacting inked cloth ribbon). Apparently the submission caused a great deal of consternation among the judges, some thinking it a grand advancement of arts, and others appalled at the notion. Ultimately it was accepted and won (IIRC) an honorable mention (wasn't really that artistic, just explored the medium & tools).
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure you can make art purely for yourself and never show it to anyone else.
You can make something , but what, then, makes it art? Or, to put that another way: if there is only one animal alive in a forest, and that animal produces noise intentionally, but has no organ for sensing noise, have they made a “sound”? Some words are only meaningful in the context of interpersonal communication. “Art” is, IMHO, one of them. Without an observer secondary to the artist, the question “is this art” ha…
My working definition of "art": that which is created for the sufficient purpose of being perceived.
This definition does not require the audience be not the artist. If one creates an instance for the sole purpose of being perceived by one's self alone, that is still art.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems to be a weird perspective when we know that artworks that are collaboratively made by humans exist among humans. Think of films, for example, where at the extreme ends you might look at hundreds or thousands of people collaborating on them. Sure, many people may think that the director is the central figure, (often foolishly) even going so far as to almost completely discounting the impact others have, how…
The software doesn’t contribute anything it wasn’t programmed to contribute, is my point.
Neither is the brush.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure you can make art purely for yourself and never show it to anyone else.
You can make something , but what, then, makes it art? Or, to put that another way: if there is only one animal alive in a forest, and that animal produces noise intentionally, but has no organ for sensing noise, have they made a “sound”? Some words are only meaningful in the context of interpersonal communication. “Art” is, IMHO, one of them. Without an observer secondary to the artist, the question “is this art” ha…
Why is any observer outside the artist required?
Do you not use language to describe the world to yourself and help you understand it? Can you not do the same thing with art?
Edit: After more consideration, these sorts of means of internal communication might something like internal monologues or visualization and function quite differently for different people.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Professional art is whatever you can sell as such. What i find boring with western art is that it is completely dependent on the critic and the discourse statement, in text, that must accompany any "serious" work of art. Zen and objects created under that philosophy makes no distinction between "high" and "low" art. There are multiple other approaches outside of the western paradigm. The writer of the article is sell…
There is much art being done outside of "erudite" circles. But still, all art is dependant on the appreciation of others.
I drew nude self portraits as part of therapy to help me recover from childhood sexual abuse.
Some of them made me cry in relief and help me put down terrible, terrible baggage.
I think some of those images were shared with one or two people. It's been a lot of years and I really can't remember (how many/if all were shared and other details) because sharing them or not sharing them apparently didn't make much impression on me, but I do still remember breaking down and crying as the shackles of the chains in my soul broke and fell away and turned to dust because of the act of making the drawing.
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#58From the article: "Questions like 'is a computer creative' or 'is a computer an artist' or the like should not be considered serious questions, period." Interesting that the concept that the computer is somehow doing the art itself, missing the point that a computer is a tool just like a paintbrush, was even around in '71. One wonders when the paintbrush was invented if people argued people should still finger paint,…
Professional art is whatever you can sell as such. What i find boring with western art is that it is completely dependent on the critic and the discourse statement, in text, that must accompany any "serious" work of art. Zen and objects created under that philosophy makes no distinction between "high" and "low" art. There are multiple other approaches outside of the western paradigm. The writer of the article is sell…
> What i find boring with western art is that it is completely dependent on the critic and the discourse statement, in text, that must accompany any "serious" work of art.
I live near a large art museum that has, for each piece, a plaque with the name, artist, year, and at most a paragraph or two of usually-historical context (and sometimes not even that).
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#59A lot of people seem to be missing the relevance of this critique to NFTs. It's actually uncannily prescient, politically and economically.
NFT = Non-Fungible Token
Re: There Should Be No Computer Art (1971) [pdf]
#60There was a time I was deeply involved in procedural generated art. Everything has changed since I started working. But hey, I got come pretty cool experiments from that fase. Like this one: https://victorribeiro.com/showFractal/
I really like your site, especially Nightwave Radio. Are the names of the songs available somewhere? If not, I have no problem coming back to your website to listen!