Cosmosis

Previous Entry
Main
Archive
Next Entry


Posted by David - October 15, 2006 - 18:55

Whorls upon Worlds (in three sentences)


or: A reductionist summary of the artistic aims of this project

The themes that inspired us and the ideas that came out of subsequent discussions are quite numerous, so to even try to fit them into three sentences I'm going to start by breaking the project into three major artistic components:


  1. human action and reaction: interaction/observation is made identical within this system: the fisherman gazes into the sardine can and the can gazes back into the fishman, changing both -- Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? + something about kinetic intuition

  2. generative art: how is it an art which is different than evolution/physics/geology (or any other natural generative process), aside from human construction -- possible theological implications? natural aesthetics?

  3. media output: the process of using a meta-brush (the abstract rules and laws of how the "brush" is to be used rather than direct "painting"); how much of the art-piece is from our parameters versus the generative system versus the participant? - "art as a process of interaction between the viewer and art-piece", not just a static art-object

  4. (then there is the matter of what is going on in the human subject's head, but this ruins my three-point format, so we'll leave that to them and hope to cover this section by the overflow into points 1 and 3)


I actually don't feel like making those into coherant sentences tonight, so I won't. The ideas are there.

To bring up the other three sentences and a point I keep coming back to in my thought: A lot is being made of the (stereotypical) qualities of natural science in relation/opposition to Art, but shouldn't the subject be computer science? I admit limited knowledge of the subject, but doesn't computer science have much akin to 'pure math', engineering, and art, more than natural science? It's a very different beast than the empirical natural sciences that everyone talks about when the word "science" comes up, the two should not be equivocated.

And to bring up Andrew's thoughts: I don't think that he and I come from such different worlds. The art students who entered this program (mostly) have an interest and ability with computer science, and the compsci students all have an interest and ability with art (and maybe they must, by definition, as I said in the above paragraph), but we are asked to oppose and distinguish our specialities. Maybe I'm speaking in terms which are too strong; positing a duality between Art and Science is a necessary dialectic step in approaching the issues brought up by this program. Maybe we've just got to all talk about it more.


Previous Entry
Main
Archive
Next Entry