Slashdot Mirror
Part One: Information Arts
The fusion of culture and technology into sophisticated art forms seems obvious when you think about it. But until now, few people have. Most of society is too busy clucking about how new technologies are stealing credit cards, transmitting smut and rotting young brains.
This fusion, Wilson says, is a signal that views of art and research are evolving, broadening, integrating. As he points out, the arts and the sciences are any culture's two greatest engines: "sources of creativity, places of aspiration, and markers of aggregate identity." Before the Renaissance, they were considered the same thing -- science was called natural philosophy.
In the l960s, philosopher C.P. Snow developed his "Two Cultures" theory -- Snow asserted that those in the humanities and arts and those in the sciences have developed sufficiently different languages and worldviews that they no longer understood one another. Wilson believes that art and science/technology are no longer segregated from one another, and that the Net, the Web and pioneering work by artists and scientists are re-connecting the two, creating a new sphere of culture he calls "Information Arts."
From programming to telecom design, Wilson has brought together the work great artists and thinkers in culture and technology and shown us how they are moving closer together, even in fields like bionics, parapsychology and bioelectricity. Coders are artists, not just scientists. So are Web designers and people who paint genetic portraits.The book takes this fusion and looks at its groundbreaking influence on life, thought, cultural theory and artistic activity.
"Leonardo da Vince is well-known was history's greatest integrator of art and science, " writes Wilson, but he was by no means unique in having interests that spanned art and science. Educated people of his time were expected to. But, says Wilson, by the 20th century, science and art had already become distinct and separate fields.
New inventions have stimulated artistic experimentation in fields such as photography, cinema, sound recording, electrical machines and lights -- think of Brian Wilson, Brian Eno, U2. Wilson writes about how Xerox's PARC initiated an artist-in-residence program called PAIR, an open-ended approach in which artists and scientists and researchers jointly defined a program on culture and/or technology, with the definition of the problem becoming part of the collaboration. The book chronicles scores of other experiments in business, Academe and science labs.
So who cares about the re-connection between culture and technology? Anyone interested in either, really. The most interesting and revolutionary parts of the Net and Web -- coding, gaming, role-playing -- have always drawn on artistic as well as technological sensibilities. And many of us have had the sense that we are witnessing a re-definition of what culture is. That's of equal appeal to people like me, drawn to the culture of technology but not the machinery, and technologists, who love technology but want it to embrace culture and artistry. In subsequent columns, we'll draw from the book to talk about the "information arts," and some of the amazing work occurring now at the intersection of culture and technology.
Next: Research agendas in biology and medicine, especially biology and genetic research.
...are often the same people who insist that noone should earn money doing it.
Apparently the art of writing is dead.
I think I'll stop here.
I don't believe that it is simply technology and the arts fuseing, but rather that the arts are finding a new medium. For example, the grand art deco buildings from the 20's were "fused" with the technology of the time, but were artistic in the way they were structured.
I don't believe this is an evolution toward "information arts", but rather looking at things through the lens of techno-deity at the same thing done for years.
Interesting stuff, but not really a very cutting-edge idea. The line between art and science was destroyed a long time ago, its just been a little more obvious with computers. Special effects for movies, techno music, video games, things like that have been around since the 70s. Just because people don't appreciate the science doesn't mean that the artist didn't have to be scientific to pull it off.
For centuries, art and technology have been considered separate parts of culture
No, they haven't.
I shall stop reading here.
What about M.C. Escher who used math/math concepts extensivly in his artwork.
or Movies, a purely technological entertainment/artform only been around since the early 1900's
And we should probally gloss right over the printing press, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of stories/ideas it allowed writers to create.
*sigh*
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
This reminds me of the day in the 1980's when everyone thought they could fire their graphic artists and give standard employees graphic arts software. Result - lots of hideous graphics produced by non-artists with GA software.
I doubt Gaugain would have had any difficulty with Photoshop. Nor should any true artist today, whether or not he grew up with Photoshop, have any difficulty using any medium that he needs to get the job done.
sPh
Computers now are generating more and more "pure" art. From the use of software like Paint Shop Pro, more and more people can produce artowrk of relatively high quality. I speak from experience, being one who got sympathy high marks in my art classes in high school.
Even more dependent on technology is fractal design, which is facilitated by the high processing power of modern computers.
In this way, technology is providing a fresh, new canvas for many who couldn't or afraid to use earlier kinds of canvas.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Leonardo Da Vinci
Best Slashdot Co
Here's why (Deconstructing Katz by Lloyd Wood)
Nothing illustrates the two cultures dichotomy in the US than two contrast between the neighbors Harvard and MIT in Cambridge MA. This week's Business Week has the new president of Harvard Larry Summers on the cover. Dr. Summers has been controversial about shaking up things at Harvard. Claims graduates are not getting enough exposure to scientific ideas. Ironically Dr. Summers, an economist, got his B.S. at MIT.
Quality man.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
This article is truely a waste of time
it express's things that are already known
and not often correct.
Save the space for something more importain
That's exactly what Donald Knuth has been saying since 1974. He even goes on to tell us that the word "tech" has its roots in a greek word for "art".
We are only 28 years late.
Art and technology have always co-existed. Leonardo DeVinci was a master of art and science. Before photography was invented (another use of technology for artistic ends) most scientists hand schetched their own diagrams.
How blind can you be to not see the technological achievments in the graceful artistry of a cathedral? Or the astrologial precision found in the pyramids of Egypt and South America?
Art and technology have always been integral to each other and always will be.
"And many of us have had the sense that we are witnessing a re-definition of what culture is. That's of equal appeal to people like me, drawn to the culture of technology but not the machinery, and technologists, who love technology but want it to embrace culture and artistry."
;)
from Dictionary.com:
culture Pronunciation Key (klchr)
n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
Development of the intellect through training or education.
Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training.
Special training and development: voice culture for singers and actors.
The cultivation of soil; tillage.
The breeding of animals or growing of plants, especially to produce improved stock.
Biology.
The growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium.
Such a growth or colony, as of bacteria.
seems to me that culture's definition still hasn't changed Jon
it's a joke...don't laugh.
Sent from your iPad.
wrong.
art and science has been splitting in the last 50 years.
prior to 50 or so years ago, mahines were hand crafted, toys were works of mechanacle sculpture, the Statue of Libert, Big Ben, Effile Tower, Leaning tow of Pizza, the Pyrmids, all fuse art and technology.
Artist have cotribtued to sciencs, and every time technolgy changes, artist find a way to use it for art.
The visual of a web site may be art, but certian;y the code, or any code, is not.
with the possible exception of VB. Kidding, kidding.
With the exceptin of code desighned as art, such as the PERL poetry contest.
even then, most cases the output is art, not the code.
The code is engineering, and it can be elegant, but not art. Any body who tryies to put art into code is sacrificing there program tability, speed, and life cycle.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh, and how the Dow will reach ten billion by next week. It's a new economy, after all.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Art, technology and science have always gone hand in hand. Music and math - Pythagoras mixed music, math and astronomy. Bach mixed music and math.
Art and Anatomy - Rembrandt painted his "Anatomical Lecture" showing anatomical dissection. Artist Antonio Pollaiuolo performed dissections to learn more about the human form.
Photography is perhaps the best example of art and technology joining together.
I could probably come up with many more examples throughout all of history of when technology influenced art and vice versa but I think my point is made.
Science, Technology, and Art were never separate. Even captain caveman had to have a basic understanding of chemistry to make his art drawings. Every artist I know of who is serious about plying his trade has studied anatomy for drawing the human form. Introducing new tools in technology doesn't change anything since artists have always sought to incorporate new tools in their product, and have even invented technology to their own ends.
No. Read the Slasher's responses before asking questions. Even rhetorical ones!
-Pasty
Culture is being re-defined right before our eyes. For centuries, art and technology have been considered separate parts of culture. Now, because we live in an information society, they may be be coming together.
Well, if by "centuries" you mean "two hundred years" then true, but before industrialisation all technology was basicaly art - without strict rules, management plans and so on. To make a precise clock in the 17th century you would need knowledge but also same sometimes not very well defined skills that today make a difference between a merely good programmer and a real hacker. The same you could say about a smith (especialy a weapon smith), an architect (nothing like a "civil engineer" then) and about many other then-high-tech professions.
And look at 17th and 18th century microscopes, telescopes, clocks and all other scientific instruments - everything had to be not only useful but pretty as well.
So, I think we simply return to good old times when there was still art and poetry in technology.
Raf
And let's not forget Leonardo da Vinci. In fact the Renaissance was filled with cross-disciplinary endeavours.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
or, we could all just post extremely off-topic and completely ignore what katz wrote about.
So, how's the weather where you are today? I'm in Buffalo, NY and it's pretty dreary. Damn windy (I can hear it whistling outside my office window) and overcast. Now, I'm not a big warm weather fan, but I'd rather have some snow, since I'm going skiing this weekend. Hopefully there's still some snow out in resort country. That's all for now, since I should get some work done. I'll post back to this thread later on if I have anything else to say. If anyone has any inane off-topic garbage to spew, post here.
do not read this line twice.
I'm sorry but that is pure techno-bullshit...
In fact, art has, by nature, nothing to deal with technology. The essence of art is just to be art, whereas technology is at the service of other aims, functionalities for instance, and some of these can - of course - be art.
From this point on, the involvement of technology as a new mean to produce art, is interresting, but, in my opinion, it already reaches its limits. For instance : Websites ! Technology allows to produce beautiful content, that can go further than the regular painting in ways of interaction, evolution, and so on. But, only looking in the enormous amount of not so interrrsting productions (i.e. crap) that can be found on the Net, gives an idea of the danger to confuse, or to merge, art and technology.
Contemporary art is the product of pure talent and hard work. Technology can be useful as a media to this production, but it is only at the service of art.
Therefore, I think that marketing so-called art and technology is pointless.
The only thing I am sure of, is that real creation is really hard to find nowadays, even more as means to produce and broadcasst anything are easy to use.
WebArt is not dead, but it risks to be lost in the chaos of the Web.
"Leonardo da Vince is well-known was history's greatest integrator of art and science, " writes Wilson, but he was by no means unique in having interests that spanned art and science. Educated people of his time were expected to. But, says Wilson, by the 20th century, science and art had already become distinct and separate fields.
Hardly a counterpoint.
Two cock in my pussy! It feel so good!
.. is always changing. If you attempt to stop it from changing, that changes it.
Ask a culturer anthropologist. Any influence of any sort, or no influence at all, changes a culture.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Art and technology been separated? I don't believe that, I'm afraid. If anything, they exist in an inextricably linked chicken-and-egg sort of way.
As mentioned, art and science were not divorced prior to the end of the renaissance, and remained linked in public discourse for some time after. Only with mass industrialisation did the two begin to drift apart, but only in terms of communication, interdisciplinary study, and perception. They remained entirely linked in practical terms.
Artists have for a long time advantaged themselves of technology -- is there a tremendous difference between using engineering principles to design a graceful cathedral, using a camera to capture an image, and using thousands of lines of code to animate the locks of a characters hair? Was the camera obscura, so important in understanding optics, invented by an artist or a scientist?
With the industrial revolution, and the drive to specialization that came about due to the implementation of the assembly line (and assembly line managerial philosophy), the facility to communicate effectively between disciplines degraded. Specialization came about in such an intense way that jargon came to dominate not just art and science, but even sub-sets thereof. This made it difficult for people to communicate their ideas clearly, or even to see the numerous parallels and convergences existing within these two perceptively distinct (and only perceptively) faculties.
This was an error that occurred in social re-alignment, which is now being corrected as more people pursue interdisciplinary studies, and come to understand that it's not really apples and oranges, after all. What we are undergoing is a correction, not the introduction of a new philosophy.
In practical terms, the two have never been separated. They have merely been mis-named. This is not a re-connection of science and art that we are witnessing. It is a return to disciplinary study / application that does not rely on arbitrary dividing lines intended to increase productity through compartmentalised specialisation.
We are not doing different, we are doing as we have always done. Artists are leveraging technology, technology is leveraging art. As always.
We are simply returning to our old practice of rationally identifying the two, and being aware of their overlap and synergy.
Nothing to see here, move along, move along.
l
exploring the science and art from algorithms, robotics, quantum physics, coding, nanotechnologies, genetic and kinetic art to electrical music, telecommunications and A.I.
Mr Katz
If you can't distunguish between science and technology,
what makes us think you can distungish between science and the arts!
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
Culture (language, customs, food, music, etc.) and technology have been fused as well, but that's a separate thesis.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
For centuries, art and technology have been considered separate parts of culture.
By whom ?
Who ever said - or even thought - this?
That has to be one of the most incorrect generalizations I've ever read in my life.
Yes, Jon, that was the guy from Babylon 5.
I quote "Culture is being re-defined right before our eyes. For centuries, art and technology have been considered separate parts of culture."
#1 Culture is always being redefined, every moment, since there was culture.
#2 Talk to any art historian, art & technology have always fed off one another.
#3 Jon is drinking more than normal
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
sPh
Why does Jon Katz keep sounding more and more like John Devorak?
Maybe he is Devorak's evil twin?
It's only since the industrial revolution that they have been considered separate. For example, Da Vinci was at once a master painter and a military engineer. There are countless similar examples of this in history if one cares to open one's eyes.
Modern specialization is what has lead to this rather arbitrary distiction between 'art' and 'science'.
Mr. Katz appears to have a problem with ridiculous generalizations. It is irritating.
I think you misunderstand me. I was simply stating that instead of the proposed "don't post anything at all" we could just post off-topic. Then I rambled on about the weather and such. I do, however, agree with pretty much all of the points raised thus far in this thread. Katz is a twit, and we shouldn't have to deal with him. Or at least give him his own topic so I can block it in my prefs and never have to see his drivel again.
do not read this line twice.
Sorry to be critical, but this whole article just seems to be a bunch of unfocused ramblings - it kind of reminds me of my old history papers in University. You know the ones; write 20 pages on Triemes or something. So you just start typing mindlessly after some half-arsed research and this article is just the sort of thing that gets handed in, usually earning a 'C', if you're lucky!
Even as a call for discussion and deep thought I don't think this article works very well!
Since he was trained at MIT, he recognizes the value of being exposed to scientific ideas. Seems pretty consistent to me.
And good for him for telling those afro-american professors to cut the crap and get back to work. He deserved praise for those actions, not condemnation (which is what much of the press has done).
How can you seperate culture and technology? One is a byproduct of the other and vice versa, new technologies breed cultural changes and cultural changes bring new technologies. The telegraph/telephone and the automobile spring to mind. Furthermore, why the desire to force a division between art and science when they are both essentially the same thing with different approaches: the examination of the world we live in. And they each feed the other, new tech gives artists new tools, artists give inspiration to the ones who create the tech. Both ask questions, both look for answers.
Here's a thought: What would happen if every time John Katz posted an article, NOONE responded to it?
"Silence gives assent". In other words, by not challenging the nonsense that he writes it appears to the silent masses that he is correct.
But this article was hopeless, both from a writing viepoint and a content viewpoint. What is it? Is it a book review? The part 1 would seem to suggest not.
The clue is normally in the first paragraph - let's reread it and see. Apparently it's the first part of a series that deals with "the new intersection of art, science, and technology". What new intersection. Art has being "intersecting" with science and technology always.
Bronze is invented - before you know it some bleedin' artisan has knocked together a few brooches and statues with it. High technology hard stone chisels - some la-de-day arty farty type is carving designs with them. Someone invents plaster walls - some painter sticks a fresco on them. I'd defy him to find *any* time in recorded history that there has not been an interplay between science and art.
So the central thesis behind this (probably interminable) series of articles is moot. The event - the sundering and reconciliation - he is postulating just didn't take place.
The C.P. Snow "two culture's" bit could have been interesting (although the remarks were originally made in 1959, not "in the 1960s") but was only mentioned in passing. Sort of a commentry comparing the viewpoint of C.P. Snow (whose views did not represent a consensus even at the time) with the reality of the world today. A recent example of the interplay between the Arts and Science would be "Beagle II" where artist Damien Hurst and pop group Blur contributed material for the probe to be used on the surface of mars (one is a colour calibration chart and the other is music for telemetry purposes).
But instead we got a retread of what appears to be a not very original book.
A Jon Katz article that begins with these two words: Part One!!!
Oh...and who the hell is Leonardo da Vince??? da Vinci I know of, but da Vince?
You're using her as bait, Master!
When I think of the combination of technology and art, I think of the Canadian wood block printer Walter J. Phillips. He worked in a medium that requried study and experimentation to master the available tools (inks, and wood). Only his mastery of the technical side allowed him to express his artistic vision. This used to be called "craftsmanship". I don't see the same level of craftsmanship in other combinations of technology/art suggested by some. People experimenting with robotics (for example) seem to always push the technology component to the limits, instead of getting to a point of understanding every aspect of a subset of robotics, and using that to create some vision.
Split up that first paragraph so it doesn't take so much room on the main page, ok? Most people just want to be able to scroll past your worthless idiocy without having to look at it too much.
said something to the effect that, society is good for creating new experiences, and pretty much nothing else. in this context, it seems interesting. when a society becomes more and more about information, are its primary experiences increasingly about information?
ok, someone has to say it.
If you don't like it, don't f-ing read it. If you don't want to read Jon's articles, then go to your users page and deselect him. It isn't hard, and you aren't doing anything to anyone except annoying those of us that might actually have something to say ON TOPIC. Are you forced to read his articles? Is anyone sitting next to you with a gun making you read this?
Another Jon Katz article...*WAAA*
please, just go there and change it, add value as opposed to bitching.
Sent from your iPad.
See, that's just it. SlashDot exists to generate traffic. It doesn't matter if people come to scream and bitch, as far as /. is concerned, they're still coming.
Besides, it's clear that we're ALREADY bitching up a storm, and nothing is being done. Maybe we should try a different approach?
All I'm saying is, instead of bitching, whining, trolling and flaming, maybe we should just voice our dissent with our silence. Sometimes, in a roomful of noisy assholes, a sudden resounding silence can be the loudest, most noticable thing.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
It's not every day we get a column on
Our world is changed forever!
Again!
!!!
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
As a graduate student in philosophy writing my dissertation on early 19th-century German attempts to intergrate their conception of science and technology with their conception of the rest of human life, I think about this stuff now and then.
Mainly I think about what a scam has been pulled off on the world by a strange confluence of events early in the 20th century, which led to the idea that science and technology had always been separate from the rest of society. This kind of thinking is easily traced to both left- and right-wing political movements which gained momentum in Europe and North America after World War One. That doesn't make it false, of course; it's false for other reasons. But its falsity hasn't prevented it from becoming bible truth to many.
But my real point is this: Slashdot reader responses to Katz are, mostly, encouraging in that they show that few on this board are fooled. Of course, most of you (or most who post) are still prone to a high level of inane scientism. And perhaps you reject the dichotomy between art and technology only to assimilate art to technology. But at least you're ahead of Katz.
People have pointed out that technology being used in the creation of art is not really new. The effect of the printing press and the invention of the new mediums of photography and motion picture show this point.
Technology as subject of art is also not new. Escher was brought up. An arguement could be made that his subject was mathematics, symmetries, paradox, and the like. Da Vinchi's sketches of his inventions are famous. In general, technical drawings, architectual plans, even pictures of machines, which are not new, fall in this category.
But Information as subject could be called a new idea. The pictures of visual maps of webspace that merited a coffee table book are conjured up.
But what about the collage? How old is that? WS Burrough's tape cut ups in the 60's also could be called art with information as subject. Sampling in music as well.
Even if you grant that this is a new trend (maybe you could say that the early works just hinted at what can be done now that massive stores of information can now be sorted, color coded, and what have you) Still, does this change alone warrant the two seperate worlds joining assertion when art and science/technology have really been partners for the bulk of their history?
'laizer
There's nothing revolutionary about the melding of art and technology. It has always existed (and continues to exist in a field called 'architecture'. Architects have always had to wrestle with the same sorts of questions that now face and web designers, and the latter could learn a lot from the ideas generated by the former. American architect Louis Sullivan's famous dictum, "Form follows function" is applicable to web design as well. In both disciplines, the goal is to create something asthetically beautiful, technically sound, comfortable, and useful.
I think a lot of it has to do with our ability to represent algorithms as pretty pictures.
I remember clearly, when I was working on a project at AT&T, realizing that what the requirements people had asked for could be answered with a state machine. In that one moment I could hear Mozart in my head as this cute little machine ticked through its states.
I had in my head a picture of a piece of clockwork. That was ten years ago. Today it'd not be all that difficult to put the mental image into a picture everyone can see.
OTOH, I am not an artist. So, IMHO, what's actually happening is that tools are coming available that allow engineers easy expression of the underlying forms they manipulate.
Not art exactly, more an easy way to communicate to non-techies.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
>If you don't want to read Jon's articles, then go to your users page and deselect him. It isn't hard
I've got another reason to do that -- every post, even offtopic or troll, to a Katz article makes him seem more important. I'm surprised he ever gets triple digit total replies.
Just ignore him and when his replies never go above 10 or 20, slashdot will rid themselves of this low scorer.
Oh, the irony. This informative little piece increased his staying power by 1. Ugh.
Technology and art have been seperate eh Jon ?
D'Vinci ring a bell ? Michealangelo. For godsake the TERM Renaisance man was used, and is used, to describe someone who is able to work in BOTH fields. The idea of a multi-skilled individual who can approach the world from a new perspective. In the last 200 years the architect engineers who built the great buildings of the world were both as well. Was I.K. Brunel just an technology person or a man who created buildings, bridges etc that inspired ?
To say that this is new is to ignore centuries of history. And going even further back to the ancient Greek philosophers who pondered on matters of philiosophy, science, biology and art.
The phrase Total and Utter anal gazing muppetry comes to mind.
If this article was a post it would have a -2 mod count.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Believe it or not, I haven't looked at user preferences in over a year. I didn't realize you could do this. Thank you!
Sorry to bitch; I didn't realize this was so easily correctable.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Wow, I just wanted to say, I've only been reading this site for a few days. Normally the stories and reader commentary here are very good, but who the heck is this Katz fellow?
Where does he come from, what are his credentials and qualifications? I mean really - not to be *mean* or anything - but this fellow really doesn't write all that well. If I were to turn in this "essay" in my high school English class, I probably would have got a C- on it.
Also, looking over some of the commentary, it seems like some reader posts have been "moderated" to a status of -1, simply because the writer posted his/her opinion of Jon Katz. Does this kind of thing happen a lot around here? I HATE to judge before all the facts are in, but it's beginning to appear that the moderation system here MIGHT BE slightly flawed. I'm going to sit and think about this some more.
Surely the creators/maintainers of this site pay close attention to reader commentary and they will make the necessary adjustments.
Nope, I'm sure the that the recipients of the cash for all those banner hits are thrilled that Katz inspires mini-Katz flames everytime he posts something. :) I definitley find it amusing, if the Katz haters didn't want him around, (ignoring the obvious filter him) they wouldn't post at all, if he wasn't drawing a single comment he'd probably get the ax. Personally I like to see his psuedo-intellectual, pompous, bullshit. It just reminds me how lucky I am to be intelligent. ;)
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
According to my university, the difference between science and art is two semesters of a foreign language.
But I'd have to echo the previous sentiments stating that technology and artistic media have always gone hand-in-hand. Artistic concept tends to be quite independent of technology, unless technology is its subject.
How about a plug for Hofstader's excellent "Godel, Esher, Bach"? Great read.
Some of us have fallen in love with the notion of giving without reserve-Raoul Vanegiem, Revolution of Everyday Life
Whoever says that art and tech have never much thought about the likes of Lenardo Da Vinci or even Roman aquaducts....
C P Snow was writing at a time when British higher education was split between a humanities track (which was followed by most of those who went on to run the country) and a science/technology track (more a path for the striving middle class). This led to oddities such as Latinists being in charge of nuclear-research establishments. Large industrial corporations were also being run by twits with no practical knowledge, but lots of connections. Snow's concerns led, among other things, to the Labour party's obsession with technocracy in the late 60's (see Subject line for Harold Wilson's famous one-liner), and to abortive attempts to reform education by levelling down and imposing comprehensive education on an unwilling public.
To a lesser extent, the same split was happening in the US, and John Kennedy similarly promoted the sciences to the elite, though less coercively. The US already had techies in the boardroom and Cabinet at the time (McNamara ring a bell?).
Historically, the trend observed by Snow was an aberration, more evident in Britain than the US, and it's far less pronounced now than it was 40 years ago. The re-convergence started long before the first microchip.
Katz very evidently failed to understand the context of Snow's book, and as a consequence, drew trivial conclusions. The guy makes even Alvin Toffler look deeply insightful by comparison.
This essay misses a crucial, yet subtle, distinction between art and technology, that of utility. It is the common practice of our modern technology oriented culture to assume that all aspects of life, and all aspects of intellect somehow correlate with or eventually will be augmented by technology. This assertion, though compelling, remains to be proved in any substantial way.
The use of paint programs, and computer graphics hardly represents a revolution in the field of art. On the contrary, your assertion that Leonardo Da Vince was a technologist is hopelessly contradictory with your conclusion. Da Vince is known to have cut open corpses and examined their innards. The key here, is that that Da Vince's purpose was not to revive or revitalize the corpses, his purpose was to examine their internal *form* to understand perfectly how to represent them in *art*.
The ancient ideal of *form* is a key aspect of classical art, one that has been nearly erased in modern times, and this is why it is easier to assume that technology and art are the same thing. The underlying principal is that ideal form has a deep and lasting appeal, whereas so much of technology represents a compromise between form and utility, for profit, for performance, for a number of reasons that should never come into consideration in art!
Leave your compter behind and visit an art museum!
First STFU, Katz post!
Eat it, Jon. You are not interesting.
Can we look forward to have /. less tied to US internal politics ?
./Africa or ./Asia or ./SouthAmerica
./EU would be fine
as I guess
Many issues can be shared but internal US is
- just internal - boring internal.
Generally the posts have dismissed the premise of the article, albeit by pointing to the most obvious counterpoint in the person of Da Vinci whom Mr. Katz addressed. In addressing C.P. Snow and the idea of two cultures the article ties itself to popular culture and the era of the popularizers like Snow. Popular culture is of and for the masses and often, if not always draws, on vague general ideas in an exploitive manner. Putting aside the views of those who promote pop culture and looking at science and art one can readily see there has never been a distinction or cultural divide between the two as they both spring from the same source, that source being imagination. Bertrand Russel spoke of the transcendent bliss of new mathematical insights, Einstein spoke of seeing his theories first in images. Rigorousnes, robustness and elegance are the hallmarks of works of genius and are as much the markings of great science as great art. It is from the wellspring of imagination (whatever it may be ) that art and science grow. The popular view of the process and its products are just another bastardization replete in buzz words and catch phrases.
BTW can anyone point me to any material detailing the killing of Archemedies. I'm particularly interested in knowing if the soldier who killed him gave a detailed account and what if any punishment he suffered. Thnx in advance
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
the Web's premium socio-technical website?
ROTFLMAO!
"As a professional internet website commentator, it is worth noting that the social dynamic of the hydroponic chamber is reacting in a stagnantly non ever changing way. Why would such a quadnary exist. All of this hatred and anger may have united millions of analogous people across various socio-economic divides to become one.
(*** Imagine 4 more pages of this cruft ***)
In conclusion, it is obvious to me that everybody on this website hates one man. Who could this man be? Maybe we will never know, or maybe I just refuse to listen. It's a sign of the times.
-JonBatz "
^
|--- checks URL. Is this Slashdot or Wired? Hmmm, loose connections used to base a point of view towards an inconsistent conclusion. Well, this is either a Wired article ripped off from some old 1996 issue or Katz is sniffing the glue that keeps his iMac together. Katz, this "two cultures" stuff is older than me! Surely we can try... just a little, to push past the same old academic rhetoric into a truthful exploration of the real sociological and... oh never mind.
Weren't Dismukes and Jonides the original essayists on this issue in the 60s? Wasn't Snow merely part o that "movement" to get science and social arts/humanities to converge. The point being to have more American scientists. You know, like the evil commies.
Digital technology may have lots of artists in the industry. But that's only because we cannot get work drawing anymore. Computers do that now. Sociological convergence of arts and sciences happens in the work place, not school or the home. Something Prof. Snow and the lads tried desperately to do in the 1960s. Were they successful? Well, some scientists got on Johnny Carson.
But I cannot help but feel this is yet another zig zag from the truth, a common flaw in some columns. Follow the money. Don't you think money is THE factor in all sociological trends? You better believe it.
It's not about smut, stealing credit cards, etc. It's about Enron and Imperialism. Technology is just another "thing" to make money. No one ever created a network or a program or a computer for the good of humankind. Ever. Scientists, like artists, work for a patron. The only difference is that no one ever nuked a city with a painting. Digital Technology is mealy another product used to create and control markets. Art and science have nothing to do with these things yet it's forced to use these "tools" whether they do the job better than a slide rule or not. It is my humble opinion that talking about the separate nature and/or possible convergence of the arts and sciences is a mote point as money will always control every aspect of each.
Leonardo da Vinci, Monet, H.G.Wells, and all the rest were generally forgotten except for a privileged few in academic circles. Their impact can only be slightly felt these days as their accomplishments are attributed to government agencies and patent holders almost as much as the pyramids are thought to be built by f*cking aliens.
Thanks for another article that states the same things people read in the 1960s! This is progress I suppose...
Someone sure is burning a lot of mod points to kill the metadiscussion though, aren't they? The owners perhaps?
Weather in the central midwest today started out sunny but turned a bit gloomy by midmorn. No identifiable acts of terrorism have yet occured. Serious question of whether snowboarding, whether done with a half pipe or a full pipe, is a sport, is drowned out by the discussion of whether or not any winter activity is in fact a sport.
sPh
Just buy alot of smoke and make keif, then put that in a vaporizer. Or just keep resinating a large pipe....scraping and resmoking the resin and just use really good pot in it, and eventually you'll get pur oil to put over your weed...yummy.
Uh, guys, "art" is from the Latin "ars" which translates to "technology", as in "ars metallica". (My latin spelling is worse than my Englis)
I have been praticing this art for years now and I did it manually so far. Could technology help us to keep our most loved pets healthy ?
Robert Prisig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance deals with this topic- there are commonalities between the cultural and technical.
In some ways these will never be joined: culture is powered by symbols, the technical world by signs.
Just remember to put scare quotes around nearly every word, and interpret it in that way.
The seperation of Art and Science was a creation of the "Arts and Crafts" movement in the Victorian era. Basically the Brits saw the educated French plebs doing better than their uneducated British counterparts and set out to match them. Unfortunately they asked a complete and utter berk called William Morris who argued that arts and science were different and arts should be held above.
Jon's article is wrong for many reasons, but the above is true. What Jon totally and utterly neglects is the fact that in most European countries except the UK there isn't this seperation. Engineers and Scientists are revered in France and Germany and when you say "I've got an Engineering Degree" people are impressed as they know its hard, if you say "I've got a degree in Marketing" they know you are a fool.
So Jon missed out the historical background (nice one) and presented an English speaking only view.
So much for the searching and inclusive nature of the internet.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I'm still contemplating whether I should or not. Currently I only read the comments on the article not the article itself (for the movie reviews, I usually find a better and shorter idea of what the movie is like that way and for everything else...well maybe it's morbid curiosity :-).
/.) that could be seen as representing the view of the /. community.
/. community (I don't feel it's that diverse in the opinion of this author) then to ignore him and letting him get away with his articles.
/. moderators don't try to figure out what it's readers want or don't want. Sometimes you really need a vote. But that's up to the /. moderators
I usually browse at +2 and what strikes me is that nearly every comment is negative, either towards the article or towards the writer.
I do agree that if you don't like the writer you could just turn him off (I haven't done this to any topic or author including Katz as I'm an information junky).
The negativety of the other comments revolve around inaccuracies or a certain lack of knowledge/feeling for the subject by Katz. This can't be determined by the fact that Katz has written it (although it does seem to go into that direction).
I have seldom found any comment (maybe they're modded down) by Katz trying to discuss his point of view (I can see this is an almost undoable task but it is warranted with the amount of posts against the articles). Katz seems to be using slasdot as his personal forum instead of a place to discuss the internet. Very one way.
I wonder what would happen to Katz if we all turn him off. I'm really doubtfull that this would stop Katz from posting (and therefore putting an opinion up on
I think most would rather say they don't like his articles as to make the point of the diversiveness of the
I usually do my talking with mod points. But maybe I should stop bothering, I don't know yet.
I also don't understand why the main
(damn there goes my karma)
Here's the author's page, with links to Amazon, and some other reviews of the book...
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
That's not always true, in fact that's so rarely true that it has no basis in reality whatsoever. Especially not in a discussion forum. Especially not on
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Art has always been affected by technology. Artists have always used technology in their work, sometimes as a type of social statement, but mostly because it offers a new medium with different possibilities.
Painters have always looked for new paints that offer new textures and hues. Or they look for new ways to reproduce and distribute their work. The introduction of photography is one example. At first people thought it was a surrogate for painting, but soon people exploited it as a medium on its own terms. From a social point of view, too, photography became a way to transport people to events that already occured, in a way that painting and sketching just couldn't do.
Musicians always look for new ways to use technology. DJs scratching records come to mind, the turntable is a musical instrument based on mechanical reproduction, both a social statement about reproducing and manipulating someone else's recording, and an art form unto itself. Scott Joplin's mechanical syncopated piano rolls also come to mind, in this case his style was very much influenced by the limitations of the technology (no loud/soft dynamics). How about today's "glitch" music (like kid606, etc), based on manipulating sound at the sample level, and exploiting "digital decay" for artistic effect.
I bet this same "Katzenjammer" could've been written at any point in history. Yawn.
I don't even read the articles anymore, but I love the new and creative ways people can find to bash on Katz. That, my friends, is the true inspiration: That when the time comes for namecalling the Geek community will ALWAYS win with out witty words.
Other then C.P. Snow, what else is there to show that art and science ever diverged, or that this was even a popular view? The whole "Two Cultures" thing is popular to throw around in academia, but it is often forgotten rather quickly (I have forgotten it twice myself, I'll have to dig up my copy of it sometime so I can forget it again). There is more of a split between academia and reality than there has ever been between art and science.
How many times have people talked about "the art of" something and "the science of" the same thing in the same sentence? Better yet, how many times has this been used in commercials? This is the tired old element of painting something as more of one thing and saying that you do the other (meaning that you must be far superior to the competition), and this is the same thing that Katz is trying to push. By giving techies and coders the new title of "artist," the intent is to elevate them beyond their current status with nothing more than empty rhetoric.
Sure there's room for a lot of art in science, but as long as the science is dominant in a particular field, people in it are not likely to be recognized for their artistry, just like artists who make use of technology to create their art are not known as scientists - you have to do more than use the art or science to be an artist or scientist. There are plenty of art-dominant areas to play around in if you want the title of artist (and the criticism that comes with it) - poetry, photography, music (even computer generated music), etc.
Living in a technological society isn't a reflection of the level of advancement of that society, it's a reflection of the stances inherent in everyday life. Heidegger's "The Question Concern Technology" addresses this - that we approach the world as a set of problems to be addresed technologically, and this in turn structures our perception of society and nature. Technologies themselves will also transform how we percieve of the world.
Insofar as some (not all) artists see themselves as having the task of documenting the unconscious of a society, they may immerse themselves in technologies in order to retrieve insights about their effects on our culture.
What about sculptures? Bronze? Marble? How do they do it, Jon? Do you know?
Perspective in painting? How old is that? And how after the invention of the book until people invention page numbers, Jon? Do you know? (It was eighty years, Jon).
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
Ahh well. Down with the ship I go, as I watch my karma being obliterated.
Things seem to be getting colder here. I can almost see my breath, and I'm indoors. I would say most winter activities could be called sports, with the possible exceptions of figure skating (more of a hobby, really), ice dance (pass time) and curling (shuffleboard on ice?). Hockey, however, is the sole reason for watching the winter games. Go Canada!!!!!!
Still haven't seen any terrorists lurking around, but I wasn't really expecting to see any. I seem to recall a half dozen other instances since 9-11-01 when we were 'warned' of possible terrorist attacks, all to no avail.
Oh, and as for the mod points wasted on this thread, do you suppose Katz has the same unlimited mod points that the editors have?
do not read this line twice.
Science is the Art
,Engenering is Craft
,Tehcnology is just a product.
I don't want to wade into an endless debate about what art is, the medium vs. the message, etc..., however the one thing that bothers me in Katz's (unedited) article is the weight given to technology as opposed to the comparitively diminuitive role the word 'art' plays.
It's as if there is a desperation to associate any technology with art to the extent that art itself takes a backseat to whatever the latest mode of creation is.
I urge anyone impressed by this article to think about this. I urge anyone who forgets this article within five minutes to celebrate.
Lastly, it's 'DaVinci', not 'DaVince'.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
I disagree (obviously) but
I'm not sure how that aphorism was ever regarded as true.
It comes from Plato, and the apology of Socrates. But in a legalistic sense it comes from the Trial of Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor to King Henry VIII, when More was charged with treason for refusing to swear an Oath the the King was Head of the Church of England (and, crucially never actually speaking of it at all). During his trial, More got the jury to agree that, legally, silence had to be treated as assent in the absence of other evidence. He was still found guilty, but the legal priciple was established then in common law.
This is dramatised in "A Man for All Seasons". There is a particularly good passage in it which is pertinent to current times, especially in the USA:
Roper (More's Son-in-Law):"So now you'd give the devil benefit of law?"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"
R:"I'd cut down every law in England to do that,"
M:"And when the last law was down, and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper?"
M (to himself): "This country's planted thick with laws, from coast to coast: man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
I remember that bit from Plato, but we're talking about two different things here. It is the vocalization of displeasure (or interest in other topics) that is the lifeblood of a topic. If a topic got little or no posts or viewings the editors would probably not be as willing to post it. I probably worded my previous post to far to the extreme, silence can of course imply assent, but not, I feel, in this case. Silence in respose to a direct query is more likely to imply assent (or guilt) but here the silence is ignoring the worthless topics, hopefully killing them.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
The computer is a tool that can be used for many things. About two years ago it became a tool that could afordably create a piece of visual art that was on par with the traditional analog way of doing things. Yes I know you could get high quaility stuff before that, but I'm talking afordable, not just available.
Just because artist have a new tool doesn't mean that it changes the relationship that the arts have always had with technology.
"Jon's article is wrong for many reasons, but the above is true. What Jon totally and utterly neglects is the fact that in most European countries except the UK there isn't this seperation. Engineers and Scientists are revered in France and Germany and when you say "I've got an Engineering Degree" people are impressed as they know its hard, if you say "I've got a degree in Marketing" they know you are a fool.
So Jon missed out the historical background (nice one) and presented an English speaking only view."
Maybe that is what he has in store for us tomorrow?
all kidding aside, Slashdot is US centric. I don't think in the general public's mind that engineers(like me!) and scientists rate that highly as compared to other countries. Look at what most people study in college, it certainly isn't "hard" as compared to the sciences.
Now back to the topic, in school can one really "learn" art? In my field, there is definatly an art to designing circuits, but I don't believe you can "teach" design. Yes you can show theories and give examples to emulate, but there are very few designers and most engineers work in some sort of support function(test engineers, app engineers etc).
Will studying compostion make you a better designer? Probably not, but i could understand how someone who is succesfull in the "art" of engineering would still have that creative spark which could carry over in to traditional arts (painting, sculpture etc).
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Can't you find somewhere else to spew this nonsense?
We are, say some people who study such things, at a critical place in history..."
And exactly why is this more 'critical' then any other moment in history?
Please, only use phrases like this, or 'the world will never be the same..', or 'this will change our lives forever', etc, etc, only if you really mean it, not just because you think it makes your article sound more important.
I hate those Katz articles, but I love the discussions it generates. Especially the way all of his points get torpedoed one-by-one.
- Hermann Helmholtz, On The Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for The Theory of Music, Introduction
The issue is that art is about ambiguity, and science is about clarity. It is difficult to understand how to make ambiguities clear. It goes beyond thinking about what is probable (i.e., what usually occurs) to what is possible (i.e., what can occur). If only we could learn to understand each level atomically, we could do neat things like build more secure software.
Free software can be designed better because of its freedom from the economic urgency to settle for mere statistical understanding (mere art). The "open-source economic model" can spoil that aspect of free software by involving monetary profit, when the profit of having science-grade software is enough incentive.
The issue, therefore, is as it has been since the beginning: "how and why do we fund science?". The open-source model is a hack to capitalism-as-it-is-practiced, and we will therefore have to deal with the side effects of capitalism-as-it-is-practiced. Being involved in open-source, to me, is like being involved in a union. It is a reaction to capitalism.
# make clean sig
Philosophy and Religion should be added into this fusion as well. Principals one the exclusive domain of philosophers (whether religious or secular), such as duality, instantaneity, and uncertainty are now being fully embraced by science and technology. These once ephemeral, "unknowable" aspects are now being described with mathematics and harnessed in the lab to produce work or informational results.
How different is the Taoist concept of yin and yang (the dual nature of all things) to the wave / particle duality of light? How different is the Judeo-Christian notion that god exists but is unknowable from Heisenberg's uncertainty principal (which states that, while electrons exist, you can not know both the particles velocity and position), or the cornerstone notion in quantum physics that a particle occupies all possible realities until it is observed or measures.
This fusion too expands the notions of technology, science and art encroaching upon each other's territory.
I'll now make the legally required reference to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintinence. How new can this concept be if a large percentage of that book was dedicated to the discussion of this very issue?
Can't say the Internet made *that* happen.
-the verb
I think Katz may have a point, but this
Culture is being re-defined right before our eyes. For centuries, art and technology have been considered separate parts of culture.
just doesn't hold true for most Eastern civilization, specially India.
Not for centuries, but for several millenia have Indian artists and scientists shared the same ground of research.
For example, the amazingly rich Hindustani (northern) system of music interpretaion and performance owes a lot to some 10th century scientists, such as Amir Kusro, who was a musician, a poet, an astronomer, a painter, a mathematician and an all-round researcher.
Actually, some treaties on instrument building and research dates back to the early Vedic times (roughly 5000 years ago). In fact the Vedic scriptures talk about devotion to God, but also about medicine, logic, math, astronomy, and lots more. But I digress.
So Mr. Katz... a little more research wouln't be out of the question, don't you think?
Txurlo
Read for yourself ;)
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Regardless of pithy comments AC's have to offer, this is neither accurate nor new. "State of the Art" comes to mind. Is the cg in Tron not art? Laser light shows? The butt ugly architecture of the 70's? The beautiful Konsai(sp?) Airport? Modern graceful bridges?
Ever since man found fire, and began to share his knowledge, there has been a boundry between what is known and true, and what his intuition told him. To me, that is the domain of art. Where the knowledge can be described with paper and pencil and some formal model its technology. But when it leaves that domain, and you're counting on someone's skilled hand, be it behind a welding torch, or a keyboard, that is art.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
The essence of art is just to be art
Art for arts sake is a very new concept (>100 yrs). Art has always been tied into the very fabric of all parts of society. In the 18th century (and before) paintings such as The Wreck of the Medusa where circulated to spread information, the same was done during the Industrial revolution to spread the word about the inventions and the social change. At the begining of the 20th century people such as Diego Rivera where makeing murals on industrialists walls that advocated a change in the way an industrialized society should be structured, that had every thing to do with technology and jack to do with art.
only looking in the enormous amount of not so interrrsting productions
Just because people have the tools, doesn't mean they know how to use them. Not every (re very few) movie that come out of Hollwood is worth your time to even watch the damn preveiw. The same goes for TV, music, books, magazines,conversations even.
Contemporary art is the product of pure talent and hard work
Mostly true, but shouold probably be stated as Good Contemporary work. There's a lot of crap out there, people putting bongs and shit into galleries and calling it art.
Technology can be useful as a media to this production, but it is only at the service of art
Well that's kind of the whole point as to why the two are so intermingled. Technology is a tool, artists use tools, they also make new tools when what they need can not be found. Artist are a part of society, and they react to society. Technology is part of society and also reacts. Both artists and technology are part of society and they react to each other.
The only thing I am sure of, is that real creation is really hard to find nowadays
It comes and goes, I think that it may be on an upswing with people like Nancy Davenport and Anthony Goicolea comeing into to art world.
Precisely. There was little or no distinction between these activities in the Classical Occident. It was the co-opting of art by the medieval religious state which created any breach. This dichotomy has been nonexistant for working artists since the re-secularization of art in the modern period, roughly since the early nineteenth century.
We were enjoying 50 degree weather here last week, but it has definitely turned bitterly cold. I'm going to make myself a hot cup of tea, may I borrow some sugar?
Just think, every mod point wasted modding this thread down could have been used to mod up either a Katz supporter or a traditional Katz detractor. On that basis alone, I consider this a moral victory.
A key point has been missed in this book and Katz's subsequent comments - there is focus upon trite links between art and science, links that do nothing to further either discipline - a prime example of this that has been beaten to death over the last few years is fractal graphics. Science has established that the visual world has a fractal nature, it is however far more complex than just that - a fact born out in the utter sterility of fractal images that are so called 'art'. There are a number examples in the book of components of modern science that have been placed in an artistic context that do no service to either field of study. I would suggest two far better texts that look at valid interactions between the two. 1. Inner Vision : An Exploration of Art and the Brain -- by Semir Zeki - an excellent text by an author who in his research examines the understanding of perception by artists in the context of modern neurophysiology 2. Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters -- by David Hockney - another excellent work that examines the use of technology by artists in a manner that is both synergistic and productive. The book 'Information Arts' itself is an interesting read, well written and regarding the current state of the art (so to speak) is pretty much comprehensive. If we look back on it 20 years from now though I suspect it will be regarded as largely irrelevant. v3a
Hats off to the new Information Artists! We salute you!
Christ, I get the impression that they are giving bloody moderator points out to any MCSE these days...
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
And got modded out by some numpty philistine moderators.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
They may not understand and therefor just mod you out of the way.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I liked Jon Katz a little better the first time around, when he was called "Nicholas Negroponte".
the arts and sciences have long been integrated hand in hand. most every university in the nation has a school of "arts AND science"
A lot of you guys are making great points, noting da Vinci and Michaelangelo as great counter-examples to blow apart Jon's latest tripe, but if you really want to destroy his credibility, one need only note the Egyptians.
The Egyptians were the first known culture to record language in writing, in the form of hieroglypics. The characters were a leap forward in technology (that of written language), while being artistic at the same time.
But don't tell Jon ...
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Techno music is the most cutting edge fusion of art and technology there is. It takes the new onslaught of audio our ears are assaulted with every day in this industrialized society (beeps, machine whirs, airplane roars, mechanical cycles, etc.) and breathes humanity (a heartbeat) into their otherwise sterile random character. Techno and the rave culture (which, quite honestly, had the integration of art and technology down much before this academic attempt) was and is a struggle, especially for the more youthful of our nation, to integrate their daily technological experiences with the celebratory and sacred aspects of their life. This struggle was usually borne out, at night and in relative secrecy, in the very heart of the industrialized society - warehouses. There was a certain mystique to these places where I spent a many a night partying away, feeling almost as if
the sweat from our gyrating bodies was rusting away and breaking down the steel structures as fast as any websites and new economy supply chains were.
Techno allows the machines to keep the beat, while the soul roams free...
Wow! Art and Science coming together at last! And for the first time?!
The Renaissance anyone? Yeah, That was 500 years ago. Vitruvian man, new techniques on perspective...
Yes, arts and sciences are again merging, however this is far from anything new.
A more interesting point would be consider today a modern Renaissance.
Yeah, I was all happy when I saw that there were eleven comments at +1 so far and so I'd get an easy +5 'cause no one else had said it yet.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You've finally posted something without mentioning that you wrote for Wired!
Opinions are not Informative, though they may be Insightful or Interesting.
Wilson has brought together the work great artists and thinkers in culture and technology[...]
However, it is evident that Wilson is not a follower of 'Da Vince', who, incidentally, is more commonly spelt with an extra i and no e. Whilst other people were learning spelling and grammar, Wilson was clearly elsewhere - unless, and I don't seriously suggest this possibility for a moment, Katz merely misquoted the poor man.
Actually this looks as though it might be an interesting read, though perhaps somewhat pretentious. On the other hand, I think maybe it is really time to book Katz into some sort of literacy rehab centre for tired journalists.
Sorry to dispell this illusion, and I'm sure it's been said better elsewhere, but code is not art. Coding is not an art. Take your favorite piece of code, hang it on the wall next to your favorite painting - does your code inspire you the way the painting does? I'm always amused at how coders like to convince themselves and others that they're actually rock stars, beatnic writers or avant guard painters - people don't get it but they just use a different medium. Let's get something straight - code is a means to produce a tool (which makes it a tool itself of sorts). The tool may fall into the hands of an artist, and thus become an implement of artistic creation. This does not make the code itself art, and does not make the coder an artist. To reiterate - coders are tool makers, artists are tool users. Therein lies the magic intersection of technology and art. Sometimes people may perform both as tool makers and tool users and therefore be both coder and artist. They may even perform in their role as coder to create a tool for use in their role as artist. However, though the person is the same, the roles are different. But for some reason people like Katz tend to enjoy obscuring that dichotomy. You may say, but what about screen savers, digitally produced images, computer generated music....? Someone had to come up with the images, someone had to direct the sequencing of the notes - that person is the artist. The person who figured out how to translate 0's and 1's into pixels or soundwaves, make the translation functions available through a GUI, write the hardware drivers to carry out the data transfer - that person is the coder. Get the difference? Coding as art? Let me know when the source code for Linux is the featured display in the Louvre. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about. And on the flip side, let me know when Eddie Van Halen is a physics guest lecturer at MIT. Then we'll really have something to talk about.
This just in...
Deep thinker extraordinaire Jon Katz has determined that discoveries that are made in one area of our world are being used in others!!
The president is expected to make a state of the nation address regarding this important topic later today...
Coming from an art "milieux" which is lighting design and well, as many of you might not know, we, the theater people, are often ask to integrate many side of the technologic world into this (theater) creative/collaborative art form. Since the beginning of theatre and its movement, we are touching to some extent into many side of technology and beneficiating from them, in order to grow to another level of the art form. This book might give or try to explain the relations from technology to art but I think, its been arround for quite sometimes now. Let me clarify myself, theatre were using bottle of wine and candle light when no other source of light had been invented yet, to create a mood or the use of sailors, in by that i mean, the theatre took from ships, the engineering, basically, the use of the pulley. Just to summarize my thought, its been arround but not as a social happening cause by techno geek. By the way, could you tell what is art?
Actually, the distinction between art and science goes back at least as far as Aristotle--as long as the distinction we're talking about is between expressing and knowing.
The distinction in its specifically modern form goes back to the German Enlightenment (early to mid 1700s) and can be found in Baumgarten's _Aesthetics_, among other places.
The Arts and Crafts movement was one manifestation of this; but as I noted above in my previous comment, the issue didn't become as important to the culture at large until the post-WWI era. Both Socialist and Fascist movements in Europe manipulated the distinction to their own ends--and right here in America the same was done by McCarthy.
Once again the supposed "Big Thinkers" of modern times whirl and drone producing little more than the textual form of sound-bite cliches.
Society has been disenfranchised from true art as its participants unknowingly absorb pop-philosophies like an adolescent absorbs Britney Spears songs. The middle class has become a vulgar beast; devoid of aesthetic, dominated by utilitarianism, repeatedly pummeled with theoretical psychobabble, and unable to find happiness in their SUVs and 60" televisions. Robbed of their faculties by an education system - manipulated and initially infected by higher powers for whatever reason, including, possibly, a misperception of the good - the commoner of today has suffered grave wounds to his soul.
Meanwhile, disgruntled reactionaries have protested, proclaiming art for the sake of art, blazing wild trails into pits of deeper meaninglessness, and desperately trying to piece together the confusion. They recognize the hopelessness felt in their peers and themselves, and now they have short circuited. Convention is muddled by chaos: class, style, aesthetics - willed out of existence.
So-called "Information Arts" is but another realm for those reacting against convention to explore. Not a new 'movement' or revelation, but the technologists' equivalent to avant-garde cinema, abstract art, and post-modernist literature. The programmer who considers himself the artistic equivalent of Da Vinci is a true madman. Not to say that programming doesn't require clever ingenuity, but I do suggest it lacks the enriching, meaningful quality of a true art.
Part One
Deepest apologies to H.P. Lovecraft.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Scientists often have strong interests in the arts. Chandrasekhar, late in life, wrote a book called "Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science." Certainly, he would not have bothered to write the book if 1) he did not perceive the needs for greater appreciation in the scientific community, and 2) believe that an increase in appreciation was possible and desirable.
I found the book interesting and valuable, but it was not popular and is hard to find now.
I enjoy reading the reponses to Katz's clueless scribblings. I also enjoy occasionally participating in those responses. So why should I killfile Katz? Why would you even suggest it?
Perhaps you want the Katz-flames to stop, so you can marvel in his wisdom undisturbed. If this is the case, you should be aware that this is a sign of coprophilic tendencies. I think you should log out of /. permanently, and seek professional help. Before you start popping dog-pies into your mouth uncontrollably.
And Katz! Where's the damn Q&A with Junis for Christ's sake? You promised!
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
I'm not sure that "technology is at the service of other aims...." Sometimes it has its own agenda.
But on another track, I think that it was Corbusier (I can't find the quote) who said that "Architecture is the history of technology."
How can anyone routinely require such complex sentences to say so little?
Strunk and Whyte: Omit Needless Words.
Da Blog
Ever slow down to look at a car crash?
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
The Travelers and the Plane-Tree
;-P
TWO TRAVELERS, worn out by the heat of the summer's sun, laid themselves down at noon under the widespreading branches of a Plane-Tree. As they rested under its shade, one of the Travelers said to the other, "What a singularly useless tree is the Plane! It bears no fruit, and is not of the least service to man." The Plane-Tree, interrupting him, said, "You ungrateful fellows! Do you, while receiving benefits from me and resting under my shade, dare to describe me as useless, and unprofitable?'
Moral: Some men underrate their best blessings.
Or alternatively in other Aesop's texts, the moral is: Ingratitude is often blind.
Thanks to
I am so sick and tired of seeing a thought-provoking (yes i said thought-provoking, that doesn't mean "I love everything Katz says" it means "He makes me think about something") Katz post and then reading some of the moronic Katz bashing that goes on under the post. Do you understand the fable? Katz is creating a forum for comments on concepts we are all interested in. Be grateful for the forum, don't attack the forum! Whodathunkit!
If you don't like Katz's idea be intellectually honest and attack the idea not Katz. Get it? What, do you think you sound clever? You sound like a f***ing insecure moron.
And if you are excessively negative in your comments irregardless of your foil, maybe that says something more about you than the post. Or better yet, if you have nothing positive to say, go away... don't post comments... don't visit Slashdot. I fear for your friends and lovers, because you're such a negative creep.
It is, btw, possible to disagree entirely with a Katz post and respond positively to it by stating what you think instead on the subject without being a totally negative crank. What a concept! Can you imagine such an idea! Apparently... some of you can't!
I am so sick of the Katz bashing! Grow the f*** up!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ok, folks. OF COURSE artists have always used emerging technologoes to create their works. Yes, yes, Edgar Varese predated the Chemical Brothers by decades, and Da Vinci would have loved Photoshop. And he -- or someone else -- might have been able to write the software, too, given a decent compiler, because there's always been creative spirits with technical abilities, and people with technical abilities with creative impulses, and so on. I don't think Katz for a moment beleived that the last half-century has brought the first uses of technology with art. What he is saing is that the advent of the personal computer and mass media (especially the internet) add points of confluence that haven't been there before. Let me repeat that: this is not just a new combination of art and technology -- this stuff is a new point of confluence.
Think about the following:
1) The last century has made more forms of mass media than the rest of human development combined. It was the newspaper or word-of-mouth 100 years ago. Radio, TV, and the Internet are here. "The Media" is a product of focusing on using technology in delivery as well as production. This has not only had great results in actual effectiveness of delivery, it has brought a new level technological involvement. If you beleive that people pick up knowledge in neighboring/associated domains, this makes sense.
2) The proliferation of the computer as a household device and the pace of development in the software industry makes new technology widely available to the layman (motivated layman) very quickly.
3) There is, however, definitely a split between the humanities and the sciences in the academic worldview, and I would characterize it as greater 30 years ago. This split wanders down to the everyday human being level, to some degree. It's the split that Robert Pirsig talks about in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and labels "classical" vs. "romantic". It's true that Pirsig spends a lot of his book trying to mend the rift with the "Metaphysics of Quality", but he does a good job of characterizing the split. It's real, especially as an artifact of the time when he wrote it.
4) Try this out in your own personal experience. How many people do you know are surprised when you, as a "techie",can play the guitar, write a poem or an essay, read Doestevsky or Steinbeck, and can tell which French Impressionist painted something on sight? How many times are you surprised when an Humanities major does a bang-up job of statistical analysis for a sleep research clinic, compiles a kernel, or really does teach himself Java in a few months or ? Why is this? Because our culture conditions people to beleive in specialization.
In short, I think there have (and are) cultural forces at work that conspire to seperate the two domains. I think there's also always been smart people who care more about their creative impulses and technical abilities than these forces, and work around them. But -- one more time now -- the advent of the personal computer and mass media (especially the internet) add points of confluence that haven't been there before.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
in school more than ten years ago i studied art history, information theory, semiotics, and AI -- there seemed to be plenty of people running the same course. From the 70's scifi to baudrillard and SRL (survival research labs) there was plenty for us to talk about... really now, you make it seem all new and fancy.
Maybe because we're speaking English? I mean where do you draw the line? What do the Germans call Germany? What do the French call Germany? What do the French call England? The Germans? My given name has several variations, depending on the language spoken. Do I insist that everyone spell and pronounce it the same way? No, I don't, that would be stupid. I don't have a problem at all with people using the local variant, especially when I am visiting their country.
Oh and BTW I still call the capital of China Peking, which is the anglicised spelling. No airy-fairy PC spelling for me...
You're using her as bait, Master!
If the general consensus id that he sucks so much. Why do so many people comment on every one of the articles he writes. If he sucks than they should just set their preferences so they never see his features. I think most people bash Katz because they think it's the in thing to do on Slashdot or they just don't have their own ideas that or commentaries to come up with.
Disclaimer: IANPTSTBK (I am not posting this simply to bash Katz)
I am curious if anything ever came of that Message from Kabul brouhaha. For some time I was on the lookout for a response from Mr. Katz. Was one ever posted here or anywhere else?
When I read that article, I was reminded of the monkey fishing fiasco over at Slate. In that instance Slate apologized and fired the guy. Even if the Message from Kabul article wasn't an intentional lie (as the monkey fishing story was), it'd be nice to see some response. (My apologies if one was posted and I simply missed it.)
We are, say some people who study such things, at a critical place in history, where it's sometimes impossible to distinguish between pseudo-scientific research and art.
Of course, the argument is centuries out of date. The examples are decades old. Let's make it more relevant! Art and Technology has been around for a long, long time. Incidentally Art Technology Group (ATG), which among other things created Dynamo which is now a huge application server product, is from the MIT Media Lab.
For example,
1965: Sony introduces the first monochrome half-inch tape Video Rover portapak-used almost immediately by New York video artist Nam June Paik.
And the contemporary media art scene is not about using photoshop. Even if you just count using digital technology, this has been around for years and it is vibrant. One well-known artist (Ingo Gunther) has used satellite transponders in his work, and one project (Kanal X) involved setting up a pirate TV station in Leipzig the transmitter of which was a sculpture. Ars Electronica has been going on for 20 years. DEAF has been held since 1986. ZKM has been open since '97 though many of its exhibitors have been active for far longer. The Getty has a collection of art and technology works from 1966 to 1993. Japan has one of the best media art infrastructures (hurt by the economy to be sure) which draw artists from Japan and overseas to places like the ICC, the International Academy of Media Arts and Sciences (IAMAS), and other spaces. Often the artists are in fact visiting professors who teach technology students (especially programmers) in universities.
Not only have artists always sought to make use of the latest media, but media artists often have to develop the cutting edge themselves in order to get their message across. This is true now that we use supercomputers like the Silicon Graphics Reality Engine, as it was when bromides and daguerrotypes took advantage of advances in industrial chemistry. Art drives science and vice-versa. I don't think you can point to any time when art and technology were not closely related.
While I don't usually have so much trouble with Mr. Katz' work, this time I'd have to say that sweeping generalizations without any enlightening examples must be hurtful to slashdotters' potential enjoyment and participation in some of the most exciting art in the world. Where's the beef? Many cutting edge artists work with very talented programmers and need their help badly. In particular, people who have a flair for networking, opengl, and hardware setup/troubleshooting (oh don't forget circuitry and wireless!) are really needed. Linux is extremely relevant now that machines have gotten so powerful, and the preemptive kernel sounds great for art! Artists who are interested in technology might like to check out MAX which is a great MIDI music and device controller.
It would be useful to point this out with substantial explanation of what this means for this site's users. Art gives context and meaning to budding researchers. And talented artists often come up with the new concepts that drive innovation. A public artwork can drive personal study and honing of one's technological skills like nothing else.
I think the reason it seems new now is that we've got so darn many computers now but little funding for artists (in the U.S.). There are also some very talented young artists who are taking advantage of the latest technology. More about them on Slashdot might be fun! How about a new icon and a media art section? Here are some neat online exhibits at the NYC MOMA.
If you don't like it, don't f-ing read it. If you don't want to read Jon's articles, then go to your users page and deselect him. It isn't hard, and you aren't doing anything to anyone except annoying those of us that might actually have something to say ON TOPIC. Are you forced to read his articles? Is anyone sitting next to you with a gun making you read this?
Uh, yeah, exactly! Welcome to irony.
Everyone except you? I only picked this up in metamoderation, I already block Katz articles. I have no idea what this article is about, in fact, I'm just responding to your (unfairly downmodded) comment. Filter him our, it'll do wonders for your blood pressure, and you find you won't even miss ranting about him after a few days.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I have enjoyed the debate, but just wanted to add my two cents worth. I wrote the book Information Arts: Intersections of Art, Science, and Technology which partially stimulated Jon Katz' first posting
- The book Information Arts attempts to survey a great variety of artistic experimentation and theoretical speculation. It doesn't claim artist interest in science/technology is new or does it take one position on the science/art split. In fact, since no other comprehensive survey was available, I was trying to bring into one place examples of artists and theorists working at that boundary coming from a wide spectrum of perspectives. I hoped the 1000 pages of examples would be a tool for thinking more about the issues.
- I know that CP Snow and his "two cultures" theory has been beaten around over the years. At one point his theory was taken very seriously and universities ran to add integrated art/science programs. Then it was decided the split wasn't such a problem. Now its seen as a problem again. John Brockman wrote a book called the "The Third Culture" that proposed that current communications and media foment provided another "culture" outside the old two where there was the possibility of much cross fertilization.
- This is the activity that I think many postings were referring to. Electronic media pervade the culture. People from many fields experiment with it and are interested. People are interested in new developments. Wired and Slashdot itself are signs of that expanding interest. Popular culture seems open to influence from all kinds of disciplines. These are hopeful indicators of the beginnings of dissolving of boundaries.
-Still, my book suggests that it is not as much of a non-issue as some postings suggest. The enlightenment really did reward specialization and concentration within disciplines. Sure there were instances of cross influences all along but the arts and sciences were seen as very separate. It still continues. By and large the mainstream art world of museums, curators, art historians, collectors do not accept the active world of scientific research and technological innovation as central concerns for the art world. Most art histories see examples such as Leonardo, the abstracitionists interest in alternative geometries, the Bauhaus, and the 60's EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology) as minor footnotes to the main flow. The museums just recently accepted photography and video as perhaps art. If an innovation results in something that ends up looking like media (eg digital imaging) then the museums might now show interest. Some are trying to figure out how to use the web. Ask them, however, how interested they are in art based on more speculative research areas such as genetic engineering, medical imaging, ecological reclammation, space science, materials science, nanotechnology, telepresence, particle physics, artificial intelligence, body sensing and the like and you are likely to get blank stares.
- The world of professional science is similar. Many scientists love classic art and music but the definition does not extend into the art experiments of the last decades. Some of the younger ones are into electronic culture. The "uncredentialed" art experimentation, however, certainly is not seen as contributing anything to serious research in their fields; often research by other scientists in outside fields is not even seen as useful.
- Also technology research and science often get lumped together. Just because someone is playing with a new technological gizmo doesn't mean they are actively engaging the process of research and innovation that will invent the next possibilities. The expansion of digital art or electronic music does not necessarily mean the gap between art and science/research has been bridged. There is alot of participation in the consumption of research - much less in framing of agendas and the production of research. Still, the widening hunger for the innovations might ultimately stimulate the consumers to become producers.
- Is the art experimentation good science or good art? Probably not yet. The current era of art experimentation is still pretty new. There are lots of questions: How much training, background knowledge etc do the artists need to seriously enagage an area? Can their experiments work both as art and research? How will this work be evaluated? What will happen to the old canons of visual power, emotional engagement, etc? How should the new art be shown? Still, what is going on is pretty interesting and somewhat different from previous art incursions into science/technology.
-Just to give one example: An Austraiian arts group called "Tissue Culture and Art" (TCA) is working to create stem cell sculptures. They think medical sciences' growing understanding and manipulation of stem cells is an important cultural event worthy of artistic attention. They have taken it on themselves to learn the technical procedures and background knowledge in order to work with stem cells. They have immersed themselves in the ethical, scientific and cultural questions of this area of inquiry. They are willing to take on research questions not ordained by the scientific disciplines. They are struggling to find ways to present the research process as art. It is ready to hang on the walls next to Picasso? Probably not yet. Is it going to produce breakthroughs in working with stem cells? Who knows? However, this kind of engagement with frontier areas of research does seem like a very interesting first step and appropriate place for the arts explore as we move forward.
If you would like to know more about the book, Information Arts, please visit http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~swilson/book/infoartsbook .html
If you would like more information about TCA or other artist experiments, please visit my categorized set of web linkst links2.html
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~infoarts/links/wilson.ar