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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
.. 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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
As evidenced by your post?
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
Exactly. I gather none of these people ever heard of Futurism. Or gone to the movies, for that matter.
Oh well, I suppose, in the Age of the New Economy, we have to have the New Culture as well, even if it's really not new.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
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.
"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 "
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
unable to find happiness in their SUVs and 60" televisions.
I have arguments with people about this all the time. Obviously there not happy, sitting in front of their tv's all day, but they are led to believe that they are. And if you think that you are happy, are you not, indeed, happy?
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.
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!
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.
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.