2014-09-23_OO-0001

Video | Posted on by

So what’s that all about? Here’s the thinking. What kind of work can I make or medium can I choose (as a start anyway) that provides scope for exploring those things I mentioned the other day (and more)- composition, evolution, musicology, AI, linguistics, simple machines, perception etc. –  that doesn’t cost much, fits nicely with this kind of documentation process and dovetails with other projects I’ve got going on. Answer: computer program. NERD! ok, fair play. But this has the potential to go absolutely anywhere, which is important.

So anyways, as a start, and because I also wanted to finally understand the object-oriented thought process properly, I decided to start with a universe populated by some pieces of matter. I think I call it a universe because I don’t directly dictate where the objects go, I just give them a direction and a speed and define how they bounce off the boundary and let them go for it. I understand it’s deeply unimpressive right now, but I secretly like that. The only way is up. It does represent some pretty important things to me- I understand how to take objects that hold a graphic, make them move around an environment according to some rule (in this case, Newton’s First Law), have them hit a boundary and make a sound when they do that. I haven’t yet worked out whether it’s art or not, but there is plenty of time for that.

Starting a Manifesto: Manifesto #001

Posted on by

Had a short mini-conversation with LM this morning that is kind of relevant to the task at hand. (LM = girlfriend). LM is, in fact, a real artist already. She is a sculptor, or you might (or at least she might) say she has a ‘spatial practice’. Anyways, LM had an annoying (for her) experience in a theory class she was teaching last week where a not-so-young country bloke wanted to propose that Prince was the greatest artist of all time with the greatest spatial awareness of anyone ever. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz….

LM said that ‘hit her in a numb spot in her brain’ and she couldn’t bring herself to talk about it. And I know what she means, it’s an incredibly boring comment, but it somehow deserves an answer. Even if the answer is the kind of put down Louis CK might deliver to a heckler. Because it somehow goes to the question of what Art is. Zzzzzzzz… Wha? Oh sorry. OK, so why isn’t a Prince rock show able to be considered as the kind of art that is talked about in art theory tutorials? I mean, as Ron Swanson said, ‘It’s Art- Anything is Anything’. LM and I didn’t get very far with the conversation, except to agree that somehow there needs to be a reflective dialogue, or role, or intention in the production of the artwork which situates it as an artwork. You can’t say the Masterchef is the greatest footballer that ever lived because of the way he moves through traffic in the kitchen. If somebody was working at a desk in the corner of a room and walked away unintentionally leaving the most perfect composition of objects sitting together, we probably wouldn’t want to call that an artwork. But if they deliberately arranged them to be an artwork, then we probably would be quite happy with the description. That’s not to say the artist has a monopoly on the meaning of an artwork, just that they must enter it into the conversation.

Point being, if I am going to make stuff that is actually art (whatever that means), I better have a feeling for why it’s art. And if I don’t, I can’t expect anybody else to bother. I mean, I can list here a range of things I am interested in or have experience of- composition, evolution, musicology, AI, linguistics etc. etc. But if I produce something like OO-001 then I need to know how it’s different to a screensaver (LM’s comment when she saw it) or an educational science visualization of Newton’s First Law.

In the beginning…

Posted on by

It’s funny. I’ve always somehow thought of myself as an artist trapped in another body. I could never really say I was properly an artist, not even a ‘hobby artist’, because, well, I never made enough art, not even enough ‘hobby art’.

On the other hand, I’ve now got to a certain age and a certain level of experience where I feel I really do have something to say, or to put it another way, I feel I have enough understanding of a range of things to make some pretty interesting explorations.

Oh, and I’m a Design-Art Atheist. Meaning, I don’t really see the difference between design and art. Not as processes anyway. Of course everybody has their own pet way to describe a difference, mostly woeful and never anything that I find terribly convincing. If I’m not pewking at the simplistic arguments, I’m at least left thinking, ‘yeah, but you could say that about art’, or alternatively, ‘yeah, but you could say that about design’. The only categorization I ever enjoyed was the old joke ‘it’s Art if you can’t explain it, Fashion if nobody asks for an explanation, and Design if it doesn’t need an explanation.’ At least that’s funny.

So I guess, or rather I hope, that as I go on here something will progress that looks somehow like a kind of manifesto of what I think I’m doing, and maybe even why it is art. The point of this blog is to document the progress of finally making some real art (whatever that means), provide a structure for me to develop things like my art process as well as provide the impetus to keep going with some regular frequency. So I may be productive enough that one day I can actually really call myself an ‘artist’ (whatever that means) .