Slashdot Log In
Part One: Information Arts
from the intersections-of-art-science-technology dept.
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 (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Gutenberg (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Yeah, I posted exactly the same point. (Score:2)
Wow, a short Jon Katz article. (Score:2)
The book. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
1 sentence in (Score:2, Funny)
No, they haven't.
I shall stop reading here.
You're missing out. (Score:3, Funny)
It's not every day we get a column on
Our world is changed forever!
Again!
!!!
M.C.Escher (Score:3, Interesting)
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*
da Vinci (Score:2)
Baloney (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Baloney (Score:2)
What I understood wasn't anything to do with tech stuff in any way replacing art(ists) but more like them beginning to complement each other in inseperable ways.
Long ago, for example we had "art ppl" doing painting, music, theatre, etc. and "tech ppl" doing science, experiments, inventions, maths.
Things these days don't clearly fit as easily into one group or the other.
Examples which fit better in the "art" group, but with some overlap: Photography, Cinema, graphic design (I think there are some of the things you talked about. Artistic talent is a requirement, but tech is involved)
Examples which fit better info the "tech" group, but with some overlap: Games/Demo programming (especially involving physics etc)
Heres another example:
You download an exe from a site and run it. It shows an animation of some simple objects bouncing around the screen.
It that art, or science?
Perhaps it is an mpeg embedded in a player that was produced by a pure artist with no tech knowledge other than hand painting each frame in some simple art package.
On the other hand, maybe its the result of some physicists research work in modelling complex interactions between macroscopic bodies obeying the laws of newtonian mechanics.
The point is - the result is the same. Only, the artist is probably more likely to want to "protect his work" and the scientist is more likely to want to "publish his results"
That's where we start seeing a conflict of interests.
Re:Baloney (Score:2)
Again IMHO, the question is, is there now, or has there been for x years, a separation between technology and art any greater than the historical average, or any greater than between any two human activities which depend on each other but tend to be of interest to different personality types? And, IMHO, no.
sPh
Re:Baloney (Score:2)
Art has been influenced by technology and vice versa. Lets go back even further in history to look at bronze age metalworking. The creation of bronze led to new weapons, which led to soliders/kings wanting artistic versions of those weapons. Improvements in metalworking (technology) led to new and improved flashy weapons/armor for humans to wear.
Alchemy, the bastard child of chemistry and mysticism it was, borrowed both from technological advances and cultural/religous movements in its developments.
Just as new technology creates new mediums for artwork, current art influences technology. If you look at the appearance of scientific instruments over the past 200 years, you can see the influence of artistic styles of those specific time periods in the instrument itself. Turn of the century analytical balances were wood, brass, gold and glass works of art, with intricate designs making the balance not only functional, but pleasing to the eye. Modern balances, while made of plastic with LCD displays, are also designed to be pleasing to the modern eye, which is a reflection of the artistic styles of today.
So going back to Jon Katz's original quote, and with full support of what you wrote, "Culture is being re-defined right before our eyes. For centuries, art and technology have been considered separate parts of culture." Baloney. Its just as it always has been - art and technology are side by side, intertwined, and continue to be part of our culture just as it always has been.
Culture, using technology (Score:2, Interesting)
Even more dependent on technology is fractal design [citycat.ru], 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.
Counterpoint (Score:2, Insightful)
Harvard and MIT (Score:3, Insightful)
Not ironic (Score:2)
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).
Programming as an art (Score:5, Interesting)
We are only 28 years late.
new culture definition? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
what? (Score:2)
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.
Re:what? (Score:2, Insightful)
And that the net is somewhat-unique in that it is both an enabler and a medium. Granted many techs that enables art are themselves mediums (architecture and photography for example) but the net may be unique in having global reach
mgb
Old-School Katz! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, and how the Dow will reach ten billion by next week. It's a new economy, after all.
--grendel drago
Rubbish (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rubbish (Score:2)
I know. I am using examples again but how else can I make my point?
Art vs. technology? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
I'm sorry but that is pure techno-bullshit... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm sorry but that is pure techno-bullshit... (Score:2)
culture.. (Score:2)
Ask a culturer anthropologist. Any influence of any sort, or no influence at all, changes a culture.
What's worse than a Jon Katz article? (Score:2)
Oh...and who the hell is Leonardo da Vince??? da Vinci I know of, but da Vince?
Relationship between technology and art. (Score:2, Interesting)
Restoring my faith, little by little (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
It's called 'architecture' (Score:2, Insightful)
Another example of spectacular ignorance... (Score:2)
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.
The Changing Face Of The Internet Community (Score:2)
(*** 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 "
Information for people with clue..... (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [morrissociety.org] 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.
Art has always lived at the edge of technology (Score:2)
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.
Art and science have always been intertwined (Score:2)
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.
a critical place in history, as always (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
That's not true for Eastern civilizations (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:3, Interesting)
"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" [open2.net] 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.
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:2)
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
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:3, Informative)
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?"
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:2)
Re user preferences anyone? It's not hard to find (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:2)
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
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
As evidenced by your post?
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:3, Funny)
Technology has ALWAYS been related to art (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Oooh, careful now, some dense moderators around (Score:2)