Part One: Information Arts 220
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.
Gutenberg (Score:1)
Culture (language, customs, food, music, etc.) and technology have been fused as well, but that's a separate thesis.
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.
Re:I don't believe (Score:1)
The same could be said of almost any consumer device, from cars to toasters. A lot of design work (industrial art) goes into everyday things to make them more visually appealing. Cars don't appeal to people strictly for their functional uses.
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.
1 sentence in (Score:2, Funny)
No, they haven't.
I shall stop reading here.
I agree. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Culture, using technology (Score:1, Interesting)
>design [citycat.ru], which is facilitated by the
>high processing power of modern computers.
I'm sorry, but I've always felt that "fractal art" was in the same vein as most other instances of "found art". I appreciate that a certain pile of junk found along the road side can be nice and I appreciate that somebody was seeing thing clearly enough to notice. I have always felt that art should, however, contain something that the artist brings to the work (other than a completely blank slate.) Now the tie-in with fractal art -- most people whipping up fractal art don't have any intrinsic feel for what they are doing. They are diddling sliders looking for "found art".
Counterpoint (Score:2, Insightful)
Already addressed in the column (Score:1)
Hardly a counterpoint.
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.
What crap (Score:1)
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.
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:1)
We are talking about a generality here, not just a few examples. Try talking about science in a music theory class, or most other liberal arts classes. Just because artists often use technology, doesn't mean they understand the science of it.
Re:Rubbish (Score:2)
I know. I am using examples again but how else can I make my point?
Re:Rubbish (Score:2)
If you want books on Music and Science start with "The Music of the Spheres" by Jamie James (not the novel by Elizabeth Redfern). Quote from Publisher: "From Pythogoras to Newton, Bach to Beethoven, and on into the twentieth century of Einstein, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Cage, and Glass, it is a spellbinding examination of the interwoven fates of science and music throughout history."
I wish I were home right now because I know I have dozens of other books on the subject but this one stands out.
I also remember early on in music how sound is made. In my case I played saxophone and the sound came from the vibration of the reed. I learned later on about the frequency of sound waves and why certain tones sound "better" (really more consonant to Western ears) together than others. I learned about the mathematcal divison of beats.
Finally, I have heard musicians talk about it. My early band teacher used to pound into our head why it is important for us to be all in tune with each other. Not just because it sounds better but because it projects better. Two sound waves in sync are going to sound a lot brighter than two sound waves slightly out of sync (that was very non-scientific but the point is there).
If this stuff interest you I definitely recomend reading the book and when I get home I can post the others. Music, Science and Religion are all so intimidately interwoven that it is almost impossible to talk about the history of one without bumping into one of the others.
Yeah, and Figure Skating is a Sport too... (Score:1)
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
Re:Art vs. technology? (Score:1)
When one looked at art, one didn't necessarily appreciate the technology behind it (although the artist did). And when one was introduced to new technology, the artistic roots or applications weren't necessarily obvious.
Re:Art vs. technology? (Score:1)
In the modern day we are exposed to much more art (assuming TV and other media still count as art) and technology. In some areas, they still influence each other greatly, in others they still don't.
I think this whole article boils down to misplaced generalisations.
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)
Re:I'm sorry but that is pure techno-bullshit... (Score:1)
But, in my opinion, it is a mistake to mix artificially art and technology. Technology is a mean, wheras art is a purpose. They have connections, like everything else.
Art is content, Technology is a container.
culture.. (Score:2)
Ask a culturer anthropologist. Any influence of any sort, or no influence at all, changes a culture.
The Mind is Required to Boggle (Score:1)
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
Science and Technology (Score:1)
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!
OMG (Score:1)
#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
What is this article? (Score:1)
Even as a call for discussion and deep thought I don't think this article works very well!
Makes no sense (Score:1)
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?
Re:What's worse than a Jon Katz article? (Score:2)
Uhhh...maybe because we're speaking English? (Score:2)
Oh and BTW I still call the capital of China Peking, which is the anglicised spelling. No airy-fairy PC spelling for me...
Relationship between technology and art. (Score:2, Interesting)
dosteovsky... (Score:1)
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.
Information as subject (Score:1)
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
It's called 'architecture' (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's called 'architecture' (Score:2)
Tell me about it. The authors (the so-called "Gang of Four") of the book Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software [amazon.com] drew on the work of the architect Christopher Alexander for their seminal work in object oriented design. You might even go so far as to say that the purest fusion of art and technology is really architecture in this more general sense.
Visualization (Score:1)
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.
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.
But is it Science? (Score:1)
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 [indiana.edu] excellent "Godel, Esher, Bach"? Great read.
A crucial distinction... (Score:1)
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!
can we (Score:1)
./EU would be fine
as I guess
Many issues can be shared but internal US is
- just internal - boring internal.
imagine, if you will (Score:1)
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
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 "
Old news - New Tech - Old Story (Score:1)
|--- 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...
Re:Old news - New Tech - Old Story (Score:1)
("Project 2061: A Place To Start Educating The Public," The Scientist, Aug. 7, 1989, page 11
Read Zen and the Art ... (Score:1)
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.
Oooh, careful now, some dense moderators around (Score:2)
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.
Maybe Jon is Saving it for Part 2? (Score:1)
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).
Link to the book site (Score:1)
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.
I'll Tell You Why To Read Katz (Score:1)
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.
reaction (Score:1)
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'.
Ummm.... (Score:1)
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.
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.
A lot further than 1960... (Score:1)
- 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.
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?
He did say *centuries* (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ...
Code as Art? (Score:2, Interesting)
Chandrasekhar: Truth and Beauty (Score:2)
I found the book interesting and valuable, but it was not popular and is hard to find now.
Aesop's Fable for Katz bashers (Score:2)
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 [virginia.edu]
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!
Re:Aesop's Fable for Katz bashers (Score:2)
Katz Trolls, As Usual, Miss the Point (Score:2)
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.
Suggestions for the rest of the Series.. (Score:2)
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 [terramedia.co.uk]: 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 [tranquileye.com]) involved setting up a pirate TV station in Leipzig the transmitter of which was a sculpture. Ars Electronica [www.aec.at] has been going on for 20 years. DEAF [v2.nl] has been held since 1986. ZKM [on1.zkm.de] has been open since '97 though many of its exhibitors have been active for far longer. The Getty has a collection [getty.edu] 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 [ntticc.or.jp], the International Academy of Media Arts and Sciences (IAMAS [iamas.ac.jp]), 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 [cycling74.com] 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 [moma.org].
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:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:2)
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.
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.
User Preferences (Score:1)
Sorry to bitch; I didn't realize this was so easily correctable.
Re:Re user preferences anyone? It's not hard to fi (Score:1)
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)
Re: user preferences anyone? It's not hard to find (Score:2)
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!
Re:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:1, Offtopic)
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:Why do we need John Katz? (Score:1)
ROTFLMAO!
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.
Re:Typical pseudo-intellectual drivel... (Score:2)
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?