Posts tagged digital_art

Thomas Dreher’s History of Computer Art is gold. A PDF compilation of all lectures is also available at the site.

The photo is of Karl Otto Götz in front of Density 10:3:2:1, an early glitch-alike / algorithmic artwork (1961), reproduced from here.

Lillian Schwartz's RGBCMY, one of the newer pieces the 86 year old digital art pioneer has made available on her Vimeo page.

I’m posting this in part because I completely forgot to mention Schwartz in a recent lecture where the work digital art pioneers of the 1960 came up, and in which I name-dropped and referenced Ken Knowlton (who invited Schwartz to Bell Labs), Charles Csuri or A. Michael Noll. Forgetting about Schwartz is more regretful as I have been trying to pass my students (who are mostly women) the idea that digital art, computing and technical stuff in general are women’s activities in every single measure as men’s, and have been taking care to mention women’s achievements in computing history ever since Augusta Ada Byron singlehandedly invented computer programming without any computer to try it on (according to Howard Rheingold, motivated by a scheme to hustle hapless betters at the horse races).

There’s something weird about the general lack of women’s interest in computing nowadays (with exceptions, obviously), given their presence in key historic developments. I suspect that is related to the fact that as computing studies formalized most found their home in Electrical Engineering departments which — as higher education expanded and universities found themselves populated by badly-educated students (witness the near-institutionalization of hazing, at least in Southern European unis) — became Boys Clubs Just for Boys. (This is the moment in which I explain that my mother, years retired, was a computer programmer. Actually she started as a clerical worker with no higher education qualifications doing data entry for our National Health Service — using tech such as latter-day punch-cards, then tape, then giant 8 inch floppies —, and advanced through multiple workplace training programs to become fluent in those technologies synonymous with enterprise computing in the eighties: COBOL, TurboPascal, dBase, SQL. In fact, I asked mum for help composing some complicated SQL queries when I was coding my Master’s dissertation project.) So nowadays, besides some conspicuous exceptions, women seem to get into computing through some kind of side door that provides an easy and straightforward narrative for their interest — through Design (as my students), through multimedia Journalism, through Entrepreneurship (the worst), through some sort of Artistic Practice, or through some very practical necessity in their Science of choice (e.g. learning R because they need to run some statistical programs on health data or whatnot). Going into computers because one is curious, because it seems interesting, because one suspects that computers allow people to do cool stuff and be creative in yet-undiscovered ways, all that may seem like opting into a deeply male-oriented and misogynistic culture, hence a dangerous place to go to.

It is therefore important to witness the current work of Lillian Schwartz. She’s still programming computers at age 86 because decades ago she found they allow her to create some cool visuals. And in that, she was way ahead of the scene.

Meanwhile, in the field of digital art, an entire generation of creators shop at the equivalent of home improvement megastores, eagerly acquiring all kinds of prefabricated components and add-ons. Blissfully unaware of - or even worse, uninterested in - the basic nature of the technologies they are using as tools, the creative élite oversee the assembly of substandard digital objects and experiences.

John Maeda, in Maeda @ Media (2000), Thames & Hudson.

Substandard shit is what you’ll get through PhotoCopy. It’s AutoTune for images. What the hell, DFT — you guys used to sell the digital equivalent of paint mixers, now you’re marketing varnish!? What a waste of CPU resources.

Action Painting #8 (after Michael Bay). It may be really a lot of wishful thinking on my part, but I want to believe there’s more to Michael Bay than just literally blowing up millions of dollars in a big loud BOOM! CDM describes how Jeremy Rotsztain made some generative ‘action paintings’ informed by Bay’s mindless action sequences.

Matrix III, John Whitney 1972. (via CDM)

Software engineer Shamus Young documents how he created a generative city. This is the sort of project I have to think about at my master’s, I wonder if you can do it in Flash (of course you can, so let me rephrase it: I wonder if I can do it in Flash). Anyway, Shamus predicted he’d spend thirty hours in this, so with my knowledge of software engineering I predict I’d take… twenty times as much? Not taking into account things always end up taking twice as much time, no matter how lenient, the original prediction, this means I’ve better be more modest in my goals… A procedurally generated house?