Revision as of 11:22, 29 November 2018

mapping learning algorithms

Software Art

What is Software Art? Software Art provides an interesting framework »describing not merely software used to produce art, but rather software itself as the artwork« (Cox, 2007, p. 147). The naming of Software Art gives already a very specific idea about the topics. In contrast to that other movements that happened in the beginning of the 00er where much broader in their focus. E.g. New Media Art. But the interesting thing about Software Art is the specific focus on Software. Seeing Software as an object of study. What is of most interest for this thesis is the framework and the approach that Software Art chooses. »One thus could say that contemporary software art operates in a postmodern condition in which it takes pre-existing software as material — reflecting, manipulating and recontextualizing it.« (Cramer, 2002)

relation to there is no software by kittler (find reference)

contradiction: »if any algorithm can be executed mentally, as it was common before computers were invented, then of course software can exist and run without hardware« (Cramer, 2002)

focus on the actual thing & not take it for granted:

»Although one can of course use computers without programming them, it is impossible not to use programs at all. The question only is who programs. There is, after all, no such thing as data without programs, and hence no digital arts without the software layers they either take for granted, or design or manipulate themselves. To discuss “software art” simply means to not take software for granted, but pay attention to how and by whom programs were written« (Cramer, 2002) What we can see from this are important key questions and should be important for further research:

»not take software for granted«:
»by whom programs were written«: Google and Amazon provide infrastructures and frameworks, that are layered libraries, that make the core of the application hard to see.

The approach of Software Art

preprocessed

Software Art is running, is in motion, but not necessarily visibly.

Software and it’s semiotics

Software not as a tool

It is acknowledging the role of Software in the cultural manner. Not only looking at Software as a pragmatic / neutral tool to execute algorithms for software developers.

Software Art marked a shift from *pure syntax* to *something semantic, something that is aesthetically, culturally and politically charged*. (Cramer, 2003)

Software Art & Free Software

»he first subculture which understood software as something intertextual was the Free Software and Open Source movement, i.e. the movement which produced software like GNU and Linux, from which Steven Levy’s notion of the “hacker” was largely derived.[…] GNU/Linux provides many examples of software which would be wildly successful as software art if it only were properly advertised or, if you prefer, contextualize« (Cramer, 2002)

Why is it different from Generative Art?

The interaction with the software itself and why it is important

http://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mediadesign/User:Alexander_Roidl/first-chapter

process based approaches

Software Studies

Argument: Software Arts can be seen as a reaction to the limited interaction with the tools in Generative Arts

History of Software Art & Generative Art
Software Art and its process based approach
Software as the main subject of research

References

Cramer, F. (2002) Contextualizing Software Art …

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Software Art provides an interesting framework »describing not merely software used to produce art, but rather software itself as the
 artwork« (Cox, 2007, p. 147). The naming of Software Art gives already a very specific idea about the topics. In contrast to that other movements that happened in the beginning of the 00er where much broader in their focus. E.g. New Media Art. But the interesting thing about Software Art is the specific focus on Software. Seeing Software as an object of study. What is of most interest for this thesis is the framework and the approach that Software Art chooses.
+»One thus could say that contemporary software art operates in a postmodern condition in which it takes pre-existing software as material — reflecting, manipulating and recontextualizing it.« (Cramer, 2002)
 * relation to there is no software by kittler (find reference)
 contradiction: »if any algorithm can be executed mentally, as it was common before computers were invented, then of course software can exist and run without hardware« (Cramer, 2002)
-* focus on the actual thing:
+* focus on the actual thing & not take it for granted:
+»Although one can of course use computers without programming them, it is impossible not to use programs at all. The question only is who programs. There is, after all, no such thing as data without programs, and hence no digital arts without the software layers they either take for granted, or design or manipulate themselves. To discuss “software art” simply means to not take software for granted, but pay attention to how and by whom programs were written« (Cramer, 2002)
+What we can see from this are important key questions and should be important for further research:
+* »not take software for granted«:
+* »by whom programs were written«: Google and Amazon provide infrastructures and frameworks, that are layered libraries, that make the core of the application hard to see.
@@ Line 22: / Line 28: @@
 Software Art marked a shift from *pure syntax* to *something semantic, something that is aesthetically, culturally and politically charged*. (Cramer, 2003)
+* Software Art & Free Software
+»he first subculture which understood software as something intertextual was the Free Software and Open Source movement, i.e. the movement which produced software like GNU and Linux, from which Steven Levy’s notion of the “hacker” was largely derived.[…] GNU/Linux provides many examples of software which would be wildly successful as software art if it only were properly advertised or, if you prefer, contextualize« (Cramer, 2002)
 Why is it different from Generative Art?