Personal practice and the future of digital art
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•350 vues
Slides for a talk given at TECHnique the inaugural event created by www.create-hub.com A version of the script is on one of the later slides.
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à Personal practice and the future of digital art
Similaire à Personal practice and the future of digital art (20)
Plus de Richard Adams
Plus de Richard Adams (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Personal practice and the future of digital art
- 1. @dickyadams thanks A personal journey Or there and back again
- 3. @dickyadams the wild west http://www.tedevanscreative.com/interactive.html Not mine but illustrative of what we were doing
- 4. @dickyadams > BUSINESS NEEDS -> CUSTOMER NEEDS ->STRATEGY -> BUSINESS MODELS -> RELEVANT TECH -> IMPLEMENTATION
- 6. @dickyadams “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” Picasso
- 7. @dickyadams 'Oscillon 520', by Ben Laposky, US, 1960. Museum no. E.1096-2008. Given by the American Friends of the V&A through the generosity of Patric Prince John Lansdown using a Teletype (an electro-mechanical typewriter), about 1969-1970. Courtesy the estate of John Lansdown Frieder Nake, 'Hommage à Paul Klee 13/9/65 Nr.2', 1965. Museum no. E.951-2008. Given by the American Friends of the V&A through the generosity of Patric Prince Paul Brown, 'Untitled Computer Assisted Drawing', 1975. Museum no. E.961-2008. Given by the American Friends of the V&A through the generosity of Patric Prince Kenneth Snelson, 'Forest Devils' MoonNight' (detail), 1989, Museum no. E.1046-2008. Given by the American Friends of the V&A through the generosity of Patric Prince James Faure Walker, 'Dark Filament' (detail), 2007. Museum no. E.147-2009. Given by James Faure Walker http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/computer-art-history/
- 8. @dickyadams Datum Data Insight 01000001 01000001 00100000 01110011 01101101 01100001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01110011 01100101 01100011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110000 01100001 01101001 01101110 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100010 01111001 00100000 01010110 01100001 01101110 00100000 01000111 01101111 01100111 01101000 https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boredpanda.com%2Fland-art-painting-field-van-gogh-olive-trees-stan-herd%2F&psig=AFQjCNFbVHvBXlgZJEPgqub-zBSx1Upe6g&ust=1453288399918509
- 13. @dickyadams iPad
- 16. @dickyadams
- 17. @dickyadams A hackable play about the ethics of AI
- 18. @dickyadams The key defining attitude to the digitalisation of art must be curiosity. The chief attribute of craft must be interdisciplinary and collaborative (science, culture, tech, biology, whatever). The output must be defined by the intent not the technology.
- 19. @dickyadams Intent Formalities Crafting Medium Reflection Whichever is appropriate Iterative and agile PartnershipsLanguage, philosophy Insight and communication
- 20. @dickyadams Making data, tech and connectivity move people Enabling people to feel what it is like to experience something Connecting people with other people Understanding machine aesthetics Working out how Art can exist in a era of unnatural intelligence Making galleries irrelevant
- 21. @dickyadams Intellectual Creativity Aesthetics Logic Philosophy Storytelling Maths Social responsibility Practical Devices Data AI Bio tech Art techniques Science of art Computer science Learningmodes Iterative Interactive Insight led Inquiring In-sync Economic Managing Economy Resources Sustainability Global, enterprise, micro
- 22. @dickyadams “Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not.” Picasso
- 23. @dickyadams This is my journey it’s all opinion here and nothing is certain or fact. I started doing art and I will end doing art. I can’t stop making things. But along the way I have been lucky enough to be offered opportunities to work at amazing companies with amazing people across sectors. I did the usual foundation, degree and PGCE route that most fine art graduates did. But then at the turn of the 90’s I started using computers for creative work – Archimedes as it happens. Then I did one of the first AutoCAD draughtsman courses after which I went to do what at the time was the only MA in the UK for artists that wanted to work with computers, at Middlesex. The fact that I worked with creating software for creative outputs meant that upon leaving I was approached to work at fledgling interactive TV company – one of two in the UK and we did…. This type of stuff….there was no web to look at, no previous examples to speak of and very very nascent technology so in a very real sense it was like the Wild West. Looking back it was the hard intellectual skills from my art education that helped. The notion of testing and iterating is actually something fine artists have done for centuries. But of course this wasn't “art” but in 1995 I found myself making Emmerdale Farm interactive. Since then I have had a fantastic set of roles and worked for and with some amazing companies culminating with my current contract at the RSC. In writing this I realise that its this eclectic mix of things that has helped me to keep developing. By using my art and intellectual skills in different ways I have had my beliefs and practices tested and stretched in some of the most demanding environments. Picasso famously said that “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” It’s interesting that in the intervening years computing has become so embedded and part of the fabric of everyday life that we might be tempted to disregard this as being anachronistic. But there is a truth at its heart that is still there. Artists ask questions, that's what we do, in a very real sense we don’t want answers. When I walk into a gallery and see a series of paintings, I see each one as a set of questions in the artists progress, not a set of complete answers as most of the public do. What is interesting is that most of the computer art I have seen and been involved with is precisely not about answers and is about questions. It never was, just the same as any other great art. Those who let the tech guide them are craftspeople not artists – there is nothing wrong with that in any way but we do need to reclaim the word Art, which is overused. As you look at the history of computer art you see that ideas from the 60’s 70’s 80’s and 90’s are still prevalent in lots of today’s work and I sometimes wonder if enough history is being taught as I constantly see the same things repeated but dressed up slightly different. I worry that here we are with a potentially totally new way of doing things but we seem doomed to repeat the same experiments. As you get closer to the present we start to see more integration of different media. A less “modernist purist” approach and a more interdisciplinary one is now the norm. The old notion of being a painter or a sculptor are the things that are disappearing, the art is gradually becoming computerised. I have never known as many polymaths as there are now. In terms of the work itself, I think we are moving into a much more sensory based art era that uses inputs from all sorts of sources, processes them and then produces and output in whatever form is relevant to communicate the intent. Which in itself is an old philosophical concept… The Trivium One way I tend to explain some of the changes to students and at talks with fewer creative people is to try and look at the base problem – this is one example … and in a way this is how I still approach everything. I utilise the medium to gain insight and to communicate. To move or to excite, or provoke sorrow … and not just sorrow at how bad my art is…. Ho ho ho So I started life as painter, you can see two here. Pretty standard art school product but in the early 90’s I got the urge to use computers so I took an AutoCAD course and qualified as an AutoCAD draughtsman, found the one MA at the time that expressly took artists and got them to use computers at a low level. And produced this Cubist Portrait machine. This was an attempt to add extra dimensions to analytical Cubism. I notice someone unveiled something similar recently, it took them 23 years to catch up. This was everything I thought about art at the time distilled into one piece of software. It aspired to be formal and explore the language of art as a product of what the technology could support and enable – and that’s the key phrase, support and enable not what the technology could do. This wasn’t me using technology to produce something, this was me programming the machine to do what I wanted. So what is “Art” in the digital age? Stupid question as every generation asks the same... maybe. But what might be the defining features More recently I like everyone else have played with apps and things to produce images. I noticed recently what seems like 4 million iterations of one image produced through Prisma and shared on social media. I don’t think that this is Art with a capital A. That is image making. If you look at these I made, I quite like them as images but I am not sure they are Art as they aren’t me extending the formal language through my own efforts, they are me playing with the formal elements within limits set by someone else. Is that Art? I don’t know… I am also not sure whether these mixed media iPad paintings are computer art but they are Art. These photographs are. The digital darkroom techniques have been used to specifically enhance what I saw. So, what are the key rules I work by? At the moment I am writing music and creating hackable play. If you listen to album vs album 2 I would say that #1 is the sound of me learning software and that album #2 is me creating sounds that are more musical and in which I am making the tech do what I want it to. To me that is a key difference between being an Artist and a Craftsperson. The key defining attitude to the digitalisation of art must be curiosity. There are many many more open ended ways of communicating now… The chief attribute of craft must be interdisciplinary and collaborative. I used to do programming for art – I would more likely work with a collaborator now due to increasing complexity The output must be defined by the intent not the technology. No amount of filters will make your art mean anything and no amount of programming and clever tech will make something that moves people…. As I said, I love craft but technology led art is craft, intent, emotion and communication led art is Art with a capital A On my personal journey I have tried to work out what mix of things makes up my best work and I think its something like this… • Making data, tech and connectivity move people • Enabling people to feel what it is like to experience something • Connecting people with other people • Understanding machine aesthetics • Working out how Art can exist in an era of unnatural intelligence • Making galleries irrelevant • And in terms of skills…. “Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not.” Script (roughly)
- 26. @dickyadams
- 27. @dickyadams
Notes de l'éditeur
- This is my journey its all opinion here and nothing is certain or fact. I started doing art and I will end doing art. I cant stop making things. But along the way I have been lucky enough to be offered opportunities to work at amazing companies with amazing people across sectors. I did the usual foundation, degree and PGCE route that most fine art graduates did. But then at the turn of the 90’s I started using computers for creative work – Archimedes as it happens. Then I did one of the first AutoCAD draughtsman courses after which I went to do what at the time was the only MA in the UK for artists that wanted to work with computers, at Middlesex. The fact that I worked with creating software for creative outputs meant that upon leaving I was approached to work at fledgling interactive TV company – one of two in the UK and we did….
- This type of stuff….there was no web to look at, no previous examples to speak of and very very nascent technology so in a very real sense it was like the wild west. Looking back it was the hard intellectual skills from my art education that helped. The notion of testing and iterating is actually something fine artists have done for centuries. But of course this wasn't “art” but in 1995 I found my self making Emmerdale Farm interactive.
- Since then I have had a fantastic set of roles and worked for and with some amazing companies culminating with my current contract at the RSC. In writing this I realise that its this eclectic mix of things that has helped me to keep developing. By using my art and intellectual skills in different ways I have had my beliefs and practices tested and stretched in some of the most demanding environments.
- Picasso famously said that “Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.” It’s interesting that in the intervening years computing has become so embedded and part of the fabric of everyday life that we might be tempted to disregard this as being anachronistic. But there is a truth at its heart that is still there. Artists ask questions, that's what we do, in a very real sense we don’t want answers. When I walk into a gallery and see a series of paintings, I see each one as a set of questions in the artists progress, not a set of complete answers as most of the public do. What is interesting is that most of the computer art I have seen and been involved with is precisely not about answers and is about questions. It never was, just the same as any other great art. Those who let the tech guide them are craftspeople not artists – there is nothing wrong with that in wny way but we do need to reclaim the word Art, which is overused.
- As you look at the history of computer art you see that ideas from the 60’s 70’s 80’s and 90’s are still prevalent in lots of today’s work and I sometimes wonder if enough history is being taught as I constantly see the same things repeated but dressed up slightly different. I worry that here we are with a potentially totally new way of doing things but we seem doomed to repeat the same experiments. As you get closer to the present we start to see more integration of different media. A less “modernist purist” approach and a more interdisciplinary one is now the norm. The old notion of being a painter or a sculptor are the things that are disappearing, the art is gradually becoming computerised. I have never known as many polymaths as there are now. In terms of the work itself, I think we are moving into a much more sensory based art era that uses inputs from all sorts of sources, processes them and then produces and output in whatever form is relevant to communicate the intent. Which in itself is an old philosophical concept… The Trivium
- One way I tend to explain some of the changes to students and at talks with fewer creative people is to try and look at the base problem – this is one example … and in a way this is how I still approach everything. I utilise the medium to gain insight and to communicate. To move or to excite, or provoke sorrow … and not just sorrow at how bad my art is…. Ho ho ho
- So I started life as painter, you can see two here. Pretty standard art school product but in the early 90’s I got the urge to use computers so I took an AutoCAD course and qualified as an AutoCAD draughtsman, found the one MA at the time that expressly took artists and got them to use computers at a low level. And produced this Cubist Portrait machine.
- This was an attempt to add extra dimensions to analytical Cubism. I notice someone unveiled something similar recently, it took them 23 years to catch up. This was everything I thought about art at the time distilled into one piece of software. It aspired to be formal and explore the language of art as a product of what the technology could support and enable – and that’s the key phrase, support and enable not what the technology could do. This wasn’t me using technology to produce something, this was me programming the machine to do what I wanted.
- So what is “Art” in the digital age? Stupid question as every generation asks the same... maybe. But what might be the defining features
- More recently I like everyone else have played with apps and things to produce images. I noticed recently what seems like 4 million iterations of one image produced through Prisma and shared on social media. I don’t think that this is Art with a capital A. That is image making. If you look at these I made, I quite like them as images but I am not sure they are Art as they aren’t me extending the formal language through my own efforts, they are me playing with the formal elements within limits set by someone else. Is that Art? I don’t know…
- I am also not sure whether these mixed media iPad paintings are computer art but they are Art.
- These photographs are. The digital darkroom techniques have been used to specifically enhance what I saw. So, what are the key rules I work by?
- The key defining attitude to the digitalisation of art must be curiosity. There are many many more open ended ways of communicating now… The chief attribute of craft must be interdisciplinary and collaborative. I used to do programming for art – I would more likely work with a collaborator now due to increasing complexity The output must be defined by the intent not the technology. No amount of filters will make your art mean anything and no amount of programming and clever tech will make something that moves people…. As I said, I love craft but technology led art is craft, intent, emotion and communication led art is Art with a capital A
- On my personal journey I have tried to work out what mix of things makes up my best work and I think its something like this…
- Making data, tech and connectivity move people Enabling people to feel what it is like to experience something Connecting people with other people Understanding machine aesthetics Working out how Art can exist in a era of unnatural intelligence Making galleries irrelevant
- And in terms of skills….