Comments on: Reviewed: ‘A Philosophy of Computer Art’ by Dominic McIver Lopes http://netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/ exploring digital poetry and electronic literature Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:39:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: PLC programming http://netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/comment-page-1/#comment-403 PLC programming Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:49:18 +0000 http://netpoetic.com/?p=836#comment-403 A nice blog with all the informative stuff it is the great blog compared to others thanks for giving such useful information keep up the good work. A nice blog with all the informative stuff it is the great blog compared to others thanks for giving such useful information keep up the good work.

]]> By: Jim Andrews http://netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/comment-page-1/#comment-312 Jim Andrews Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:22:28 +0000 http://netpoetic.com/?p=836#comment-312 Check out Lopes’s site ( http://www.apoca.mentalpaint.net ) for further information on A Philosophy of Computer Art; it contains links to works (usually documentation about them) discussed in the book, a précis of the book, another review, and links to order the book. Check out Lopes’s site ( http://www.apoca.mentalpaint.net ) for further information on A Philosophy of Computer Art; it contains links to works (usually documentation about them) discussed in the book, a précis of the book, another review, and links to order the book.

]]> By: cd keys http://netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/comment-page-1/#comment-311 cd keys Sat, 14 Nov 2009 03:47:09 +0000 http://netpoetic.com/?p=836#comment-311 I would like to read this book. Where can I get this? I would like to read this book. Where can I get this?

]]> By: Jim Andrews http://netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/comment-page-1/#comment-305 Jim Andrews Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:20:19 +0000 http://netpoetic.com/?p=836#comment-305 "One problem I see here is that just what a “computer” is is rapidly changing, especially as nanotechnology progresses." What computers do changes as new software and hardware are developed, but what a computer 'is' has not changed since Turing's work, Joel, in the forties and fifties of the last century. The Turing machine has not been replaced as the theoretical model of what a computer is. Any sufficiently powerful computer that has existed since then cannot do anything that a Turing machine can't do. And it's very likely that no machine that operates by executing algorithms will ever do anything that a Turing machine can't do. Lopes's book is about art in which the computer is crucial as medium, Joel. It's not about art that could and often should appear in print with fancy footnotes, or about any other type of work that is digitized but could as well appear in other media. In our culture, the term 'digital art' can refer to scans of paintings that are on flickr. That's not computer art, though, not art in which the computer is crucial as medium. Some term other than 'digital art' is required to refer to such art. 'Computer art' cuts to the point. What sets computers apart from other machines is programmability. That's what gives them their radical flexibility. That won't change, Joel. I'm not sure how popular Lopes's book will be with artists and the art scenes, because it makes a distinction between what is mostly done (digital art) and art in which the computer is crucial as medium (computer art). I think a lot of artists don't understand it and even if they understand it, don't want to hear it because they like to think of themselves as producing work in which the computer is crucial as medium--even when they're not. “One problem I see here is that just what a “computer” is is rapidly changing, especially as nanotechnology progresses.”

What computers do changes as new software and hardware are developed, but what a computer ‘is’ has not changed since Turing’s work, Joel, in the forties and fifties of the last century. The Turing machine has not been replaced as the theoretical model of what a computer is. Any sufficiently powerful computer that has existed since then cannot do anything that a Turing machine can’t do. And it’s very likely that no machine that operates by executing algorithms will ever do anything that a Turing machine can’t do.

Lopes’s book is about art in which the computer is crucial as medium, Joel. It’s not about art that could and often should appear in print with fancy footnotes, or about any other type of work that is digitized but could as well appear in other media.

In our culture, the term ‘digital art’ can refer to scans of paintings that are on flickr. That’s not computer art, though, not art in which the computer is crucial as medium. Some term other than ‘digital art’ is required to refer to such art. ‘Computer art’ cuts to the point.

What sets computers apart from other machines is programmability. That’s what gives them their radical flexibility. That won’t change, Joel.

I’m not sure how popular Lopes’s book will be with artists and the art scenes, because it makes a distinction between what is mostly done (digital art) and art in which the computer is crucial as medium (computer art). I think a lot of artists don’t understand it and even if they understand it, don’t want to hear it because they like to think of themselves as producing work in which the computer is crucial as medium–even when they’re not.

]]> By: Joel Weishaus http://netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/comment-page-1/#comment-304 Joel Weishaus Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:46:36 +0000 http://netpoetic.com/?p=836#comment-304 One problem I see here is that just what a "computer" is is rapidly changing, especially as nanotechnology progresses. Also, I'm not sure if "programmability," or any other term, can address the future. Philosophy has a habit of walling itself in when trying to pin down what is, in reality, fluid. While it's culture, not philosophy, that finally defines our terms. Lastly, I suggest "digital," which is more inclusive of various mediums, thus more responsive to various interactivities, rather than "computer," which is an anachronism left over from the machine's original intent, stands the better chance of survival. -Joel One problem I see here is that just what a “computer” is is rapidly changing, especially as nanotechnology progresses. Also, I’m not sure if “programmability,” or any other term, can address the future.
Philosophy has a habit of walling itself in when trying to pin down what is, in reality, fluid. While it’s culture, not philosophy, that finally defines our terms.
Lastly, I suggest “digital,” which is more inclusive of various mediums, thus more responsive to various interactivities, rather than “computer,” which is an anachronism left over from the machine’s original intent, stands the better chance of survival.

-Joel

]]>