October, 2012

43 Dodgy Statement on Computer Art

Saturday, October 20th, 2012

by Brian Reffin

Always an inspiration / laugh!

My top 11:

22. The best interactive art always makes you look at the participants.

30. Bugs are good; as with fireflies, the fertile ones shed light.

1. The sadness of most art is that it does not know its future. The sadness of computer art is that it does not know its past.

4. Using state-of-the-art technology merely produces state-of-the-technology art.

9. If your system costs 10 000 € and mine 30 000 €, it does not follow that my art is thrice as good as yours.

15. You know your amazing new computer art, rich in metaphors and analogies? It’s been done. Years ago. Without a computer.

11. Are you pushing the frontiers of computational representation, or of contemporary art? Confusion rarely leads to success.

39. We do not admire Picasso’s Guernica or Goya’s The Third of May 1808 solely because of the techniques used, yet we are often invited to admire computer art for just that reason. Art that is deliberately content-free is one thing. Art that is accidentally, lumpenly content-free is another.

23. There is only one thing worse than studying art for the budding computer artist, and that is to study computers. Or vice versa.

3. If it looks just like, you know, ‘art’…it probably isn’t.

31. The Prix Pierre Gutzman, 100 000 Francs, was offered by the Institut de France in 1906 to the first person who could establish contact with extra-terrestrials; except with Martians, which would be too easy.

All of them on Interactive Architectures.org

(A shame this great inspirational site seems to be inactive)