abstractmachine

21 March, 2004

C_TE

Filed under: live — Douglas Edric Stanley @ 23:50 pm
  • Conference: Programmation Orientée Art
  • Speakers: Bernard Stiegler, Charles Sandison, Jean-Pierre Balpe, Olga Goriunova, Matthew Fuller, Andreas Broeckman, Christophe Bruno, Matthew Fuller, Frédéric Madre, Isabelle Vodjdani, Hugues Vient, Richard Kriesche, Gérard Chazal, Woody et Steina Vasulka, Simon Penny, Andre Bernhardt, Paul Devautour, Florian Cramer, Frédéric Durieu, Inke Arns, Geoff Cox, Alex McLean, Robin Fercoq, Stéphane Sautour, Stéphane Sautour, Antoine Schmitt, Douglas Edric Stanley, JODI
  • Location: Amphithéâtre de la Sorbonne, Paris
  • Date: 19 & 20 March, 2004

Douglas Edric Stanley @ Programmation Orientée Art, La Sorbonne, 2004

Well, that was a catastophe. For me at least. The conference itself was off and on. Some brilliant people — Inke Arns, Andreas Broeckman, the Vasulkas, JODI, Paul Devautour, Alex McLean — but everyone else, most of all the French speakers, seemed to be speaking on a wholly different topic. Pretty much missed the whole train on art & programming. I expected great things from Stiegler, but he didn’t really deliver. That said, he did utter one phrase that risks becoming a mantra in the future: “Pour moi il n’y a pas d’art numérique, mais une période numérique des arts” (hasty translation: ‘I do not believe in a digital art, but rather in a digital period of the arts’).

Douglas Edric Stanley @ Programmation Orientée Art, La Sorbonne, 2004

Anyway, my bit was a total mess, somewhat my own fault for having agreed to what was obviously an attempt to fill in at the last minute an omission. They were a bit embarassed, apparently, to learn from several participants that I’d been working on these subjects for years. Out of politeness I accepted, then, to assuage their embarassement — whereas it probably would have been more polite to decline. When I got there they had reserved a tiny 10 minute time-space at the very end with no real theme, that got squeezed down to about 5 minutes because we were going to be kicked out of the room. One of the organisers insisted that I show some of my own work in that time-frame, which created a small plug-in-the-computer-quickly fiasco, meanwhile someone in the audience screams out once I’ve started, “who is this guy?” They had forgotten to present me. Who’s that freak at the mic? …utterly useless to even show up in such circumstances. A bit pissed at the whole thing, I ended up rambling some incoherent, agressive rant, apparently — since I can’t remember what it is I said.

At least I remember what I tried to say. Inke Arns had really got it right for me, when she showed a brilliant piece from an engineer who generated music by slightly modifying the scan frequency of a computer monitor and placing a little radio next to the monitor. It was probably one of the best pieces shown in the two-day conference, and not even by an artist. So in response to this, I brought back up the concept for a conference title I had created way back in February 2001: CODE|ART. One of the ideas in that title for me was both the separation of the two terms, i.e. the fact that they’re not the same thing. But additionaly, in the title we could also read the function of the Unix Pipe, in which the output of one process (here CODE) inputs into another process (ART). Arne’s example was a perfect illustration of this situation in which an object not built in an artistic context, becomes extremely interresting in an artistic context.

And finally, the same phrase, CODE|ART, can be re-read, if we were to program it in C code, or in Java, to be a biwise operator that would take the zeros and ones of CODE and mix them with the zeros and ones of ART to make a new term. So what, in a first reading, is an exclusive opposition, eventually becomes a hybrid term. This term can even be processed in the computer and given a name. Using some bitwise-friendly language, we can calculate the result of ‘CODE’ | ‘ART’ as ‘C_TE’, or ‘cte’ if you calculate using lowercase letters.

I was trying, through this argument, to answer a mini-debate that was brewing in the halls of the conference for and against the need to define what programmed art is. I suppose I was just trying to strike a balance between the two tendencies. But since my microphone was cut off (at least symbolically), I couldn’t really get to this point. The last time I was ousted off the mic like that, it was by the president of Vivendi of all people (it figures). That too was a 10-minute, turned 5-minute, affair. Ho hum.

Douglas Edric Stanley @ Programmation Orientée Art, La Sorbonne, 2004

19 March, 2004

“Tout un programme”

Filed under: publication — Douglas Edric Stanley @ 17:36 pm

Liberation Logo

So I got another mention in an Annick Rivoire article today, in an article on Art and Code. Actually, the mention came from her interviewee, David-Olivier Lartigaud who made the following comment :

A.R.: Pourquoi est-il si difficile de qualifier les créations de ces artistes ?

D-O. L. : A la base de toutes les oeuvres avec un ordinateur, il y a du programme. Beaucoup d’artistes, comme Claude Closky, s’intéressent au code, sans forcément programmer leurs oeuvres. Au contraire de la posture artistique d’un Douglas Edric Stanley, qui insiste pour que les artistes soient auteurs de leurs programmes.

I suppose I can’t really deny that. That is indeed a statement I’ve made in the past: that computer art requires a computer program of some form or another. I’ve also insisted that artists should do their own coding. But that’s always been a provocative statement, designed to make a point, to invite artists to reflect on the ideology of code, and not a moral recipie for how-to-make-art. I’m not a moralist. I’m too Nietzschean for that. And Claude Closky’s brilliant, so I’ve definitely got nothing against him. But oppositions help to understand the dynamics of a specific problem, so I suppose its ok if David needs to polarize me in this way. I suppose I also deserve it.

10 March, 2004

“Clash Scratch Flash”

Filed under: exhibition, publication — Douglas Edric Stanley @ 23:55 pm

Liberation Logo

I got a brief mention in Annick Rivoire’s article “Clash Scratch Flash” today. We actually planned to meet and discuss my installation more in depth, but for the second time she never showed up. Ah, les journalistes… So all I got was the following mention, not really a critique of any sort, but she was positive about the work, so I shouldn’t complain.

Fond et forme. Les images expérimentales d’aujourd’hui redéfinissent le cinéma dans sa forme, éclatée dans les installations interactives, «mappée» (superpositions de couches d’images) dans les courts métrages , morphée d’effets spéciaux, bidouillée pour la vieillir artificiellement ou lui donner un effet pixel. Le fond aussi est métamorphosé : narration interactive, où, à la façon d’un Chris Hales, le public est sommé de choisir la suite, narration algorithmique (générée par l’ordinateur), où, comme avec le beau projet de Douglas Edric Stanley, Concrescence, les mains des spectateurs effleurent une table de projection et recomposent ainsi de courtes séquences du Psychose d’Hitchcock.

The rest of her article can be found on the Libération website.

Oh, did I mention that Chris Hales was one of the artists invited to Némo? As Annick mentions, he’s still working with interactive narratives. He’s really quite charming, I liked him a lot. He also gave a great presentation this evening, very wacky.

8 March, 2004

Conference

Filed under: live, algorithmic cinema — Douglas Edric Stanley @ 15:36 pm
  • Conference: Cinéma Algorithmique
  • Speaker: Douglas Edric Stanley
  • Location: Forum des Images, Paris
  • Time: 18:00, Wednesday, 10 March, 2004

I will be giving a conference in conjunction with my installation at the Festival Némo.

I will be showing my algorithmic cinema authoring system Concrescence during the conference, as well as workshops and research that led me to it. I will also try to speak about the Hypertable, and some of its multiple influences: Myron Kruger, Diller+Scofidio, Ping Pong Plus, Sommerer+Mignonneau, Michael Naimark, Jean-Louis Boissier + Laboratoire Esthétique de l’interactivté, Masaki Fujihata, Art+Com, etc.

5 March, 2004

Concrescence @ Nemo

Filed under: exhibition, hypertable, algorithmic cinema — Douglas Edric Stanley @ 14:21 pm

Concrescence Algorithmic Cinema Installation

If you are in Paris this week, I will be re-presenting last September’s prototype at the exhibition Némo while awaiting the first work to use the system at the Pompidou Center which won’t be ready until October.

The opening is monday night.

I don’t know how good the festival is going to be, but at least there is going to be some Bokanowski, and an evening of “Trash Nights at Némo” with Portugese trash-art films. Whatever that’s worth. I’m also excited to see Pat O’Neil’s The Decay of Fiction. I’ve always been a huge fan, ever since I saw his Water and Power at the Pacific Film Archive way back when I was studying cinema (and other subjects) in 1989.