16.7.12

A Philosophy of Computer Art" de Dominic Lopes

Estou muito curiosa para ler este livro "A Philosophy of Computer Art" de Dominic Lopes, não é recente mas parece ser muito interessante.



November 5th, 2009 by Jim Andrews


In the book’s second paragraph, he says:


“This book’s title announces its topic as “computer art” rather than “digital art,” and the choice of words is deliberate. As I’ll explain, computer art isn’t the same as digital art. Moreover, computer art is a new art form and digital art is not” (p. 1)


This distinction between digital art and computer art is important and one that those involved in both fields need to understand and appreciate. Here is his definition of digital art:


“An item is a work of digital art just in case (1) it’s art (2) made by computer or (3) made for display by computer (4) in a common, digital code.” (p. 3)


This would include many digitized movies, digitized photographs and so on. It would also include scans of traditional paintings where the scans have been scanned to display them on monitors/computers. If the scans were not made to display the scans on computers (but to print them out, say), then this definition probably wouldn’t describe the scans as ‘digital art’. But the important thing is that this definition of ‘digital art’ is quite broad and does not, in the least, attempt to describe a notion of computer art any more significant than traditional paintings scanned. We all can grant that such stuff can be ‘digital art’, but I think, equally, we would all disagree with the notion that such things have any significance as computer art: whatever artistic significance the paintings may have, computers are totally irrelevant to it. But how might we define ‘computer art’? Here is Lopes’s definition:


“An item is a computer art work just in case (1) it’s art, (2) it’s run on a computer, (3) it’s interactive, and (4) it’s interactive because it’s run on a computer” (p. 27)


Clearly this definition could hardly stress the importance of interactivity more. The problem is that there are types of art that we surely should describe as ‘computer art’ that are not interactive. A great deal of ‘generative art’ is not interactive. For instance, AARON, which Lopes discusses, is a computer program written by Harold Cohen that somewhat autonomously draws/generates pictures. It is not interactive with the audience at all. But surely we should describe this program as ‘computer art’ if, by that term, we mean art in which the computer is crucial as medium.

....

Here is how Lopes defines interactive art:

“A work of art is interactive to the degree that the actions of its users help generate its display (in prescribed ways)” (p. 37).


And here is his definition of user interaction:

“A user interacts with a work of art just in case he or she acts so as to generate its display in a prescribed manner” (p. 37).


http://www.netpoetic.com/2009/11/reviewed-a-philosophy-of-computer-art-by-dominic-mciver-lopes/



Aqui fica a entrevista realizada por Jim Andrews a Dominic Lopes.

http://vispo.com/lopes/



Comprar aqui:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Philosophy-Computer-Art-ebook/dp/B002NXOS2S/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342437105&sr=8-2&keywords=Dominic+McIver+Lopes+A+philosophy+of+computer+art#