The first text presents programming as an art form in itself. Comparing code to architectural schematics, weaving patterns and Arabic Khatt (calligraphy + mathematics) the author discusses the reproduction and distribution processes of programming and the social communities that it has given rise to. The second text introduces the concept of an “operational construct”, which is a series of computer-assisted mechanisms that track and analyze their subject matter, facilitating an arrangement of power. This apparatus, fueled by command, control, and communication networks, is apparent on the battlefield through precise target bombing and on one’s TV set during a sports event with an advancing digital readout. The last article deals with design as a way of critiquing society and how one interacts with their environment. Through discussing how viewers perceive design objects in a gallery setting the text suggests how these electronic products could shape the experience of everyday life.
Our discussion began with the last article, first examining how one generally associates design objects with mass production. Many of the designs discussed in the text are obviously not appropriate for large-scale production, yet are we still able to connect them with artistic merit? Another issue with design is the evident fetishism attributed to an object, elevating it above its use-value to an aesthetic pleasure. The success of many design objects depends on their fetish-value yet can design be used purely for use-value creation? The 100-dollar computer, for children in 3rd world countries, is a good example of design applied to get the most usability out of an object. We then switched to the first article, wondering what are the exact differences between analog and digital forms of creation. Is it possible that there is an underlying algorithm and programmatic language to painting just like programming computer code? Obviously this algorithm is deeply embedded in the physical-manipulation code that we learn from birth but to a computer, mixing paints, dipping the paintbrush and then applying it to the canvas would be a huge library of actions (not to mention learning anatomy, perspective and all the other things involved in studio arts education). Instead of seeing a list of directions like that of a piece of code maybe those directions are imprinted in our minds. Therefore the real difference between programming and painting is in its medium – one uses binary and the other uses atoms, which make up the paint. Online coding communities and open source programs are another interesting result of the programming medium. It was pointed out that in these communities, not only are the end-result programs critiqued but the style and artistic quality of the code itself is also important. We quickly looked at the second article, linking it to the power structures of Foucault and Deleuze.
Could the open source movement involved with programming transfer to all aspects of society? And if so, could this be the final phase of societal control, allowing complete dissemination of power and a return to communism?
(DISIPLINE > CONTROL > OPEN SOURCE?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment