Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Programming IT Technology

Open Source Art? 150

Posted by michael from the slashcode-vaguely-resembles-the-scream dept.
gz writes "The Whitney has put online an exhibit where viewers are encouraged to examine the source code of the program that generates the art, despite the fact that the majority of viewers have no idea what the code means. Projects use Java, C, Perl, Lingo, and VB."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Art? More

Open Source Art?

Comments Filter:
  • ...but this is not what I meant...

  • Obvuscated Perl (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've seen some 'artistic' perl programs that the code, itself, looks like a camel, and, when run, turns into two camels (in code) that, when run, returns to the original camel.
  • Wasn't there a software monopoly who encouraged (after a judge told them to do so) some selected state officers to examine the source code of its operating system, despite the fact that the majority of viewers had no idea what the code means ?

  • Clarifications: (Score:2, Informative)

    by mblase ( 200735 )
    "The Whitney has put online an exhibit where viewers are encouraged to examine the source code of the program that generates the art, despite the fact that the majority of viewers have no idea what the code means. Projects use Java, C, Perl, Lingo, and VB."

    Note that in the above quote, "the program" should be replaced with "the artists using the program" and the headline "open source art" should be replaced with "open source software tools for creating art".

    The writer seems to be implying that the program is generating digital modern art without any human intervention whatsoever, which is both silly and wrong.
    • The writer seems to be implying that the program is generating digital modern art without any human intervention whatsoever, which is both silly and wrong

      True, this implication is wrong in this context, but I hope you are not saying that modern art generation without human intervention (beyond pressing a button) is silly and wrong - it's no different than any natural system that generates "art" - think corral (or fractals, for that matter)
    • A VB art program using five polygons (shape(5)) on a form with a timer (timer set to one millisecond): ---------- Private Sub Form_Load() Randomize Timer Call MakeTopMost(Me.hWnd) Me.Width = Screen.Width Me.Height = Screen.Height Me.Left = 0 Me.Top = 0 End Sub Private Sub tmrTime_Timer() If Me.BackColor = vbBlue Then Me.BackColor = vbRed Else Me.BackColor = vbBlue Dim pos As Double For i = 0 To 4 With shape(i) .BorderColor = RGB(Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255) .BackColor = RGB(Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255) .Width = Me.Width / 4 * Rnd * 3 .Height = Me.Height / 4 * Rnd * 3 .Left = Me.Width * Rnd - .Width / 2 .Top = Me.Height * Rnd - .Height / 2 End With Next i End Sub ---------- Yeah, I could have just said "induce seizures," but I had to take the two and a half minutes to write all that out... oh, and throw "SetWindowPos Handle, HWND_TOPMOST, 0, 0, 0, 0, TOPMOST_FLAGS" in there somewhere, just to get the whole artistic effect...
      • Aw, crap, I forgot about (br).... lemme try that again.

        Private Sub Form_Load()
        Randomize Timer
        Call MakeTopMost(Me.hWnd)
        Me.Width = Screen.Width
        Me.Height = Screen.Height
        Me.Left = 0
        Me.Top = 0
        End Sub

        Private Sub tmrTime_Timer()
        If Me.BackColor = vbBlue Then Me.BackColor = vbRed Else Me.BackColor = vbBlue
        Dim pos As Double
        For i = 0 To 4
        With shape(i)
        .BorderColor = RGB(Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255)
        .BackColor = RGB(Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255, Rnd * 255)
        .Width = Me.Width / 4 * Rnd * 3
        .Height = Me.Height / 4 * Rnd * 3
        .Left = Me.Width * Rnd - .Width / 2
        .Top = Me.Height * Rnd - .Height / 2
        End With
        Next i
        End Sub

        How's that? Same idea, but syntactically correct!
    • Note that in the above quote, "the program" should be replaced with "the artists using the program" and the headline "open source art" should be replaced with "open source software tools for creating art". So, "viewers are encouraged to examine the source code of the artists using the program..."? "Hey baby, would I love to compile the code YOU'RE made of..."
  • The site appears to be slashdotted.
  • No Michael, the guy was screaming because he saw the slashcode source.
  • ... how a buffer overflow would 'look'

    Time to review that code!

  • "...despite the fact that the majority of viewers have no idea what the code means."
  • I know my g/f's name is whitney, but that's about it. the rest of this just confuses me...
    • Wait, wait, you're expecting me to believe that a regular Slashdot poster not only is confused about something open-source related, but also has a girlfriend?

      Riiiiiight.

    • Re:Me=Confused (Score:2, Informative)

      by ChrisTower ( 122297 )
      The Whitney [whitney.org] is a museum in New York City showcasing modern art. They also offer a biennial [whitneybiennial.com] which showcases digital works by many emerging artists. It's definitely worth a visit if you're are ever in New York for the day. Fridays from 6pm until 9pm is pay what you wish admission for all your students/cheapskates.
  • I was wondering why no Random Art [cmu.edu].
  • This reminds me of a kiosk I built for an art gallery show here in SoHo NYC back in '94. Basically, Curator let the gallery visitors add digital graffiti to digitized pictures of the art on display.

    It was incredible fun, and quite interesting to see how the graffiti layered up (all stages were saved progressively).

    If at all interested, I've got some lingering info about Curator on my personal page [turnstyle.com] (Curator is about the 3rd project down)

    • fwiw, the reason Curator comes to mind in the context of this 'open source art' thread is how user contributions made it increasingly interesting with each passing day.

      Basically, it started off with about 50 pictures of art, but in a month it collected well over 500 spontaneous graffiti'd images.

      Most were scribbly crap, but many were really quite good, and when you looked at the whole, you could start to detect patterns (such as the image of the baby that everybody got violent with: one made bloody, another with a syringe, another crying, etc).

      My point is that the user contributions really took on a life of their own, and totally surpassed what I had started with.

      And that's how I imaginge many open-source developers feel about their work.

  • free reg blah blah (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    CODeDOC takes a reverse look at 'software art' projects by focusing on and comparing the 'back end' of the code that drives the artwork's 'front end'--the result of the code, be it visuals or a more abstract communication process. A dozen artists coded a specific assignment in a language of their choice and were asked to exchange the code with each other for comments. The assignment was to 'connect and move three points in space,' which obviously could be interpreted in a literal or abstract way. The 'core' of the code (commonly referred to as the 'main') was not to exceed 8KB, which equals a fairly short text document. The results of the programming are made visible only after the code--what visitors to this site encounter first is a text document of code from which they can launch the front end of the project. The languages in which the code is written are Java, C, Visual Basic, Lingo and Perl. Obviously, this is only a selection of scripting and programming languages. HTML (Hypertext Markup Language), the scripting language on which the World Wide Web is based, and Flash Script were excluded mostly for pragmatic reasons (the inclusion of these languages probably would have doubled the number of artists, making the project unwieldy). Not all of the artists originally invited were able to participate in CODeDOC due to their busy schedules.

    The category of software art, commonly used for artist-written software, is a manifestation of fairly blurry terminology. Software is generally defined as formal instructions that can be executed by a computer. However, there is no digital art that doesn't have a layer of code and algorithms, a procedure of formal instructions that accomplish a 'result' in a finite number of steps. Even if the physical and visual manifestations of digital art distract from the layer of data and code, any 'digital image' has ultimately been produced by instructions and the software that was used to create or manipulate it. It is precisely this layer of 'code' and instructions that constitutes a conceptual level which connects to previous artistic work such as Dada's experiments with formal variations and the conceptual pieces by Duchamp, Cage and Sol LeWitt that are based on the execution of instructions.

    What distinguishes software art from other artistic practices, is that, unlike any form of visual art, it requires the artist to write a purely verbal description of their work. In traditional art forms, the 'signature' and 'voice' of an artist manifests itself in aesthetics of visuals and execution. Every medium may have its specific language but in digital art, this language has a quite literal rather than figurative manifestation. In software art, the visual results of the artwork are derived from the language of code. Languages are defined by grammar and complex rules and at the same time leave space for individual forms of creative expression. Our identity and the roles we play are expressed in our use of language. One might assume that the aesthetics of artists who write their own source code manifest themselves both in the code itself and its visual results. Artist John F. Simon, Jr. (who wasn't able to participate in the project) has talked about code as a form of creative writing. Code has also been referred to as the medium, the 'paint and canvas,' of the digital artist but it transcends this metaphor in that it even allows artists to write their own tools--to stay with the metaphor, the medium in this case also enables the artist to create the paintbrush and palette.

    The projects featured as part of CODeDOC are expressions of distinct artistic signatures: the conceptual approach to the project, the way the code has been written, and the results produced by it reveal a lot about the respective artist. Some of the artists interpret the assignment in a predominantly graphic, visual way; others connect points in the global network of the Internet; one project explicitly treats the language of code as a narrative connecting 3 'characters'; another one creates a meta-layer for profiling the code itself, collapsing the boundaries between front end and back end; yet another project focuses on 'language abuse' and illegal instructions.

    Intrinsic to software art is a procedural element that allows for reconfiguration and extension, and, as way of commenting on the projects, artists started to 'remix' their work, applying their own code to other projects or combining sections of code into a new project.

    One does not need to be a programmer and have an in-depth understanding of computer languages to establish a connection between the code and its respective results: even a glance at the artists' source code will reveal certain mathematical functions, and in many cases, the artists' comments on their writing clarify the functionality of a line or section of the code. In some cases, reading the source code will enhance the perception of the work; in other cases, the code doesn't necessarily add to the projects. CODeDOC is an endeavor to take a closer look at the process of this particular artistic practice, and to raise questions about the parameters of artistic creation.

    CODeDOC
    Digital Art is not a purely visual medium but always consist of a mostly invisible back end--source code or scripting languages--and a front end, the results created by "computer language." These results can manifest themselves in visuals or a more abstract process that allows for a form of communication in the broadest sense. Source code is a set of instructions formulated in a language that can be understood by the computer.

    In traditional art forms, the 'signature' and 'voice' of an artist manifests itself in aesthetics of visuals and execution. Every medium may have its specific language but in digital art, this language has a quite literal rather than figurative manifestation. The visual results of an artwork are derived from the language of code. Languages are defined by grammar and complex rules and at the same time leave space for individual forms of creative expression. Our identity and the roles we play are expressed in our use of language. One might assume that the aesthetics of artists who write their own source code manifest themselves both in the code itself and its visual results. How much of a personal signature is found in an artist's source code?

    "CODeDOC" takes a 'reverse' look at artists' projects by focusing on and comparing the back end of the code. A dozen artists are invited to code a specific assignment in a language of their choice and to exchange the code with each other for comments. The emphasis is placed on process and data while the results are made visible only after the code. The project explores both the artist's creative expression on the level of source code and the linguistic universe of code.

    Languages: Java, C/++, VB; Perl, Lingo, xml
    [html and FlashScript have been excluded for pragamatic reasons]

    Assignment and Requirements:

    The code should move and connect three points in space. [This could obviously interpreted in a visual or more abstract way].

    The code should not exceed 8 KB. 8 KB refers to your "main." The emphasis and focus is on code written by the artist. Obviously it's almost impossible to *not* call any libraries and subroutines but if possible, you should avoid relying on them too much (if they haven't been written by yourself); meaning, the idea is not that you write one line that calls powerful subroutines and libraries. However, if you can't resist bending the rules, please write a short line explaining what you did (so it becomes a bit more intelligible for anyone who isn't a programmer).

    The code must be compilable / interpretable; it should run in a browser window or be accessible as downloadable executable.

    The "object" is the code itself not what it produces. "Visual beauty" does not have to be the main focus.

    By the deadline, you should deliver your code as a text file + the applet / exe etc.

    The "assignment" will be collected and made available to everyone on a website. You are invited to comment on each others' projects. You do *not* have to comment on every participant's code; you can decide to stick to the artists' code that has been written in the language of your choice (or comment on whatever interests you).

    The 'exhibition' of the project at the artport website will present each artist's code as well as the comments submitted by the other artists. The visuals / process created by the respective code can be launched from each artist's section.

    (Tentative) Objectives:
    Obviously, this is a more experimental and process-oriented project, and it can't be predicted what exactly the outcome will be. You shouldn't just strive to illustrate the potential outcome I'm outlining below.

    The project could (but does not have to) show

    *the differences between the respective coding / scripting languages

    *the differences and/or similarities between artists' approaches -- be it in how they interpret the assignment or write their code

    *the various relationships between code and its results

  • Hrm (Score:1)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 )
    Admittedly, computer code is not the most accessible of art subjects.

    I wouldn't say that, some of the first computer programs I wrote as a young teenager were in qbasic, making crude screen saver like programs in mode 13.

    That brings up an interesting question, are there any simple meta-languages for writing "art" programs using modern hardware? Something like qbasic was back in the day, easy enough for kids to play with, yet free form enough to not be constraining?

  • Debugged? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I certainly hope these folks have debugged their code before exhibiting it. I would have to have some of the 'art critics' on /. tear into it for mistakes...
  • I wrote something [caltech.edu] to generate pictures based on iterative choices from mutations of a blank image. Thing is, I had my head up my ass when it came to java at the time, and have not gone back to fix it at all. Y'all can feel free to check out the source [caltech.edu] and improve the hell out of it...
  • As part of my comments on this exhibition, I tried posting just the initial comment block from one of the exhibits: WYSISYG.

    The Slashdot interface told me:

    "Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
    Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters."

    That just about says it all. No further comments.

  • 1. I'm already seeing posts about what is or isn't "art". I don't think we should be so stingy with that word [publicfiction.org].

    2. I've been wondering for a while how an open-source license for artworks/art assets would go. Something like,

    I'm releasing this work in an editable format. You're free to modify and distribute it as long as:

    I'm always credited in documentation as the original creator of the work. If there are multiple generations of creators, all should be clearly credited.

    If you distribute the work, modified or unmodified, you must also distribute an editable version of the work including your modifications.
    ...is that it? My understanding of the GPL is limited, and I'm probably missing something...

    • it is limited.. The GPL != "open source", i wish people would stop interchanging the two terms. It's just one liscensing scheme.

      Anyways,

      In the case, the code is merely available. There's no liscense attached to the code in any way, shape or form, at least none I could find (I could be wrong). Thus, like all works, it is inherently copyrighted. If you used the code without permission, you could be in trouble, whether you credited anyone or not.

      (Just like if you wrote an essay/short story in school, and the teacher, or another student got it published under his name. You can sue for infringement, even though you never formally filed a copyright)

      Another example,

      Where I work, we distribute all code for our main application to unix boxes in the field, so we can customize it on-site. This doesn't make it open source, if a client stole our code, we'd have them over a barrel.
      • Where I work, we distribute all code for our main application to unix boxes in the field, so we can customize it on-site.

        Yikes! That means that five years from now you'll have 1,500 different forks of the code, all implementing kinda-sorta the same updates and functions, but all just different enough that your whole crew will always be insured of job security.

        Oh.... wait....
  • The art:
    An error occured while loading
    http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/ind ex.shtml: Timeout on server Timed out while waiting to connect to artport.whitney.org
    The source [slashcode.com]

    Seems good to me!

  • I managed to get a peek at the "C" one (linescape.cpp - spot the deliberate mistake). There's windows binarys on the site but I couldn't compile the source on my linux box (no windows.h !!!).
    Theres no license statement or copyright statement in the code, The source may be open, but I don't think RMS would approve. ;)

    • There's windows binarys on the site but I couldn't compile the source on my linux box (no windows.h !!!).

      You can get a working windows.h (and supporting libraries) for Linux here [winehq.com]. It's called Winelib.

  • This reminds me of a little /. feature I wrote on the subject of 'Open Source as an Art Form', er, 'Ant Farm' [slashdot.org].

    Jack William Bell
  • May I please have the source code for those applications as well? Thanks in advance.
  • but... the almighty system said:
    Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.

    I knew it, Slashdot does not understand anything about art ;)) Anyway, it is this one by Alex Galloway [whitney.org].

    • The Source Code:

      asasdflkasjdflksg;
      asdgokweoiuslksfs;
      lkasldob osjsovmnsonso;
      aonbonekslkdlkjhblkjslk;
      fomsokjb lslkjflksnblsnvl;
      lksjdlfjljdljsljflkjsd;

      The Artistic Result:

      Error on Line 1: could not parse.
      Error on Line 2: could not parse.
      Error on Line 3: could not parse.
      Error on Line 4: could not parse.
      Error on Line 5: could not parse.
      Error on Line 6: could not parse.

  • Does anyone remember that one Dilbert (tAS) where they created art w/ a focus group and a pc, the blue duck...

  • Literate Programs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Macrobat ( 318224 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @06:05PM (#4269064)
    I wonder what the reception to this would be if the programmers had all used Literate Programming. It's one documentation technique that's intended* to make source code and comments more expressive and meaningful, and (hopefully) lead to better code. It seems to me that the artsy crowd might respond favorably to a literate program.Google [google.com] will tell you a little bit more.

    (*Note thatI said intended; I don't know anyone personally who uses it, but the examples I've seen are pretty interesting.)

    • I'm certain the artsy crowd would not respond to literate programming over, um, conventional programming. In fact, displaying source code alongside the pictures is, IMHO, only vaguely useful, because source code isn't the software. There's art in that software, but it's stuck in the programmer's head. The only way to convey it is either a) through the action of the program, or b) by exposing the abstract structure of the program in a meaningful way. Think of it like this - which is more revealing: a) seeing the mechanism of a clock which is running, or b) seeing the mechanism of a clock which is stopped. Source code is like b, but vastly more complex. Someone unfamiliar with the code cannot appreciate it (since people aren't computers) - the structure and the design is hidden even to the original programmer once s/he gets enough mental distance from it. English explanations - literate programming - engage the wrong part of your brain. Demonstrating the actual mechanism behind the running clock is, I'm sure, infinitely more engaging and satisfying than any English description of the wound spring, gears, etc.

  • Webcollage (Score:3, Interesting)

    by quake74 ( 466627 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @06:22PM (#4269146)

    My favorite app (not in the exibition) which generates art is Webcollage [jwz.org]. It's a perl script which collects images at random from the web and pastes them together. It's my xscreensaver default and I am always amazed by how FEW pr0n images it shows (last one, a couple of months ago).

    quake74

    • Cool app. It's fairly obvious why it doesn't generate pr0n tho -

      It finds the images by feeding random words into various search engines, and pulling images (or sections of images) out of the pages returned.

      The 'random' words are presumably sourced from a list that doesn't include 'lesbian' [google.co.uk], 'teenage' [google.co.uk], or 'pussy' [google.co.uk]. So it's not exactly a representational sample of the pics that are out there.
      Hardly a representational assessment of the frequency of those words on the net either... Anyone want to get the source and generate some real art?
  • So one of the major points of this exhibit is to "peek under the hood" of computer art and have people look at the code, in the same way that you might look at an artists brushes, paints, etc. Given that, you would think that they could format the source code properly. Look at this C source for the Linescape piece. [whitney.org] It looks like someone hastily ran code2html without any concern for getting the tabs/whitespace correct, and called it a day.

    Come on, if the point is to view source code the way it is "in the wild" then at least get the formatting correct. I don't know of any programmer that would purposefully write code that looks like that. The comments and other multiline structures don't line up, and there seem to be many spurious line breaks. (And the tab stops should be 2 columns, The Way God Intended, but that's just my opinion.)

    If I were an artist who had created a commissioned piece of code and they posted it like that, I would feel a bit insulted. It's as if the gallery had let some photographic prints get waterlogged or a feature broke off of a sculpture during shipping, and they just continue to show the piece as if that's how it was supposed to look.

    (And, if indeed that is how the author Camille Utterback truly formatted the source, then I shudder. For an exhibit about the "art of code", that's some damn butt-ugly code there. I'm only referring to the formatting, not its content.)
  • where viewers are encouraged to examine...despite the fact that the majority of viewers have no idea what the code means.

    Once again art critics are commenting on something that they have no business commenting on. Thus the definition of art broadens just a bit more and loses more meaning. Right now it seems that humanities study equates to being able to make up more BS with a straight face than anyone else.

    It's like those conversations you have on some CS topic where Joe Average says something and you have to reply "Um... that isn't how it works at all."

    Of course in the arts it doesn't matter what is being said but what sort of crack-headed theory you can come up with about it and how loud your posse of "experts" can beat their chests. Of course in science we have terms for that too: Lysenkoism [skepdic.com] or Pathological science [skepdic.com]

  • How about *this* generated art? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @06:36PM (#4269223) Journal
    The 256 byte demo called "Tube" [256b.com] (Windows) from 256b [256b.com] -- a site for 256 byte intros.

    Among the most jaw dropping experiences *I* have had at least. What it is? Oh, just a rotating 3D tunnel effect in 256 bytes without Direct3D, OpenGL or similar graphics engines. :) It's generated on the fly as well, which makes it actually fit the "generated art" topic IMHO.

    Assembler source for compilation in NASM included.

    As some one said: "porn for coders". ;)

  • I've been waiting so long for this... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jdbo ( 35629 ) on Monday September 16, 2002 @06:43PM (#4269277)
    ...I come from an art school background (now coding db-backed applications for websites, came to the field via graphic design like everyone else graduating from art school in the late 90s...), and have _long_ considered that code reflects much more about a program than the utilitarian aspects of a) "what does this program do?" and b) "how well is it engineered?".

    My first "real" (snort!) job coming out of school was working with a team of other grads on the schools' website - within a week we were all able to recognize each other's code/quirks. And this was just plain vanilla HTML (among the least expressive of languages)!

    the more interesting aspect is that of "code as art", in which the particulars of implementation (esp. the person doing the implementation) can invoke an aesthetic response, above and beyond the utility of that implementation. (or, in other terms, "much of what makes art interesting is that which is both pleasing and useless").

    Anyway, I'm just happy to see that coding is beginning to be recognized as an expressive medium - whether it will ever be considered as such indpendently of the final product, I rather doubt (even printmaker's original plates/stones/etc. are rarely considered outside the context of an actual print run, and that medium is old old old...)...

    tangent: this is perhaps one aspect in which open source coding (may not) necessarily result in the most "aesthetically pleasing" code; while the actual architecture of the program may be elegant and pleasing, the idiosyncrasies of any particular coder will be overwhelmed by multiple contributions to a project, (outside of the project leads who may be able to enshrining their own quirks as style/pattern requirements). However, I tend to find most "art by committee" to be lacking a very strong vision, and instead ends up becoming a whole ends up as simply the sum of its parts.

    I may be wrong, just throwing the idea out there!

    • My first "real" (snort!) job coming out of school was working with a team of other grads on the schools' website - within a week we were all able to recognize each other's code/quirks. And this was just plain vanilla HTML (among the least expressive of languages)!

      My first job outside of the fast food industry was opening applications for NY's student loan program. Within a week we were all able to tell who had opened a certain stack by the quirks of how it was opened, folded, and the sticker was applied. And this was just taking them out of the envelope, applying a sticker, and checking it with a red sharpie.

      Every task humans do is quirky. That does not mean that they're all expressive, and most of them shouldn't be treated as if they were.
      • I guess that I wasn't detailed enough in regards to explaining the experience; while many of the working differences were just that - working differences - however, as soon as people began to realize just how wide the gap between source code layout and the rendered browser layout actually is, interesting play began creeping in. At first these were text of jokes in the comments, then back-and-forth conversations between people working on the same pages, then games of "here's a line of a story, find the page where I hid the next line", then ASCII-ish art (made by grouping tags in particular patterns), and on an on.

        And no, The boss never noticed anything (this was not a well-organized project by any means).

        Anyway, I think this passes the threshhold from "quirky" to "expressive". (I've seen similar things (though not quite so time-consuming and off-the-wall) in other people's code since so I skipped my personal example, but there it is now).

        So, a more elaborate version of my original point is that someone can find interesting, expressive things to do in almost any mundane thing, but some mundane things/processes/whatever are more flexible and forgiving of "messing with them".

        An while I agree with your assessment that opening envelopes is not a naturally expressive medium, I would say that progam source code seems to fall much, much closer to that category (though not falling dead center in the middle as, for example, paint does ).

        BTW, sorry your first job sucked so badly. My second job out involved working for DEC during the days of doom. Blech.
  • Usually other news sites have the same thing, and don't require registration.
  • int
    main(int argc, char *argv[])
    {
    return 1;
    }
  • Open source art exists in another form. Many playwrights allow other playwrights to take parts and scenes from their plays and put them into other plays (With the nessecary adjustments for continuity and all that). They also will allow somebody to take their script and add to it whatever they want to.
  • Does this mean the source for Adobe Photoshop might be published if a picture is generated from it?
  • Obvious move really. Guess these Programmer Artists slept through complex arithmetic.
  • how could somthing that IS NOT considered free speech be considered ART ? While I disagree, that seems to be the prevalent legal attitude...
  • The importance lies in the fact that you have artists, not normally the most technical bunch caring about source code the same way they do art. Artists, as a whole, are VERY LOUD proponents of free speech, the first amendment, and patent and copyright law. They have fought for this stuff wayyyy longer than any coder has. The more the artist community (and any other community for that matter)thinks about code in the same light as painting, sculptures, and installations the better off the open source "movement" is.

    There are more interesting uses of source code in art though, such as the Toronto driven Artist Interface Device project (http://www.interaccess.org/aid/project.html) which is the open source response to the closed sourced and expensive tools that currently exist. Also, isee by the institute for applied autonomy (http://appliedautonomy.com) is another stellar example of source code applied to solid artistic practice.

  • This is a topic that interests me a great deal. When I got my first computer, a ZX81, pretty much the first programs I wrote as a I learned to code where programmes that put pretty graphics on the screen.


    My first "art" release (knocked up after I finished my work on X-COM Apocalypse) was THROB [notagoth.org], which was a purely visual experience, and did not include the source as part of the "experience".


    My second "art" release, described on an Italian Linux site as "deliciously incompressible [linux.it]"
    was created for the International Obfuscated C Code Contest 2000 [ioccc.org] in collaboration with a friend, and did get some recognition. It is "THADGAVIN [notagoth.org], and it won the "Most Portable Output" award. It was also featured on a the French alternative art scene website Téléférique [491.org], and discussed on K5 [kuro5hin.org] in that context.


    As for the stuff on display here, I find it uninspired artistically, and unimpressive technically. There is very little "art" to the source code, and very little original about the output. I suspect that they got to be shown in a reputable gallery purely on the basis that they are "in". Trendy art students, part of the art scene.

    • Thanks for Thadgavin, pretty cool, though some means of exiting other that alt-cntl-del would have been useful...

      I have to disagree about this exhibition - I particularly liked the piece by Mark Napier and recommend a visit to his website [potatoland.org].

      Strange that the disallowed Flash entries but not Shockwave. There's alot of fun Flash sites out there (aside from the irritating ads).
  • All the "of course code is art" messages.

    It is like a brick layer claiming he is a great architect because he built a wall of a great building. Of course it was fscking difficult. Carrying all those bricks, it wa raining and cold out there.

    It is difficult, I did it, then it should be art.

    Yesssssssss. Sure.
  • So, let me get this straight. If it looks like an image, as opposed to non-image data, it becomes art? Or is it that plus the examination of the code which created the image and the verdict of other programmers who examine that code the deciding factor in deeming that it is art? Two or more left brained geeks trying to fulfill the empty space in right side gray matter. Keep the day job.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close