Hi Everyone,
Finally got time to catch up, why one of my favorite topics just when
I'm completely focused on something else (one track mind)!
I've just read Marco's 11.Jan "MF Art and Technology in MOQ terms",
which is a great summary of everything said so far. I really fell for
the Technology = social rt and Art = Intellectuall rt. But I think,
like Bo wrote, it's more generally a DQ/SQ struggle, but since we're
moving from social to intellectuall dominance it MOSTLY manifests
itelf between these two.
As a lot of people have written, a lot of the problem lies in definitions.
One of my major annoyances has allways been how when I'm programming
(which I'm totally engrossed in now, thus the lack of activity!), I'm
inventing what concepts to make, visual appearance, user interfaces,
but also inventing techniques and abtract underlying concepts, but
this is viewed as "coding" or something very uncreative. When I've
painted simple still-life paintings where the idea is completly
standard, and the technique straitforward, people go "Wow! I didn't
know you where an _Artist_" or "I didn't know you where creative!".
Part of the trouble is that "Art" was probably used to describe a
dynamic creative process, and was long ago ment for any such creative
process irregardless of whether it involved technology or not. But
now Art is often equaled to what in England they call "Liberal Arts"
(I think): Painting, sculpture, whatever. As long as that's you're
job and you talk the lingo and where a berret and perhaps have the
education, you're an "Artist" irregardless of whether you actually
create anything dynamic or not.
By the way, at Cambridge, you still get a Bachelor of Art instead of
Science, even in Medicine and tech stuff that gives you a BSc
elsewhere!
I really want a good definition of what an Artist is before I really
know how to go on, so lets break up the creative process into bite
size portions:
A) Have knowledge about some form of making something
B) Have the skills and techniques to perform it.
C) Actually make something
D) Be inventive in WHAT you make using set techniques (DQ)
E) Invent new techniques (DQ)
F) Invent entirely new concepts to make (DQ).
I think I've managed to make that list "Neutral" so it can apply to
what traditionally is called "Art" and "Technology". Notice I haven't
used the word "Creative/Creative Process" as it's ambiguous as to
meaning "Inventive" or simple "Making something standard".
I think the list mostly is a evolutionary one, but sometimes a lot of
too much of the lower levels A,B,C can make you static to the higher
(Children are often very inventive, but haven't yet much skills or
knowledge).
The bit about "Talking the lingo" I mentioned earlier shows how
sometimes A) is enough to be perceived as an artist.
So I think what John Beasley is trying to say is that Rotisserie
assembly can be very good A, B and C, but what he does is higher up.
What Prisig was trying to say was that a Ceramist that makes pots etc
but only up to level C is no more an artist than a Rotisserie
assembler.
OK, back to hardcore programming for me, where art and technology are
intertwined at every level!
-tor
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:18 BST