Skip to content

error in !art as a program?

Following an interview on:
http://www.furtherfield.org/features/interviews/about-bot-interview-katie-rose-pipkin
I bumped into – http://www.ifyoulived.org/
Clicked refresh.
Something wanted to do one thing or another.
Had a look at the code.
Supposed to pick images from a folder called scrap.

Hummm..

An interesting sensation, no?

My mind is, perhaps too heavily, into questions of performance, action, operation and intervals between these.

Coding in a digital environment, as far as I have experienced, forces* a bit of a distance between the operation and its activities – code in a digital environment, and the performance of the said code.
To read this, we have a code that performs the visualisation of lines in a particular manner. This — are not like drawn 2 lines with a pencil, for example. These are 2 lines that result from a binary operation which Performs, does things that look like but are in fact Not – 2 lines.
This is the kind of interval am considering.

However, what happens when the code does not do its operation?
Sounds like a glitch?
Not so fast, I think.
Why?
Well.. A glitch has a code that does its binary operations, but performs differently to what might be “expected”. I wanted the code to do X, but it does an awkward X.
When the code operates only as a code, perhaps it either makes codes, or enable codes – as in interpreters, and errors?

* If there is a certain substance in the line following the “Well..” – then maybe “force” is wrong. Perhaps “being made to” is more accurate.
Why?
It seems that if codes do not Have to perform, do not have to produce outcomes other than their operations, then there are other elements that might, at times, make codes be performative?

Hold on Mx..
Look, what we perceive as a – (line) is a confabulation of ours. The code operates a certain binary string. The fact that there is a binary string which produces one line or another, does not mean it performs the line, does it?

I see where this argument comes from. Indeed from the code’s point of view, the fact that it does something which looks one thing or another to a human, is not a performance. True.
However, would that code Be if it didn’t perform a line in humans’ minds?
In a sense, perhaps the very performativity – the very gap/interval – between its Being and its performance, keeps it alive. No?

Its a bit paganistic, isn’t it?

Perhaps.. Maybe even a sort of deism in the sense that a deity is “alive” so long it performs for humans and by the very performance, it has an ontological gap between its operational elements and the performative ones.

Am I saying we should seek some purity of operation?
NO!! NOOOOOO!! LOL
HUH?
Am saying that there are these processes, and that having a certain flexibility towards them, perhaps other cultural approaches, other art practices, other wondering ways, might get to live?

Sounds like some catchall phrases bullshit!!

Yes.. I know.. Perhaps checking some of the stuff in this blog might make it sound less so.
However, checking errors, like in ifyoulived.org might make it sound less so BSHity?

One Comment

Leave a Reply