Blog

  • ASCO-O

    I like MANIK’s art. Their current HTML text work, like Chris Ashley’s HTML table work, makes an engaging high art in a medium that you wouldn’t expect to have the aesthetic bandwidth.

    ASCO-O

    MANIK’s work constantly makes me revisit my assumptions about the form of art, whilst animating my belief in the continuing possibilities of its content. I hope they get an archive of their email pieces from the Rhizome list together, those are the perfect complement to this. The Rhizome pieces are more like this one:

    New Page In Art History (be sure to read the PDF).

  • Machine Vision Out Of The Box

    Lemonodor links to an article on the machine vision system used in the Aibo:

    Link

    Imagine using one of these out of the box as the basis for an art system like a version of Shizuka.

  • Another UK CC Record Label

    Another UK CC record label. The license is CC-BY-NC (that’s noncommercial) this time, so that’s free circulation not free culture:

    Fading Ways

    NC licensing is still important for correcting the excesses of modern copyright.

  • Who’s Afraid Of Shape Grammars?

    shape grammars, L-systems, production systems
    algorithmicaesthetics.org (and ae)
    shapegrammars.org
    algorithmic beauty… online, and site that has other articles
    My fear of shape grammars in draw-something
    shape grammars in AARON
    Turing’s man
    my own blobs are shape-grammary
    no need to fear, then. do what I have done in Illy in code
    going forward: shape grammars with evolving, undefined or meta terms

  • A Human Brother Giorgio’s Kangaroo

    A human artist who draws objects from their descriptions, much like the AARON of Harold Cohen’s essay Brother Giorgio’s Kangaroo (pdf ) :

    Article At Boing Boing.

  • Art Computing

    A comment from Alan Sutcliffe on the various names for art-made-with-computers (private email) got me thinking. Procedural art (Alan’s term) is a good description. I quite like the term I’ve now come up with: art computing. It describes the process and the activity, implying that something might come out of it rather than being a (dead) end in itself.

  • Barbara Kruger & Creative Commons

    Renowned appropriation artist (and graphic design distiller) Barbara Kruger uses Lessig’s book (presumably Free Culture) on her grad course:

    Barbara Kruger And The Public Domain

    CC = no lawsuits over image appropriation. If only artists would start using the blimmin’ licenses…

  • Canto (For Evie)

    “Canto (For Evie)”, Copyright © 2005 Rhea Myers, Tom Chance.
    This image is licensed under a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA-2.0).
    These are shapes autotraced from a posterised PNG and re-arranged. Original colours. There’s so much potential even in just a single image…

  • Think Of The Creators!

    “Intellectual Property” is of course about rewarding the creative geniuses behind cultural works, not about paying the middle-men and hangers-on. This why the record industry in the UK are so upset that songs from 50 years ago, including the beginning of Elvis’s “catalogue” will enter the public domain this year. The record companies will no longer get their royalties. But, far more importantly, performers will no longer get their royalties. Think of the children!

    These songs will be able to be copied freely. People will share them. Some may even see a revival of interest and get played publicly, even used in the media.

    Which may be good news for the people who really were the creative geniuses behind the songs. You see, the copyright on the lyrics and the score of the song won’t expire until 70 years after the author’s death. And whilst it’s maddeningly difficult to get an answer from any of the UK’s many IP-exploitation organisations that isn’t just singing from the content industry hymn sheet, it looks like that copyright may be unaffected by the expiration of the separate recording copyright, meaning the composer/lyricist should still get their royalties.

    It’s just the session musicians and studio executives who won’t. And they are trying to stop the creative geniuses reaping the rewards of increased distribution and performance of their work.

    Never mind piracy. This is wrongful imprisonment.

    I could well be wrong. If anyone really knows how this works (rather than the self-serving tale of woe that the record companies are pushing) do please let me know. In either case it wouldn’t prevent non-public copying and listening.

    But wouldn’t it be funny if the record companies, in trying to keep old work buried, are doing exactly what they claim to be fighting against: preventing the creators of work form being rewarded for their efforts.

  • Metaphors That Don’t Hold Water

    I’m a big fan of Boing Boing, and I want to be Cory Doctorow when I grow up, but I’m sorry to say that the metaphors in his interview here ring false:

    Well, locomotives didn’t require horseshoes. You know, the blacksmiths might not have liked the fact that locomotives didn’t require horseshoes. But if you started a business to outfit locomotives with special horseshoes in order to keep the blacksmiths happy, you probably wouldn’t have lasted very long.

    The blacksmiths would like it even less if you stole the horseshoes from their anvil for the metal to make your trains. When you’ve driven all the blacksmiths out of business, how will you pay for the metal that you’ve previously got for free?

    Likewise, if you’re starting a business to outfit phones with special locks that make it hard to copy things in order to make the music industry happy, then you’re probably not long for this world.

    Yeah, you’ll never train kids to pay for things they used to be able to do for free. Like talking to each other…