Sorry, this entry is only available in アメリカ英語.

In this Monday, we discussed the definition of the poetic computation. Each of us has a various perspective to a kind of programming, and such a difference is inspiring for me. So I’d like to write down how I’m thinking about the topics at the moment.

In short, being poetic with computation is to think a computer as an extension of one’s body. In particular, someone who is practicing it doesn’t aware of using a computer and only think of what to make. Which is that a poet doesn’t consider how to move their pen on a paper.

I know it’s just an idealistic thought and a computation itself is still hard and not instinctive compared to a pen. However, the easier computation becomes, the more seamless we might feel about it. Just like writing characters used to be much more hard in the era of slete before humankind invented a paper and a pen.

And I think, before thinking about poetic computation, it could be some clue to consider about what is “not” poetic computation.

In these days, there are so many works insisting “Art & Code”. They make me inspiring everyday, however, some of them has a tendency to be misled by fashion and tech buzzwords such like VR, deep learning, and the MAKERS movement.

To regard technology itself as a purpose is just a demo rather than poetic. The most important thing for art is what it looks like, smells, and feels after all. (And sometimes context.) Therefore I think that its texture, colors, and atmosphere should come to first than which technologies will be used and combined. I don’t mean it’s evil to think like “We have Oculus Rift! So what to make with this!?”. New device and technique still bring us a new idea. However, we should have an imagination and philosophy for the work even if it’s unpredictable like generative arts. New media art without fetishism and biased preference can’t be impressive, at least for me.

This is my thought for poetic computation. Someone could disagree with my idea, but it’s also interesting for me and I’d like to discuss.

In this Monday, we discussed the definition of the poetic computation. Each of us has a various perspective to a kind of programming, and such a difference is inspiring for me. So I’d like to write down how I’m thinking about the topics at the moment.

In short, being poetic with computation is to think a computer as an extension of one’s body. In particular, someone who is practicing it doesn’t aware of using a computer and only think of what to make. Which is that a poet doesn’t consider how to move their pen on a paper.

I know it’s just an idealistic thought and a computation itself is still hard and not instinctive compared to a pen. However, the easier computation becomes, the more seamless we might feel about it. Just like writing characters used to be much more hard in the era of slete before humankind invented a paper and a pen.

And I think, before thinking about poetic computation, it could be some clue to consider about what is “not” poetic computation.

In these days, there are so many works insisting “Art & Code”. They make me inspiring everyday, however, some of them has a tendency to be misled by fashion and tech buzzwords such like VR, deep learning, and the MAKERS movement.

To regard technology itself as a purpose is just a demo rather than poetic. The most important thing for art is what it looks like, smells, and feels after all. (And sometimes context.) Therefore I think that its texture, colors, and atmosphere should come to first than which technologies will be used and combined. I don’t mean it’s evil to think like “We have Oculus Rift! So what to make with this!?”. New device and technique still bring us a new idea. However, we should have an imagination and philosophy for the work even if it’s unpredictable like generative arts. New media art without fetishism and biased preference can’t be impressive, at least for me.

This is my thought for poetic computation. Someone could disagree with my idea, but it’s also interesting for me and I’d like to discuss.