Admittedly, the natural of computation has always inspired me and it’s much more than an enabler, but it can be neither subject nor motif of my work. Programming would unleash us the limitation of commoditized software just like Adobe. On the other hand, it imposes us another limitation of graphical expression at the same time and tends to distract us from aesthetic improvement.
It’s much less than just an idea to think about only which technology and devices to use and what concept to argue. It’s not important compared to its look, feels, and atmosphere, after all. In other words, the technology and concept behind it could be important for viewers only if the work has aesthetic coherence and beauty.
Art is not topology. Some of planners or media artists tend to focus on connecting context and context, tech and tech, buzzword and buzzword too much but this only means constructing its topological structure. I think art is continuum and the feeling of material of the nodes and branches themselves.
I’m so bored about the context of ‘art & tech’ but I think artists arguing such a statement should do R&D in term of both technological and aesthetic aspects simultaneously, so to speak. The art produced by who distinguishes tech development and artistic depiction feels like just a stylish demo of cutting-edge technology.
Capture from Please Say Something by David O’Reilly
Here’s one of texts I’ve deeply been impressed ever. It describes very important notion not only for CG animators but also for new media artists.