new from the "yes, but is it art" department...?

[mike_c]

http://www.computersforart.org/create/blackhouse/blackhouse.htm

The Blackhouse
2004, Sandy Smith

Constructed from 16 monitors and 60 computers in a dimly lit round basement space, the circular structure of The Blackhouse faces outwards, yet allows the viewer to look over and into complicated interior. Several computers run short audio loops; howling wind, rain and the occasional bird song. The monitors show a variety of images, from picture-perfect postcards views of Scotland, to computer generated landscapes, to a live link to a remote webcam positioned overlooking a quiet road passing the Cuillins, in Skye.

Here's another:

http://www.computersforart.org/create/chant/chant.htm

Chant
2004, Sandy Smith

Chant was a one-day installation/performance using around 40 Apple computers, based in the same basement space as The Blackhouse. Each computer in the installation was running basic text-to-speech software, which processed a text file designed to sound like a chant, by using long strings of repeated vowels. The end result was a confusing mass of synthesised computer voices, running slightly out of sync with each other, but forming a definite chant, similar to Gregorian monk song.

OK, call me old fashioned, but I am underwhelmed....

[tuvor]

1. Judging from the description, it looks like you have to be there

to appreciate it.

[GCP]

2. Geez, with the number of computers we've junked or donated over the years

we could have done this ourselves in the basement.
No, it's not art, no more than a pile of junked cars is.

[asthmaticeog]

3. "could have"

but you didn't, did you?

[Deja Q]

4. It's a waste of energy - and a pile of beige feces. Unless it was

solar powered.

[marions ghost]

5. these days it's art

if it makes you think. Art doesn't have to be beautiful, the 20th century did away with that. Of course it's still OK for some art to be beautiful, but that does not define art now. Any viewer is entitled to their own opinion. No artist demands for their art to be liked. Disliked is OK too. Liking it is not the point, reacting to it is the point. It's this modern expansion of the term art, which is generally accepted by artists, that viewers may have a hard time with. I think you will see a lot of art having to do with computers, using computers to affect an environment like these do. Why?--because the computer is so much a part of our lives, and we float in the world of the screen and the world of disembodied voices. There is mystery and magic in the infinity of bits and bytes of data that can fly around the world, form pictures and play music, and perform endless technical wizardry--and outwardly looks like a pile of plastic junk. The computer as a subject of art is perfectly valid. I'm not saying this is great art, I'm just saying it's a valid subject. Some will like, some will not. No biggie.

[baldguy]

6. Looks lika a Network Admin's worst nightmare.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. Come on. I've seen worse. At least this is original.

It's not like somebody covered a broken umbrella with raspberry jelly and called it art. There's some thought (and programming) put into it. Me, I'd like to go see it.

Besides, the pieces can be disassembled and the computers used "normally." No waste.