Niekoľko poznámok k „umeniu živého“
| Title in English | Notes to the "art of living" |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2014 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | TIM ezin |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Field | Art, architecture, cultural heritage |
| Keywords | moistmedia; biomedia; sci-art sculpture; transarts |
| Description | This text deals with the disputableness of defining the notion Bioart and suggests how it is perceived by some theorists and artists (Kac, Gessert, Capucci) . It can be viewed in two dimensions, in a broader perspective it is an art united in common topic or we can define it strictly on the basis of the media. Theory of new media has established two terms indicating bioart works – moistmedia (Ascott) and biomedia (Thacker), which in many respects coincide with the definition of computer generated art and algorithmic art created by computer scientist David Ackley and artist Roman Verostko. The theory of new media places computer-generated and algorithmic art in the broader context of the study and development of artificial life, because the computer as a creative medium produces an entire generations of new images using the principle of generative reproduction. Generative reproduction is seen as a prototype of sexual or biological reproduction, as it can make copies that are spaced more or less distinct, while it is limited by set of defined rules (algorithms). [1] The study will therefore focus on finding those commonalities or parallels between computer- generated art, biological phenomena and living processes. Whereas bioart practice based on the interconnection of art and science, the text examines the transformation of the diffusion of scientific knowledge, where science becomes an interdisciplinary matter. And thanks to its expansion into non-scientific sphere, by means linking with the arts, it is transforming into so-called third culture. |
| Related projects: |