Nice to have a different sort of approach to these matters. A philosopher.

And he talks about my piece Seattle Drift. In which the basic philosophy is ‘do me’. Which, come to think of it, fits in with his philosophy, which stresses computation and interactivity in his notion of  ’computer art’, which he distinguishes from ‘digital art’.

A useful distinction. Just about all art, these days, is involved in the digital. Even dance and the most print-minded endeavors of the literary.

the most fundamental phenomenological characteristic of computers is  programmability. this is what separates computers from other types of man-made machines. ‘turing-complete’ programmability provides a radical flexibility in what machines can do. flexibility so radical that there is no proof, and probably never will be, that there exist thought processes of which humans are capable and computers are not.

there probably never will be such proof because if such proof existed, it would mean that there was proof that there are types of machines that go beyond the capabilities of turing machines. and such proof has been sought since the early days of computing, to no avail.

what does this mean for computer art?

well, there are many artists who see computers as glorified media machines. glorified typewriters. or glorified sound editing facilities. and so on. more of the same only easier and better. so their notion of computer art does not go very far. we shall have more of the same from them. because that’s what you get when you think of computers as glorified old-media machines. and of course we’re getting lots of it.

whereas if we see computers as offering really quite radical possibilities, possibilities that are poetentially as flexible as thought itself in dynamic generation, then we have to revise our notions concerning the vistas of computer art. and not settle for more of the same.

programming that is not interactive can be very interesting, of course. it can also be made to respond to the surroundings or remote data in ways that aren’t interactive with the audience but are nonetheless involved in growth and change, learning and possibly even thought of some sort. and that can be interesting in art pieces.

but i agree with Lopes that there is something special to *interactivity with people* in computer art. really good interactivity brings modes of discovery that are most interesting to me, among works of computer art. there can be a kind of dialogue or communication that is deeply satisfying as an art experience. perhaps because this sort of communication most dramatically and immediately explores our relations with machines and each other and ourselves. we get an inkling of some form of thought and communication that is a deep mixture of human thought and emotion and communication together with this new element we know is on the horizon of thought, ie, the thought of machines.