Název: Niekoľko poznámok k "umeniu živého"
Zdrojový dokument: TIM ezin. 2014, roč. 4, č. 1-2, s. 58-68
Rozsah
58-68
-
ISSN1805-2606
Trvalý odkaz (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/132016
Type: Článek
Jazyk
Licence: Neurčená licence
Upozornění: Tyto citace jsou generovány automaticky. Nemusí být zcela správně podle citačních pravidel.
Abstrakt(y)
Tento text sa v úvode zaoberá problematickosťou definovania pojmu bioart a naznačuje, akým spôsobom ho vnímajú niektorí teoretici a umelci (Kac, Gessert, Capucci). Je možné naň nahliadať v dvoch rovinách, teda zo širšej perspektívy ako na umenie, ktoré zjednocuje spoločná téma alebo ho definujeme striktne na základe použitých médií. Teória nových médií ustanovila dva pojmy označujúce bioartovú tvorbu – moistmédiá (Ascott) a biomédiá (Thacker), ktoré sa v mnohých aspektoch prekrývajú s definíciou počítačom generovaného umenia a algoritmického umenia autorov Davida Ackleyho, počítačového vedca a Romana Verostka, umelca. Počítačovo generované a algoritmické umenie teória nových médií zasadzuje do širšieho kontextu výskumu a vývoja umelého života, pretože počítač ako kreatívne médium produkuje pomocou princípu generatívnej reprodukcie celé generácie nových obrazov. Generatívna reprodukcia je chápaná ako prototyp sexuálnej, resp. biologickej reprodukcie, keďže je možné vytvárať kópie, ktoré sa od seba viac či menej odlišujú a zároveň sú obmedzené istým súborom stanovených pravidiel (algoritmov). Štúdia sa preto zameria na vyhľadávanie týchto spoločných rysov alebo paralel medzi počítačovo generovaným umením, biologickými fenoménmi a živými procesmi. Keďže je bioartová prax založená na prepojení umenia a vedy, text sa zamýšľa aj nad premenou šírenia vedeckých poznatkov, kedy sa veda stáva interdisciplinárnou záležitosťou. A práve vďaka jej expandovaniu do nevedeckej sféry, teda prepojením s umením, sa jej pôsobenie transformuje v rámci tzv. tretej kultúry.
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). 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.
Reference
[1] ACKLEY, David. 2000. Real Artificial Life: Where We May Be. In: BEDAU, Mark (ed.): Artificial Life VII, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[2] ALDWORTH, Susan, 2011. Cogito Ergo Sum 3. Art & Science Merging Art & Science to Make a Revolutionary New Art Movement - exhibition catalogue, 7 July – 24 September 2011, ISBN 978-0-9563783-4-7, London: GV Art.
[3] ASCOTT, Roy, 2000. The Moistmedia Manifesto [online]. [cit. 9. 3. 2014]. Dostupné z: http://biomediale.ncca-kaliningrad.ru/?blang=eng&author=ascott
[4] ASCOTT, Roy, 2003. Telematic Embrace. Visionary theories of art, technology, and consciousness. In: SHANKEN, Edward (ed.). Santa Cruz: University of California Press.
[5] BROCKMAN, John – MARKOŠ, Anton, 2008. Třetí kultura: za hranice vědecké revoluce. Vyd. 1. Praha: Academia.
[6] CAPUCCI, Pier Luigi, 2007. A Diagram. In: HAUSER, Jens – CAPUCCI, Pier Luigi – TORRIANO, Franco (eds.): Art Biotech, Bologna: CLUEB.
[7] FEYERABEND, Paul, 1975. Against Method. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.
[8] GESSERT, George, 2004. A History of Art Involving DNA. In: BULATOV, Dmitry (ed.): Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture. Kaliningrad: The National Publishing House Yantarny Skaz, ISBN 5-7406-0853-7.
[9] GIBBONS, Michael – LIMOGEG, Camille – NOWOTNY, Helga – SCHWARTZMAN, Simon – SCOTT, Peter – TROW, Martin, 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[10] GIBODA, Michal. 2013. Mosty a propasti: Dialog vědy s uměním. In: Dialog vědy s uměním. Rudolfov: Občanské združení Dialog vědy s uměním s podporou Jihočeské univerzity. ISBN 80-7040-565-1.
[11] KAC, Eduardo, 2006. Signs of Life: Bioart and beyond. Massachusetts: The MIT Press Cambridge.
[12] KRPAN, Jurij, 2008. Contemporary investigative art. Art&Science: Creative Fusion. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research.
[13] MALINA, Roger F. 1990. Digital Image: Digital Cinema: The Work of Art in the Age of Post-Mechanical Reproduction. Leonardo Supplemental Issue, 3, Digital Image, Digital Cinema: SIGGRAPH ‘90 Art Show Catalog [online]. [cit. 13. 3. 2014]. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Dostupné z: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557892.
[14] MITCHELL, Robert E., 2010. BioArt and the Vitality of Media. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-99008-8.
[15] MITCHELL, William, J. T., 2005. What Do Pictures Want?: The Lives and Loves of Images, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, s. 228.
[16] SNOW, Charles Percy, 1965. The Two Cultures: and a Second Look: an Expanded Version of The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] THACKER, Eugene, 2004. Biomedia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
[18] TRATNIK, Polona, 2010. Transumetnost: kultura in umetnost v sodobnih globalnih pogojih (Transart. Culture and Art in Contemporary Global Conditions). Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes [online]. [cit. 10. 3. 2014]. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Dostupné z: http://www.pei.si/UserFilesUpload/file/digitalna_knjiznica/Dissertationes_10/index.html.
[19] VEROSTKO, Roman, 1988. Epigenetic Painting. Software As Genotype, A New Dimension of Art. First International Symposium on Electronic Art, (FISEA'88) [online]. [cit. 10.3.2014]. Dostupné z www: http://www.verostko.com/epigenet.html.
[2] ALDWORTH, Susan, 2011. Cogito Ergo Sum 3. Art & Science Merging Art & Science to Make a Revolutionary New Art Movement - exhibition catalogue, 7 July – 24 September 2011, ISBN 978-0-9563783-4-7, London: GV Art.
[3] ASCOTT, Roy, 2000. The Moistmedia Manifesto [online]. [cit. 9. 3. 2014]. Dostupné z: http://biomediale.ncca-kaliningrad.ru/?blang=eng&author=ascott
[4] ASCOTT, Roy, 2003. Telematic Embrace. Visionary theories of art, technology, and consciousness. In: SHANKEN, Edward (ed.). Santa Cruz: University of California Press.
[5] BROCKMAN, John – MARKOŠ, Anton, 2008. Třetí kultura: za hranice vědecké revoluce. Vyd. 1. Praha: Academia.
[6] CAPUCCI, Pier Luigi, 2007. A Diagram. In: HAUSER, Jens – CAPUCCI, Pier Luigi – TORRIANO, Franco (eds.): Art Biotech, Bologna: CLUEB.
[7] FEYERABEND, Paul, 1975. Against Method. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.
[8] GESSERT, George, 2004. A History of Art Involving DNA. In: BULATOV, Dmitry (ed.): Biomediale. Contemporary Society and Genomic Culture. Kaliningrad: The National Publishing House Yantarny Skaz, ISBN 5-7406-0853-7.
[9] GIBBONS, Michael – LIMOGEG, Camille – NOWOTNY, Helga – SCHWARTZMAN, Simon – SCOTT, Peter – TROW, Martin, 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[10] GIBODA, Michal. 2013. Mosty a propasti: Dialog vědy s uměním. In: Dialog vědy s uměním. Rudolfov: Občanské združení Dialog vědy s uměním s podporou Jihočeské univerzity. ISBN 80-7040-565-1.
[11] KAC, Eduardo, 2006. Signs of Life: Bioart and beyond. Massachusetts: The MIT Press Cambridge.
[12] KRPAN, Jurij, 2008. Contemporary investigative art. Art&Science: Creative Fusion. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research.
[13] MALINA, Roger F. 1990. Digital Image: Digital Cinema: The Work of Art in the Age of Post-Mechanical Reproduction. Leonardo Supplemental Issue, 3, Digital Image, Digital Cinema: SIGGRAPH ‘90 Art Show Catalog [online]. [cit. 13. 3. 2014]. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Dostupné z: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557892.
[14] MITCHELL, Robert E., 2010. BioArt and the Vitality of Media. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-99008-8.
[15] MITCHELL, William, J. T., 2005. What Do Pictures Want?: The Lives and Loves of Images, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, s. 228.
[16] SNOW, Charles Percy, 1965. The Two Cultures: and a Second Look: an Expanded Version of The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17] THACKER, Eugene, 2004. Biomedia. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
[18] TRATNIK, Polona, 2010. Transumetnost: kultura in umetnost v sodobnih globalnih pogojih (Transart. Culture and Art in Contemporary Global Conditions). Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes [online]. [cit. 10. 3. 2014]. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut. Dostupné z: http://www.pei.si/UserFilesUpload/file/digitalna_knjiznica/Dissertationes_10/index.html.
[19] VEROSTKO, Roman, 1988. Epigenetic Painting. Software As Genotype, A New Dimension of Art. First International Symposium on Electronic Art, (FISEA'88) [online]. [cit. 10.3.2014]. Dostupné z www: http://www.verostko.com/epigenet.html.