S. said
>> For me its just the opposite. The product is a result of process but the
>> process doesn't hide the product. It enables the product. The drawings and
>> models are produced as feedback tools so I can see a little further. I am
>> engaged in an interaction which links me to, rather than divorces me from,
>> the product. I am there, with my eyes open. But I'm an arttype, not an
>> archtype. Is this different for architects?
M. Carr responds
>The process -> product relationship you describe is the ideal one. One where
>process and product and the author function together.
>
>What happens when say you set up some kind of intermedia exhibit that requires
>"external" actions not neccessarily initiated by the author of the exhibit.
>What you have made is a starting point in some process. This is your product.
>The result of the process you initiate is not yours? Is it possible though
>that the process determines the result?
Yes, of course, I was talking about the process that takes place in my
studio and the product that I produce, but not what happens to it after it
leaves the studio. Marcel Duchamp, in _The Creative Act_ an article written
in 1957, talks about the _art coefficent_, the spectators' participation,
and not the artist's act alone, which determines the reading of the work.
The art coefficient is the missing link between intention and realization,
that which was intended but unexpressed by the artist in relation to that
which was unintentionally expressed but available for perception by the
spectator. And of course, that's just the beginning. The audience, the
time, the place, the butterfly effect, the course of history, all color the
reading. Process determines results within a local spectrum. Beyond that,
there are even larger events that consume the output. And I would like to
suggest to Brian Carr, that even science is up for grabs. The history of
science is as tumultuous as any other history because the first lense we
see through is our own.
Suzan
>> For me its just the opposite. The product is a result of process but the
>> process doesn't hide the product. It enables the product. The drawings and
>> models are produced as feedback tools so I can see a little further. I am
>> engaged in an interaction which links me to, rather than divorces me from,
>> the product. I am there, with my eyes open. But I'm an arttype, not an
>> archtype. Is this different for architects?
M. Carr responds
>The process -> product relationship you describe is the ideal one. One where
>process and product and the author function together.
>
>What happens when say you set up some kind of intermedia exhibit that requires
>"external" actions not neccessarily initiated by the author of the exhibit.
>What you have made is a starting point in some process. This is your product.
>The result of the process you initiate is not yours? Is it possible though
>that the process determines the result?
Yes, of course, I was talking about the process that takes place in my
studio and the product that I produce, but not what happens to it after it
leaves the studio. Marcel Duchamp, in _The Creative Act_ an article written
in 1957, talks about the _art coefficent_, the spectators' participation,
and not the artist's act alone, which determines the reading of the work.
The art coefficient is the missing link between intention and realization,
that which was intended but unexpressed by the artist in relation to that
which was unintentionally expressed but available for perception by the
spectator. And of course, that's just the beginning. The audience, the
time, the place, the butterfly effect, the course of history, all color the
reading. Process determines results within a local spectrum. Beyond that,
there are even larger events that consume the output. And I would like to
suggest to Brian Carr, that even science is up for grabs. The history of
science is as tumultuous as any other history because the first lense we
see through is our own.
Suzan