Some forms of technology may be considered as art if their value is only sentimental. If an item can be used in some way and if it is not just something to look at, feel or experience then it's not art.

I wanted to post the youtube link to all the videos I mentioned but ended up posting only the video to the robotic fish b/c the page here will embed a video link
Tried to remove http and www too but to no avail
v=eO9oseiCTdk&feature=PlayList&p=A89BE205F23195E0&index=2"

-Behind or before the v= add the usual youtube.com/watch? and open the video on another tab/window.

After the youtube page posted by a user called itnsource opens, U can see the other videos under the Playlist section. It works this time. I know cause I have edited this too many times .
Cyan I think it would be good if we have a code tag here to allow members to post youtube or other video links in the forums. They will have to use the code tag if they don't want the video to be embedded with their post or reply. Cheers

I like your definition Cyan but doesn't it somehow exclude installation art? And thanks for the links Whizo.

Most people seem to disagree on the definition of art, especially the one called "Post-Modernism" in Art History texts. I personally find technology beatiful, even if it is NOT displayed as art. I believe that technological designs require a similar thought process to artistic design - to create something out of nothing. These processes become even more similar, like Cyan said, when the designs are made for purely aesthetic or sentimental values (the ipad for example jk). See Golan Levin's video below.

Usually though, technology is used for pratical functions. Yet, I may consider technology that fits its purpose beautifully and does its job elegantly as art. For example, I might proclaim a certain piece of code to be art and hang it in my digital library (so to speak ). It is probably with a similar reasoning that Donald Knuth wrote "The Art of Computer Programming".

We also have technology used as a medium for a relatively more traditional art, like in Charc's works. But we may also argue that the works on display at Decode and the ones below are just that - works that make use of technology as a medium.

Here is the video of Golan Levin on TED.

And this is the link to the page so that you can read the interesting discussion that followed
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/golan_levin_ted2009.html

Thanks for the detailed explanation and the TED link Toms Will check out the video when I get home. Cheers.

interesting! I guess since Marcel Ducamp, anything an artist considers to be art is suppose to be art! my personal feeling on it though, the lines between tech design and art get really blurry with some of the work i've seen, kinda more design than art.

I like what Paul Robeson said "The role of art isn’t simply to show the world as it is, but as it could and should be" i guess i'm more responsive to that kind of art.

However I shall be cheking out the show in the original post in the comming week. i'm sure there'll be loads of preety colours and gaint pixles!

First of all, abel (charc) WOW! that's really beautiful, my lower jaw is desidedly hanging dispite my efforts at closing my mouth!
i am a big animation enthusiast, my fevourates range from intricate stuff like bellevue randevu, to stuff like persipolis.. etc

cayn thanks for posting the link i'm so pleased i got to see that. but, what we were discussing is completly different from animation or video instalation art.

a whole different 'creative' process which puts in qustion its merits as art. really some of the stuff... like the blue interactive gaint wall where the audience will make the art by moving their bodies in front of it. Is that any more than just showing what's technicaly possible?

Other simmilar stuff but, i don't wanna go on too much..
have a look: http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/
however going to check it out, don't mind gorking at amazing tech. Promis to come back and confess if my mind is changed by it!
http://vimeo.com/7791424

Quite interesting, qaal.

I agree that what we are discussing is a different from animation or video installation art. However, I can not deny the connection between "what is technically feasible" and those kinds of art. For example, Charc uses technology as a medium. A whole bunch of technical stuff was used in creating that clip you saw (Over three networked computers working at a time, A wacom digitizer, a large collection of cutting-edge software, digital cameras, projectors (in the show), etc...). Scripts were written to animate the multitude of characters you saw in the clip. It would not have been possible to have that show, say, 6 years ago . Isn't that, in some sense, showing what is technically possible?

I don't know much about art but my artist friends tell me that art is not just something that has to be made - it is also something to be felt(experienced). Interactivity takes this to a whole new level. Now the "art" can adapt to the people viewing it, letting everyone have a truly unique experience. Whether that is impressive/attractive/beautiful or not is subjective. For me, as an engineer who has artists as friends , this opens up a whole set of avenues to explore.

Didn't know U put Charc's video on the website m8. It has been a while since I watched it Btw Charc also did the background music to this installation vid. It was the major video installation (there were other video installations and drawings) that was presented at his exhibition at Alliance Francaise in Addis Ababa about 2 years ago . I remember writing a blog here about the exhibition so that members will be interested to visit. Charc also was interviewed by newspapers here-Both Amharic and English and they wrote very nice articles on his works and the whole event

p.s- Will comment about what qaal and Toms wrote l8er on.

@tommy well again, say like in charc's isn't the tech secondary to the narative of the piece??

i guess you could say the 'art of technology', like the 'art of war' or anything done with a certain kind of finesse!

i think in contemporary art what is and isn't art is becoming subjuctive itself. for example, to compare an item in this show - the blue screen wall,
http://www.vam.ac.uk/microsites/decode/exhibition/interactivity

with a piece i saw some time ago  which was a half sized mirror embaded on a blank canvas...

now some would/did argue where is the art in that.
for me the second piece was a favourate in the gallery, it was a few years back, in a show called remix: a collection of art by contemporary african artists comprising the entire continent, at a very prestigius gallery... so that piece with a caption 'we are all post exotic' or summin' to that effect stayed with me.

i guess that was more about context... :/

I looked up the piece you mentioned in http://www.kiangaford.com/oldSite/reflections_remix.pdf. That is an interesting piece, both conceptually and compositionally. I will try to read the whole thing when time permits.

In Charc's work, the narrative was the main thing but it wouldn't have been the way it is, had it not been for the technology. I think, the technology was his language, much like the brush strokes of earlier painters. Maybe he should say something about that. Charc where are you?

I totally agree with what you said about the subjectiveness of art. Charc used to say that all you needed to become an artist these days is confidence. He tried to get me to understand and appreciate art but the more I tried, the more I realized that I had to bend myself to get it all. In moments of frustration, I ask myself why I had to know about art history from since circa 500 BC, Ducamp's rebellious works, or Manzoni's can of doodoo to try to make sense of a feast of colors on a canvas or an assortment of objects in an installation? Why can't I see or feel the piece as me (the usually practical guy, not the one with his head up in the clouds)?

One may rightfully argue that the kind of thinking that produces technology is different from that for art. But I have seldom felt the way I felt (Geek Alert!) when I learned about Djikstra's Shortest Path First algorithm, when looking at a piece of "art". I guess this is also about context.

Nice discussion btw. It has been a while since I talked like this. I had given up on understanding art a few years back.

Toms and Qaal, I was going to discuss more on the interesting points you raised but I think you too have covered it very well(much more better than I could have done). I believe that anything which is considered as "art"
can be questioned by society. one thing I learned from going to different galleries with Charc/by myself and meeting artists/curators is that Sometimes the questions are much more important than the messages the artist wants to display. The "artist" shouldn't be obliged to sell
certainty to the viewer. An analogy to this would be you give a person a book to read and nterpret it his own way. Whether he understood what the writer wanted to say or
not is another matter. Sometimes doubts/questions may have a bigger impact on society/the viewers than works which seem to be simple to understand. There was a great discussion in Art School years ago  (when we were in Uni).A very respected guy (not good with names) showed us (I was there as Charc's guest Others being art students) a series of art works using a projector. He put questions to our minds but didn't make any conclusions or didn't rush to give us answers. He once showed an African Sculpture followed by one of Picasso's famous works. The resemblance is undeniable but one is considered an amazing work of art while the other is a simple item you buy from a store.
Nuff said!