Mark McGuire asked, in a stream of semi-rhetorical questions about DAC:
Should artists be programmers?
I'm intrigued by this. It can be parsed in at least two contradictory ways:
Should artists *avoid* being programmers? ie, does programming damage
your brain in some way that makes it useless for art? There is quite a
lot of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to support this, but it
just isn't a theory you'd expect to find at a fancy digital conference.
So then, OTOH, should [digital] artists [necessarily] be programmers? -
in the same vein as the erstwhile question: ought visual artists know
how to draw? But this doesn't sound like a likely stance to find at DAC
either. In the nearish future, when everyone knows how to program,
perhaps this will become as plainly orthogonal as "should artists be
The rest is interesting too, but I won't go on.
Mixing artists, programmers and theorists in the same
(and conference) raises (and did raise) some interesting questions.
Do you engage with the content of their presentation or with their
language, assumptions and world-view? Should artists be programmers?
Should theorists be expected to make art?