5 ms·

>the Connection Machine has been acquired by the Museum of Modern Art, where it is currently on view as part of the exhibition Thinking Machines: Art and Design

>the Connection Machine has been acquired by the Museum of Modern Art, where it is currently on view as part of the exhibition Thinking Machines: Art and Design in the Computer Age, 1959–1989. This is a nicely designed machine and and all, but man that MoMA exhibit is a disappointment. I went to MoMA on a lark while in NYC without knowing the exhibit existed. But once I got there and was in other exhibits I couldn't stop thinking about how they might find ways to bring everything beautiful about the artistry in computing to the masses that don't know how to see it. Then I walked through an odd grab bag of out of context things that've existed in the vicinity of computing and seem to be selected for aesthetics that will allow visual arts people stare at them profoundly even though they're experiencing them in a vaccum. Then I spent the rest of my time there wondering if it and all the other exhibits were inaccessible on purpose.

ghaff 5y ago
That's disappointing. I could imagine a display of visually interesting computers that also went deeply into the rationale of why these designs also made sense from a technical perspective. I haven't seen the exhibit but sounds like they're missing that element.
- giffjjff 5y ago
  It was a temporary exhibition (Nov 13, 2017–Apr 8, 2018) https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3863 https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3863 It is exasperating to hear you complaining because an art show didn't treat tech in the depth you would have liked. The focus was works made by artists (not "exhibits") and it sounds like the GP is just not the target audience for that. It is certainly true that contemporary art's take on tech is shallow and more about a vibe or an aesthetic than about, let's say, rigorous exposition or exploration of technicalities. As a person with a computer background who also has an MA in fine art, I often find that what happens to be on show in local galleries is "not for me". A show by Lucy Raven et al, for example, made a fuss about LUTs in image processing as if they were some kind of dark art. This can be a frustrating feeling until I remember that no creative expression can possibly address everyone. Once I remember that, I don't feel the need to write a dismissive review of the artist's work; it is a relief to be able to move on to search for material (artistic or technical) which is more stimulating. I think the GP's experience with the MoMA show can be understood in terms of the Gell-Mann effect: mass culture treats a topic you know well, and it seems shallow to you. Is everything the museum shows equally shallow, when seem from the "right" perspective? I don't know what that would even mean. We know that the Gell-Mann effect isn't really an argument that the newspaper trivializes and distorts everything to the point that it does more harm than good. It feels important not to get cynical and come to a damning conclusion about the art world based on similar reasoning.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    As I said, I did not see this particular exhibit. I have seen MOMA exhibits--and indeed a lot of their permanent design collection--that exists at the intersection of form and function. And, in general, I find that a useful lens for design. I don't find chairs that look "cool" but are horribly uncomfortable especially interesting. And I'd feel similarly about a unique computer design that overheated.
  - finnthehuman 5y ago
    >I think the GP's experience with the MoMA show can be understood in terms of the Gell-Mann effect You're probably right, not a bad analogy. Over years of cultural osmosis and sometimes being told outright, I came to understand that I'm a nerd what doesn't get art and that it's some sort of personal failing. I thought the computing exhibit might be my chance to have the kind of experience that the reverence for art tells me I'm missing out on. Over time since then I decided that if I see something as a skilled execution of an idea not worth anything more than a "huh, neat" and moving on, then to stop letting the presentation and culture tell me there is something more and just keep walking. I've always found Starry Night beautiful and seeing it in person was actually an experience. I was under the delusion that I "should" have had even one tenth of that reaction to literally anything else in the place. But there's a reason it's the last stop on the way through.

ghaff 5y ago

That's disappointing. I could imagine a display of visually interesting computers that also went deeply into the rationale of why these designs also made sense from a technical perspective. I haven't seen the exhibit but sounds like they're missing that element.

giffjjff 5y ago
It was a temporary exhibition (Nov 13, 2017–Apr 8, 2018) https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3863 https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3863 It is exasperating to hear you complaining because an art show didn't treat tech in the depth you would have liked. The focus was works made by artists (not "exhibits") and it sounds like the GP is just not the target audience for that. It is certainly true that contemporary art's take on tech is shallow and more about a vibe or an aesthetic than about, let's say, rigorous exposition or exploration of technicalities. As a person with a computer background who also has an MA in fine art, I often find that what happens to be on show in local galleries is "not for me". A show by Lucy Raven et al, for example, made a fuss about LUTs in image processing as if they were some kind of dark art. This can be a frustrating feeling until I remember that no creative expression can possibly address everyone. Once I remember that, I don't feel the need to write a dismissive review of the artist's work; it is a relief to be able to move on to search for material (artistic or technical) which is more stimulating. I think the GP's experience with the MoMA show can be understood in terms of the Gell-Mann effect: mass culture treats a topic you know well, and it seems shallow to you. Is everything the museum shows equally shallow, when seem from the "right" perspective? I don't know what that would even mean. We know that the Gell-Mann effect isn't really an argument that the newspaper trivializes and distorts everything to the point that it does more harm than good. It feels important not to get cynical and come to a damning conclusion about the art world based on similar reasoning.
- ghaff 5y ago
  As I said, I did not see this particular exhibit. I have seen MOMA exhibits--and indeed a lot of their permanent design collection--that exists at the intersection of form and function. And, in general, I find that a useful lens for design. I don't find chairs that look "cool" but are horribly uncomfortable especially interesting. And I'd feel similarly about a unique computer design that overheated.
- finnthehuman 5y ago
  >I think the GP's experience with the MoMA show can be understood in terms of the Gell-Mann effect You're probably right, not a bad analogy. Over years of cultural osmosis and sometimes being told outright, I came to understand that I'm a nerd what doesn't get art and that it's some sort of personal failing. I thought the computing exhibit might be my chance to have the kind of experience that the reverence for art tells me I'm missing out on. Over time since then I decided that if I see something as a skilled execution of an idea not worth anything more than a "huh, neat" and moving on, then to stop letting the presentation and culture tell me there is something more and just keep walking. I've always found Starry Night beautiful and seeing it in person was actually an experience. I was under the delusion that I "should" have had even one tenth of that reaction to literally anything else in the place. But there's a reason it's the last stop on the way through.