[archycockroach]

I've been mulling on this for a day now. I have some concerns. I am not trying to be rude by asking this, but I think it bears consideration: Do you think that exposing an API to your practice is the means by which "technical people" can access art? Do you think it is the only means?

You make some claims about the "divide" between art and engineering. By inserting yourself as a mediator between these two fields, do you think you are reconciling these worlds? Because to me it seems like you are capitalizing on this difference instead of actually attempting to stitch the rift together. By manipulating liminal markets, you are closely mimicking the behavior of tech startups. Is this in the interest of your art, or just your practice?

[SuperPaintMan]

This process has been helping me define the project, that's for sure. By being an API I would say there needs to be a amount of technical competence, or at least knowledge of how to communicate using it. But communication through an API lends itself to a differing language and conversation. The context and nature of the materials is of log files, and that's my prime concern. Nowhere near the only means of access, there is no divide between technical and non-technical ceramicists. This is just a weird tool in a toolbox, an access method of many. I'd actually love to see what a ceramicist would do around a similar model.

I'm not reconciling any divides, if anything I'm drawing a arbitrary line in the sand when high tide is approaching. Inflammatory at best. What I do know is collage using textbooks, Model M keycaps, square bracket forms and pornography is fun and holds meaning. My engineering colleagues can understand the underlying language more clearly. Where does that come from? But there is a different logging mechanism in the world now that just makes the question `createArt(arg1, arg2) painting` exist, it's an option over doing it yourself but you're the curator. My friends work with IoT devices and collect some fun data, now they can pass it off to me pragmatically.

A few years of HN got to me. But it is modelled after other SASS startups, the model works and I don't have to invent the infrastructure, that's what other services are for (boxes all the way down). But BlackBox is a service, and operates as such. I'm undecided on if this a credit to the work, but it damn well is a property. It's not the first time I've reached for a similar method of expression though. A few years back I created http://projectexas.appspot.com (oh god it's a broken mess) just to showcase/contrast that data. Perhaps this is a extension of that mindset? Thank you for pointing that out, I had not actively noticed! But is it viable? That act of capitalization funds the whole show after all. Operating entirely in the interest of sustaining the practice and possibly finding a market. That's a comment on startup/capitalist culture if I've ever seen one. A few projects have had publicly available APIs [1], but I'm not sure something like this exists.

Seriously though, try asking someone overtly to send you logs/resources, It's kind of hard. I really just want some newspaper clippings and posters from the insides of servers. I really want to be called, to be a funnel for curated data another side effect of a giant mechanism. And if you're reading on Hacker News, there's a good chance you can understand that desire. And I want to talk to you via walls.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Feel_Fine