Regularity

Revision as of 01:06, 1 August 2011 (view source)

MarkMarino (Talk | contribs)

(→)

← Older edit

Revision as of 01:38, 1 August 2011 (view source)

MarkMarino (Talk | contribs)

(→Textiles)

Newer edit →

Line 59:

Repeat to the end of the row. The first and second row are repeated alternately. (126)

−

These examples demonstrate that while the systematic theorization of patterns such as 10 PRINT may emerge periodically, the production of those patterns are deeply woven in the traditions of decorative craft. The parallels of process and pattern place programming in the realm of techne, artistic craft, here one conveyed through the imitation of a set of instructions collected as a technique.

+

These examples demonstrate that while the systematic theorization of patterns such as 10 PRINT may emerge periodically, the production of those patterns are deeply woven in the traditions of decorative craft. The parallels of process and pattern place programming in the realm of techne, artistic craft, here one conveyed through the imitation of a set of instructions collected as a technique. On the surface, the parallels between the teaching of needlecraft and programming are striking. However, the programmers are not being taught to repeat the procedure but instead to repeat the telling of the procedure, typing it into the machine. It is the very automation of the process that makes 10 PRINT possible since 10 PRINT operates less like handy stitching and more like the machinery of the Jacquard's Loom.

−

Having seen 10 PRINT's pattern in tiles, it is worthwhile to look for it in textiles and to particularly consider the early tool for producing regular patterns in textiles, the Jacuard Loom. Prior to that loom, circa 2nd Century BCE, China gave birth to a loom “that made it possible to create a pattern in fabric...called a drawloom because [it] allowed the warp threads to be drawn up individually to create the design to be woven" (10). However, that loom was irregular, "the arrangement of the individual warp threads was different for every single row of weaving" (10). By contrast, the loom designed by Joseph-Marie Jacquard, was regular and programmable (12). Such a machine relied on an exacting degree of regularity. Of course, much has been made of the Jacquard Loom as the prototypical computer, for example James Essinger's book ''Jacquard's Web: How a Hand-Loom Led to the Birth of the Information Age''. The core similarity in these early accounts were the punchcards, which were automatically applied to the control system, which served as patterns for the loom to follow. Earlier punchcard looms have been discovered and attributed to J.B. Falcon and B. Bouchon and Vaucanson, whose invention of a mechanical duck is a bit more widely know (Zamenek 16). According to Essinger, Falcon's punch cards were "clumsily made and unreliable" (36). Jacquard's punchcards were regular and size in shape, the same shape as the currency of his time as well as the punchcards used to program in the 1970s (Zamenek 16). At the same time, the loom itself had to be made regular in order for the punch cards to fit the pattern. Once the loom was standardized the designs could be planned out on graph paper.

+

Prior to that loom, circa 2nd Century BCE, China gave birth to a loom “that made it possible to create a pattern in fabric...called a drawloom because [it] allowed the warp threads to be drawn up individually to create the design to be woven" (10). However, that loom was irregular, "the arrangement of the individual warp threads was different for every single row of weaving" (10). By contrast, the loom designed by Joseph-Marie Jacquard, was regular and programmable (12). Such a machine relied on an exacting degree of regularity. Of course, much has been made of the Jacquard Loom as the prototypical computer, for example James Essinger's book ''Jacquard's Web: How a Hand-Loom Led to the Birth of the Information Age''. The core similarity in these early accounts were the punchcards, which were automatically applied to the control system, which served as patterns for the loom to follow. Earlier punchcard looms have been discovered and attributed to J.B. Falcon and B. Bouchon and Vaucanson, whose invention of a mechanical duck is a bit more widely know (Zamenek 16). According to Essinger, Falcon's punch cards were "clumsily made and unreliable" (36). Jacquard's punchcards were regular and size in shape, the same shape as the currency of his time as well as the punchcards used to program in the 1970s (Zemanek 16). At the same time, the loom itself had to be made regular in order for the punch cards to fit the pattern. Once the loom was standardized the designs could be planned out on graph paper.

−

Commercial-grade textiles required up to 4000 cards strung together -- a far cry from the two statements on the one line of 10 PRINT. The cards were applied to a bar, an "elongated cube," full of "hundreds of identical holes...to accommodate the tips of needles," which will be raised according to the selections on the punchcard. As the bar turns with each pick of the shuttle, it moves down the material as if moving down a computer screen. Regularity made possible the Jacquard Loom's ability to draw its intricate patterns. But the use of the cards as a pure pattern, and the inability to regulate the flow of control, meant that patterns had to be defined exhaustively rather than through concise programs. In other words, the number of cards was proportional to the size of the pattern being woven. As a result, the loom demonstrates the limitations of regularity of space without repetition of process.

+

Commercial-grade textiles required up to 4000 cards strung together -- a far cry from the two statements on the one line of 10 PRINT. The cards were applied to a bar, an "elongated cube," full of "hundreds of identical holes...to accommodate the tips of needles," which will be raised according to the selections on the punchcard. As the bar turns with each pick of the shuttle, it moves down the material as if moving down a computer screen. Regularity made possible the Jacquard Loom's ability to draw its intricate patterns. But the use of the cards as a pure pattern, and the inability to regulate the flow of control, meant that patterns had to be defined exhaustively rather than through concise programs. In other words, the number of cards was proportional to the size of the pattern being woven. While the needlework instructions to young ladies demonstrates the role of repeated process and pattern over somewhat regulated space, the loom regulates time and space without, in effect, repeating process.

+

10 PRINT can be thought of then as the process of craft programmed into the loom and so offers a way for the weavers of the computer screen to shift their emphasis from the single process of 10 PRINT to permutations of that process. 10 PRINT demonstrates the power of the computational machine to rapidly prototype a repeated pattern, and since it executes the pattern itself, the incipient programmer is freed to experiment with variations and extensions of that process.

==The Grid in Modern and Contemporary Art==

From Maze

Revision as of 01:38, 1 August 2011

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 Repeat to the end of the row. The first and second row are repeated alternately. (126)
-These examples demonstrate that while the systematic theorization of patterns such as 10 PRINT may emerge periodically, the production of those patterns are deeply woven in the traditions of decorative craft.  The parallels of process and pattern place programming in the realm of techne, artistic craft, here one conveyed through the imitation of a set of instructions collected as a technique.
+These examples demonstrate that while the systematic theorization of patterns such as 10 PRINT may emerge periodically, the production of those patterns are deeply woven in the traditions of decorative craft.  The parallels of process and pattern place programming in the realm of techne, artistic craft, here one conveyed through the imitation of a set of instructions collected as a technique.  On the surface, the parallels between the teaching of needlecraft and programming are striking.   However, the programmers are not being taught to repeat the procedure but instead to repeat the telling of the procedure, typing it into the machine.  It is the very automation of the process that makes 10 PRINT possible since 10 PRINT operates less like handy stitching and more like the machinery of the Jacquard's Loom.
-Having seen 10 PRINT's pattern in tiles, it is worthwhile to look for it in textiles and to particularly consider the early tool for producing regular patterns in textiles, the Jacuard Loom.  Prior to that loom, circa 2nd Century BCE, China gave birth to a loom “that made it possible to create a pattern in fabric...called a drawloom because [it] allowed the warp threads to be drawn up individually to create the design to be woven" (10). However, that loom was irregular, "the arrangement of the individual warp threads was different for every single row of weaving" (10). By contrast, the loom designed by Joseph-Marie Jacquard, was regular and programmable (12). Such a machine relied on an exacting degree of regularity.  Of course, much has been made of the Jacquard Loom as the prototypical computer, for example James Essinger's book ''Jacquard's Web: How a Hand-Loom Led to the Birth of the Information Age''. The core similarity in these early accounts were the punchcards, which were automatically applied to the control system, which served as patterns for the loom to follow. Earlier punchcard looms have been discovered and attributed to J.B. Falcon and B. Bouchon and Vaucanson, whose invention of a mechanical duck is a bit more widely know (Zamenek 16).  According to Essinger, Falcon's punch cards were "clumsily made and unreliable" (36). Jacquard's punchcards were regular and size in shape, the same shape as the currency of his time as well as the punchcards used to program in the 1970s (Zamenek 16).   At the same time, the loom itself had to be made regular in order for the punch cards to fit the pattern.  Once the loom was standardized the designs could be planned out on graph paper.
+Prior to that loom, circa 2nd Century BCE, China gave birth to a loom “that made it possible to create a pattern in fabric...called a drawloom because [it] allowed the warp threads to be drawn up individually to create the design to be woven" (10). However, that loom was irregular, "the arrangement of the individual warp threads was different for every single row of weaving" (10). By contrast, the loom designed by Joseph-Marie Jacquard, was regular and programmable (12). Such a machine relied on an exacting degree of regularity.  Of course, much has been made of the Jacquard Loom as the prototypical computer, for example James Essinger's book ''Jacquard's Web: How a Hand-Loom Led to the Birth of the Information Age''. The core similarity in these early accounts were the punchcards, which were automatically applied to the control system, which served as patterns for the loom to follow. Earlier punchcard looms have been discovered and attributed to J.B. Falcon and B. Bouchon and Vaucanson, whose invention of a mechanical duck is a bit more widely know (Zamenek 16).  According to Essinger, Falcon's punch cards were "clumsily made and unreliable" (36). Jacquard's punchcards were regular and size in shape, the same shape as the currency of his time as well as the punchcards used to program in the 1970s (Zemanek 16).   At the same time, the loom itself had to be made regular in order for the punch cards to fit the pattern.  Once the loom was standardized the designs could be planned out on graph paper.
-Commercial-grade textiles required up to 4000 cards strung together -- a far cry from the two statements on the one line of 10 PRINT. The cards were applied to a bar, an "elongated cube," full of "hundreds of identical holes...to accommodate the tips of needles," which will be raised according to the selections on the punchcard. As the bar turns with each pick of the shuttle, it moves down the material as if moving down a computer screen. Regularity made possible the Jacquard Loom's ability to draw its intricate patterns. But the use of the cards as a pure pattern, and the inability to regulate the flow of control, meant that patterns had to be defined exhaustively rather than through concise programs.  In other words, the number of cards was proportional to the size of the pattern being woven.   As a result, the loom demonstrates the limitations of regularity of space without repetition of process.
+Commercial-grade textiles required up to 4000 cards strung together -- a far cry from the two statements on the one line of 10 PRINT. The cards were applied to a bar, an "elongated cube," full of "hundreds of identical holes...to accommodate the tips of needles," which will be raised according to the selections on the punchcard. As the bar turns with each pick of the shuttle, it moves down the material as if moving down a computer screen. Regularity made possible the Jacquard Loom's ability to draw its intricate patterns. But the use of the cards as a pure pattern, and the inability to regulate the flow of control, meant that patterns had to be defined exhaustively rather than through concise programs.  In other words, the number of cards was proportional to the size of the pattern being woven.   While the needlework instructions to young ladies demonstrates the role of repeated process and pattern over somewhat regulated space, the loom regulates time and space without, in effect, repeating process.
+PRINT can be thought of then as the process of craft programmed into the loom and so offers a way for the weavers of the computer screen to shift their emphasis from the single process of 10 PRINT to permutations of that process.   10 PRINT demonstrates the power of the computational machine to rapidly prototype a repeated pattern, and since it executes the pattern itself, the incipient programmer is freed to experiment with variations and extensions of that process.
 ==The Grid in Modern and Contemporary Art==