My comment to the article we were to read

every time i tried to comment, i was taken to a page saying an error had occured, something about cookie support, and becuase i didn't want to be counted off, i figured the only way i could comment was through a post, so, here's my comment to our reading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so, to be perfectly honest, this is the 2nd time i'm writing this because my comp flickered from a poweroutage and so i'm going to try my best to remember what it was i previously wrote. Ahem (clears mental throat)
 So, this article was horribly confusing and yet made sense. I couldn't get through it without taking several breaks else risking my eyes crossing and blurring, and i also couldn't get through it without my trusty dictionary close to my hand. The techical jargon alone was what probably made it hard for me to follow to a certain extent, but i think i get the main idea, so here I go. But first, i need to sidetrack slightly.
      
      I'm in a History of Photography class right now, and one of the main things we keep hitting upon as we slowly move forward in time as the camera was developed, is how people argued whether photography could be considered art or not. There were those that argued that because images were created by a technical means, a machine constructed through science, it couldn't possibly be considered art because art is something created by the soul and then put onto a 2D plane. Of course, then you have the other side of people arguing that it photography IS art because it isn't about the camera, it's about the image and what the photographer was trying to capture in the image (or something like that).
  I can't help but feel that this article is basically an argument that it's now the computer's turn to fight for the right to be termed 'art'.
Something that caught my eye and i really liked was at the beginning of the article, where it spoke of how Milan viewed art and science as being on the same level, that science was simply a journey of knowledge, and art was a journey of the senses. Well, it this is true, then surely art can be created by anything, even mechanical means, right?
    As i see it, art isn't something just made with an afterthought. It's an extenal expression of an internal moment, or feeling. Art is what someone created from a moment when they were struck with inspiration and felt the overwhelming urge to bring it to life in a physical realm so that it could be seen not just inside by one person, but that it could be viewed by others and give them a chance to feel what someone else felt, or thought, or dreamed, imagined, wished, etc.

 Now, the computer is a machine. It's technical, it's science, but it was created out of a need for something wished or imagined, and that flows with my opinion of how art is made, so the way i see it, computers are most certainly a form of art of themselves, so they must be capable of MAKING art too. People express themselves through different means, whether it be paint and paper, or flashing lights and weird noises generated from a machine.

 Art isn't something insignificant. Even a toddler putting his handprint on a piece of paper is usually overjoyed by such a simple mark on a cut down tree that's been pulped and pummeled into a flat line of substance. Art is confusing, sometimes hard to understand, sometimes breathtaking and sometimes terrifying, but so long as someone can feel something from it, then in my opinion it is art. It is what it is.