With this discussion the first theoretical steps in a generally technical conference were initated. The first impressions, that the theoretical and the practical steps have basically the opinion, that pd is a tool in the process of producing arts, had to be confined very quickly. The given titel of this discussion leans on former times, just going directly into the middle-ages, where art was a common thing in the factory and workshops: one master, and a lot of helpers, whose maintask was, to execute the work, the art, mostly interpretated as handicraft.

In an historical overview considerer: In ancient Greek-times: techné was handicraft, just for workers, and the artist needed something like a spiritual impulse. Afterwards, when the ancient-times came en vogue again, in the Renaissance, the term was re-discovered, especially through Giorgio Vasaris "Vitae" and in the person of Leonardo da Vinci, who unies techné and art. The term techné ran under much alteration, and namely science and arts developed to be two complete different things.

art and craftwork as two sides of knowledge, wherein craftwork was always inferior, had nothing to do with god dgl. In the mimesis idea- the reproduction of nature, as just an "specie" (mirror) of god´s laws and desire, the artists emulated who could get closer to the truth with his art ("paragone". But the goal was not just to imitate god´s nature, but to be more realistic then him, a kind of "hyperrealism" evolved in these days of the 16.th century.(and of course hyperrealistic examples are shown by the greek, e.g. the painter Parrhasios, who could paint a grape so realistic, that birds picked it...)

In musics the technical idea is obviously dominant,in painting since the the times after world war II also, but maybe not that strong, and in the epoque of the renaissance nearly everthing was seen in a new way by the contruction of the "construzione leggittima" -ca. 1410-20 experimented by Brunelleschi in front of the florence baptisterium) Our nowadays point of view is impregnated from these days, that means, that after 300/400 years of indoctrination of seeing right is only seeing through the distored obejection of the construzione, our biological development had to adapt.

the thesis, that we are nowadays in a postmodern/ or post-posttime, we are somehow turning over again to models used in former days, is an often discussed one, and with pd (tool or not) somehow the possibilty awoke again, to unit technics and art,--maybe just an utopian dream.

As could be seen, (not so much felt), all the discussions finally ended more or less unsatisfying for the theoretists, who spoke of their fields, and the enthusastic developers maintended their attitude, to create something completely new with this software, undermined with a thinking of theirselves of beiing an artist. It would have been necessary, first of all, before all discussion started, to "define" or declare, from which kind of art-term we are speaking. Only then, a further discussion would have been useful. But so, vastly different things met each other, and -in contrario to the theoretics- the developersside was not cooperative. (just my personal impression of course)Well, to define "art" itself is impossible, but one thing about, the aestetics of it, is always concerning. Art must have an aestic, otherwise it is just handicraft, technical stuff....Ok, we may have neglected the demand of auratic artpieces (w. benjamin), but that´s not the point. An artpiece needs something undefinable, something that you could not express by words, by description, ---that has to be just made in this way and addresses directly your feelings.

Armin Medosch regarded the tool-idea for pd as wrong: pd is much more than a tool, you can create autonomous machines, it is creation. Creating the software itself is an active creativity. The ethymological route of the word "Creation" is indoeuropean and means just "to make something", it is here an instrument par excellence. Every new patch ist something, that hasn´t been before ,it is "an bringing into existence".

The discussion about tools seemed for the invited theorists SChöny anachronistic at all. The first step might be, who has access to this tool called pd ? Susanne Schmidt sees the connection between computer and art very interesting. For her, computers are a tool to discover the principals of art; with pd the combination of music (hearing; the creative part) and high-level mathematics (principals of nature) is luckily carried out.

Werner Jauk asks if pd belongs to physics, if it is an instrument, tool or just digit, as a kind of code, that itself is n o t physical. Seen as a product of mind, -the code just allows- modern science gets a metaphysical touch.(and herein could ly an approach to arts- so think I)Pd is direct and a creation (to differentiate from "creativity")The users of pd wish to built certain tools. Jauk, whose interests ly in the psychological field, emphasizes repeatedly the vital point: the question of ethics is brought back through pd. Well, that ethics and aestetics are close together is nothing new, and in a post-lyotard time, we are able to mind the differences and connections between both, why especially this software should arise the ethical question with a new, tremdenous forth, he tried to discuss the next evening.