>Interestingly though, until very recently these >developments have only been Cybernetic by >structure, not by name (mainly because it carried >the smell of a hype from the past). [LASSE SCHERFFIG]
How efficient is this sort of symbolic camouflage to disentangle a discipline (structures of thought, conceptual frameworks, methods) from the hype (of the past)? >From another perspective: should the changing of names/labels (from KYB to INF?) be taken as a “superficially” administrative or as a “deeply” philosophical operation? Or is it one of these cases in which such separation makes no sense whatsoever? Is there any advantage in sticking to the old, overused/abused concepts, and forcing them to perform new operations? >I generally feel uneasy with talking about "benefits" >of artistic research, […] But of course both "inform" >each other to some extend. [LS] I’m curious whether this information remains as a form of silent inspiration to the thesis, or if it is actually written down in some way. Do you refer to the artworks even in passing? If so, do you conceptually reframe them as experiments? How personal is (would be?) your account of them in any academic form (such as an essay)? >the "objects" on a game's screen do not exist in the >loops we created, although they exist (a) in code >and (b) for us, i.e. as sign and signal. The game, >however, functions without them. [LS] The game “functions”, but can it be /played/? And if it can’t, is it still a game? Considering the amount of material resources spent on these “objects” (memory, processing cycles, etc - which is critical in older console systems), how redundant they should be considered to the overall feedback structure entailed by the gaming system? (And: is this relation between “functionality” and “playability” in any form analog to the one between “conceptual structure” and “names” above?) >News of the World is a nice example of circular >causality because it bends the very rules that >produced it (the demand for peer reviewed >publishing). [LS] Reaching out to the other thread: should we take this rule-bending as a form of institutional critique? Can it have long-term effects, or is it restricted to opening space for a singular intervention? >But exams and degrees are already gamification >of education. And badge-based accreditation of >achievement outside the academy is a way of >reproducing this. [ROB MYERS] Ha, indeed. All the comments about “gamification” made me realise how it might be a most appropriate way to describe the particular economy of academic research we are already in. It brought to my mind a text on The Last Psychiatrist about a particular research project that went completely wrong, but nevertheless had a “quite positive publication output”. From its (self-congratulatory?) conclusion: “In general, the results could not be combined in an overarching model, and were thus disappointing with regard to scientific progress. In contrast, the end result in terms of publication output was quite positive: the majority of papers were presented at international conferences and published in highly cited journals and several students earned PhD degrees based on their work on the subject.” (The whole text: tinyurl.com/7fhsv9h) Best! Menotti _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
