Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
it is disturbing and yet now apparently more acceptably commonplace to think (in the era of current culturally mediated narcissisms) progressively of self modifications and enhancements, and as Stelarc might phrase it, having done the Extra Ear project or doing it as we speak, of operational augmentations of ageing bodies, bodies less flexible or abled than they could be if they were being prototyped properly for all kinds of new reperformances. I am going to comment on the notion of reperformance another time, once i have looked a bit more closely at what Marina Abramovic is up to, being present at her own exhibition or presenting herself as a prototype in performance of her selves as performance artist (former, and the enhanced present one, or retrospective one). She is actually, now at MoMA in New York City, a retrospective prototyperperformer, as far as i can imagine. For an older generation if live artists enjoying their ephemeral events that took place back then, she is the writing on the wall. (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/arts/design/14performance.html?pagewanted=1) I am running behind, in a manner of speaking, the synthetic biology discussion at the moment, sorry, but wanted to ask Micha what he imagines prototyping (and I do not mean to take seriously any notion of avatar prototyping in Second Life, I am afraid) to be if it can open up spaces of experimentation with new forms of living which challenge current forms of biopower, you are refering to transgender practice or life? Did you see transgender a a form of prototyping the self, what notion of self? Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold May I alsio ask, in this context, what Gabriel Shalom meant by autodocumentarian subjects ? greetings Johannes Johannes Birringer director, DAP lab School of Arts Brunel University West London UB8 3PH UK http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap - ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
On the other hand, there are technologies that seem to be introduced with the stated purpose of achieving one objective, yet have the larger objective of changing human populations. Take, for instance, the infamous case of Nestle's infant formula strategy in Africa. Company reps masquerading as health workers introduce infant formula to a population that had not used it previously. The suggested purpose is to provide nutrition and humanitarian aid. But when women stopped lactating and suddenly found themselves forced to pay for the product or watch their children starve, a much more radical technical innovation becomes apparent--the forced creation of a new social web in service of corporate interests. More current (and relevant) examples might be the sort of biological innovations that have been spurred by petrochemical industries as ubiquitous products (plastics, agricultural products, drugs, etc) saturate ecosystems with chemicals that interfere with hormone production across the food chain, resulting in an explosion of diseases requiring treatment. I don't know that I know enough to say that there is anything resembling a conspiracy here other than the sort of conspiracy of opportunistically imposed apathy and ignorance. But the general recklessness of big business seems to suggest that there is something intentional about turning quick profits, letting major catastrophic accidents happen, and then profiting further. Habituating people to live in a precarious state of withered consciousness seems to have been the real value uncovered by the pervasive barrage of technical innovations human beings can be turned into quivering beasts who will tolerate any injustice simply to hope for another day, and in many cases, who will tear at each other's throats in defense of the paymasters responsible for this exploitation. I suppose I should hang it up, here. I might be drawing a false distinction. And I certainly am off the rails for this month's discussion. There is something moralistic in my argument, resembling the months old discussion of good and bad that we had here. Yet, I wonder that there might be some value in drawing distinctions between orders of technological existence. That the fast-forward orientation of prototyping is fascinating and productive but it is a loaded term... and it is one that I have a hard time unpacking. You can sidestep the impression of a moralist, ethical stance by elaborating the value systems that are in play. In my exploration of anti-ergonomy I ran into the case of the disposable diaper and the result it has had in increasing by an average of several years now how long it takes for children to be potty trained. On the surface it is valuable to eliminate children's discomfort by optimizing the diaper. In fact current diapers increase general comfort by expanding in a soothing way and becoming warm. Likewise diaper changers appreciate all the gadgets to facilitate the change. The problem here is that the same object (the result of dozens of years of prototyping and field testing) is ergonomic at one time scale and not at a larger one in time or at the scale of an entire society. One can look at this somewhat hopefully by saying that now the diaper has been rationalized from (a la weber) charismatic authority of its immediate convenience to legal/rational authority evaluations (that took decades) it can serve as a prototype for a new cycle of charismatica and rationalization with the inclusion of (for example) alarms that make the wearer aware of their bodily functions. There is already preliminary research to support that this will get people out of diapers earlier. In other words I poop therefor I am. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Thanks Cynthia for sharing. I've been lurking this month, enjoying Adrienne's posts and others. I just wanted to add that the new media artist and designer Maurice Benayoun visited our Cornell Art Department this week where he shared with our students his open source website of ideas and projects that for him were either unusable, not possible, or too expensive on the-dump.net (google will translate the page from French to English). He explains that the-dump is his open source sharing space where anyone can pick up one of his ideas freely and indeed many have done. The work was part of his PHD dissertation in Paris. Right now he is spear heading the design of an open source website for artist's to share their images both still and moving at theartcollider.org Renate Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dia/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Adrienne, But what is unusable you some may be usable by others, no? I agree though that the idea finding phase is more nuanced but am not convinced that there must be implementation. Renate always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. A more nuanced analysis of the whole cycle might help. You seem to be talking about ideation. Most meaningful works of art, prototypes and societal contributions involve, ideation, implementation and cultural resonance. I am rather impatient of these discussions revolveing around just the ideation part. It is the source of the rather common critique of the MIT media lab's demo/charismatica focus. Similarly you see many dreamy, inspiring examples of Arduino and Lilypad demos. that simply can't be implemented reliably or usefully or legally (e.g. FCC regulations) and for which cultural resonance is often low. You can see the real challenges involved when you look at the history of the OLPC project as they attempted to rationalize the initial charismatic idea and implement and sell something. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dia/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
