Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Hi empyre, although we are already in week 2 of the in/compatible discussion, I briefly want to get back last week's question of honesty: 1. What does honesty/transparency mean in the context of so many layers of abstraction? Is there any honesty in there, or is a computational system a simulacrum? No matter how much you expose to the user, there will always be something hidden. The problem here is the one highlighted by Magnus Lawrie quoting Andersen and Pold. However, it is not just Sutherland's separation of data processing and visual representation creating that problem but it directly follows from digital computation: While in analog computing, movement, voltages or whatever have a direct causal and indexical (in terms of Peirceian semiotics) relation of processing and representation, digital computation is different. You cannot read a digital memory by merely looking at it (as Pias has for example shown for the William's Tube [1]), whereas computation of the analog differential analyzer by Vannevar Bush was described as giving the man who studies it a grasp of the innate meaning of the differential equation [2]. The only way to read a digital representation is to use an interface attaching signs to it. And because the relation of these signs to the digital is arbitrary, they are Peirceian symbols. It is because of this problematic (symbolic) relation of computation and representation in the digital realm that computation today not only presupposes an abstraction reducing phenomena to descriptions, descriptions to formalisms and formalisms to algorithms [3] (which is a huge problem in itself). But at the same time it entails a concretion of digital processes that by necessity is symbolic and thus dishonest. That's why I use the term Feedback Machine to denote the combination of worldless digital computation with a Cybernetic coupling to the world the digital is devoid of [4]. Critical engineering thus cannot stop at understanding some essential inner workings of computing machinery (which is important but of course yields the problem of where to stop -- do you need to know logics, programming or building a computer from raw materials?) but also an understanding of the processes of abstraction and concretion that constantly couple the phenomenal and formal world -- or signs and signals (a concept originally by Frieder Nake [3]) -- is much needed. Best, Lasse. [1] Claus Pias, Computer Spiel Welten, Dissertation: Weimar, 2000, http://e-pub.uni-weimar.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/35 p. 55 [2] Claus Pias, Computer Spiel Welten, p. 45 [3] Frieder Nake and Susanne Grabowski, Human-computer interaction viewed as pseudo-communication. Knowledge Based Systems 14 (2001), 441-447 [4] e.g. p. 4 on (ping) pong in the in/compatible world of the news -- Academy of Media Arts Cologne http://www.khm.de Laboratory for Experimental Computer Science http://interface.khm.de ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:18:24 +0100 Lasse Scherffig lsche...@khm.de wrote: Hi empyre, although we are already in week 2 of the in/compatible discussion, I briefly want to get back last week's question of honesty: 1. What does honesty/transparency mean in the context of so many layers of abstraction? Is there any honesty in there, or is a computational system a simulacrum? No matter how much you expose to the user, there will always be something hidden. I'd just like to add another quick response to this forgive/ignore me if this goes without saying. It is in the nature of software to hide abstraction. I would say dishonest software misleads people through abstractions. Open source software for example mostly does not mislead people about the abstraction and it is possible to show the abstractions quite easily. Misleading software - I'm thinking Apple and their hardware too, in particular - does hide the abstractions and does not allow inspection (though I'm speaking with extremely little usage experience)... ... well it seems I'm starting to go over ground already covered more expertly by others on the list... I don't recall any mention about usability experts. There's some tension between usability experts and developers that might be interesting for some - especially in /free/libre/open/source/software. That's why you've got distributions like Ubuntu, Arch, and Gentoo. All going in different directions regarding users and the abstractions their expected to understand. James. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
and even their practice yet they find no entry point to dissassembling and thus critically engaging them. It's not enough to talk about how we are influenced by all this engineering - technology that becomes social, political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us in little better position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the mechanics of influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as a material (engineering). Most that receive this email will have little or no idea how it arrived to their inbox, unable to accurately describe it to another, not even close. At the same time most would be able to describe how a postcard arrived at their friends mailbox. Just 15 years.. Ignorance as to how these engineered infrastructures actually function, what they do and what is done with them behind their own presentation, is actively being abused both inside and out of democracies. Cheers, Julian On 9 Feb 2012, at 13:44, César Baio wrote: Hallo all, It is interesting because this remains a field of questions for me. But I can talk a bit about my experience with this. When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view because for those who can operate with the technology has in your hand a very powerful language. We say programming language but why not to say something like technological language?. Who understands the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so only to turn it into other languages. In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects. An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot the way deals the other problems of my thesis. I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the forum. From: gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 + To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or empirical? Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field to another? I'm interested in if and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of technology making their production and use more accessible, how are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist uses [CB] Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they? Best! Menotti ___ 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 Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
We live in a profoundly different world to the 70's and 80's, in regard to media. In the past few years we have entered a post-convergence techno-culture. This is to say that the dynamics of media convergence that typified the 80's and 90's is more or less complete and most electronic media now exist in a digital form, accessible from the same or similar platforms. Even some very old-media (the book, for example) are subject to the same forces of convergence. The effect of this is that it is no longer possible to define media in terms of their technical characteristics. We are required to consider them in their social dimension. The relationship between film and video is an excellent example of how this has panned out. Film remains a generally large scale shared experience, as typified by the cinema. Video remains a small and intimate medium, as typified by the TV or Youtube. However, technically, there is no significant difference in these two media. Details like hardware specification and codec capability aside, they are technically the same. The differences we perceive around them as media are social, not technical (in the 70's and 80's the differences were both and we argued over which was the determiner). The question is whether this difference is a hangover from prior mediale norms or due to something more profound about society and its apparatus? I'd suggest it is probably a mix of the two factors and they are likely to be functions of one another. Bolter's concept of remediation is as relevant to understanding what is happening to our technologies and epistemologies as is Foucault's of the dispositif and Latour's ideas on socio-technical systems. What are not relevant are the arguments concerning media specificity that dominated the critical discourses of media culture during the 70's and 80's. In my experience that is a big difference. best Simon On 12 Feb 2012, at 22:59, César Baio wrote: GH: The main idea of video is a live broadcast or a disjuncture of place/space so your initial premise seems correct to me. However, video is just one of the multimedia components of digital art/media. For example. data sensors, audio I/O video, stills, photoshop, hacking, animation, video mapping onto 3D, virtual worlds etc.. all hold equal value. Obviously we're talking/working in an information world. Cesar: In my opinion, with the digital media we are living in a technical, aesthetic and artistic context very different from the 1970s and 1980s video art. I agree with you that digital is not the same as video. What I mean is that, although I agree with many of the relationships established by Manivich between film and digital, I believe the video has a more intimate relationship with the digital. Briefly, only to exemplify, from the point of view of the technology, although in an analogue way, video was based on the light measurement by numbers. The video already used sampling techniques. It had an information processing system. It was based on some kinds of virtualities - such as size and color balance of the pixel (on the lines) of camera / TV / monitor. From the aesthetic point of view, many video artists in the 70's and 80's have based their work on the creation of apparatus in the form of video installations. Many of them explored the creation of synthetic images (abstract ones) by the manipulation of rays of TV tubes, questioning the indexicality of technical image. They also do hacking on devices (audio and videotapes, cameras, TV monitors etc) to consider other operating logics of media devices. They already have used sensors attached to the videotapes and cameras. But that does not mean that we do today is the same thing they did. The questions they addressed have been continuously updated and were joined by others that occur in the field of media networking, mobile devices, gaming and many other fields. Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:06:36 + From: marc.garr...@furtherfield.org To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering ---I just realised that yesterday, I sent this post to Julian personally rather than to the Empyre list by mistake. Sorry Julian, here it is again resent to its correct location :-) Hi Julian, Excuse my late interaction with the list regarding its current discussion - as usual too much going on. But, I'm happy to be (momentarily) distracted and jump in here to explore some of the aspects or key elements you have proposed in your last post... Within your manifesto you say The Critical Engineer looks beyond the 'awe of implementation' to determine methods of influence and their specific effects. Now, the implementation of building a manifesto has its own reflective 'awe', in which we acknowledge not only the subject but the writer(s
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or empirical? Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field to another? I'm interested in if and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of technology making their production and use more accessible, how are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist uses [CB] Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they? Best! Menotti ___ 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 Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- Other Info: Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change since 1997 Also - Furtherfield Gallery Social Space: http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery About Furtherfield: http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community. http://www.netbehaviour.org http://identi.ca/furtherfield http://twitter.com/furtherfield ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Hi Gabriel, This section of your post below rings true to me personally. I wonder what role this issue plays in the life of artists going through PhDs. I have the impression that sometimes practitioners are backed up by years of rigorous exploration of one subject, but remain nevertheless restricted in the application of this research because they are not properly accredited. How much of a practice-based PhD consists in an effort to translate (formalize or write down) literacy already acquired, in order to make it legitimate? What other problems might arise from this (rather dry) approach? I have spent about 30 years (over half) of my life in media art at various levels. Last year I began a 100% theory based PhD module at Birkbeck (in my mid-40s), and I am loving every second of it. Starting something like a PhD later than is typical, has its advantages. Firstly, one knows from actual experience the subject/research chosen, which includes the accumulation through years of contacts and resources. And, I can honestly say that there is nothing more closer to 'knowing' than grounded experience. But, now I am between both worlds - making my own artwork, working (and collaborating) with Furtherfield, with all its everyday complexities and studying for my PhD. Right on the 'hub' of it all... Many students and artists submitting work on Furtherfield have mentioned whether they could get some form of academic credit in doing so. And, we've said no, you just have to believe that you are supporting something 'real' and this is either as important and possibly more. Thankfully, we've had enough people working with us who are not merely only dedicated in reflecting institutional remits, which unfortunately do (perhaps unknowingly) work in lessening 'outside' independence. It is essential that these grass root groups and independent organisations exist beyond academic no go zones - these areas are the source of life and grounded exchange, for reasons other than what can be assessed 'officially'. A beef regarding much media art research out there in the past, is how certain academics; when trying and justify media art as a thriving culture in their arguments - by habit and conservative self-censorship choose only the most recognised institutions to show international recognition of what is going on out there - when in reality, it is very different and a far wider scope of things is really going on, they shoot media art culture in the foot in doing so. It's blind. And getting back to knowing about computers... In in the late 80s early 90s in Bristol (UK), I learned the basics of computing and hacking, social hacking, hacking through analogue systems, which included interventionist broadcasts into car radios, as well as in street environments, analogue phone networks, and pirate television broadcasts. All these activities were explored with hacktivist and artist Heath Bunting. I had not met anyone else who knew about hacking, let alone practising it before, and my own knowledge was very basic a that time. Hacking as a term was not widely known or talked about then. Hugh Cornwall mentions in ‘Hacker’s Handbook 111‘ (Hugo Cornwall's New Hacker's Handbook. Editor Steve Gold (1989)), that he had not met anyone until 1982 who was also hacking as he was. He says “Up till then, Hackers were American computer buffs who messed around with mainframes or had built their own computers in garages.” Heath Bunting was a British computer buff and he had built his first computer at home in Stevenage, at the age of fourteen. Our collaborative ventures in using technology as part of our art practice, came from an interest in changing everyday situations and contemporary culture. The technology allowed fresh perceptions and processes of engagement with the world, a different way of seeing and thinking. If we can hack computers, why not situations in life also? Wishing you well. marc Another related question: If I knew everything (I mean *everything*, from theory to practice) about how to make a computer for instance, starting with raw materials (sand, water, etc), how long it would take for me to actually build one? [Alvaro Cassineli] Alvaro’s question points towards the insufficiency of sheer literacy in fostering autonomous action. A number of factors could be evoked here, such as the lack of resources or authorization. Even when one “knows everything” and has all the necessary means (infinite time!), s/he may be constrained by institutional barriers. At least in Brazil, engineering (just like architecture, medicine and law) is an activity that cannot be properly (legally, publicly) exercised if one is not accredited as a professional. This accreditation involves not only going through years of training and passing tests, but also affiliating oneself to a certain national union or council that regulates the activity. I wonder what role this issue plays
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Sorry for the delayed response. I would like to comment on some of the issues that have gone through the past posts. Simon Biggs: Whilst the concept of the black-box is valuable and allows us to structure our knowledge of things it isn't possible to be literate in a domain where everything is black-boxed. You need to have an in depth understanding of the content of at least some of the boxes. In the case of computing this means a competency in programming. Without this knowledge computers are going to appear as magical devices, not as writing instruments. Cesar: One of the issues I am working is how much should be the degree (and the kind) of technical intervention in the artistic practices. To address this issue, for me, it's necessary to understand the relationship between processes of art and methods of engineering in media art practice. I believe there are issues that can only emerge when one has a certain level of technical knowledge. However, there are a number of others that do not really depend on our know how to make a device. But in both cases it's necessary have what Flusser calls techno-imagination, which can be defined as a systemic (or complex) thinking that can allow us to see through hidden layers of the device (cognitive, political, epistemological, and several others). However, the technical knowledge (or the methods used in engineering) can help when one want to create an apparatus as a response to another apparatus (or one aspect of it) like many artists have made. On this topic, I do not find an absurd to think that at sometime the technical knowledge will be something that will be part of basic education. Nowadays programing and electronic are taught in art schools. Here in Brazil, besides media theory, I teach Processing, Arduino and OpenFrameworks for audiovisual students and I know about many other experiences like this in Brazil and other countries. Gabriel Menotti: For instance, I wonder how César managed to include his insights about video and digital technologies into his thesis. Have you actively deployed your argument in contrast to Manovich’s? In order to do so, did you need to look for further references besides your own personal understanding of the technology? How much of your background had to be made explicit in the text? Cesar: I agree with Davin Heckmanm when he says that one of the most important aspects of contemporary techno-culture is the sharing of information and collective knowledge. Every time I have to update my technical knowledge in relation to what is being created and made available on the networks that I belong. All the time, this process brings me other concepts of technology (such as of art). This process is very important to my research. I think this technological background, which is in constant motion, appears throughout the thesis, but only sometimes it needs to become explicit. This happens, for example, when I discuss topics such as the relationship between digital and video or simulation and emulation or synthetic image. Actually, I agree with most of the arguments of Manovich, so I did not want to criticize his proposals. However, I believe that even if his arguments are valid, the video is much closer to digital than the film and can be a more interesting entry point for thinking about digital today. To try to show that I explore the relationships between technology and aesthetics aspects of digital and video. But this is only the entry point of some of the arguments that I really develop on my dissertation. Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:26:21 +0100 From: davinheck...@gmail.com To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Having worked in a field of criticism where a lot of the theory originates with artists/programmers, I'd have to say that there is some value in being committed to a sort of naive pluralism. I agree with Simon that literacy requires more than a mere superficial grasp of language, I would also like to suggest that literacy cannot require a comprehensive grasp of language. A great poet, for instance, does not need to master grammar or etymology, in some cases, the poet can do everything necessary with an appreciation for the sounds of langauge. Also, a poet does not necessarily need to worry about sound, but could accomplish much with an understanding of a particular form or structure. With technical systems, we are talking about much more than computer programming. In some cases, a tight focus on programmerly language comes at the expense of the larger cultural scripts within which the programmed object operates. That we are rapidly developing deep habits with regards to mobile devices also means that an aspect of understanding how computers work in a broad sense has a great deal to do with the ubiquity of the commodity, the politics of hidden labor, the absent-mindedness with which
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
GH: The main idea of video is a live broadcast or a disjuncture of place/space so your initial premise seems correct to me. However, video is just one of the multimedia components of digital art/media. For example. data sensors, audio I/O video, stills, photoshop, hacking, animation, video mapping onto 3D, virtual worlds etc.. all hold equal value. Obviously we're talking/working in an information world. Cesar: In my opinion, with the digital media we are living in a technical, aesthetic and artistic context very different from the 1970s and 1980s video art. I agree with you that digital is not the same as video. What I mean is that, although I agree with many of the relationships established by Manivich between film and digital, I believe the video has a more intimate relationship with the digital. Briefly, only to exemplify, from the point of view of the technology, although in an analogue way, video was based on the light measurement by numbers. The video already used sampling techniques. It had an information processing system. It was based on some kinds of virtualities - such as size and color balance of the pixel (on the lines) of camera / TV / monitor. From the aesthetic point of view, many video artists in the 70's and 80's have based their work on the creation of apparatus in the form of video installations. Many of them explored the creation of synthetic images (abstract ones) by the manipulation of rays of TV tubes, questioning the indexicality of technical image. They also do hacking on devices (audio and videotapes, cameras, TV monitors etc) to consider other operating logics of media devices. They already have used sensors attached to the videotapes and cameras. But that does not mean that we do today is the same thing they did. The questions they addressed have been continuously updated and were joined by others that occur in the field of media networking, mobile devices, gaming and many other fields. Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:06:36 + From: marc.garr...@furtherfield.org To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering ---I just realised that yesterday, I sent this post to Julian personally rather than to the Empyre list by mistake. Sorry Julian, here it is again resent to its correct location :-) Hi Julian, Excuse my late interaction with the list regarding its current discussion - as usual too much going on. But, I'm happy to be (momentarily) distracted and jump in here to explore some of the aspects or key elements you have proposed in your last post... Within your manifesto you say The Critical Engineer looks beyond the 'awe of implementation' to determine methods of influence and their specific effects. Now, the implementation of building a manifesto has its own reflective 'awe', in which we acknowledge not only the subject but the writer(s) at the same time. I am wondering whether we need to re-consider particular nuances of habit in relation to the creation of manifestos? For instance defining the differences of 'one or a group' amongst others, through the implementation of a manifesto creates its own meta-rules. It becomes about the manifesto as self (and peer) initiation, psychologically, socially and defining a particular status. What is the message beyond the language itself if we consider the function within a social context, and what are the borders it redefines and who is it really for? Is it rather a behaviour statement and perhaps not a manifesto, or both (and more)? Just interested :-) Wishing you well. marc ..on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:18:06PM +, Simon Biggs wrote: Much contemporary computer based art work has a cargo-cult like quality due to such illiteracy. This can be interesting but usually in spite of itself. Indeed, also one of the fruits of Bricolage. However with a language like Engineering having such influence over the lives and minds of people - how we eat, travel, communicate - I really think you need to speak the language to truly act critically within its scope. This is what we sought to underscore in the manifesto: http://criticalengineering.org I've talked to several artists that have expressed disempowerment in this age of database automation, google maps, wireless networking, the Cloud etc - technologies that shape how they live and even their practice yet they find no entry point to dissassembling and thus critically engaging them. It's not enough to talk about how we are influenced by all this engineering - technology that becomes social, political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us in little better position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the mechanics of influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as a material (engineering). Most that receive
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
..on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:18:06PM +, Simon Biggs wrote: Much contemporary computer based art work has a cargo-cult like quality due to such illiteracy. This can be interesting but usually in spite of itself. Indeed, also one of the fruits of Bricolage. However with a language like Engineering having such influence over the lives and minds of people - how we eat, travel, communicate - I really think you need to speak the language to truly act critically within its scope. This is what we sought to underscore in the manifesto: http://criticalengineering.org I've talked to several artists that have expressed disempowerment in this age of database automation, google maps, wireless networking, the Cloud etc - technologies that shape how they live and even their practice yet they find no entry point to dissassembling and thus critically engaging them. It's not enough to talk about how we are influenced by all this engineering - technology that becomes social, political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us in little better position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the mechanics of influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as a material (engineering). Most that receive this email will have little or no idea how it arrived to their inbox, unable to accurately describe it to another, not even close. At the same time most would be able to describe how a postcard arrived at their friends mailbox. Just 15 years.. Ignorance as to how these engineered infrastructures actually function, what they do and what is done with them behind their own presentation, is actively being abused both inside and out of democracies. Cheers, Julian On 9 Feb 2012, at 13:44, César Baio wrote: Hallo all, It is interesting because this remains a field of questions for me. But I can talk a bit about my experience with this. When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view because for those who can operate with the technology has in your hand a very powerful language. We say programming language but why not to say something like technological language?. Who understands the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so only to turn it into other languages. In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects. An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot the way deals the other problems of my thesis. I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the forum. From: gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 + To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or empirical? Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field to another? I'm interested in if and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of technology making their production and use more accessible, how are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist uses [CB] Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they? Best! Menotti ___ empyre forum
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
experience with this. When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view because for those who can operate with the technology has in your hand a very powerful language. We say programming language but why not to say something like technological language?. Who understands the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so only to turn it into other languages. In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects. An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot the way deals the other problems of my thesis. I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the forum. From: gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 + To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or empirical? Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field to another? I'm interested in if and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of technology making their production and use more accessible, how are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist uses [CB] Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they? Best! Menotti ___ 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 Simon Biggs si...@littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk s.bi...@ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- Julian Oliver http://julianoliver.com http://criticalengineering.org ___ 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-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
I agree on all your points Julian. I would like to hear more about your distinction between technology, (topic) and engineering (material) as i think of engineering as a process, and technology as the material. I would like to add that I see the same kind of lack of critical awarenss in science also. Both are often seen as alien constructions operating indepently of human culture, which I don't buy. I suppose his is due to a, perceived or real, technoscientific elite that shuts down critisism, and simply the complexity of knowledge in both. As I consider both science and technology (emphasizing the former) as cultural extensions, I believe my role as an artist is to reflect on thier, often invisible, implications for how we construct cultural human identity. In particular notions of creativity, self, consciousness, and the notion of Truth/reality. Please excuse any errors, I could not wait to jump in. Looking forward to the continuing discussion. B. Bogart -- Sent from my Nokia N900 - Original message - ..on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:18:06PM +, Simon Biggs wrote: Much contemporary computer based art work has a cargo-cult like quality due to such illiteracy. This can be interesting but usually in spite of itself. Indeed, also one of the fruits of Bricolage. However with a language like Engineering having such influence over the lives and minds of people - how we eat, travel, communicate - I really think you need to speak the language to truly act critically within its scope. This is what we sought to underscore in the manifesto: http://criticalengineering.org I've talked to several artists that have expressed disempowerment in this age of database automation, google maps, wireless networking, the Cloud etc - technologies that shape how they live and even their practice yet they find no entry point to dissassembling and thus critically engaging them. It's not enough to talk about how we are influenced by all this engineering - technology that becomes social, political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us in little better position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the mechanics of influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as a material (engineering). Most that receive this email will have little or no idea how it arrived to their inbox, unable to accurately describe it to another, not even close. At the same time most would be able to describe how a postcard arrived at their friends mailbox. Just 15 years.. Ignorance as to how these engineered infrastructures actually function, what they do and what is done with them behind their own presentation, is actively being abused both inside and out of democracies. Cheers, Julian On 9 Feb 2012, at 13:44, César Baio wrote: Hallo all, It is interesting because this remains a field of questions for me. But I can talk a bit about my experience with this. When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view because for those who can operate with the technology has in your hand a very powerful language. We say programming language but why not to say something like technological language?. Who understands the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so only to turn it into other languages. In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects. An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot the way deals the other problems of my thesis. I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the forum. From: gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 + To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
hello there! On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.comwrote: .'ve talked to several artists that have expressed disempowerment in this age of database automation, google maps, wireless networking, the Cloud etc - technologies that shape how they live and even their practice yet they find no entry point to dissassembling and thus critically engaging them. It's not enough to talk about how we are influenced by all this engineering - technology that becomes social, political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us in little better position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the mechanics of influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as a material (engineering). this is all very similar to issues coming up related to funding and financials you might find parallels among the two: technology/networks and finance. in both take place different parts of the crisis. in both solutions are sought the confrontation with engineering in the way you point it out is very similar to the complexity of writing a heavyweight funding proposal (let's say a FP7 EU proposal) enormous opportunities, enormous complexities, very specific languages and methodologies. and, most of all, the *necessity* to coordinate (in one of the infinite possible ways) numbers of people toward concrete goals. this last one, in my experience, is the biggest obstacle to overcome. Most that receive this email will have little or no idea how it arrived to their inbox, unable to accurately describe it to another, not even close. At the same time most would be able to describe how a postcard arrived at their friends mailbox. Just 15 years.. are you sure you know how a postcard is delivered? it's pretty complex! Ignorance as to how these engineered infrastructures actually function, what they do and what is done with them behind their own presentation, is actively being abused both inside and out of democracies. i would go even beyond that, and say that it is a mutual feedback between complexity and organization: these systems/processes are complex in ways that require organized coordination which only large, formal, hierarchical organizations have. critique to these models fails (up to now) in being able to confront with such power and effectiveness. small/temporary liberated spaces/processes, together with mobility, are (up to now) the best option. also seen the fact that hacking is being assumed by power as a methodology itself, and becoming integrated in corporate schemes. yet there is space for liberations_through_complexity: it's actually full of opportunities if you are able to give different readings to things. all the best! salvatore --- Art is Open Source http://www.artisopensource.net --- FakePress http://www.fakepress.it ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Having worked in a field of criticism where a lot of the theory originates with artists/programmers, I'd have to say that there is some value in being committed to a sort of naive pluralism. I agree with Simon that literacy requires more than a mere superficial grasp of language, I would also like to suggest that literacy cannot require a comprehensive grasp of language. A great poet, for instance, does not need to master grammar or etymology, in some cases, the poet can do everything necessary with an appreciation for the sounds of langauge. Also, a poet does not necessarily need to worry about sound, but could accomplish much with an understanding of a particular form or structure. With technical systems, we are talking about much more than computer programming. In some cases, a tight focus on programmerly language comes at the expense of the larger cultural scripts within which the programmed object operates. That we are rapidly developing deep habits with regards to mobile devices also means that an aspect of understanding how computers work in a broad sense has a great deal to do with the ubiquity of the commodity, the politics of hidden labor, the absent-mindedness with which humans make the abysmal leap from being tool using animals to being subroutines of automated systems. Which, ironically, indicates the need for the kind of literacy we are talking about: Understanding the logic and function of complex systems. However, we might also need to reexamine the old critical model, pull out the supressed aspects of this tradition, and guard ourselves against the fetishized aspects. The critical tradition has always been rooted in a process of dialogue and a social contract. Yet, in the spirit of the Enlightenment, we tend to individualize critical accomplishments, hanging author names on specific ideas, and implying that critical understanding is a product of individual genius. Yet, the entire time, these great works were accompanied by the production of countless creative works, the development of archives, indexes, face-to-face conversations, written arguments, a system of publication, norms for documentation, and a university committed to fostering this kind of activity. My abilities as a computer programmer do not go beyond basic html, some dabbling with action script, fidgeting with databases, and a committed curiosity to what other people can do and how they do it. Thus, I am utterly dependent on the artists' willingness to share, access to free information about the way technologies work, a collegial community willing and able to correct me when I am wrong, the software developed by others, the machines by still more, etc. In other words, I am hopelessly dependent on a vast network of people to do the work that I do, and the work that I do is hopelessly inadequate to the task of the constituent parts. I am not advocating a return to Kant, but it strikes me that critical thinking still parallels Kant's understanding of the role of philosophy within the realm of knowledge: The Lower Faculty, not expert in any field, thus enabled to make more comprehensive claims about human experience. What we have today that Kant didn't have, is broader access to information and greater means for embarking on the sort of philosophical discourse that the University enabled. But a major stumbling block is our investment in individuality, which pushes us unecessarily towards self-sufficiency as a pre-requisite for competence. However, it is our self-inusfficiency that requires us to build human systems, communities, which enables collective competence. I see something promethean in this. Technology offers each of us the hope of greater agency. It exploits one concept of humanism inherited from the enlightenment, that of individuality, to secure our dependency on a technical system that is superior to us (Notice that we are warned not to let human interests interfere in the economy for fear that it will stifle growth and innovation.) Further, this reinforces the sort of limited literacy that Simon warns us about (Use the stuff, don't make it. Develop a cargo-cult view.) All the while, the actual achievement of human agency via collective effort is hidden from us, doled out in regulated doses, administered by managers, filtered by consciousness industries. It is as though the gods are withholding from us the secret of fire, hiding us from what we could be, channelling our communal impulses into wage labor, football games, and, when things get really bad, political theatre. But unlike the Promethean myth from the Enlightenment era, the power that is withheld from us is that of collective effort it's not the individual will... it's the ability to cooperate, share, distribute, network. To bring it back to the point: The ideal state is a progressively improving critical knowledge of the way things work. The obstacle, perhaps, is the impression that this critical knowledge needs to be
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Much contemporary computer based art work has a cargo-cult like quality due to such illiteracy. This can be interesting but usually in spite of itself. [Simon Biggs] I normally tend to appreciate the poetics of cargo-cult (or the work of script kids), but I feel that Simon’s remark is extremely pertinent considering the rigour expected from scientific production. Maybe this would be the place to draw a line in terms of how artistic practice should be employed within (humanities/ social sciences?) academic research? At the same time, a degree of radical invention (semiotic or otherwise) seems to be always expected from art (even more than from engineering). Considering this, how to assess for literacy when speaking in a language that doesn’t yet exist? Or to put it in another way: isn’t one always fully literate in the languages that one makes up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpagev=IMxWLuOFyZM#t=202s To bring the problem back into PhD research: could this be solved by the means of translation or framing – of drawing from the appropriate references in a strategic literature review? Alternatively, (how) could art (or “arts”, or crafts) be excused as a method? For instance, I wonder how César managed to include his insights about video and digital technologies into his thesis. Have you actively deployed your argument in contrast to Manovich’s? In order to do so, did you need to look for further references besides your own personal understanding of the technology? How much of your background had to be made explicit in the text? Best! Menotti ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Hallo all, It is interesting because this remains a field of questions for me. But I can talk a bit about my experience with this. When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view because for those who can operate with the technology has in your hand a very powerful language. We say programming language but why not to say something like technological language?. Who understands the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so only to turn it into other languages. In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects. An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot the way deals the other problems of my thesis. I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the forum. From: gabriel.meno...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 + To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or empirical? Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field to another? I'm interested in if and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of technology making their production and use more accessible, how are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist uses [CB] Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they? Best! Menotti ___ 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-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
On Feb 9, 2012, at 10:18 AM, Simon Biggs wrote: In the case of computing this means a competency in programming. gh responds: There's a crossover point between computing and physical perception. Perhaps starting with Pascal and his discovery of the x,y matrix. Creating an abstraction and then turning it into a program to run on a computer is a logical process. The core artistic question is what you choose for your starting point in the real world that you then turn into an abstraction(algorithm). I tend to start with an art work I'd like to make or a series of perceptions I'd like to explore or convey in the digital world. Why choose digital? Because the chain of logic in the process of abstraction allows me to examine all the perceptual components. Indeed, once you are freed from the template of film or linear narrative or Rennaissance perspective or creating physical objects you can create new vehicles for sensations and emotions in the digital realm. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies critical engineering
Hey! my first area of study was the electronics, and I think that today this has much influence on what I have written and on my experimental projects. [César Baio] Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or empirical? Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field to another? I'm interested in if and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of technology making their production and use more accessible, how are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist uses [CB] Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they? Best! Menotti ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
