Re: [-empyre-] Mediated matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- thanks for your very interesting reply, Davide, to some of the comments. And your reply, if we had time here, would raise further questions, naturally, but I am hesitant to ask them as I feel that somehow the monthly debate has not involved very many discussants on our list. and it worries me not knowing whether anyone is reading the conversations or wanting to participate or wanting us to stop? I don’t think (at least for me) that the transmissional model of cause and effect of influence (which is also the model of coercion) is sufficient for our day and age (maybe it was never enough). Hence my lack of pursuing (also) of questions about biopolitics and subjectivity - which aren’t uninteresting questions to raise and follow through; they’re issues that I don’t feel equipped to deal with well enough - or rather, I should say, that the issue of control always already has a moral answer built into it; namely, the one who controls is the one (or it) that simultaneously exploits But once we’ve established this moral/ethical trajectory – let’s call it critical thought’s a priori - what can we say about the structures of association in our contemporary condition? .. The disregarding of interest seems like a unique dynamic of datapolitik that distinguishes it . [Davide] Your (aesthetic?) belief in the healthy disinterest of datapolitik (how can disinterested algorithms have or form a politics or have strategies if we associate the latter with Politik?) is peculiar as you did, earlier, speak of a transmission model, and you called it contagion. But surely contagious spreads and swarming affects are opportunistic, no? they are Machiavellian? at least as far as i understand the biomedical metaphor or epidemiological process and your zombie allegory -- viral algorithms spread, contaminate, and affect influence through contagion -- how then do the immune systems respond and how to political tactics and strategies become re-thinkable and rethought in such an algorithmic culture of associationn? You argue that data have/imply no politics, but call that a data-politik? Are you being ironic? regards Johannes Birringer ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Hi all, I just wanted to jump in here and encourage you all to continue discussing. I got the green light from Renate since the new month at -empyre- won't begin until Sunday. There are a couple things that strike me here about the discussion over Datapolitik. Davide writes that Datapolitik refers to the transformation of humans from identity-bearing subjects to data-emitting subjects. There is datapolitik because we acknowledge ourselves as informational subjects whether we like to admit to it or not. Indeed, most of our daily activities are data-generative I can’t help but think of Deleuze’s “Postscript on Control Societies” here. In this short text he notes that we no longer live (and this is in 1990) in a society in which there are individuals, but one in which there are _dividuals_. If I may say so, I think Davide nicely fills out what Deleuze may have been getting at, though he never really analyzes in his brief essay. I do wonder, though, why biopolitics and biopower don’t concern you, Davide. You seem to bring together biopolitics and human subjectivity – you write: “Hence my lack of pursuing (also) of questions about biopolitics and subjectivity”— but I’m not sure that this captures how biopolitics operates in the 21st century. How are you thinking about biopolitics in this instance? And aren’t the practices of bioinformatics and biotechnology (that we talked about last week) clear instances of (neoliberal) biopolitics at work? They also seem to exemplify the Datapolitik you describe. How does this work out for you? And might this help sort out Johannes’ question re: the politics in Data-politik? I know this is spilling over into October, but I invite Davide, as well as the –empyre- community, to jump into this discussion! Thanks, Adam On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Johannes Birringer johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- thanks for your very interesting reply, Davide, to some of the comments. And your reply, if we had time here, would raise further questions, naturally, but I am hesitant to ask them as I feel that somehow the monthly debate has not involved very many discussants on our list. and it worries me not knowing whether anyone is reading the conversations or wanting to participate or wanting us to stop? I don’t think (at least for me) that the transmissional model of cause and effect of influence (which is also the model of coercion) is sufficient for our day and age (maybe it was never enough). Hence my lack of pursuing (also) of questions about biopolitics and subjectivity - which aren’t uninteresting questions to raise and follow through; they’re issues that I don’t feel equipped to deal with well enough - or rather, I should say, that the issue of control always already has a moral answer built into it; namely, the one who controls is the one (or it) that simultaneously exploits But once we’ve established this moral/ethical trajectory – let’s call it critical thought’s a priori - what can we say about the structures of association in our contemporary condition? .. The disregarding of interest seems like a unique dynamic of datapolitik that distinguishes it . [Davide] Your (aesthetic?) belief in the healthy disinterest of datapolitik (how can disinterested algorithms have or form a politics or have strategies if we associate the latter with Politik?) is peculiar as you did, earlier, speak of a transmission model, and you called it contagion. But surely contagious spreads and swarming affects are opportunistic, no? they are Machiavellian? at least as far as i understand the biomedical metaphor or epidemiological process and your zombie allegory -- viral algorithms spread, contaminate, and affect influence through contagion -- how then do the immune systems respond and how to political tactics and strategies become re-thinkable and rethought in such an algorithmic culture of associationn? You argue that data have/imply no politics, but call that a data-politik? Are you being ironic? regards Johannes Birringer ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space--It has been quite exciting to read the exchanges and I am now quite curious about this turn in the conversation. I apologize that my previous reply was lost in transit before I left the US. Meanwhile, I spent the last two days at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna for the International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure, which was fascinating for a number of reasons. But, with respect to the comments above, it is especially illuminating... Of course, there is no lack of positivism in the current big data turn, but there is also, I think, a clear understanding of how far along we are in the algorithm-driven reality of the contemporary city-planet. It is absolutely necessary to confront this reality as it is the water we are all swimming in. To imply it is political or not largely misses the point because (to appropriate Latour) nothing is *reducible or irreducible* to politics. That is, every aspect of the reality we encounter can be made a matter of politics. This is a kind of work common to organizing and theorizing, and with regard to the data-driven reality of our city-planet, it is remarkably underdeveloped. I hope we can bring some of these questions together in the Data Made Me Do It symposium we are organizing at UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design *13-15 March 2015*. I'll post the full program to the list once we have it, but I hope it can be a productive event for developing some of the questions about the potential for data politics as a strata of interventive research in the Anthropocene. in sol. from Vienna. etienne -- Etienne Turpin, Ph.D. Director anexact office Jl. Sumbing 17 DKI Jakarta Indonesia 12980 + 62 819 08830664 etie...@anexact.org Vice Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow SMART Infrastructure Facility Faculty of Engineering Information Sciences Associate Research Fellow Australian Centre for Cultural Environmental Research Faculty of Social Sciences University of Wollongong NSW Australia 2522 + 61 422 464369 etur...@uow.edu.au -- On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Johannes Birringer johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- thanks for your very interesting reply, Davide, to some of the comments. And your reply, if we had time here, would raise further questions, naturally, but I am hesitant to ask them as I feel that somehow the monthly debate has not involved very many discussants on our list. and it worries me not knowing whether anyone is reading the conversations or wanting to participate or wanting us to stop? I don't think (at least for me) that the transmissional model of cause and effect of influence (which is also the model of coercion) is sufficient for our day and age (maybe it was never enough). Hence my lack of pursuing (also) of questions about biopolitics and subjectivity - which aren't uninteresting questions to raise and follow through; they're issues that I don't feel equipped to deal with well enough - or rather, I should say, that the issue of control always already has a moral answer built into it; namely, the one who controls is the one (or it) that simultaneously exploits But once we've established this moral/ethical trajectory - let's call it critical thought's a priori - what can we say about the structures of association in our contemporary condition? .. The disregarding of interest seems like a unique dynamic of datapolitik that distinguishes it . [Davide] Your (aesthetic?) belief in the healthy disinterest of datapolitik (how can disinterested algorithms have or form a politics or have strategies if we associate the latter with Politik?) is peculiar as you did, earlier, speak of a transmission model, and you called it contagion. But surely contagious spreads and swarming affects are opportunistic, no? they are Machiavellian? at least as far as i understand the biomedical metaphor or epidemiological process and your zombie allegory -- viral algorithms spread, contaminate, and affect influence through contagion -- how then do the immune systems respond and how to political tactics and strategies become re-thinkable and rethought in such an algorithmic culture of associationn? You argue that data have/imply no politics, but call that a data-politik? Are you being ironic? regards Johannes Birringer ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Yes Johannes - lots of time for conversation would be ideal! I’ve been dealing with other (family) matters entirely over the past few days and have only now been able to catch up. So to answer some of your astute questions, let me begin with the zombies issue which for me isn’t so much about who the zombie is or where it is, but about the ways in which we understand influence to work. I don’t think (at least for me) that the transmissional model of cause and effect of influence (which is also the model of coercion) is sufficient for our day and age (maybe it was never enough). Hence my lack of pursuing (also) of questions about biopolitics and subjectivity - which aren’t uninteresting questions to raise and follow through; they’re issues that I don’t feel equipped to deal with well enough - or rather, I should say, that the issue of control always already has a moral answer built into it; namely, the one who controls is the one (or it) that simultaneously exploits. And so biopolitics is pernicious, neoliberalism is horrifically exploitative, and subjectivity is suppressed. But once we’ve established this moral/ethical trajectory - let’s call it critical thought’s a priori - what can we say about the structures of association in our contemporary condition? And are those forms of association sustainable over time, or are they somehow related and relatable to the entanglement of technical life within our not so human vitalities? As for the issue of code being indifferent to content what I meant to provoke is simply this: that there can be an entity in the world that is not invested in the content of representation suggest, to me, a surprising manner development that points to (perhaps) a new structure of disinterest. If this is true, what are we to make of such disinterest - which isn’t so much, a detached perspective” but a disregard of interest as a necessary function or activity or quality. The disregarding of interest seems like a unique dynamic of datapolitik that distinguishes it from both biopolitics or neoliberalism, though that doesn’t mean it is either independent or uninvolved or complicit with them. Finally, thank you all for your thoughtfulness to my post. Davide *** Check out my new book: Impressions of Hume: Cinematic Thinking and the Politics of Discontinuity ** Davide Panagia Associate Professor, Political Science UCLA Co-Editor, Theory Event On Sep 29, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Johannes Birringer johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- dear all from or along dataveillance zombification (subjectless datapolitik) to what Ross today posted as his envisioning of the total destructive urbanization of the planet ... the nature of this form of power is one of controlling life. So the expansion of life and the ever greater control of it occur simultaneously through the construction (and expansion—urbanization) of a sophisticated, technologically managed and machinic spatial template that can be reproduced across the surface of the planet. Hmm, most would think that's a very dystopian vision leaving little room for critical design and odd design, for the provocations Oron was to tell us about (tinkering biological regeneratives, immortal design [see Revital Cohen/Tuur van Balen's 'organ replacement machines' [http://www.cohenvanbalen.com/work/the-immortal], tissue culture, third ears, titanium legs, or - an example from the dance world - Jaime del Val's Disorientations, i.e. abstract telematics mixed with amorphous presence and proximity of bodies without identity, moving on the limits of the recognizable or legible. Interestingly, perhaps ironically revising Davide's datapolitik surveillance assemblage, del Val's performance between Madrid and Dresden, in what he calls a corporeal space of Social Commons even at the moment of its capture/telematic transmission and de-visualization (the idea and form of the moving bodies here regenerated via chains of data [software engineer Frieder Weiss speaks of communications of blob and contour processing via particle engines, genetic algorithms, sprite rendering, etc]), nevertheless acts as kind of datamining of the lovely absurd, disorienting desire or, so the project hopes, undermining capitalism's (and datapoliitk's) expansion of life and Lebensraum, to be interfering with the technologies of standardization and control, and the grand spatial templates. When the lively real bodies dance, the proximate other bodies were of course only imaginable - through the particle physics - but still could be felt as the behavior of the translocal virtual created moments of great intensity and strange beauty I suppose one would need lots of time now for conversation, Davide, do you agree? you argue that Software code is
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- dear all from or along dataveillance zombification (subjectless datapolitik) to what Ross today posted as his envisioning of the total destructive urbanization of the planet ... the nature of this form of power is one of controlling life. So the expansion of life and the ever greater control of it occur simultaneously through the construction (and expansion—urbanization) of a sophisticated, technologically managed and machinic spatial template that can be reproduced across the surface of the planet. Hmm, most would think that's a very dystopian vision leaving little room for critical design and odd design, for the provocations Oron was to tell us about (tinkering biological regeneratives, immortal design [see Revital Cohen/Tuur van Balen's 'organ replacement machines' [http://www.cohenvanbalen.com/work/the-immortal], tissue culture, third ears, titanium legs, or - an example from the dance world - Jaime del Val's Disorientations, i.e. abstract telematics mixed with amorphous presence and proximity of bodies without identity, moving on the limits of the recognizable or legible. Interestingly, perhaps ironically revising Davide's datapolitik surveillance assemblage, del Val's performance between Madrid and Dresden, in what he calls a corporeal space of Social Commons even at the moment of its capture/telematic transmission and de-visualization (the idea and form of the moving bodies here regenerated via chains of data [software engineer Frieder Weiss speaks of communications of blob and contour processing via particle engines, genetic algorithms, sprite rendering, etc]), nevertheless acts as kind of datamining of the lovely absurd, disorienting desire or, so the project hopes, undermining capitalism's (and datapoliitk's) expansion of life and Lebensraum, to be interfering with the technologies of standardization and control, and the grand spatial templates. When the lively real bodies dance, the proximate other bodies were of course only imaginable - through the particle physics - but still could be felt as the behavior of the translocal virtual created moments of great intensity and strange beauty I suppose one would need lots of time now for conversation, Davide, do you agree? you argue that Software code is indifferent to content, which means that datapolitik is indifferent to identities. Well, my experience of the telematic dance was otherwise: I sensed the software (called 'Kalypso,' like the mythic figure on her island; her name: griechisch: »Verbergerin« /gr.: someone who hides], ) was not indifferent to us at all. regards Johannes Birringer dap-lab ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- dear all thanks Adam for going further with your argument drawing attention to what you call eco-technologies within spatial-political order predicated on limitless expansion, and you seem to include life – and not the cosmos of the unknown John was referring to in response to us - into this province of the tinkering with limitless expansion. I am not so happy with the confluences you suggest ; (and thus with the notion that there is a neoliberal agenda of limitless expansion. National Socialism in the 1930s/1940 declared such expansion as one of the pursuit of Lebensraum. That ideology of expansion, under the spatial-political order of fascism, included severe reduction for lives, in fact it meant, militarily and organizationally, genocide and scaled eugenics programs for undesirables, it stood for extermination). After reading Davide's complex and fascinating post on datapolitik, I was waiting for the floods of responses from the list, and Davide's elaboration of the (invisible, transspatial order) data emitting entities was indeed very thought-provoking if I understood his ideas on a new predatory regime correctly – dataveillance requires a concrete engagement with technical objects as autonomous actants in the cynegetic powers of predation -- a participation of objects, if you will -- including technologies of detection (i.e., software) and data storage. Yes, but it's interesting that you call data presence as a shedding that no longer needs a subject. A subjectless data politics - how does code operate by itself (algorithms and programming platforms), who uses them, who writes the code, who takes advantage of the dandruff or installs capture systems (the police? are they the only subjects? capitalism? profiteering industries? states? there are no more states, citzens?) was the yes/no voting in Scotland done subjectless? (An analysis of predatory societies, would it not need a political theory of subjects executing biopolitics? cf. Branden Hookway, Pandemonium: The Rise of Predatory Locales in the Postwar World. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999. Would we not need to ask in whose service the data collection agencies operate?) Perhaps I got worried when reading the last paragraph, when you casually speak of a cultureof zombies. The zombie as archetype (in Hollywood movies?). Meaning whom? us here in the West, others in the less datapolitiked zones, outside the walls of Jericho? Who are these zombies? And if datapolitik is highly controlled (even if rhizomatic), who builds and controls the Trojan horses, if we take your reference to the Homeric story of a war at face value? Who controls the horses of ISIS? regards Johannes Birringer ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Hello all - and sorry for the delayed response. I’m thrilled to be participating in this. And by means of participating, I wanted to circulate some reflections I’ve been working on re: what I’m calling ‘datapolitik’ - so here goes: To begin: the fact of datapolitik requires that we not rely on our inherited intuitions about surveillance: whether Orwellian/totalitarian, or Foucaultian/Benthamite. Datapolitik is not a regime of surveillance in that way, nor is it a configuration of power relations that easily maps onto the scopophilic – as both the Orwellian and Foucaultian models do. There is literally nothing to “see” here. Not because datapolitik is ‘invisible’ but because it is not a domain of politics available to sight. Datapolitik involves algorithms and programming platforms, not visual technologies of the gaze. Equally relevant: datapolitik has nothing to do with our entrenched views about privacy, reliant as they are on the security of walls, barriers, boundaries, and motes. This, because as Wendy Chun has cogently argued, there is an ephemerality to datapolitik whose presence is at once enduring and fleeting. But mostly, datapolitik is not about selves, or people, or persons, or the demos, or identities, or bodies, or organisms. Datapolitik, I want to suggest, is the new real of everyday politics: it is what wins presidential elections in the United States, it is what ensures economic growth on Wall Street, it is what enables the writing of academic research papers and essays (i.e., software). In short, we are surrounded an embedded in code and data; indeed, more than anything else, in the regime of datapolitik humans are data emitting entities. So allow me rehearse the four categories for the analysis of datapolitik I wish to briefly elaborate today: 1. Tracking and capture; 2. Dataveillance; 3. Datapresence; 4. Contagion: 1. Tracking and Capture: Algorithms track and capture data, whether that data is voice conversations (as in the case of the StingRay machine), face recognition information (like Facebook’s “DeepFace” software), and so forth. The classic formulation of the model of capture stands in contrast to the concept of surveillance as articulated in Philip E. Agre’s foundational essay “Surveillance and Capture” (Information Society, 1994). There Agre asserts that “Whereas the surveillance model originates in the classical political sphere of state action, the capture model has deep roots in the practical application of computer systems.” More than metaphorical similarities, then, tracking and capture are practices of non-state predation that, as Gregoire Chamayou has recently shown, belong to a philosophical history of the manhunt (recall here the figure of the sentinel in the first Matrix movie). These are cynegetic powers of predation that a media archeology of information gathering technology shows to be connected to the emergence of the informational subject in the early modern period (humans as bearers and shedders of information that must be tracked, organized, categorized, and stored). This is also connected to the rise of police power as a power of pursuit of “bodies in movement, bodies that escape and that it must catch, bodies that pass by and that it must intercept.” (Manhunt, 90). 2. Dataveillance: As already noted datapolitik has little to do with our Orwellian and/or Benthamite notions of surveillance – it is not “observational”, as Gary T. Marx has rightly noted (Marx, 2002, 11). Datapolitik is not interested in confinement in the way surveillance is. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. Hence the idea of dataveillance that must be understood within a media archeology of the cynegetic powers of the police. The notion of data surveillance, or “dataveillance”, was first formulated in 1988 by Roger A. Clarke. Clarke’s point is simple: facilitative mechanisms and technologies have been in place for some time that enable “the systematic use of personal data systems in the investigation or monitoring of the actions or communications of one or more persons.” (Clarke, 1988, 499) Importantly, Clarke affirms that “rather than individuals themselves, what is monitored is the data that purport to relate to them. As a result there is a significant likelihood of wrong identification.” (Clarke, 1988, 406) Though this may have been accurate in 1988, today identification is paradoxically much more likely to be correct, and even more likely to be irrelevant. (see datapresence below) Rita Raley emphasizes this by noting that even in Clarke’s account, “dataveillance operations do not require a centralized system.” (Raley, 124) The non-necessity of a centralized system suggests something further: dataveillance is not merely governed by the cynegetic powers of predation, it also enables a shift from data as a concrete object to data as a
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- dear all realizing the discussion is invited to move on (by Adam's post today), I still hope Oron will follow up his initial postings and perhaps expand on the notions of regenerative biology and designing life that he brought here. Am not sure how they relate to deep time, as Adam suggests, and I am also not convinced that we can draw easy parallels between the first and second weeks' subject matters. What's intriguing to me is how much the conversation is an elaboration of last week's developing discussion on urbanization [Adam] Could you refine how you see 'urban data politics' related to the modes and modalizations of life, as Manchev may imply that side of biology/biotechnology -- introduced by Oron or projected by the quasi-critical designs of bioartists who investigate growing cultures or tinkering with cells, at the genetic level -- when critiquing the politics of plasticity. For those who were interested in my reference to Boyan Manchev's writings but could not track the german text, i found an english translation from a Slovene translation (Odpor plesa, Maska 25 [2010], pp. 9-19), and cite a paragraph from the opening pages of that text on modes of life: Forms of Life as commodities The society of the spectacle undoubtedly complies with technology-based, post-industrial capitalism, its logic of production as well as the modern logic of representation: it is the outcome of hyper-technologization and functionalization, codifying life and prescribing processes of subjectivation, which are nothing less than forms of subjugation. The new model up for debate, as it surpasses the model of developed modernity, introduces a completely new commodity to the game: the forms of life itself. In reference to Debord’s definition of the society of the spectacle, one could define this new model as “capital accumulated to the point that it becomes a form of life”. But first, in what sense can the term ‘life forms’ be used? The term has the fundamental task of introducing a different notion of life, which implies that there is no essentially determined life, only life forms, or rather modes of life: Life is the modalization of life... Traditional capitalism was based on the notion of growth: Working more efficiently and producing more meant an increase and expansion of leisure time for autonomous life beyond commerce, thus creating more space for forms of life that do not conform to the rules of any market. The distinct quality of the new model, in contrast, lies in the attempt to absorb the subject’s modern autonomy by taking over the sphere of privacy. Philosophically speaking, this means taking over the sphere of possible experimentation with different modes of subjectivation, life and alternative human interaction, in short, the sphere that is the actual site of ‘human existence’. The new model thus takes over the ‘un-producible’, totalizing the range of the market regards Johannes Birringer dap ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Hi all, Thanks for forcing me to clarify, Johannes. I mentioned last week's discussion for two reasons, I suppose. On the one hand, I wanted to call attention to the fact that eco-technologies (which include the products of biotech, synthetic biology, biodesign, etc.) are often marshaled to support the neoliberalized ideal of an eco-city with its healthy metabolism, and so on. This was mentioned last week, I believe. In other words, the neoliberalization of urban design and biodesign are deeply entangled. The other reason for mentioning last week's discussion is more abstract. That is, I'm very intrigued by the notion of the urban that Ross proposed: namely, that it is a spatial-political order predicated on limitless expansion. I imagine that Ross is drawing on Brenner and Lefebvre here (although please correct me if I'm wrong, Ross). What strikes me, though, is that just as the urban is a spatial-political order that constitutes the world under neoliberal power, life is also becoming-- and in very particular ways--something that is predicated on the limitless expansion of its territory. And the point is: garage biology does not easily escape this expansion. Genetic tinkering (Oron, please correct me if I'm wrong here) never happens in isolation -- either in the wet lab or in the garage. Biomaterials and information are sent through the mail (think of Steve Kutz), exchanged online, found on data bases, etc. In short, bio information, materials, and parts circulate in a global exchange that is profitable -- from next-generation biofuels and organ regeneration to 3D printing organic chairs, etc., etc. One of the implications of this is that there is an unprecedented spatial-political expansion to life, to its materials, and to its limitless applications--and there are also gross inequalities that this expansion produces. In any case, what my previous post was trying to suggest, I suppose, is that urban design and biodesign may share this dream of territorial expansion. And my call for deep time… well, that was merely a plea to think about life as somehow existing simultaneously within the register of neoliberal expansion and within the register of the geologic time of the planet… to the extent that this is at all possible… Hope this clarifies. Thoughts?? Best, Adam On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Johannes Birringer johannes.birrin...@brunel.ac.uk wrote: --empyre- soft-skinned space-- dear all realizing the discussion is invited to move on (by Adam's post today), I still hope Oron will follow up his initial postings and perhaps expand on the notions of regenerative biology and designing life that he brought here. Am not sure how they relate to deep time, as Adam suggests, and I am also not convinced that we can draw easy parallels between the first and second weeks' subject matters. What's intriguing to me is how much the conversation is an elaboration of last week's developing discussion on urbanization [Adam] Could you refine how you see 'urban data politics' related to the modes and modalizations of life, as Manchev may imply that side of biology/biotechnology -- introduced by Oron or projected by the quasi-critical designs of bioartists who investigate growing cultures or tinkering with cells, at the genetic level -- when critiquing the politics of plasticity. For those who were interested in my reference to Boyan Manchev's writings but could not track the german text, i found an english translation from a Slovene translation (Odpor plesa, Maska 25 [2010], pp. 9-19), and cite a paragraph from the opening pages of that text on modes of life: Forms of Life as commodities The society of the spectacle undoubtedly complies with technology-based, post-industrial capitalism, its logic of production as well as the modern logic of representation: it is the outcome of hyper-technologization and functionalization, codifying life and prescribing processes of subjectivation, which are nothing less than forms of subjugation. The new model up for debate, as it surpasses the model of developed modernity, introduces a completely new commodity to the game: the forms of life itself. In reference to Debord’s definition of the society of the spectacle, one could define this new model as “capital accumulated to the point that it becomes a form of life”. But first, in what sense can the term ‘life forms’ be used? The term has the fundamental task of introducing a different notion of life, which implies that there is no essentially determined life, only life forms, or rather modes of life: Life is the modalization of life... Traditional capitalism was based on the notion of growth: Working more efficiently and producing more meant an increase and expansion of leisure time for autonomous life beyond commerce, thus creating more space for forms of life that do not
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Thanks Johannes for that reference and your comments... Forms of Life as commodities The society of the spectacle undoubtedly complies with technology-based, post-industrial capitalism, its logic of production as well as the modern logic of representation: it is the outcome of hyper-technologization and functionalization, codifying life and prescribing processes of subjectivation, which are nothing less than forms of subjugation. The new model up for debate, as it surpasses the model of developed modernity, introduces a completely new commodity to the game: the forms of life itself. In reference to Debord’s definition of the society of the spectacle, one could define this new model as “capital accumulated to the point that it becomes a form of life”. The new model thus takes over the ‘un-producible’, totalizing the range of the market I'm constantly amazed at the humanistic clinging to the idea that humans actually think they control something that they cannot ultimately explain the existence of -- that is, *life*. The human (mental) process of abstracted objectification ( subjectivation!) seems so helpless in the face of a cosmos of the unknown. We pretend that we can 'manage change' at all scales. (Not only that, but manage it 'rationally'. Hah!) This may sound incredibly cynical, but springs from a genuine sense of curiosity: with what I've seen/experienced in life -- across science, art, politics, culture -- I would very much like to be around for the collapse of human systems in the world -- the collective hubris of our present time is really nauseating at times! Yeah, The Market, p! Between the total abstraction of money (see http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/1199) and the absolutely counter-reality of constant growth, what are people thinking?? Cheers, jh -- ++ Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD grounded on a granite batholith twitter: @neoscenes http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/ ++ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
Re: [-empyre-] Mediated Matters and design abjections
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- hello all thanks, Oron, for quietly correcting my mistake of the rolled down/rolled up sleeves over the silent ear that cannot hear. And interestingly, both Adam and Oron, in their last posts, somewhat changed a reference I made, from perverse capitalism to pervasive capitalism. I did mean perverse, and I wanted to make that comment in regard to what I assumed was regenerative biology's'' and connected life-design biotechnology' proximity to cosmetic surgery. I admit that I lack some of the background; perhaps, Oron, you could please elaborate on the trajectory of what you just hinted at, that allure of designing new in vitro things, matters, products, organs? Where does generative biology play, industrially? and how do symbolic bioart performance cope or situate themselves -- and you mention Victimless Leather, yes, and I thought of you (and Evolution Haute Couture, that show in Russia a few years back) again last Friday when I sat in an auditorium at the London College of Fashion and listened to designers there speculate on the future, mapping the future. The symposium was called The Body in Digital Fashion, and one speaker, Lynne Murray, just appointed head of the Fashion Digital Studio, cheerfully announced the future is bright, as the body is the perfect interface between business and consumer. Now one would want to explore more concretely the design limitations within perverse capitalism, no? Boyan Manchev, from whose La résistance de la danse I took the analytic of perverse capitalism [available also in German as Der Widerstand des Tanzes: GEGEN die VERWANDLUNG des Körpers, der Wahrnehmung und der Gefühle ZU WAREN in einem perversen Kapitalismus [http://www.corpusweb.net/der-widerstand-des-tanzes.html] of course vigorously critiques the politics of plasticity, and, as Adam correctly suggests, I think, affects are mutational matters designed into product and interaction. And thus to counter an alluring neoliberal design productivity dealing in pseudo affects and real affects, increasingly perverse fetishisms and life style enhancements, what do we need? surely more than slow space or stillness (of movement/mutation, as Manchev seems to imply with his examples from dance), and misguiding-design? Perhaps current political terrors are coming capitalisms's way, facing its generativity. Other disruptive potentials, if I follow Oron's logic, were to lie in the breeding of strange, useless, unusable monsters and hybrid abjections, impure and unsanitary concrescences? or am I misunderstanding? regards Johannes Birringer [Oron schreibt] Yes, this silence of the ear, a symbolic object. An ear that is made for the eye; whether it is on a back of a mouse or on Stelarc's arm when the sleeve is rolled over. In both cases the ears call us to imagine extended operational architectures of bodies, perhaps, as Johannes suggest, not as powerful (for some) as words/lectures that are vocalisation of images made for the ear. As mentioned, it is hard to imagine anything outside the pervasive capitalism, in particular when it comes to design, capitalism's not much of a bastard kid, and the servant of neoliberalism. However, would the rule of design be disturbed when it comes to designing living systems? When we choose to embark on pseudo-utilitarian series of works, In-Vitro Meat (Disembodied Cuisine) and In-Vitro Leather (the ironically named Victimless Leather), we thought that by doing it as art works we will be able to bring into focus the disruptive potential of biological design. But of interest for me is what happens when the designed product is non-human and the purpose is not medical. The new allure of regenerative biology consumer products is no longer confined to artists who want to be critical or designers who want to be speculative ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
