Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
..on Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 05:35:03PM -0500, christopher sullivan wrote: and Julian your definition was perfect, towering over all other possible attempts, you must understand the small mind I have to work with.. Chris. Chris I liked your definitions, certainly far more fun/complex than what I came up with. Nonetheless, you asked me for a definition and so I gave it. To clarify: personally I think 'prototyping' doesn't need a whole lot of definition, it's simply (already) any process of defining something; most commonly an idea, up until the point the prototype acheives the intended utility and/or is ready to be copied. Sometimes that might involve developing concrete intermediary forms (a polystyrene mock-up of an industrial design, code sketch) other times ephemeral (a critical debate (prototyping answers) or a night club (prototyping selves)). In our case, on this list, we're prototyping definitions of prototyping. Cheers, Julian Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:07:24PM -0500, christopher sullivan wrote: definitions, I think we are not all talking about the same thing. so here are my worst case and best case definitions of prototyping. [..] what is your definition? (earlier) Prototyping is any test of expectation or: Prototyping is practicing real. or: Prototyping is an attempt to reverse engineer the imagined. We could go on forever while forgetting that prototyping itself escapes definition. This is because it itself is the very process of definition, of 'defining'. To recurse, your email was (expressly) a Prototype Definition. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
..on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:07:24PM -0500, christopher sullivan wrote: definitions, I think we are not all talking about the same thing. so here are my worst case and best case definitions of prototyping. [..] what is your definition? (earlier) Prototyping is any test of expectation or: Prototyping is practicing real. or: Prototyping is an attempt to reverse engineer the imagined. We could go on forever while forgetting that prototyping itself escapes definition. This is because it itself is the very process of definition, of 'defining'. To recurse, your email was (expressly) a Prototype Definition. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
The software might be free and the prototype might be free, but you, the creator are not. You are bound in a panopticon where anonymous others can observe and scrutinize your creative output. How can you not mediate your behavior aware of this scrutiny? Is the prototype a tentative confirmation of conformity that announces a productivity that funds the panoptican? ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
..on Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 11:34:49PM -0700, adr...@cnmat.berkeley.edu wrote: The software might be free and the prototype might be free, but you, the creator are not. You are bound in a panopticon where anonymous others can observe and scrutinize your creative output. How can you not mediate your behavior aware of this scrutiny? Is the prototype a tentative confirmation of conformity that announces a productivity that funds the panoptican? hehe ;) Well writing Free Software tends to offer a rewarding 'panopticon' for those that excercise their freedom to give away what they make, the courage to allow their work be so widely peer-reviewed, the open-mindedness to allow it to be re-purposed and the humility to allow it to be improved. It is a model of productivity yes, a socially productive selfishness. If their's any behavioural alteration in having countless thousands read your source-code, it's to get better at writing source-code. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
and Julian your definition was perfect, towering over all other possible attempts, you must understand the small mind I have to work with.. Chris. Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:07:24PM -0500, christopher sullivan wrote: definitions, I think we are not all talking about the same thing. so here are my worst case and best case definitions of prototyping. [..] what is your definition? (earlier) Prototyping is any test of expectation or: Prototyping is practicing real. or: Prototyping is an attempt to reverse engineer the imagined. We could go on forever while forgetting that prototyping itself escapes definition. This is because it itself is the very process of definition, of 'defining'. To recurse, your email was (expressly) a Prototype Definition. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
svd and all .. a few thoughts - I offered the critique system of artist-to-artist discussion as evidence that the artist dialogue is generally based on Prototypes, and generally Open Source. Art, in any format, real or virtual, can be considered as a manifestation of ideas and the synthesis of insights, and each iteration (each new work) can be considered as a prototype for further iterations. Few of us are interested in repetitively reproducing similar works over a lifetime. As for the Open Source aspect - - ideas, insights, responses, suggestions, connections, all of these are exchanged when artists get together to discuss work using the critique model. This way of discussing is not limited to academia, but that is where many of us learn it. I felt that I needed to point out that this is not true Open-Source in the academy because it is not technically free. Nonetheless, generally we not change how we speak when are not being paid, so in some sense it is still an Open-Source exchange of idea, insights, etc. We are all also Open Source artists whenever we show our work. Artists get ideas from other artists, and many of us embrace the feedback that we get from others outside of academia and the marketplace. And yes,we all need to live somehow. That is the dilemma of all Open Source, be it software, design, or art. People can be interested in more than one aspect of a prototype, and they can function in more that one arena. Photographers might make pictures for a client to earn money, and then take the very same camera and shoot a few pictures based on their own interests. And each of these can be considered as an iteration of a series of ongoing prototypes. And one can feed the other. I agree that artists in countries with true poverty artists face a different situation. In wealthier economies we often live from the academy, but also where the standard of living is so high, artists can afford to compromise in ways that artists living in countries of poverty cannot (the choice to live in a small apartment and not a huge house is a choice that is irrelevant when the norm is crowded living quarters). In countries with few academies, artists become photo-journalists, they become web designers for someone else's web sites, or they work with patrons in mind -- producing prototypes and perfecting them with feedback from buyers. Still, when I was in Senegal for an extended period, I found many artists who embraced the critique model with other artists in terms of concepts, in a way that I experienced as different from how they told me they interact with patrons. They knew the difference, we all know the difference, between talking about art as the manifestation of ideas and insights and talking about product for sale. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:54 AM, s...@krokodile.co.uk wrote: cynthia/all The logic of open-source seems to work in subsidized environment like academia where they are paid for teaching and perhaps a little research - but external to the academy how would an open-source artist survive ? I can see how the economics of it would work in West, with a false economics of scarcity and with rich patrons investing in art objects - which rather obviously are not open-source objects, but still without these how would the economics work ? Is that it ? That the art academy supports artists, so that when the few produce art objects for patrons, they in turn then support the generation of ideas for the spectacle ? Or is the model something else ? s ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
..on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:07:24PM -0500, christopher sullivan wrote: definitions, I think we are not all talking about the same thing. so here are my worst case and best case definitions of prototyping. Chris dictionary, Prototype A prototype is an original type, form, or instance of something serving as a typical example, basis, or standard for other things of the same category. The word derives from the Greek(prototypon), primitive form, neutral of (prototypos), original, primitive, from (protos), first and (typos), impression.[1] my definitions. best case scenario: . a prototype in is an object, or behavior, that is an experimental attempt to work towards a best case scenario of application, validity, or volatility of an idea, or thing. there must be a concrete need, for the prototype to be valuable. Worst case scenario: a replacement or guinea-pig for a genuine article, so to make the person experiencing or using this thing, or thought system. feel that they are negotiating a known object or experience: a dopple ganger or facsimile of the real. a placebo: a stunt man. what is your definition? I don't know, perhaps: A prototype is any test of expectation. Cheers, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:54:37 +, s...@krokodile.co.uk s...@krokodile.co.uk wrote: cynthia/all The logic of open-source seems to work in subsidized environment like academia where they are paid for teaching and perhaps a little research - but external to the academy how would an open-source artist survive ? Outside of the academy very few non-free-culture (non-open-source) artists survive. It's a cliche but its true - the problem is not piracy, it's obscurity. Free culture helps to address that. I can see how the economics of it would work in West, with a false economics of scarcity and with rich patrons investing in art objects - which rather obviously are not open-source objects, but still without these how would the economics work ? Fine art can be free culture without losing its economic value because copies/adaptations will not affect the originality or identity of the original. They will only emphasize and promote it and thereby its desirability to rich patrons (from whatever kind of institution). This makes fine art (autographic art) better placed than mass media (allographic art) such as novels or popular music to benefit from the reputational effects of free culture without losing sales to third party copies. Is that it ? That the art academy supports artists, so that when the few produce art objects for patrons, they in turn then support the generation of ideas for the spectacle ? Art is not necessarily for the people that pay for it. Or is the model something else ? The model is - make your art as you would anyway, make it free culture, use the reputational effects of the criticism, reference and adaptation that this enables to make more of a living more quickly. And support freedom of speech, free expression, academic freedom, and freedom of critique by doing so. - Rob. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
It's a cliche but its true - the problem is not piracy, it's obscurity. what is the problem of obscurity? Free culture helps to address that. by giving everyone a minute of fame? ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Actually the Art Colider is a joint project with the San Francisco Art Institute begun nearly 2 years ago. http://theartcollider.org/ l On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Renate Ferro wrote: Thanks Cynthia for sharing. I've been lurking this month, enjoying Adrienne's posts and others. I just wanted to add that the new media artist and designer Maurice Benayoun visited our Cornell Art Department this week where he shared with our students his open source website of ideas and projects that for him were either unusable, not possible, or too expensive on the-dump.net (google will translate the page from French to English). He explains that the-dump is his open source sharing space where anyone can pick up one of his ideas freely and indeed many have done. The work was part of his PHD dissertation in Paris. Right now he is spear heading the design of an open source website for artist's to share their images both still and moving at theartcollider.org Renate Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
cynthia/all The logic of open-source seems to work in subsidized environment like academia where they are paid for teaching and perhaps a little research - but external to the academy how would an open-source artist survive ? I can see how the economics of it would work in West, with a false economics of scarcity and with rich patrons investing in art objects - which rather obviously are not open-source objects, but still without these how would the economics work ? Is that it ? That the art academy supports artists, so that when the few produce art objects for patrons, they in turn then support the generation of ideas for the spectacle ? Or is the model something else ? s As an open-source artist On 18/03/2010 20:09, Cynthia Beth Rubin wrote: Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
I ran into the case of the disposable diaper and the result it has had in increasing by an average of several years now how long it takes for children to be potty trained. On the surface it is valuable to eliminate children's discomfort by optimizing the diaper. In fact current diapers increase general comfort by expanding in a soothing way and becoming warm. Likewise diaper changers appreciate all the gadgets to facilitate the change. The problem here is that the same object (the result of dozens of years of prototyping and field testing) is ergonomic at one time scale and not at a larger one in time or at the scale of an entire society. What a brilliant example! These sorts of discussions circulate in natural parenting groups. And, in fact, various conceptions of comfort circulate around discussions of cloth diapers. On the one hand, there is an argument that children wearing cloth diapers get uncomfortable faster, learning to associate the feeling of having to pee with immediate discomfort, which alters the parent/child dynamic in such a way that you change your child's diapers more quickly and frequently, your child might hold it for longer periods of time, and will also potty train sooner. Beyond this, there are folks who advocate different kinds of cloth diapers, as well as no diapers (this method requires extremely close living, learning to recognize signs, and develop awareness at an early stage). But at its fundamental level, you (and Cynthia, too, in reaching towards an open exchange of knowledge in your fine arts program) are gesturing here towards developing singular relationships based in trial and error, adaptation and refinement. I suppose the utopian aspect of this type of emergent consciousness is that it is utterly directed at improving the communication between two very different people. It cannot restrict itself to a single quality (comfort) and, in fact, resists any effort to reduce relationships to a simple measure of effectiveness. In each case, it involves seeking out the other's needs, seeking the other's desires, recognizing the other's limitations. bringing these uneven and changing considerations closer to one's own needs, desires, limitations (all of which, I would argue, might be just as surprising as those of the other, when put into conversation with the other) and forging a relationship that is itself just as rich as any of its constituent parts. Of course these things to do not always come up roses, but I'd like to think that the terrain of community/communication itself is just as rewarding as the ends which we seek. As usual, I've gone on too long. But, I should also recommend an article by Irving Goh (which was recommended to me by a bright light name Nick Knouf) on Structural Rejects: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v012/12.1.goh.html It works very well with the discussions we are having here. Davin ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Yes of course, I believe it is a collaboration as I said. Are there not many collaborators, Lynn? Actually the Art Colider is a joint project with the San Francisco Art Institute begun nearly 2 years ago. http://theartcollider.org/ l On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Renate Ferro wrote: Thanks Cynthia for sharing. I've been lurking this month, enjoying Adrienne's posts and others. I just wanted to add that the new media artist and designer Maurice Benayoun visited our Cornell Art Department this week where he shared with our students his open source website of ideas and projects that for him were either unusable, not possible, or too expensive on the-dump.net (google will translate the page from French to English). He explains that the-dump is his open source sharing space where anyone can pick up one of his ideas freely and indeed many have done. The work was part of his PHD dissertation in Paris. Right now he is spear heading the design of an open source website for artist's to share their images both still and moving at theartcollider.org Renate Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
definitions, I think we are not all talking about the same thing. so here are my worst case and best case definitions of prototyping. Chris dictionary, Prototype A prototype is an original type, form, or instance of something serving as a typical example, basis, or standard for other things of the same category. The word derives from the Greek(prototypon), primitive form, neutral of (prototypos), original, primitive, from (protos), first and (typos), impression.[1] my definitions. best case scenario: . a prototype in is an object, or behavior, that is an experimental attempt to work towards a best case scenario of application, validity, or volatility of an idea, or thing. there must be a concrete need, for the prototype to be valuable. Worst case scenario: a replacement or guinea-pig for a genuine article, so to make the person experiencing or using this thing, or thought system. feel that they are negotiating a known object or experience: a dopple ganger or facsimile of the real. a placebo: a stunt man. what is your definition? Quoting Julian Oliver jul...@julianoliver.com: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
also, if the diaper is comfortable, there is no incentive for the child to become potty trained. Chris Quoting davin heckman davinheck...@gmail.com: I ran into the case of the disposable diaper and the result it has had in increasing by an average of several years now how long it takes for children to be potty trained. On the surface it is valuable to eliminate children's discomfort by optimizing the diaper. In fact current diapers increase general comfort by expanding in a soothing way and becoming warm. Likewise diaper changers appreciate all the gadgets to facilitate the change. The problem here is that the same object (the result of dozens of years of prototyping and field testing) is ergonomic at one time scale and not at a larger one in time or at the scale of an entire society. What a brilliant example! These sorts of discussions circulate in natural parenting groups. And, in fact, various conceptions of comfort circulate around discussions of cloth diapers. On the one hand, there is an argument that children wearing cloth diapers get uncomfortable faster, learning to associate the feeling of having to pee with immediate discomfort, which alters the parent/child dynamic in such a way that you change your child's diapers more quickly and frequently, your child might hold it for longer periods of time, and will also potty train sooner. Beyond this, there are folks who advocate different kinds of cloth diapers, as well as no diapers (this method requires extremely close living, learning to recognize signs, and develop awareness at an early stage). But at its fundamental level, you (and Cynthia, too, in reaching towards an open exchange of knowledge in your fine arts program) are gesturing here towards developing singular relationships based in trial and error, adaptation and refinement. I suppose the utopian aspect of this type of emergent consciousness is that it is utterly directed at improving the communication between two very different people. It cannot restrict itself to a single quality (comfort) and, in fact, resists any effort to reduce relationships to a simple measure of effectiveness. In each case, it involves seeking out the other's needs, seeking the other's desires, recognizing the other's limitations. bringing these uneven and changing considerations closer to one's own needs, desires, limitations (all of which, I would argue, might be just as surprising as those of the other, when put into conversation with the other) and forging a relationship that is itself just as rich as any of its constituent parts. Of course these things to do not always come up roses, but I'd like to think that the terrain of community/communication itself is just as rewarding as the ends which we seek. As usual, I've gone on too long. But, I should also recommend an article by Irving Goh (which was recommended to me by a bright light name Nick Knouf) on Structural Rejects: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v012/12.1.goh.html It works very well with the discussions we are having here. Davin ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Christopher Sullivan Dept. of Film/Video/New Media School of the Art Institute of Chicago 112 so michigan Chicago Ill 60603 csu...@saic.edu 312-345-3802 ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
it is disturbing and yet now apparently more acceptably commonplace to think (in the era of current culturally mediated narcissisms) progressively of self modifications and enhancements, and as Stelarc might phrase it, having done the Extra Ear project or doing it as we speak, of operational augmentations of ageing bodies, bodies less flexible or abled than they could be if they were being prototyped properly for all kinds of new reperformances. I am going to comment on the notion of reperformance another time, once i have looked a bit more closely at what Marina Abramovic is up to, being present at her own exhibition or presenting herself as a prototype in performance of her selves as performance artist (former, and the enhanced present one, or retrospective one). She is actually, now at MoMA in New York City, a retrospective prototyperperformer, as far as i can imagine. For an older generation if live artists enjoying their ephemeral events that took place back then, she is the writing on the wall. (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/arts/design/14performance.html?pagewanted=1) I am running behind, in a manner of speaking, the synthetic biology discussion at the moment, sorry, but wanted to ask Micha what he imagines prototyping (and I do not mean to take seriously any notion of avatar prototyping in Second Life, I am afraid) to be if it can open up spaces of experimentation with new forms of living which challenge current forms of biopower, you are refering to transgender practice or life? Did you see transgender a a form of prototyping the self, what notion of self? Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold May I alsio ask, in this context, what Gabriel Shalom meant by autodocumentarian subjects ? greetings Johannes Johannes Birringer director, DAP lab School of Arts Brunel University West London UB8 3PH UK http://www.brunel.ac.uk/dap - ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink-wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
[-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
On the other hand, there are technologies that seem to be introduced with the stated purpose of achieving one objective, yet have the larger objective of changing human populations. Take, for instance, the infamous case of Nestle's infant formula strategy in Africa. Company reps masquerading as health workers introduce infant formula to a population that had not used it previously. The suggested purpose is to provide nutrition and humanitarian aid. But when women stopped lactating and suddenly found themselves forced to pay for the product or watch their children starve, a much more radical technical innovation becomes apparent--the forced creation of a new social web in service of corporate interests. More current (and relevant) examples might be the sort of biological innovations that have been spurred by petrochemical industries as ubiquitous products (plastics, agricultural products, drugs, etc) saturate ecosystems with chemicals that interfere with hormone production across the food chain, resulting in an explosion of diseases requiring treatment. I don't know that I know enough to say that there is anything resembling a conspiracy here other than the sort of conspiracy of opportunistically imposed apathy and ignorance. But the general recklessness of big business seems to suggest that there is something intentional about turning quick profits, letting major catastrophic accidents happen, and then profiting further. Habituating people to live in a precarious state of withered consciousness seems to have been the real value uncovered by the pervasive barrage of technical innovations human beings can be turned into quivering beasts who will tolerate any injustice simply to hope for another day, and in many cases, who will tear at each other's throats in defense of the paymasters responsible for this exploitation. I suppose I should hang it up, here. I might be drawing a false distinction. And I certainly am off the rails for this month's discussion. There is something moralistic in my argument, resembling the months old discussion of good and bad that we had here. Yet, I wonder that there might be some value in drawing distinctions between orders of technological existence. That the fast-forward orientation of prototyping is fascinating and productive but it is a loaded term... and it is one that I have a hard time unpacking. You can sidestep the impression of a moralist, ethical stance by elaborating the value systems that are in play. In my exploration of anti-ergonomy I ran into the case of the disposable diaper and the result it has had in increasing by an average of several years now how long it takes for children to be potty trained. On the surface it is valuable to eliminate children's discomfort by optimizing the diaper. In fact current diapers increase general comfort by expanding in a soothing way and becoming warm. Likewise diaper changers appreciate all the gadgets to facilitate the change. The problem here is that the same object (the result of dozens of years of prototyping and field testing) is ergonomic at one time scale and not at a larger one in time or at the scale of an entire society. One can look at this somewhat hopefully by saying that now the diaper has been rationalized from (a la weber) charismatic authority of its immediate convenience to legal/rational authority evaluations (that took decades) it can serve as a prototype for a new cycle of charismatica and rationalization with the inclusion of (for example) alarms that make the wearer aware of their bodily functions. There is already preliminary research to support that this will get people out of diapers earlier. In other words I poop therefor I am. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Thanks Cynthia for sharing. I've been lurking this month, enjoying Adrienne's posts and others. I just wanted to add that the new media artist and designer Maurice Benayoun visited our Cornell Art Department this week where he shared with our students his open source website of ideas and projects that for him were either unusable, not possible, or too expensive on the-dump.net (google will translate the page from French to English). He explains that the-dump is his open source sharing space where anyone can pick up one of his ideas freely and indeed many have done. The work was part of his PHD dissertation in Paris. Right now he is spear heading the design of an open source website for artist's to share their images both still and moving at theartcollider.org Renate Wow - I love the concept that we are all changing and that each of us an ongoing prototype for the next generation of ourselves At the CAA session on Open Source (chaired by Patrick Lichty), Michael Mandiberg gave a presentation arguing for giving away Design ideas, for making practical design concepts Open Source, patent free ideas to be shared among the industrious. In his talk he presented some Open Source Design ideas developed at Eyebeam. A member of the audience who identified herself as a graduate student in Fine Arts at the Chicago Art Institute asked the question about what it the equilivant of Open Source Design in the Fine Arts, and how could Fine Arts students establish a Fine Arts Open Source practice. She left before I could respond with the thought that as Fine Arts faculty members in art schools and art departments we are always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. Of course in an academic setting Ideas are not completely free, because students are paying tuition, and faculty members are being paid. We have a contractual agreement to share ideas, to be (nearly) Open Source Fine Artists. If we are all prototypes, then as individuals outside of the academic world, we can share our Ideas as artists, as thinkers, as critics without a contractual agreement. But isn't that what we are doing already in spaces such as this one - in discussion lists, in artist meetings, even when we show work in progress to friends and colleagues? Now the question of second order prototyping as turning to others -- not sure that I am ready for that! It sort of reminds me of my teenage years going shopping for clothes with my mother, who somehow poured me into dresses and pulled on one corner or another to make them look like they fit, even when they remained uncomfortable. Cynthia Cynthia Beth Rubin http://CBRubin.net On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Julian Oliver wrote: ..on Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 03:10:01PM -, Johannes Birringer wrote: Davin wrote: At one point in time, discrete objects were things that were considered prototypes that could be thrown into an existing system and tested. Increasingly, it seems like the prototypes are geared to test individual and collective consciousness. In other words, maybe we are the prototypes? Being tested so that we can be effectively processed, shrink- wrapped, labeled, bought and sold Hmm, This statement from Davin confused me also. I thought it was fairly clear that any act of learning - or any 'attempt', which all action is at it's root - simultaneously produces the self as a prototype, even if only for the duration of that act. The very notion of a prototype assumes a platonic and eventuating objecthood, a finished thing. When are people ever so singularly resolved? Second order prototyping is the work of other people, especially aquaintances, marketeers and those that resource people. Beast, -- Julian Oliver home: New Zealand based: Berlin, Germany currently: Berlin, Germany about: http://julianoliver.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dia/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] seeing yourself a prototype - the limits of open source
Adrienne, But what is unusable you some may be usable by others, no? I agree though that the idea finding phase is more nuanced but am not convinced that there must be implementation. Renate always giving away our ideas, our sense of how art works, what it can do, or what it might be in a certain situation. The very act of engaging in a critique session is an Open Source exchange of ideas. When students leave the room after a crit, they have no obligation to cite their professors as the source of their ideas, they simply take them and go. A more nuanced analysis of the whole cycle might help. You seem to be talking about ideation. Most meaningful works of art, prototypes and societal contributions involve, ideation, implementation and cultural resonance. I am rather impatient of these discussions revolveing around just the ideation part. It is the source of the rather common critique of the MIT media lab's demo/charismatica focus. Similarly you see many dreamy, inspiring examples of Arduino and Lilypad demos. that simply can't be implemented reliably or usefully or legally (e.g. FCC regulations) and for which cultural resonance is often low. You can see the real challenges involved when you look at the history of the OLPC project as they attempted to rationalize the initial charismatic idea and implement and sell something. ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre Renate Ferro Visiting Assistant Professor Department of Art Cornell University, Tjaden Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 Email: r...@cornell.edu Website: http://www.renateferro.net Co-moderator of _empyre soft skinned space http://www.subtle.net/empyre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyre Art Editor, diacritics http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/dia/ ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
