<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi Renate, <br><br></div>In response to your first question regarding social memory of institutions and the qualities of the mediums used in the work, I think that it is a very difficult question. I think that most of the contemporary makers who come through Signal Culture that are re-envisioning how to use old tools in new contexts. LoVid is a great example of this. The system at Signal Culture was attractive to them for a number of reasons, but they primarily enjoyed using the system to talk about the relationship between the body and an electronic circuit and using these technologies to give a gesture towards the unseen transmissions between bodies. This footage was used in their locative media project iParade in Troy, New York where these images are overlayed onto the mobile camera's display and triggered through the user's GPS position in the field. So in this case, the qualities are intermeshed with a new function and should be a part of the conversation when talking about locative works.<br><br></div>Of course in terms of longer term preservation, it becomes difficult to describe, but I think at times some museums talk about this in ways that are less helpful. We don't need to know the physical gestures of Cezanne's painting method to talk about how his works were made, but at the same time museum curators are able to talk about those brushstrokes in a poetic fashion. For some reason, this is not always the case with media, and I am not sure why. Perhaps we need to do a better job of relaying image processing into simpler cultural terms, but at the same time that may dilute the complexity of the creation of these images. This disconnect is one of the reasons we have a researcher residency at Signal Culture so that the language of these tools enter the vocabulary of writers, curators and historians.<br><br></div>In regards to your second question, I don't think there is really that much of a rift between tools and concept. The tool itself inhabits so much conceptual material, it is a well from which a number of ideas can be generated. Each artist that comes through Signal Culture may have varying technical expertise, but the artists who are not concerned with technique rather their interactions with the tools tend to be more successful in the work. Some processes may be a conceptual "match" with certain practices than others. We want our artist to come in and see what works for their practice and what does not. We have had artists who played with the tools, but never created anything new with those technologies and instead focused on the experimental cameras we have available, and that is totally fine. They cannot know what is not viable or significant for their practice until they have worked with that tool. At the same time, almost everyone who has come through the program also gets that moment to experiment without the pressure of a finished work over their heads, which I believe has yielded some extremely interesting works. The big difference is when the maker is relying on the tool to be the
concept without their own ideas pushing up against it. We see this
happening often in VJ culture, pop music and hollywood filmmaking, but
it is not the technology that is without concept, it is the makers who
want the technology to "speak" for them.<br><br></div>For example, I think Gary Hill in his book "Art of Limina" hits it right on the head when he describes himself as a "principle-based" artist and not a conceptual artist. This does not mean his projects themselves have no concept, but a conceptual artist has an idea that is applied to various media. There has been some great works springing from conceptual art, and it is the premier model for postmodern art practice and pedagogy. That being said, this is also a very presumptuous model that does not always play well with new technological forms. Being a principle based artist, according to Gary, is to have principle concepts that are ever present in the work, but he is willing to also listen to how to tool responds to his ideas. Form this he can synthesize a new kind of syntax from which his concepts from the non technological world can translate to the technological. This is not a modernist or essentialist approach, but rather this model gets away from singular ideas and deals with new art forms that are more consistent with post-structural tendencies.<br><br></div>As a tool based example, datamoshing as a form takes video from one source and smashing it into another. The pixels appear to rupture and spread onto the face of the next video, leaving a technological detritus that stays with the next video. The process of datamoshing is highly technical, but there are some interesting metaphors that can be derived from that process. Technically, you are taking away "real" frames of video and replacing them with "partial" frames so that when the timecode jump happens, the video cannot refresh itself. But the artist that comes to use this process at Signal Culture does not need to understand all that went behind the real-time datamoshing process we developed if they don't want to. What they will see however is a video that builds up past videos onto its surface, and as a metaphor it carries the concepts of interruption, recursion, and decay as well as ideas surrounding the inability of new beginnings, that all things carry with them a history that cannot be washed away. All of that is there within the process, but ultimately it is up to the artist to use these new visual words to complete a sentence.<br><br><br></div><div>Great questions, this is quite an interesting discussion group!<br><br></div><div>-Jason<br></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><br><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 8:00 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Send empyre mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre" target="_blank">http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre-owner@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre-owner@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (B. Bogart)<br>
2. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (B. Bogart)<br>
3. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (William Bain)<br>
4. old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and Jason Bernagozzi<br>
(Renate Terese Ferro)<br>
5. Re: old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and Jason<br>
Bernagozzi (Jason Bernagozzi)<br>
6. Re: old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and Jason<br>
Bernagozzi (Renate Terese Ferro)<br>
7. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (Murat Nemet-Nejat)<br>
8. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (B. Bogart)<br>
9. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (B. Bogart)<br>
10. Re: A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New Year/New<br>
Tools and Technologies (Renate Terese Ferro)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 17:51:55 -0800<br>
From: "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:54D56FBB.3040906@ekran.org" target="_blank">54D56FBB.3040906@ekran.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252<br>
<br>
Hello Murat,<br>
<br>
I agree with you that computer vision (and all computer programs) are<br>
value-laden. I'm not trying to make an argument that they are unbiased,<br>
as I believe the opposite is true. I think the use of statistics and<br>
'objective' measures makes computer vision *appear* to be objective, but<br>
as it is embedded in a particular use context (find people, find<br>
expressions, find genders, etc.) that gives it a point of view. Each<br>
use-case could be considered a different point of view, and thus<br>
considering computer vision as a single thing (as implied in Grosser's<br>
work) is missing this aspect. There is always the ongoing problem that<br>
technologies are composed of other technologies.<br>
<br>
The power relations and values around not only the deployment (but also<br>
development) of computer vision certainly impacts the social function of<br>
these tools. From my personal experience few researchers in this area<br>
reflect on these issues of bias and imbued values in these technologies<br>
which are often treated as neutral.<br>
<br>
In Dreaming Machine #3, there is always this tension of surveillance.<br>
Unlike in most uses of computer vision (for interactivity for example),<br>
the artwork's point of view (in the sense of use-case above) has no<br>
particular interest in people or faces. That being said, the underlying<br>
algorithms (like the segmentation) is still based on the assumption that<br>
things can be broken up into segments, and that discontinuity in colour<br>
implies a difference in object. This is very different than human<br>
perception where we project structural boundaries based on movement and<br>
interactions with objects. Objects to the system are just blobs of<br>
pixels, whereas objects to a human are concepts that are associated with<br>
blobs of colour.<br>
<br>
Even the point of view (in the literal sense) of the camera itself<br>
changes the reading of the images produced. I attempt to give the camera<br>
a human eye-level view where those being viewed can also see what the<br>
system's interpretation of the camera image is, but this is not always<br>
possible. Due to limitations of sites, the camera most often sees a wide<br>
city-scape and individual people are actually too small to be seen as<br>
independent of their context. Some examples:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/isea-2014-in-dubai/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/isea-2014-in-dubai/</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2015/dreaming-machine-3-test-with-tower-view/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2015/dreaming-machine-3-test-with-tower-view/</a><br>
<br>
Blade Runner and Metropolis are both planned for "Watching and Dreaming".<br>
<br>
On 15-02-06 07:57 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat wrote:<br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> "Many computer vision systems are oriented to recognizing faces or<br>
> numbers, or<br>
> even genders and expressions. They are intentionally developed for these<br>
> specific purposes that cannot be excised from the contexts of<br>
> surveillance and tracking, they tell us specific information that<br>
> appears to be objective and unbiased: A woman in white stands in front<br>
> of two men and a green background.... In Grosser's work, the algorithms<br>
> used appear to be tracking the<br>
> movement of objects or perhaps whole scenes, tracing lines over a a<br>
> blank canvas. There is a tension in provoking the viewer to consider a<br>
> monolithic sense of Computer Vision (developed and funded largely for<br>
> the purpose of tracking and surveillance)"<br>
><br>
> Ben, as far as I am able to follow it, your analysis is creating a<br>
> dicathomy which is not there: "A woman in white stands in front of two<br>
> men and a green background". Colors may have an "objective" reality that<br>
> can be measured in wave lengths, etc.; but colors also have a potent<br>
> emotional, i.e. cultural, context. To the extent that the programing of<br>
> the algorithms is done by humans, how can one say that its observations<br>
> are not touched by values? That brings me to the issue of surveillance.<br>
> Isn't surveillance a totally cultural/political act? What is the "use"<br>
> of surveillance if it ignores the emotional condition and cultural<br>
> relations of the "subject"? One surveils subjects (not objects). In<br>
> other words, implicitly it surveils subjectivities.<br>
><br>
> I would rather claim that computers (including artificial intelligence)<br>
> constitute a radical, transforming extension of subjectivity, from the<br>
> "individual" to a wider field--as much a march towards a solipsist humanity.<br>
><br>
> What about the film "Blade Runner"?<br>
><br>
> Ciao,<br>
> Murat<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:30 PM, B. Bogart <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> Hello Empyrians,<br>
><br>
> I'll break this comment into three sections, each inspired by a<br>
> different aspect of Renate's opening message.<br>
><br>
> *Cycles*<br>
><br>
> It's easy to think of progress as a ray projecting to an ever better<br>
> future. I find it interesting that so many 'innovations' happen in<br>
> cycles, even in a world apparently based on incremental improvement. The<br>
> most salient for me, at this point, is the new trend of VR. This stands<br>
> out because of the hype that surrounded it in the mid 90s when I was and<br>
> centrally concerned with "new media" and computer graphics. I<br>
> experienced a VR system at SIGGRAPH in 1995, and did not try it again<br>
> until a recent Oculus Rift demo. The nearly 20 year gap gave lead me to<br>
> some quite high expectations. I was left being totally underwhelmed. I'm<br>
> not convinced that this new VR will be any more successful than it was<br>
> in the 90s. More details on my experience here:<br>
> <a href="https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N</a><br>
><br>
> Even computer architecture has slid back and forth between single and<br>
> multi processor systems over the years. I think of tradition as a way of<br>
> thinking about the world that emphasizes what has stayed the same.<br>
> Novelty is a way of thinking about the world that emphasizes what has<br>
> changed. Realism is somewhere in between, where we accept that at some<br>
> level of description nothing changes, but at other levels of description<br>
> nothing stays the same. More and more, I find myself not seeing through<br>
> the lens of novelty, but through the lens of tradition.<br>
><br>
> *Networks*<br>
><br>
> Networked and telematic work was very popular when I started my B.F.A.<br>
> in 1999. I can't articulate exactly why, but it held little interest to<br>
> me. I even worked in a research lab at Ryerson University where we made<br>
> almost entirely telematic events and performances as part of the MARCEL<br>
> network (<a href="http://www.mmmarcel.org/" target="_blank">http://www.mmmarcel.org/</a>). While I did make art in that<br>
> collaborative paid context, my individual work was quite a bit less<br>
> about the network. Rather, less about interactivity across networks. In<br>
> Aporia (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/</a>), I considered the<br>
> network as a sea of signifiers that could never be fully grounded.<br>
><br>
> I think it's this sense of grounding that made telematic art less<br>
> attractive to me. Perhaps it's the ephemeral quality of 'new media'<br>
> itself that drove my interest in here and now. Through my graduate<br>
> studies, I have let go of interactivity entirely and am focused on<br>
> generative processes in the Context Machines series<br>
> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A-Series-of-Situated-and-Self-Organizing-Artworks.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A-Series-of-Situated-and-Self-Organizing-Artworks.pdf</a>).<br>
> Generative processes are used in the context of grounding and artworks<br>
> are considered site-specific and augmented by sensors in the<br>
> environment. The latest incarnations of Context Machines are the<br>
> Dreaming Machines whose processes are inspired by biopsychological<br>
> conceptions of perception, mental imagery, mind wandering and dreaming.<br>
> In essence, these works are trying to ground themselves by learning<br>
> about the world (using machine learning methods) and generating<br>
> simulations of it. I have been asked about networked versions of these<br>
> installations that are served images from flikr or the like, rather than<br>
> images from a single place and a particular time. There is something in<br>
> the lack of constraint or bounding that makes such proposals quite<br>
> unpalatable to me.<br>
><br>
> Context machines start with a point of view. They see the world through<br>
> a single and unified lens. They are context dependent and inherently<br>
> subjective. There is no sense of Truth or objectivity, they are in a<br>
> constant process of trying to understand the world, without ever being<br>
> able to perfectly reproduce it. They are single nodes and have no<br>
> culture or communication. They reproduce not what they see in the world,<br>
> but what they understand of it, which can be very little.<br>
><br>
> A new project titled Watching and Dreaming<br>
> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyssey-2014/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyssey-2014/</a>)<br>
> moves away from this sense of place in space and time where the work is<br>
> subjected to a cultural world, rather than a physical one. This is the<br>
> world represented in cinema. It's a highly constructed discontinuous<br>
> world meant to be interpreted by a human viewer. By the sheer fact that<br>
> a film has a fixed length, it is more bounded than a live context, but<br>
> it's also a challenging world to learn from. The learning mechanisms of<br>
> Watching and Dreaming exist in the context of Artificial Intelligence,<br>
> and the choice of film (currently only 2001: A Space Odyssey) is focused<br>
> on cultural representations of artificially intelligent systems, in this<br>
> case the homicidal HAL9000. My 'intelligent' machine watches a film<br>
> about a fictitious intelligent machine, all the while trying to make<br>
> sense of what it means while never being able.<br>
><br>
> *Tools*<br>
><br>
> On the surface, Watching and Dreaming seems a lot like Grosser's<br>
> "Computers Watching Movies"<br>
> (<a href="http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/" target="_blank">http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/</a>), where<br>
> computer vision methods are used to interpret cinematic images. Grosser<br>
> frames the work as an attempt to provoke viewers into asking "how<br>
> computer vision differs from their own human vision, and what that<br>
> difference reveals about our culturally-developed ways of looking." This<br>
> seems to imply that computer vision is objective and unified. In truth,<br>
> computer vision is really just the application of machine learning to<br>
> visual images, and thus has much diversity in how it sees and why. Many<br>
> computer vision systems are oriented to recognizing faces or numbers, or<br>
> even genders and expressions. They are intentionally developed for these<br>
> specific purposes that cannot be excised from the contexts of<br>
> surveillance and tracking, they tell us specific information that<br>
> appears to be objective and unbiased: A woman in white stands in front<br>
> of two men and a green background.<br>
><br>
> In Grosser's work, the algorithms used appear to be tracking the<br>
> movement of objects or perhaps whole scenes, tracing lines over a a<br>
> blank canvas. There is a tension in provoking the viewer to consider a<br>
> monolithic sense of Computer Vision (developed and funded largely for<br>
> the purpose of tracking and surveillance) in comparison with human<br>
> vision (oriented towards making sense of the world to facilitate<br>
> survival).<br>
><br>
> In Watching and Dreaming, the specific methods used include segmentation<br>
> (breaking images into pieces), clustering (recognizing that a piece in<br>
> the previous image is the same as 'object' as the current image) and<br>
> prediction (learning the sequence in which these 'objects' appear).<br>
> These methods serve to help the machine generate images that are<br>
> grounded in reality, and yet are not a perfect reflection, nor a random<br>
> composition. The "task" is to make sense of the world by recognizing and<br>
> predicting perceptual 'objects'. These methods are all on-line and<br>
> unsupervised, i.e. they don't make use of previously recorded<br>
> information nor depend on a 'right answer' provided by an expert to help<br>
> them learn.<br>
><br>
> My point here is that computer vision is no more monolithic than<br>
> artificial intelligence. There are many different ways in which we could<br>
> define, frame and validate both vision and intelligence. It's temping to<br>
> think of these technologies as monolithic "tools" but they are really<br>
> aggregations of many different conceptions and approaches linked<br>
> together. Each of these approaches imbues its own bias and point of<br>
> view. To a segmentation algorithm, every image is a set of objects that<br>
> can be separated, and borders are often made in places where a human<br>
> would not recognize them. To a clustering algorithm, the world is made<br>
> up of discreet elements where belonging to a group is more important<br>
> than 'minor' individual difference. The way Computers Watch Movies<br>
> "sees" depends on a conception of foreground and background, between<br>
> what moves and what does not.<br>
><br>
> A gender detector makes the base assumption that the gender binary is<br>
> real and objective, and thus ignores the "noise" of androgynous,<br>
> transgendered, intersex and etc. individuals.<br>
><br>
> The problem with the biases embedded in our tools is that the use of the<br>
> tools enforce those biases<br>
> (<a href="http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads" target="_blank">http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads</a>).<br>
> Interestingly, google has changed things and thus typing "women should"<br>
> no longer produces additional suggestions.<br>
><br>
> Is it a question a tools, or a question of contexts and conceptions?<br>
> What ways of thinking about the world are useful? How do they betray our<br>
> implicit biases and prejudice? How can we critically reflect on them<br>
> when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
><br>
> Ben Bogart<br>
> Hons. B.F.A., M.Sc, Ph.D.<br>
> <a href="http://www.ekran.org" target="_blank">www.ekran.org</a> <<a href="http://www.ekran.org" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org</a>><br>
><br>
> On 15-02-03 05:41 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> > We are hoping that all of our subscribers, both active<br>
> participants and<br>
> > lurkers, will post a couple of times this month to share<br>
> > your current work and what tools and or technologies you are using<br>
> to that<br>
> > end. Some of you may be developing new apps or platforms where<br>
> others of<br>
> > you are pushing the boundaries of other tools that are more<br>
> ubiquitous.<br>
> ><br>
> > Just this past week Google?s CEO Eric Schmidt spoke at the world<br>
> economic<br>
> > forum in Switzerland exclaiming that ?The Internet is Dead.? Schmidt?s<br>
> > call was simply the assertion that the internet is so ubiquitous<br>
> because<br>
> > of the nature of networked things. Interfaces are and will become so<br>
> > naturally integrated into our architectural and living environments<br>
> > Schmidt stated. The critical question remains how will the rights and<br>
> > privacy of individuals become impacted.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> <a href="http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-tech" target="_blank">http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-tech</a><br>
> > -news-digest/<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Ironically it was only seven years ago in 2008 that WIRED magazine<br>
> > published an article entitled ?The Web Is Dead. Long Live the<br>
> Internet.?<br>
> > <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > A move away from the open search of the web to more enclosed and<br>
> > prescriptive apps, music and movie services all driven by the ease and<br>
> > impact of i-phone technology has enabled the web to become less<br>
> important<br>
> > asserted WIRED authors Chris Anderson and<br>
> > Michael Wolff when they wrote: ?Sure, we?ll always have Web pages. We<br>
> > still have postcards and telegrams, don?t we? But the centerOf<br>
> interactive<br>
> > media ? increasingly, the center of gravity of all media ?is<br>
> moving to a<br>
> > post-HTML environment,? we promised nearly a decade and half ago.<br>
> ><br>
> > "The examples of the time were a bit silly ? a ?3-D furry-muckers VR<br>
> > space? and ?headlines sent to a pager? ? but the point was altogether<br>
> > prescient: a glimpse of the machine-to-machine future that would<br>
> be less<br>
> > about browsing and more about getting.?<br>
> ><br>
> > The internet has experienced dramatic changes since the beginning<br>
> of its<br>
> > inception as is the way of any of the technologies we have used in the<br>
> > past or are currently using. Looking forward to hearing you. It<br>
> is a new<br>
> > year. Share you tools and technologies.<br>
> > Renate<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > Renate Ferro<br>
> > Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
> > Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
> > Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
> > Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>>><br>
> > URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
> > <a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
> > <<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
> > Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
> ><br>
> > Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
> > <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > empyre forum<br>
> > <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
> > <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:20:45 -0800<br>
From: "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:54D5767D.4080703@ekran.org" target="_blank">54D5767D.4080703@ekran.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
Hello Renata, I hope my response to Murat makes my position more clear.<br>
<br>
I do think my work is an effort to facilitate critical reflection on<br>
technologies, specifically technologies like AI that exist to displace<br>
human cognitive skills. In the first installation of a prototype of the<br>
Dreaming Machine<br>
(<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2012/an-artist-in-processa-computational-sketch-of-dreaming-machine-3/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2012/an-artist-in-processa-computational-sketch-of-dreaming-machine-3/</a>),<br>
it was important to me to be present in order to engage in discussion.<br>
<br>
I suppose the statement you quote below was a bit of preaching to the<br>
converted. I tend to be the humanities critical theory person in a<br>
technology / trans-humanism context. (e.g.<br>
<a href="https://plus.google.com/117828903900236363024/posts/Ee7TDeo4JQn" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/117828903900236363024/posts/Ee7TDeo4JQn</a>)<br>
<br>
I wonder if anyone else is thinking about computer vision in relation to<br>
gender biases. I have in mind some new work on how computer algorithms<br>
participate in the construction of gender, specifically the notion of<br>
classification and breaking continuous spaces of variation in the<br>
machine learning sense.<br>
<br>
Thanks Renata and Murat for the engagement and interest.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15-02-06 02:42 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> Thank you Ben for sharing your work on empyre. I read your blog response<br>
> on vr and looked closely at the work you have done on generative<br>
> processes. And I want to just clarify your position. I believe that your<br>
> are saying that tools are naturally embedded with conceptual possibilities<br>
> including context, perspective, etc. But then you ask the question:<br>
><br>
> <snip>??...How can we critically reflect on them<br>
> when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
><br>
> Do your not perceive your projects to to enable viewers or participants to<br>
> critically reflect?..Enable critical possibilities? Can you reflect on<br>
> this and especially the notion of gender that Murat raises in his post.<br>
> I am hoping you will clarify a bit for all of us.<br>
> Looking forward to hearing from you. Renate<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 2/4/15, 6:30 PM, "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
>> Hello Empyrians,<br>
>><br>
>> I'll break this comment into three sections, each inspired by a<br>
>> different aspect of Renate's opening message.<br>
>><br>
>> *Cycles*<br>
>><br>
>> It's easy to think of progress as a ray projecting to an ever better<br>
>> future. I find it interesting that so many 'innovations' happen in<br>
>> cycles, even in a world apparently based on incremental improvement. The<br>
>> most salient for me, at this point, is the new trend of VR. This stands<br>
>> out because of the hype that surrounded it in the mid 90s when I was and<br>
>> centrally concerned with "new media" and computer graphics. I<br>
>> experienced a VR system at SIGGRAPH in 1995, and did not try it again<br>
>> until a recent Oculus Rift demo. The nearly 20 year gap gave lead me to<br>
>> some quite high expectations. I was left being totally underwhelmed. I'm<br>
>> not convinced that this new VR will be any more successful than it was<br>
>> in the 90s. More details on my experience here:<br>
>> <a href="https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N</a><br>
>><br>
>> Even computer architecture has slid back and forth between single and<br>
>> multi processor systems over the years. I think of tradition as a way of<br>
>> thinking about the world that emphasizes what has stayed the same.<br>
>> Novelty is a way of thinking about the world that emphasizes what has<br>
>> changed. Realism is somewhere in between, where we accept that at some<br>
>> level of description nothing changes, but at other levels of description<br>
>> nothing stays the same. More and more, I find myself not seeing through<br>
>> the lens of novelty, but through the lens of tradition.<br>
>><br>
>> *Networks*<br>
>><br>
>> Networked and telematic work was very popular when I started my B.F.A.<br>
>> in 1999. I can't articulate exactly why, but it held little interest to<br>
>> me. I even worked in a research lab at Ryerson University where we made<br>
>> almost entirely telematic events and performances as part of the MARCEL<br>
>> network (<a href="http://www.mmmarcel.org/" target="_blank">http://www.mmmarcel.org/</a>). While I did make art in that<br>
>> collaborative paid context, my individual work was quite a bit less<br>
>> about the network. Rather, less about interactivity across networks. In<br>
>> Aporia (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/</a>), I considered the<br>
>> network as a sea of signifiers that could never be fully grounded.<br>
>><br>
>> I think it's this sense of grounding that made telematic art less<br>
>> attractive to me. Perhaps it's the ephemeral quality of 'new media'<br>
>> itself that drove my interest in here and now. Through my graduate<br>
>> studies, I have let go of interactivity entirely and am focused on<br>
>> generative processes in the Context Machines series<br>
>> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A</a><br>
>> -Series-of-Situated-and-Self-Organizing-Artworks.pdf).<br>
>> Generative processes are used in the context of grounding and artworks<br>
>> are considered site-specific and augmented by sensors in the<br>
>> environment. The latest incarnations of Context Machines are the<br>
>> Dreaming Machines whose processes are inspired by biopsychological<br>
>> conceptions of perception, mental imagery, mind wandering and dreaming.<br>
>> In essence, these works are trying to ground themselves by learning<br>
>> about the world (using machine learning methods) and generating<br>
>> simulations of it. I have been asked about networked versions of these<br>
>> installations that are served images from flikr or the like, rather than<br>
>> images from a single place and a particular time. There is something in<br>
>> the lack of constraint or bounding that makes such proposals quite<br>
>> unpalatable to me.<br>
>><br>
>> Context machines start with a point of view. They see the world through<br>
>> a single and unified lens. They are context dependent and inherently<br>
>> subjective. There is no sense of Truth or objectivity, they are in a<br>
>> constant process of trying to understand the world, without ever being<br>
>> able to perfectly reproduce it. They are single nodes and have no<br>
>> culture or communication. They reproduce not what they see in the world,<br>
>> but what they understand of it, which can be very little.<br>
>><br>
>> A new project titled Watching and Dreaming<br>
>> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyss" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyss</a><br>
>> ey-2014/)<br>
>> moves away from this sense of place in space and time where the work is<br>
>> subjected to a cultural world, rather than a physical one. This is the<br>
>> world represented in cinema. It's a highly constructed discontinuous<br>
>> world meant to be interpreted by a human viewer. By the sheer fact that<br>
>> a film has a fixed length, it is more bounded than a live context, but<br>
>> it's also a challenging world to learn from. The learning mechanisms of<br>
>> Watching and Dreaming exist in the context of Artificial Intelligence,<br>
>> and the choice of film (currently only 2001: A Space Odyssey) is focused<br>
>> on cultural representations of artificially intelligent systems, in this<br>
>> case the homicidal HAL9000. My 'intelligent' machine watches a film<br>
>> about a fictitious intelligent machine, all the while trying to make<br>
>> sense of what it means while never being able.<br>
>><br>
>> *Tools*<br>
>><br>
>> On the surface, Watching and Dreaming seems a lot like Grosser's<br>
>> "Computers Watching Movies"<br>
>> (<a href="http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/" target="_blank">http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/</a>), where<br>
>> computer vision methods are used to interpret cinematic images. Grosser<br>
>> frames the work as an attempt to provoke viewers into asking "how<br>
>> computer vision differs from their own human vision, and what that<br>
>> difference reveals about our culturally-developed ways of looking." This<br>
>> seems to imply that computer vision is objective and unified. In truth,<br>
>> computer vision is really just the application of machine learning to<br>
>> visual images, and thus has much diversity in how it sees and why. Many<br>
>> computer vision systems are oriented to recognizing faces or numbers, or<br>
>> even genders and expressions. They are intentionally developed for these<br>
>> specific purposes that cannot be excised from the contexts of<br>
>> surveillance and tracking, they tell us specific information that<br>
>> appears to be objective and unbiased: A woman in white stands in front<br>
>> of two men and a green background.<br>
>><br>
>> In Grosser's work, the algorithms used appear to be tracking the<br>
>> movement of objects or perhaps whole scenes, tracing lines over a a<br>
>> blank canvas. There is a tension in provoking the viewer to consider a<br>
>> monolithic sense of Computer Vision (developed and funded largely for<br>
>> the purpose of tracking and surveillance) in comparison with human<br>
>> vision (oriented towards making sense of the world to facilitate<br>
>> survival).<br>
>><br>
>> In Watching and Dreaming, the specific methods used include segmentation<br>
>> (breaking images into pieces), clustering (recognizing that a piece in<br>
>> the previous image is the same as 'object' as the current image) and<br>
>> prediction (learning the sequence in which these 'objects' appear).<br>
>> These methods serve to help the machine generate images that are<br>
>> grounded in reality, and yet are not a perfect reflection, nor a random<br>
>> composition. The "task" is to make sense of the world by recognizing and<br>
>> predicting perceptual 'objects'. These methods are all on-line and<br>
>> unsupervised, i.e. they don't make use of previously recorded<br>
>> information nor depend on a 'right answer' provided by an expert to help<br>
>> them learn.<br>
>><br>
>> My point here is that computer vision is no more monolithic than<br>
>> artificial intelligence. There are many different ways in which we could<br>
>> define, frame and validate both vision and intelligence. It's temping to<br>
>> think of these technologies as monolithic "tools" but they are really<br>
>> aggregations of many different conceptions and approaches linked<br>
>> together. Each of these approaches imbues its own bias and point of<br>
>> view. To a segmentation algorithm, every image is a set of objects that<br>
>> can be separated, and borders are often made in places where a human<br>
>> would not recognize them. To a clustering algorithm, the world is made<br>
>> up of discreet elements where belonging to a group is more important<br>
>> than 'minor' individual difference. The way Computers Watch Movies<br>
>> "sees" depends on a conception of foreground and background, between<br>
>> what moves and what does not.<br>
>><br>
>> A gender detector makes the base assumption that the gender binary is<br>
>> real and objective, and thus ignores the "noise" of androgynous,<br>
>> transgendered, intersex and etc. individuals.<br>
>><br>
>> The problem with the biases embedded in our tools is that the use of the<br>
>> tools enforce those biases<br>
>> (<a href="http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads" target="_blank">http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads</a>).<br>
>> Interestingly, google has changed things and thus typing "women should"<br>
>> no longer produces additional suggestions.<br>
>><br>
>> Is it a question a tools, or a question of contexts and conceptions?<br>
>> What ways of thinking about the world are useful? How do they betray our<br>
>> implicit biases and prejudice? How can we critically reflect on them<br>
>> when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
>><br>
>> Ben Bogart<br>
>> Hons. B.F.A., M.Sc, Ph.D.<br>
>> <a href="http://www.ekran.org" target="_blank">www.ekran.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> On 15-02-03 05:41 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
>>> We are hoping that all of our subscribers, both active participants and<br>
>>> lurkers, will post a couple of times this month to share<br>
>>> your current work and what tools and or technologies you are using to<br>
>>> that<br>
>>> end. Some of you may be developing new apps or platforms where others<br>
>>> of<br>
>>> you are pushing the boundaries of other tools that are more ubiquitous.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Just this past week Google?s CEO Eric Schmidt spoke at the world<br>
>>> economic<br>
>>> forum in Switzerland exclaiming that ?The Internet is Dead.? Schmidt?s<br>
>>> call was simply the assertion that the internet is so ubiquitous because<br>
>>> of the nature of networked things. Interfaces are and will become so<br>
>>> naturally integrated into our architectural and living environments<br>
>>> Schmidt stated. The critical question remains how will the rights and<br>
>>> privacy of individuals become impacted.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-te" target="_blank">http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-te</a><br>
>>> ch<br>
>>> -news-digest/<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Ironically it was only seven years ago in 2008 that WIRED magazine<br>
>>> published an article entitled ?The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet.?<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> A move away from the open search of the web to more enclosed and<br>
>>> prescriptive apps, music and movie services all driven by the ease and<br>
>>> impact of i-phone technology has enabled the web to become less<br>
>>> important<br>
>>> asserted WIRED authors Chris Anderson and<br>
>>> Michael Wolff when they wrote: ?Sure, we?ll always have Web pages. We<br>
>>> still have postcards and telegrams, don?t we? But the centerOf<br>
>>> interactive<br>
>>> media ? increasingly, the center of gravity of all media ?is moving to a<br>
>>> post-HTML environment,? we promised nearly a decade and half ago.<br>
>>><br>
>>> "The examples of the time were a bit silly ? a ?3-D furry-muckers VR<br>
>>> space? and ?headlines sent to a pager? ? but the point was altogether<br>
>>> prescient: a glimpse of the machine-to-machine future that would be less<br>
>>> about browsing and more about getting.?<br>
>>><br>
>>> The internet has experienced dramatic changes since the beginning of its<br>
>>> inception as is the way of any of the technologies we have used in the<br>
>>> past or are currently using. Looking forward to hearing you. It is a<br>
>>> new<br>
>>> year. Share you tools and technologies.<br>
>>> Renate<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Renate Ferro<br>
>>> Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
>>> Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
>>> Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
>>> Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>><br>
>>> URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
>>> <a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
>>> <<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
>>> Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
>>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> empyre forum<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
>>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> empyre forum<br>
>> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:08:59 +0000 (UTC)<br>
From: William Bain <<a href="mailto:willronb@yahoo.com" target="_blank">willronb@yahoo.com</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:230577623.715463.1423310939457.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com" target="_blank">230577623.715463.1423310939457.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Empyreans,<br>
Just a couple of questions. First, Ben you've presented us with somereally interesting work, both yours and Grosser's. More generally, andpicking up also on what Murat's said, I was interested in your question"Is it a question a tools, or a question of contexts and conceptions?" Mystudies are based on literary theory and comparative literature and aes-thetivcs in general. I can't say a lot about the technical aspects of NewMedia and machine learning, so what you have to say is very welcome.But my first question is: Aren't concepts tools? As infants we spend lotsof times sucking our toes and thumbs, figuring out what things like armsand legs can do--forming concepts to put such things to work. Maybe I'mleaving out something you put into your long text. Second, you speak ofbeing less interested in using grounds (?) or objects from contexts likeFlickr due to "lack of constraint": I'd like to ask, Wouldn't lack of cons-traint add to the experimental features? Thanks for all this<br>
very welcomematerial. It seems to me like a great renewal of Empyre's discussions.Best wishes, William<br>
?<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150207/fe6feafc/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150207/fe6feafc/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 13:05:40 +0000<br>
From: Renate Terese Ferro <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: [-empyre-] old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and Jason<br>
Bernagozzi<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:D0FB6F8E.1AEF5%25rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">D0FB6F8E.1AEF5%rtf9@cornell.edu</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"<br>
<br>
Hi Jason,<br>
I thought I would use Ben?s discussion on ?cycles" to begin a new thread<br>
this morning. There was a great post in Hyperallergic a few months back<br>
between Leila Nadir and yourself. I am copying and pasting the URL here<br>
for our readers:<br>
<a href="http://hyperallergic.com/154717/with-new-media-upstate-goes-downtown/" target="_blank">http://hyperallergic.com/154717/with-new-media-upstate-goes-downtown/</a><br>
<br>
I?ve always been interested in the intersections between old media and new<br>
media and how in my own creative practice they are integral to one<br>
another. In fact creatively they are co-dependent. Tools and<br>
technologies do cycle through stages of use but tools are more than tools<br>
but instead platforms for idea generating and conceptual contemplation. I<br>
am wondering if you could talk about the residency program at Signal<br>
Culture and the relationship visiting artists have had to old technologies<br>
and innovating new ideas?<br>
<br>
Hope you are keeping warm in Owego, New York this morning Jason. For<br>
those empyreans on the other side of the world Signal Culture?s<br>
predecessor, ETC Experimental Television Center was founded in 1971,<br>
situated in Owego, NY as well a small helmet in upstate New York. ETC<br>
closed shop in 2009 but during its years of operation, Ralph and Sherry<br>
Hocking nurtured electronic and new media artist?s and researchers from<br>
all over the world in a residency program as well. Hope you can also talk<br>
about the relationship between the Signal Culture and ETC especially in<br>
regards to innovation.<br>
<br>
Stay warm. Renate<br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/" target="_blank">http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/</a><br>
<br>
Renate Ferro,<br>
Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>><br>
URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
<br>
Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/6/15, 6:12 PM, "Renate Terese Ferro" <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
>So glad to see Jason Bernagozzi responding to Ben and Murat?s response. I<br>
>invited Ben to join us for the next couple of days just to share with us<br>
>his own work and that of Signal Culture. <a href="http://signalculture.org/" target="_blank">http://signalculture.org/</a><br>
><br>
>Welcome to the listserv Jason and we look forward to hearing more.<br>
>Renate<br>
><br>
>Jason Bernagozzi is a video, sound and new media artist living and working<br>
>in upstate New York and is the co-founder and chair of the board of<br>
>directors of the experimental media arts non-profit Signal Culture. His<br>
>work has been featured nationally and internationally at venues such as<br>
>the European Media Arts Festival in Osnabruk, Germany, the LOOP Video Art<br>
>Festival in Barcelona, Spain, the Beyond/In Western NY Biennial in<br>
>Buffalo, NY, and the Yan Gerber International Arts Festival in Hebei<br>
>Province, China. His work has received several awards including grants<br>
>from the New York State Council for the Arts, Wavefarm and the ARTS<br>
>Council for the Southern Finger Lakes. He is an Assistant Professor in<br>
>Digital Media and Animation at Alfred State College.<br>
><br>
><a href="http://seeinginvideo.com/" target="_blank">http://seeinginvideo.com/</a><br>
><a href="http://www.signalculture.org" target="_blank">http://www.signalculture.org</a> <<a href="http://www.signalculture.org/" target="_blank">http://www.signalculture.org/</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
>Renate Ferro<br>
>Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
>Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
>Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
>Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>><br>
>URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
> <a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
><<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
>Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
><br>
>Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
><a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>empyre forum<br>
><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
><a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 11:06:51 -0500<br>
From: Jason Bernagozzi <<a href="mailto:jason@seeinginvideo.com" target="_blank">jason@seeinginvideo.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and<br>
Jason Bernagozzi<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAP2e4Kn9O_514eLuEPGM-mYNQjTiUxtkcXJQvRthZd1TsNWSRA@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAP2e4Kn9O_514eLuEPGM-mYNQjTiUxtkcXJQvRthZd1TsNWSRA@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I first want to say thank you Renate for inviting me to discuss what we do<br>
at Signal Culture!<br>
<br>
The residency programs at Signal Culture are designed with several<br>
philosophies in mind. First and foremost is the idea that old media is<br>
still new media, and that each media device is imbued with a specific<br>
language. We are aware that the relentless tide of new technologies often<br>
tout more "quality" in the process or image, but we are more interested in<br>
the "qualities" inherent to a specific device. Shooting a video essay with<br>
a Barbie Video Girl camera has distinctly different connotations than a 4K<br>
camera, and understanding and utilizing media for specific nuances we<br>
believe will help form more dynamic relationships between artists and their<br>
toolsets.<br>
<br>
But this notion of old media is new media goes beyond that. When media<br>
devices from several ages talk to one another, what kind of dialogue forms?<br>
While our artist studio has a large system of analog video processing<br>
tools, we are not attempting to emulate the Experimental Television Center<br>
in this context. We have the ability to fluidly shift from digital to<br>
analog to digital within a fluid real time system. What happens when you<br>
convert the data from a Microsoft Kinect controller to control voltage and<br>
"perform" a Jones Colorizer in real time? We think these kinds of questions<br>
are exciting and perhaps are the beginning of fostering the idea that all<br>
media is relevant.<br>
<br>
This is not to say that we came up with these ideas by ourselves. One of<br>
our founders is Hank Rudolph, who worked with training of residents at the<br>
Experimental Television Center for over 25 years. The notion of a real time<br>
system fundamentally changed our perceptions of media, and a large part of<br>
Signal Culture is working with video and audio in real time using a hybrid<br>
of old and new analog and digital processes. In terms of innovation, we<br>
believe that it can come through re-evaluation of what has been made.<br>
Steina Vasulka always maintained that in order to get everything you needed<br>
out of a media "instrument" you needed to play it over the period of a<br>
decade. Too often we are asked to shed our media processes for the new. We<br>
choose to keep those processes and include the new.<br>
<br>
A good example of this was the construction of our raster manipulation<br>
device (aka the Wobbulator) this past summer. We came to make this device<br>
because we knew how valuable it was at the Experimental Television Center.<br>
However, there are some major issues with the original design. First, the<br>
S-Coil needed to be driven by a hefty McIntosh tube amplifier because the<br>
short circuit created by this coil would either blow amplifiers or in worse<br>
case scenarios cause them to burst into flames, according to Andrew<br>
Deutsch. The second major design issue was needing to get a late 60's color<br>
TV yoke large enough to fit over the electron gun circuit board to drive<br>
the horizontal and vertical deflection.<br>
<br>
We did not have the money to buy these parts, the McIntosh amps are a<br>
collector's item and feature an auto forming transformer that let it run<br>
heavy loads without a problem. So, after some consultation with Dave Jones<br>
we figured out some new designs for this old media device that would allow<br>
it to be run using new peripherals.<br>
<br>
The reason this re-investigation is exciting is that through these<br>
redesigns we were able to prove that not only can we create a wobbulator<br>
from a color CRT, but we can turn it into a real video instrument with over<br>
12 potential processes to localize and further process the image into a<br>
raster animation instrument with variable raster collapse ramping. Based on<br>
these findings, we will be constructing this instrument this summer and<br>
adding it to the Signal Culture system.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 8:00 PM, <<a href="mailto:empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Send empyre mailing list submissions to<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> <a href="http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre" target="_blank">http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre-request@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre-owner@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre-owner@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150207/4dad94f9/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150207/4dad94f9/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 18:38:04 +0000<br>
From: Renate Terese Ferro <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and<br>
Jason Bernagozzi<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:D0FBC570.1AF87%25rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">D0FBC570.1AF87%rtf9@cornell.edu</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Jason , I have taken bits of your post and responded in CAPS.<br>
Apologies for that but you bring up so many points I just did not want to<br>
miss anything. I have also alluded to one of Ben's older posts from last<br>
night:<br>
<br>
Jason Wrote: "The residency programs at Signal Culture are designed with<br>
several philosophies in mind. First and foremost is the idea that old<br>
media is still new media, and that each media device is imbued with a<br>
specific language. We are aware that the relentless tide of new<br>
technologies often tout more "quality" in the process or image, but we are<br>
more interested in the "qualities" inherent to a specific device...But<br>
this notion of old media is new media goes beyond that. When media devices<br>
from several ages talk to one another, what kind of dialogue forms?"<br>
<br>
Ben Wrote: "I think of tradition as a way of thinking about the world that<br>
emphasizes what has stayed the same. Novelty is a way of thinking about<br>
the world that emphasizes what has changed. Realism is somewhere in<br>
between, where we accept that at some level of description nothing<br>
changes, but at other levels of description nothing stays the same. More<br>
and more, I find myself not seeing through the lens of novelty, but<br>
through the lens of tradition."<br>
<br>
<br>
AS I MENTIONED IN THE POST BEFORE THE TRANSLATION OF OLD TECHNOLOGY AND<br>
ITS INHERENT QUALITIES INTO NEW INSPIRES CONCEPTUAL IDEAS FOR ME. ON<br>
FRIDAY HERE AT CORNELL, TIM MURRAY, CURATOR OF THE ROSE GOLDSEN ARCHIVE OF<br>
NEW MEDIA ART, HOSTED A CONVERSATION IN DIGITAL PRESERVATION WITH RICHARD<br>
RINEHART, THE DIRECTOR AND CHIEF CURATOR OF THE SAMEK ART MUSUEM AT<br>
BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY IN PENNSYLVANIA. THERE ARE CHALLENGES THAT PRESENT<br>
THEMSELVES TO CURATORS AND OTHERS WHO ARE HAVE A STAKE IN PRESERVING THE<br>
TRANSLATION AND EVOLUTION OF A WORK OF ART ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE MEDIA<br>
FORMAT OR LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE TRANSLATED OR EMULATED TO ANOTHER FOR<br>
PRESERVATION PURPOSES. AS YOU SAID THE NATURE OF THESE TRANSLATIONS ARE<br>
EMBEDDED IN THE VERY NATURE OF THE MEDIUM;THEY HAVE TO BE TO LIVE ON. AT<br>
CORNELL RINEHART DISCUSSED SOMETHING THAT I DO NOT THINK WE THINK ABOUT<br>
VERY OFTEN AS ARTISTS. THE PERSONAL MEMORY OF EACH ARTIST CAN GRASP THIS<br>
TRANSLATION IN VERY LOGICAL AND CONCRETE WAYS AND OFTEN DOES SO TO INSPIRE<br>
NEW WORK, BUT HOW DOES THE SOCIAL MEMORY OF THOSE OF INSTITUTIONS LIKE A<br>
MUSEUM OR AN ARCHIVE OR PERHAPS A RESIDENCY CENTER ARCHIVE THE VERY<br>
EPHEMERAL NATURE OF THESE "QUALITIES" AND THE INTENT OF THE CREATOR OR<br>
ARTIST?<br>
<br>
Jason wrote: . One of our founders is Hank Rudolph, who worked with<br>
training of residents at the Experimental Television Center for over 25<br>
years. The notion of a real time system fundamentally changed our<br>
perceptions of media, and a large part of Signal Culture is working with<br>
video and audio in real time using a hybrid of old and new analog and<br>
digital processes. In terms of innovation, we believe that it can come<br>
through re-evaluation of what has been made. Steina Vasulka always<br>
maintained that in order to get everything you needed out of a media<br>
"instrument" you needed to play it over the period of a decade. Too often<br>
we are asked to shed our media processes for the new. We choose to keep<br>
those processes and include the new.<br>
<br>
YOU ARE SO LUCKY TO HAVE HANK RUDOLPH ON YOUR TEAM. HANK FACILITATED MY<br>
RESIDENCY AT ETC IN 2006 OR 2007 I THINK IT WAS. I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE<br>
DOING TUTORIALS ON JITTER BUT THE AURA OF THE ANALOG VIDEO SYNTHESIZERS<br>
AND COLORIZERS WERE JUST TOO ENTICING TO LEAVE ALONE. THANKFULLY THAT<br>
EXPERIMENTATION LED TO TWO LARGER PROJECTS THAT LED ME TO TRANSLATE OLD<br>
ANALOG FOOTAGE FROM SUPER 8 FILM INTO DIGITAL FOOTAGE CAPTURING THE<br>
PHYSICAL QUALITIES OF THE OLD INTO THE DIGITAL NEW. THE SCRATCHES OF THE<br>
SUPER 8 FILM AND THE NOISE OF THE OLD PROJECTOR BECAME AN INTEGRAL PART OF<br>
THE SURFACE AND SOUND OF THE DIGITAL VERSION.<br>
<br>
A good example of this was the construction of our raster manipulation<br>
device (aka the Wobbulator) this past summer. We came to make this device<br>
because we knew how valuable it was at the Experimental Television Center.<br>
However, there are some major issues with the original design. First, the<br>
S-Coil needed to be driven by a hefty McIntosh tube amplifier because the<br>
short circuit created by this coil would either blow amplifiers or in<br>
worse case scenarios cause them to burst into flames, according to Andrew<br>
Deutsch. The second major design issue was needing to get a late 60's<br>
color TV yoke large enough to fit over the electron gun circuit board to<br>
drive the horizontal and vertical deflection.<br>
We did not have the money to buy these parts, the McIntosh amps are a<br>
collector's item and feature an auto forming transformer that let it run<br>
heavy loads without a problem. So, after some consultation with Dave Jones<br>
we figured out some new designs for this old media device that would allow<br>
it to be run using new peripherals.<br>
The reason this re-investigation is exciting is that through these<br>
redesigns we were able to prove that not only can we create a wobbulator<br>
from a color CRT, but we can turn it into a real video instrument with<br>
over 12 potential processes to localize and further process the image into<br>
a raster animation instrument with variable raster collapse ramping. Based<br>
on these findings, we will be constructing this instrument this summer and<br>
adding it to the Signal Culture system.<br>
<br>
THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SOME OF THE DEVICES YOU SPEAK<br>
ABOUT ABOVE NEED KNOWLEDGABLE ENGINEERS AND TINKERERS WHO HAVE A GOOD<br>
WORKING KNOWLEDGE AND HISTORY OF TECHNOLOGY. YOU ARE LUCKY TO HAVE DAVE<br>
JONES RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. I HAVE TO SAY THOUGH THAT SOMETIMES THE<br>
TECHNICAL FOR ME OVERPOWERS THE IDEA OR THE CONCEPT THAT IS AT HAND OTHER<br>
TIMES INSPIRING NEW PRODUCTION. THERE IS A DELICATE BALANCE BETWEEN TOOLS<br>
AND CONCEPT THAT BEN AND MURAT ALSO BROUGHT INTO OUR CONVERSATION EARLIER.<br>
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT HOW THAT IS PLAYING OUT IN THE SIGNAL CULTURE<br>
LANDSCAPE TODAY AND HOW YOU DEFINE A "CULTURE" THAT IS CONDUCIVE TO BOTH?<br>
<br>
THANKS AGAIN JASON FOR YOUR GENEROSITY IN SHARING WHAT'S GOING ON AT<br>
SIGNAL CULTURE. LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE.<br>
<br>
Renate<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Renate Ferro<br>
Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>><br>
URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
<br>
Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/7/15, 11:06 AM, "Jason Bernagozzi" <<a href="mailto:jason@seeinginvideo.com" target="_blank">jason@seeinginvideo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 14:05:35 -0500<br>
From: Murat Nemet-Nejat <<a href="mailto:muratnn@gmail.com" target="_blank">muratnn@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: soft_skinned_space <<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAC0Tkub5LfkPcntEUU2O%2BR4K7yJjm4RfrRL5bJCGLpxESDzZvw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAC0Tkub5LfkPcntEUU2O+R4K7yJjm4RfrRL5bJCGLpxESDzZvw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
"That being said, the underlying<br>
algorithms (like the segmentation) is still based on the assumption that<br>
things can be broken up into segments, and that discontinuity in colour<br>
implies a difference in object. This is very different than human<br>
perception where we project structural boundaries based on movement and<br>
interactions with objects. Objects to the system are just blobs of<br>
pixels, whereas objects to a human are concepts that are associated with<br>
blobs of colour."<br>
<br>
Hi Ben, in reference to Blade Runner, my last published book is the poem *The<br>
Spiritual Life of Replicants* (Talisman House, 2012). You may find it<br>
interesting since visuality (the language of film, the way it constructs<br>
and communicates information) is at the heart of it, and Blade Runner and<br>
passages from Henri Bresson's The Art of the Cinematographer are woven into<br>
it.<br>
<br>
To approach tangentially the distinction you make between "human" and<br>
"algorithmic" perceptions in the above passage, what in your view is the<br>
distinction between camera obscura and digital photography? In its<br>
inception in the 19th century, the former also was lauded (and contrasted<br>
with painting) for its "objectivity." In around 1996/7 I wrote an essay *The<br>
Peripheral Space of Photography* (Green Integer Press, 2004). In it, I<br>
argue: a) the objectivity of the photographic image is an illusion; b) the<br>
dialogue in the photography occurs not between the viewer and the<br>
photographer, but between the viewer and the subject (what is before the<br>
lens. The photographer (his/her framing and intentions) are irrelevent,<br>
basically an obstacle to the way the photographic image is experienced. c)<br>
This occurs for two reasons: first, light, which creates the photographic<br>
image in the sinuousness of the camera obscura process, is basically<br>
uncontrollable despite the best efforts of the photographer. Accidents<br>
("Failures") occur which create the "peripheral space," outside the focus<br>
(attention) of the photographer. These spaces are areas of power that the<br>
viewers can react to. Second, the lens which basically a robot always sees<br>
more than the photographer.<br>
<br>
In the last part of the essay I argue that digital photography giving<br>
multiple times more power to the photographer to manipulate the image<br>
(photoshopping) undermines the construct I described. It "objectivity" is<br>
of a different sort, much more solipsistic (power driven, surveillance,<br>
control) than the camera obscura image.<br>
<br>
Ciao,<br>
Murat<br>
<br>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, B. Bogart <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> Hello Renata, I hope my response to Murat makes my position more clear.<br>
><br>
> I do think my work is an effort to facilitate critical reflection on<br>
> technologies, specifically technologies like AI that exist to displace<br>
> human cognitive skills. In the first installation of a prototype of the<br>
> Dreaming Machine<br>
> (<br>
> <a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2012/an-artist-in-processa-computational-sketch-of-dreaming-machine-3/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2012/an-artist-in-processa-computational-sketch-of-dreaming-machine-3/</a><br>
> ),<br>
> it was important to me to be present in order to engage in discussion.<br>
><br>
> I suppose the statement you quote below was a bit of preaching to the<br>
> converted. I tend to be the humanities critical theory person in a<br>
> technology / trans-humanism context. (e.g.<br>
> <a href="https://plus.google.com/117828903900236363024/posts/Ee7TDeo4JQn" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/117828903900236363024/posts/Ee7TDeo4JQn</a>)<br>
><br>
> I wonder if anyone else is thinking about computer vision in relation to<br>
> gender biases. I have in mind some new work on how computer algorithms<br>
> participate in the construction of gender, specifically the notion of<br>
> classification and breaking continuous spaces of variation in the<br>
> machine learning sense.<br>
><br>
> Thanks Renata and Murat for the engagement and interest.<br>
><br>
> Ben<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 15-02-06 02:42 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> > Thank you Ben for sharing your work on empyre. I read your blog response<br>
> > on vr and looked closely at the work you have done on generative<br>
> > processes. And I want to just clarify your position. I believe that your<br>
> > are saying that tools are naturally embedded with conceptual<br>
> possibilities<br>
> > including context, perspective, etc. But then you ask the question:<br>
> ><br>
> > <snip>??...How can we critically reflect on them<br>
> > when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
> ><br>
> > Do your not perceive your projects to to enable viewers or participants<br>
> to<br>
> > critically reflect?..Enable critical possibilities? Can you reflect on<br>
> > this and especially the notion of gender that Murat raises in his post.<br>
> > I am hoping you will clarify a bit for all of us.<br>
> > Looking forward to hearing from you. Renate<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 2/4/15, 6:30 PM, "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> >> Hello Empyrians,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I'll break this comment into three sections, each inspired by a<br>
> >> different aspect of Renate's opening message.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Cycles*<br>
> >><br>
> >> It's easy to think of progress as a ray projecting to an ever better<br>
> >> future. I find it interesting that so many 'innovations' happen in<br>
> >> cycles, even in a world apparently based on incremental improvement. The<br>
> >> most salient for me, at this point, is the new trend of VR. This stands<br>
> >> out because of the hype that surrounded it in the mid 90s when I was and<br>
> >> centrally concerned with "new media" and computer graphics. I<br>
> >> experienced a VR system at SIGGRAPH in 1995, and did not try it again<br>
> >> until a recent Oculus Rift demo. The nearly 20 year gap gave lead me to<br>
> >> some quite high expectations. I was left being totally underwhelmed. I'm<br>
> >> not convinced that this new VR will be any more successful than it was<br>
> >> in the 90s. More details on my experience here:<br>
> >> <a href="https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> Even computer architecture has slid back and forth between single and<br>
> >> multi processor systems over the years. I think of tradition as a way of<br>
> >> thinking about the world that emphasizes what has stayed the same.<br>
> >> Novelty is a way of thinking about the world that emphasizes what has<br>
> >> changed. Realism is somewhere in between, where we accept that at some<br>
> >> level of description nothing changes, but at other levels of description<br>
> >> nothing stays the same. More and more, I find myself not seeing through<br>
> >> the lens of novelty, but through the lens of tradition.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Networks*<br>
> >><br>
> >> Networked and telematic work was very popular when I started my B.F.A.<br>
> >> in 1999. I can't articulate exactly why, but it held little interest to<br>
> >> me. I even worked in a research lab at Ryerson University where we made<br>
> >> almost entirely telematic events and performances as part of the MARCEL<br>
> >> network (<a href="http://www.mmmarcel.org/" target="_blank">http://www.mmmarcel.org/</a>). While I did make art in that<br>
> >> collaborative paid context, my individual work was quite a bit less<br>
> >> about the network. Rather, less about interactivity across networks. In<br>
> >> Aporia (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/</a>), I considered<br>
> the<br>
> >> network as a sea of signifiers that could never be fully grounded.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think it's this sense of grounding that made telematic art less<br>
> >> attractive to me. Perhaps it's the ephemeral quality of 'new media'<br>
> >> itself that drove my interest in here and now. Through my graduate<br>
> >> studies, I have let go of interactivity entirely and am focused on<br>
> >> generative processes in the Context Machines series<br>
> >> (<br>
> <a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A</a><br>
> >> -Series-of-Situated-and-Self-Organizing-Artworks.pdf).<br>
> >> Generative processes are used in the context of grounding and artworks<br>
> >> are considered site-specific and augmented by sensors in the<br>
> >> environment. The latest incarnations of Context Machines are the<br>
> >> Dreaming Machines whose processes are inspired by biopsychological<br>
> >> conceptions of perception, mental imagery, mind wandering and dreaming.<br>
> >> In essence, these works are trying to ground themselves by learning<br>
> >> about the world (using machine learning methods) and generating<br>
> >> simulations of it. I have been asked about networked versions of these<br>
> >> installations that are served images from flikr or the like, rather than<br>
> >> images from a single place and a particular time. There is something in<br>
> >> the lack of constraint or bounding that makes such proposals quite<br>
> >> unpalatable to me.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Context machines start with a point of view. They see the world through<br>
> >> a single and unified lens. They are context dependent and inherently<br>
> >> subjective. There is no sense of Truth or objectivity, they are in a<br>
> >> constant process of trying to understand the world, without ever being<br>
> >> able to perfectly reproduce it. They are single nodes and have no<br>
> >> culture or communication. They reproduce not what they see in the world,<br>
> >> but what they understand of it, which can be very little.<br>
> >><br>
> >> A new project titled Watching and Dreaming<br>
> >> (<br>
> <a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyss" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyss</a><br>
> >> ey-2014/)<br>
> >> moves away from this sense of place in space and time where the work is<br>
> >> subjected to a cultural world, rather than a physical one. This is the<br>
> >> world represented in cinema. It's a highly constructed discontinuous<br>
> >> world meant to be interpreted by a human viewer. By the sheer fact that<br>
> >> a film has a fixed length, it is more bounded than a live context, but<br>
> >> it's also a challenging world to learn from. The learning mechanisms of<br>
> >> Watching and Dreaming exist in the context of Artificial Intelligence,<br>
> >> and the choice of film (currently only 2001: A Space Odyssey) is focused<br>
> >> on cultural representations of artificially intelligent systems, in this<br>
> >> case the homicidal HAL9000. My 'intelligent' machine watches a film<br>
> >> about a fictitious intelligent machine, all the while trying to make<br>
> >> sense of what it means while never being able.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Tools*<br>
> >><br>
> >> On the surface, Watching and Dreaming seems a lot like Grosser's<br>
> >> "Computers Watching Movies"<br>
> >> (<a href="http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/" target="_blank">http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/</a>), where<br>
> >> computer vision methods are used to interpret cinematic images. Grosser<br>
> >> frames the work as an attempt to provoke viewers into asking "how<br>
> >> computer vision differs from their own human vision, and what that<br>
> >> difference reveals about our culturally-developed ways of looking." This<br>
> >> seems to imply that computer vision is objective and unified. In truth,<br>
> >> computer vision is really just the application of machine learning to<br>
> >> visual images, and thus has much diversity in how it sees and why. Many<br>
> >> computer vision systems are oriented to recognizing faces or numbers, or<br>
> >> even genders and expressions. They are intentionally developed for these<br>
> >> specific purposes that cannot be excised from the contexts of<br>
> >> surveillance and tracking, they tell us specific information that<br>
> >> appears to be objective and unbiased: A woman in white stands in front<br>
> >> of two men and a green background.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In Grosser's work, the algorithms used appear to be tracking the<br>
> >> movement of objects or perhaps whole scenes, tracing lines over a a<br>
> >> blank canvas. There is a tension in provoking the viewer to consider a<br>
> >> monolithic sense of Computer Vision (developed and funded largely for<br>
> >> the purpose of tracking and surveillance) in comparison with human<br>
> >> vision (oriented towards making sense of the world to facilitate<br>
> >> survival).<br>
> >><br>
> >> In Watching and Dreaming, the specific methods used include segmentation<br>
> >> (breaking images into pieces), clustering (recognizing that a piece in<br>
> >> the previous image is the same as 'object' as the current image) and<br>
> >> prediction (learning the sequence in which these 'objects' appear).<br>
> >> These methods serve to help the machine generate images that are<br>
> >> grounded in reality, and yet are not a perfect reflection, nor a random<br>
> >> composition. The "task" is to make sense of the world by recognizing and<br>
> >> predicting perceptual 'objects'. These methods are all on-line and<br>
> >> unsupervised, i.e. they don't make use of previously recorded<br>
> >> information nor depend on a 'right answer' provided by an expert to help<br>
> >> them learn.<br>
> >><br>
> >> My point here is that computer vision is no more monolithic than<br>
> >> artificial intelligence. There are many different ways in which we could<br>
> >> define, frame and validate both vision and intelligence. It's temping to<br>
> >> think of these technologies as monolithic "tools" but they are really<br>
> >> aggregations of many different conceptions and approaches linked<br>
> >> together. Each of these approaches imbues its own bias and point of<br>
> >> view. To a segmentation algorithm, every image is a set of objects that<br>
> >> can be separated, and borders are often made in places where a human<br>
> >> would not recognize them. To a clustering algorithm, the world is made<br>
> >> up of discreet elements where belonging to a group is more important<br>
> >> than 'minor' individual difference. The way Computers Watch Movies<br>
> >> "sees" depends on a conception of foreground and background, between<br>
> >> what moves and what does not.<br>
> >><br>
> >> A gender detector makes the base assumption that the gender binary is<br>
> >> real and objective, and thus ignores the "noise" of androgynous,<br>
> >> transgendered, intersex and etc. individuals.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The problem with the biases embedded in our tools is that the use of the<br>
> >> tools enforce those biases<br>
> >> (<a href="http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads" target="_blank">http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads</a>).<br>
> >> Interestingly, google has changed things and thus typing "women should"<br>
> >> no longer produces additional suggestions.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Is it a question a tools, or a question of contexts and conceptions?<br>
> >> What ways of thinking about the world are useful? How do they betray our<br>
> >> implicit biases and prejudice? How can we critically reflect on them<br>
> >> when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Ben Bogart<br>
> >> Hons. B.F.A., M.Sc, Ph.D.<br>
> >> <a href="http://www.ekran.org" target="_blank">www.ekran.org</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> On 15-02-03 05:41 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
> >>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> >>> We are hoping that all of our subscribers, both active participants<br>
> and<br>
> >>> lurkers, will post a couple of times this month to share<br>
> >>> your current work and what tools and or technologies you are using to<br>
> >>> that<br>
> >>> end. Some of you may be developing new apps or platforms where others<br>
> >>> of<br>
> >>> you are pushing the boundaries of other tools that are more<br>
> ubiquitous.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Just this past week Google?s CEO Eric Schmidt spoke at the world<br>
> >>> economic<br>
> >>> forum in Switzerland exclaiming that ?The Internet is Dead.? Schmidt?s<br>
> >>> call was simply the assertion that the internet is so ubiquitous<br>
> because<br>
> >>> of the nature of networked things. Interfaces are and will become so<br>
> >>> naturally integrated into our architectural and living environments<br>
> >>> Schmidt stated. The critical question remains how will the rights and<br>
> >>> privacy of individuals become impacted.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> <a href="http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-te" target="_blank">http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-te</a><br>
> >>> ch<br>
> >>> -news-digest/<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Ironically it was only seven years ago in 2008 that WIRED magazine<br>
> >>> published an article entitled ?The Web Is Dead. Long Live the<br>
> Internet.?<br>
> >>> <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> A move away from the open search of the web to more enclosed and<br>
> >>> prescriptive apps, music and movie services all driven by the ease and<br>
> >>> impact of i-phone technology has enabled the web to become less<br>
> >>> important<br>
> >>> asserted WIRED authors Chris Anderson and<br>
> >>> Michael Wolff when they wrote: ?Sure, we?ll always have Web pages. We<br>
> >>> still have postcards and telegrams, don?t we? But the centerOf<br>
> >>> interactive<br>
> >>> media ? increasingly, the center of gravity of all media ?is moving to<br>
> a<br>
> >>> post-HTML environment,? we promised nearly a decade and half ago.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> "The examples of the time were a bit silly ? a ?3-D furry-muckers VR<br>
> >>> space? and ?headlines sent to a pager? ? but the point was altogether<br>
> >>> prescient: a glimpse of the machine-to-machine future that would be<br>
> less<br>
> >>> about browsing and more about getting.?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> The internet has experienced dramatic changes since the beginning of<br>
> its<br>
> >>> inception as is the way of any of the technologies we have used in the<br>
> >>> past or are currently using. Looking forward to hearing you. It is a<br>
> >>> new<br>
> >>> year. Share you tools and technologies.<br>
> >>> Renate<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Renate Ferro<br>
> >>> Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
> >>> Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
> >>> Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
> >>> Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>><br>
> >>> URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
> >>> <a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
> >>> <<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
> >>> Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
> >>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> empyre forum<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> >>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> empyre forum<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> >> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > empyre forum<br>
> > <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> > <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150207/ecd27dd3/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20150207/ecd27dd3/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 8<br>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 11:51:33 -0800<br>
From: "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:54D66CC5.2050504@ekran.org" target="_blank">54D66CC5.2050504@ekran.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Hello all,<br>
<br>
I would like to respond to both Jason and William in this message, since<br>
I missed Jason's comments before sending my last messages.<br>
<br>
Jason Bernagozzi wrote: "Of course we cannot assume that the process is<br>
objective, but there is not enough talk about the aesthetic objectives<br>
of the artist, who undoubtedly did not want the machine to make anything<br>
that looked ?ugly?."<br>
<br>
This could lead to interesting directions since I have a strange<br>
relationship to aesthetics. I'm personally more interested in the<br>
process than the outward appearance. The output of the system is<br>
demonstration or documentation, whereas the actual work is the executed<br>
process. Part of the reason for this is that in the production process I<br>
spend more time getting the code to work, and it making sense in the<br>
context of theory, than evaluating the aesthetics.<br>
I think of the aesthetics as being an emergent result of the process,<br>
and short of selection for documentation, is not the primary site of<br>
artistic validation. This has gotten me into some trouble in<br>
art-as-inquiry where the process of creating aesthetics objects is<br>
(sometimes) where the contribution of art lies.<br>
<br>
As my graduate studies have largely been in a quantitative /<br>
scientifically oriented program, I've been thinking a lot about the idea<br>
of objectivity/subjectivity in relation to mediation, and the relation<br>
between global/local interpretations and meaning. Is objectivity the<br>
same as a global and unmediated truth? I think that all meaning and<br>
interpretation is context-dependent and mediated, and thus local. Global<br>
meaning and interpretation as unmediated is an illusion. As I spend a<br>
lot of time trying to bridge arts and sciences, it's often difficut to<br>
get hard objectivists to consider their knowledge as mediated and<br>
imbued with cultural values and biases.<br>
<br>
My response to William follows inline:<br>
<br>
On 15-02-07 04:08 AM, William Bain wrote:<br>
<snip><br>
> But my first question is: Aren't concepts tools? As infants we spend<br>
> lots of times sucking our toes and thumbs, figuring out what things<br>
> like arms and legs can do--forming concepts to put such things to<br>
> work. Maybe I'm leaving out something you put into your long text.<br>
<br>
I would agree that concepts are tools. I'm quite interested in<br>
Barsalou's conception that (concrete) concepts are simulations of<br>
sensory information that are generated on the fly to match particular<br>
task demands.<br>
<br>
In the context of my question "Is it a question a tools, or a question<br>
of contexts and conceptions?" I'm trying to get at the idea that perhaps<br>
we should be less concerned with tools manifest in physical artifacts,<br>
and more concerned with how those tools augment both behaviour and<br>
cognition. I write about this in another blog post:<br>
<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/indoctrination-machines/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/indoctrination-machines/</a> (I think I<br>
already referred to this in a previous message to empyre). I think the<br>
physical manifestation of tools is the tip of the iceberg and we should<br>
be thinking less about them as tools and more of them as systems that<br>
structure behaviour and cognition. This is an extension of my TEDx talk:<br>
<a href="http://youtu.be/xYtt8qSwJws" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/xYtt8qSwJws</a><br>
<br>
> Second, you speak of being less interested in using grounds (?) or<br>
> objects from contexts like Flickr due to "lack of constraint": I'd<br>
> like to ask, Wouldn't lack of constraint add to the experimental<br>
> features?<br>
<br>
I'm not sure what you mean by "experimental features".<br>
<br>
I think what I was getting at is the idea that rather than my work being<br>
about communication or expression centrally, it's about reflecting on<br>
the nature of communication and expression. I am interested in grounding<br>
because the grounding of concepts (in sensory reality) is itself an<br>
interesting and open question. It's really an issue of embodiment. How<br>
our complex symbolic world relates to the messiness and uniqueness of<br>
actual sensory information. Part of this grounding for me entails a<br>
requirement for a point of view, and thus a system placed in space and<br>
time which constrains the sensory patterns available to it. There is a<br>
problem here though, because even in discussions with specialists there<br>
was always this question of what the task of the system was, and that<br>
the ill-formed "task" of making sense did not provide detail enough to<br>
select appropriate algorithms. It could certainly be argued that, as an<br>
agent, the dreaming machine's lack of motivation (goal directed desires)<br>
precludes any useful sense of cognition.<br>
<br>
If I was to use images from flickr, or images submitted by the public,<br>
then the unitary point of view of the machine would be lost. The system<br>
would have a pluralistic point of view and I could think of as<br>
approaching objectivity and shifting away from locality/subjectivity. I<br>
suppose I'm interested in exploring the notion of machine subjectivity<br>
through methods normally contextualized within an objective practice<br>
(brain and computer science).<br>
<br>
In the context of the discussion happening now, it seems the interplay<br>
between old and new media could then be considered in the interplay<br>
between old and new conceptual systems, perhaps modernism in relation to<br>
post-modernism?<br>
<br>
I'm personally more interested in the idea of living technological works<br>
that keep getting reinvented in new technical and cultural contexts than<br>
works being preserved in the sense of painting or sculpture:<br>
<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/convergence-art-technology-process-and-tool/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/convergence-art-technology-process-and-tool/</a><br>
<br>
Great discussion; thanks all for engaging.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
Thanks for all this very welcome material. It seems to me<br>
> like a great renewal of Empyre's discussions. Best wishes, William<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________ empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 9<br>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:44:44 -0800<br>
From: "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>><br>
To: soft_skinned_space <<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:54D6793C.2060504@ekran.org" target="_blank">54D6793C.2060504@ekran.org</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Hello Murat,<br>
<br>
Thanks for the "The Spiritual Life of Replicants" reference. I look<br>
forward to taking a look.<br>
<br>
Great points about photography and objectivity. I often use photography<br>
as a way to think about objectivity in science. Since a CMOS/CCD sensor<br>
is a light measuring device then cameras are not technically dissimilar<br>
to the tools of empirical validation used in science.<br>
<br>
In both scientific measurements there are multiple processes in play<br>
that imbue those processes with value and bias. Firstly there is always<br>
a choice as to what subject to point the measuring device, there is<br>
always an underlying motivation to measure something, and that choice of<br>
measurement is biased. The choice of what to measure reflects the<br>
cultures sense of what is worth capturing, and also implicitly what is<br>
not worth capturing. Thus the frame itself is also a bias, where it<br>
measures only within a particular range, and ignores what is outside of<br>
it. In analogue and digital photography, there are the additional<br>
information processes happening in the camera itself that effect the<br>
image: In what part of the circular lens projection is the sensor/film<br>
located? (Which is of course manipulable in bellows cameras) How is<br>
exposure constrained (the mapping of light to chemical reactions or<br>
binary values). Then in digital photography there is often the process<br>
of compression where differences in value considered under the<br>
thresholds of human perception are removed to decrease file size. Based<br>
on this I would agree that photography is non-objective, despite being<br>
an empirical measurement. I also think these processes of framing,<br>
scoping and mapping/compression are in play in all measuring devices,<br>
and thus in all empirical results. (let alone statistical process and<br>
methods of representation.)<br>
<br>
Indeed all these processes do mediate the underlying "truth" of the<br>
light out in the world. In this sense we could say that the Camera<br>
Obscura is less mediated than photography (no mapping of values to<br>
chemical / digital processes). What happens if we remove the choice of<br>
subject entirely? Is a random position and point of view selected by a<br>
computer for the Camera Obscura more objective than when its selected by<br>
a person? I would say that human bias still comes into play in the<br>
constraints and mapping encoded in a computer program that selects the<br>
position of the Camera Obscura. By viture of the Camera Obscura as a<br>
point of view, and a measuring device in science designed to measure<br>
something specific, makes them both subjective, or at least context<br>
dependent.<br>
<br>
A scientific study in which the measurements are random is really just<br>
random sampling, and one does take care of the structure of that<br>
randomness. Still, the distribution from random sampling tends to be<br>
"normal", even if the underlying distribution is not (central limit<br>
theorem). The idea seems to be that the more different points of view we<br>
take in measuring, then closer to objectivity we get. So we have a sense<br>
of pluralism of point of view in relation to objectivity. The problem<br>
being that there is a potential infinity of unknown between the<br>
samples/points of view/measurements.<br>
<br>
Interesting point about areas of an image the photographer did not<br>
consider in the framing process being accessible by the viewer and thus<br>
powerful against the intention of the photographer. But then there is<br>
always the printing and editing processes where every aspect of an image<br>
is scrutinized and considered before it is left, rather than cropped or<br>
dodge/burned away.<br>
<br>
In science this would be frowned upon as "cherry picking" results to<br>
match the hypothesis, but there are still processes of filtering that<br>
happen in science, for example throwing away outliers.<br>
<br>
I self-identify as a weak realist (and recovering solipsist), where I do<br>
believe that there is Reality out there, but also that reality is<br>
inaccessible and perception and sensation are necessary processes of<br>
mediation. It's also clear that higher level cognition (context<br>
awareness, task orientation, etc.) effect perception. We can literally<br>
see the same neutral face as happy or sad depending on the context in<br>
which it's seen. So we're back to context-dependence/locality.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 15-02-07 11:05 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat wrote:<br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> "That being said, the underlying<br>
> algorithms (like the segmentation) is still based on the assumption that<br>
> things can be broken up into segments, and that discontinuity in colour<br>
> implies a difference in object. This is very different than human<br>
> perception where we project structural boundaries based on movement and<br>
> interactions with objects. Objects to the system are just blobs of<br>
> pixels, whereas objects to a human are concepts that are associated with<br>
> blobs of colour."<br>
><br>
> Hi Ben, in reference to Blade Runner, my last published book is the poem<br>
> /The Spiritual Life of Replicants/ (Talisman House, 2012). You may find<br>
> it interesting since visuality (the language of film, the way it<br>
> constructs and communicates information) is at the heart of it, and<br>
> Blade Runner and passages from Henri Bresson's The Art of the<br>
> Cinematographer are woven into it.<br>
><br>
> To approach tangentially the distinction you make between "human" and<br>
> "algorithmic" perceptions in the above passage, what in your view is the<br>
> distinction between camera obscura and digital photography? In its<br>
> inception in the 19th century, the former also was lauded (and<br>
> contrasted with painting) for its "objectivity." In around 1996/7 I<br>
> wrote an essay /The Peripheral Space of Photography/ (Green Integer<br>
> Press, 2004). In it, I argue: a) the objectivity of the photographic<br>
> image is an illusion; b) the dialogue in the photography occurs not<br>
> between the viewer and the photographer, but between the viewer and the<br>
> subject (what is before the lens. The photographer (his/her framing and<br>
> intentions) are irrelevent, basically an obstacle to the way the<br>
> photographic image is experienced. c) This occurs for two reasons:<br>
> first, light, which creates the photographic image in the sinuousness of<br>
> the camera obscura process, is basically uncontrollable despite the best<br>
> efforts of the photographer. Accidents ("Failures") occur which create<br>
> the "peripheral space," outside the focus (attention) of the<br>
> photographer. These spaces are areas of power that the viewers can react<br>
> to. Second, the lens which basically a robot always sees more than the<br>
> photographer.<br>
><br>
> In the last part of the essay I argue that digital photography giving<br>
> multiple times more power to the photographer to manipulate the image<br>
> (photoshopping) undermines the construct I described. It "objectivity"<br>
> is of a different sort, much more solipsistic (power driven,<br>
> surveillance, control) than the camera obscura image.<br>
><br>
> Ciao,<br>
> Murat<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 9:20 PM, B. Bogart <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> Hello Renata, I hope my response to Murat makes my position more clear.<br>
><br>
> I do think my work is an effort to facilitate critical reflection on<br>
> technologies, specifically technologies like AI that exist to displace<br>
> human cognitive skills. In the first installation of a prototype of the<br>
> Dreaming Machine<br>
> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2012/an-artist-in-processa-computational-sketch-of-dreaming-machine-3/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2012/an-artist-in-processa-computational-sketch-of-dreaming-machine-3/</a>),<br>
> it was important to me to be present in order to engage in discussion.<br>
><br>
> I suppose the statement you quote below was a bit of preaching to the<br>
> converted. I tend to be the humanities critical theory person in a<br>
> technology / trans-humanism context. (e.g.<br>
> <a href="https://plus.google.com/117828903900236363024/posts/Ee7TDeo4JQn" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/117828903900236363024/posts/Ee7TDeo4JQn</a>)<br>
><br>
> I wonder if anyone else is thinking about computer vision in relation to<br>
> gender biases. I have in mind some new work on how computer algorithms<br>
> participate in the construction of gender, specifically the notion of<br>
> classification and breaking continuous spaces of variation in the<br>
> machine learning sense.<br>
><br>
> Thanks Renata and Murat for the engagement and interest.<br>
><br>
> Ben<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 15-02-06 02:42 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
> > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> > Thank you Ben for sharing your work on empyre. I read your blog<br>
> response<br>
> > on vr and looked closely at the work you have done on generative<br>
> > processes. And I want to just clarify your position. I believe<br>
> that your<br>
> > are saying that tools are naturally embedded with conceptual<br>
> possibilities<br>
> > including context, perspective, etc. But then you ask the<br>
> question:<br>
> ><br>
> > <snip>??...How can we critically reflect on them<br>
> > when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
> ><br>
> > Do your not perceive your projects to to enable viewers or<br>
> participants to<br>
> > critically reflect?..Enable critical possibilities? Can you<br>
> reflect on<br>
> > this and especially the notion of gender that Murat raises in<br>
> his post.<br>
> > I am hoping you will clarify a bit for all of us.<br>
> > Looking forward to hearing from you. Renate<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 2/4/15, 6:30 PM, "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> >> Hello Empyrians,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I'll break this comment into three sections, each inspired by a<br>
> >> different aspect of Renate's opening message.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Cycles*<br>
> >><br>
> >> It's easy to think of progress as a ray projecting to an ever better<br>
> >> future. I find it interesting that so many 'innovations' happen in<br>
> >> cycles, even in a world apparently based on incremental<br>
> improvement. The<br>
> >> most salient for me, at this point, is the new trend of VR. This<br>
> stands<br>
> >> out because of the hype that surrounded it in the mid 90s when I<br>
> was and<br>
> >> centrally concerned with "new media" and computer graphics. I<br>
> >> experienced a VR system at SIGGRAPH in 1995, and did not try it<br>
> again<br>
> >> until a recent Oculus Rift demo. The nearly 20 year gap gave<br>
> lead me to<br>
> >> some quite high expectations. I was left being totally<br>
> underwhelmed. I'm<br>
> >> not convinced that this new VR will be any more successful than<br>
> it was<br>
> >> in the 90s. More details on my experience here:<br>
> >> <a href="https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/104335933112525967488/posts/DxeZLjBFu9N</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> Even computer architecture has slid back and forth between<br>
> single and<br>
> >> multi processor systems over the years. I think of tradition as<br>
> a way of<br>
> >> thinking about the world that emphasizes what has stayed the same.<br>
> >> Novelty is a way of thinking about the world that emphasizes<br>
> what has<br>
> >> changed. Realism is somewhere in between, where we accept that<br>
> at some<br>
> >> level of description nothing changes, but at other levels of<br>
> description<br>
> >> nothing stays the same. More and more, I find myself not seeing<br>
> through<br>
> >> the lens of novelty, but through the lens of tradition.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Networks*<br>
> >><br>
> >> Networked and telematic work was very popular when I started my<br>
> B.F.A.<br>
> >> in 1999. I can't articulate exactly why, but it held little<br>
> interest to<br>
> >> me. I even worked in a research lab at Ryerson University where<br>
> we made<br>
> >> almost entirely telematic events and performances as part of the<br>
> MARCEL<br>
> >> network (<a href="http://www.mmmarcel.org/" target="_blank">http://www.mmmarcel.org/</a>). While I did make art in that<br>
> >> collaborative paid context, my individual work was quite a bit less<br>
> >> about the network. Rather, less about interactivity across<br>
> networks. In<br>
> >> Aporia (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/aporia-2001/</a>), I<br>
> considered the<br>
> >> network as a sea of signifiers that could never be fully grounded.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think it's this sense of grounding that made telematic art less<br>
> >> attractive to me. Perhaps it's the ephemeral quality of 'new media'<br>
> >> itself that drove my interest in here and now. Through my graduate<br>
> >> studies, I have let go of interactivity entirely and am focused on<br>
> >> generative processes in the Context Machines series<br>
> >><br>
> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Context-Machines_A</a><br>
> >> -Series-of-Situated-and-Self-Organizing-Artworks.pdf).<br>
> >> Generative processes are used in the context of grounding and<br>
> artworks<br>
> >> are considered site-specific and augmented by sensors in the<br>
> >> environment. The latest incarnations of Context Machines are the<br>
> >> Dreaming Machines whose processes are inspired by biopsychological<br>
> >> conceptions of perception, mental imagery, mind wandering and<br>
> dreaming.<br>
> >> In essence, these works are trying to ground themselves by learning<br>
> >> about the world (using machine learning methods) and generating<br>
> >> simulations of it. I have been asked about networked versions of<br>
> these<br>
> >> installations that are served images from flikr or the like,<br>
> rather than<br>
> >> images from a single place and a particular time. There is<br>
> something in<br>
> >> the lack of constraint or bounding that makes such proposals quite<br>
> >> unpalatable to me.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Context machines start with a point of view. They see the world<br>
> through<br>
> >> a single and unified lens. They are context dependent and inherently<br>
> >> subjective. There is no sense of Truth or objectivity, they are in a<br>
> >> constant process of trying to understand the world, without ever<br>
> being<br>
> >> able to perfectly reproduce it. They are single nodes and have no<br>
> >> culture or communication. They reproduce not what they see in<br>
> the world,<br>
> >> but what they understand of it, which can be very little.<br>
> >><br>
> >> A new project titled Watching and Dreaming<br>
> >><br>
> (<a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyss" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/watching-and-dreaming-2001-a-space-odyss</a><br>
> >> ey-2014/)<br>
> >> moves away from this sense of place in space and time where the<br>
> work is<br>
> >> subjected to a cultural world, rather than a physical one. This<br>
> is the<br>
> >> world represented in cinema. It's a highly constructed discontinuous<br>
> >> world meant to be interpreted by a human viewer. By the sheer<br>
> fact that<br>
> >> a film has a fixed length, it is more bounded than a live<br>
> context, but<br>
> >> it's also a challenging world to learn from. The learning<br>
> mechanisms of<br>
> >> Watching and Dreaming exist in the context of Artificial<br>
> Intelligence,<br>
> >> and the choice of film (currently only 2001: A Space Odyssey) is<br>
> focused<br>
> >> on cultural representations of artificially intelligent systems,<br>
> in this<br>
> >> case the homicidal HAL9000. My 'intelligent' machine watches a film<br>
> >> about a fictitious intelligent machine, all the while trying to make<br>
> >> sense of what it means while never being able.<br>
> >><br>
> >> *Tools*<br>
> >><br>
> >> On the surface, Watching and Dreaming seems a lot like Grosser's<br>
> >> "Computers Watching Movies"<br>
> >> (<a href="http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/" target="_blank">http://bengrosser.com/projects/computers-watching-movies/</a>), where<br>
> >> computer vision methods are used to interpret cinematic images.<br>
> Grosser<br>
> >> frames the work as an attempt to provoke viewers into asking "how<br>
> >> computer vision differs from their own human vision, and what that<br>
> >> difference reveals about our culturally-developed ways of<br>
> looking." This<br>
> >> seems to imply that computer vision is objective and unified. In<br>
> truth,<br>
> >> computer vision is really just the application of machine<br>
> learning to<br>
> >> visual images, and thus has much diversity in how it sees and<br>
> why. Many<br>
> >> computer vision systems are oriented to recognizing faces or<br>
> numbers, or<br>
> >> even genders and expressions. They are intentionally developed<br>
> for these<br>
> >> specific purposes that cannot be excised from the contexts of<br>
> >> surveillance and tracking, they tell us specific information that<br>
> >> appears to be objective and unbiased: A woman in white stands in<br>
> front<br>
> >> of two men and a green background.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In Grosser's work, the algorithms used appear to be tracking the<br>
> >> movement of objects or perhaps whole scenes, tracing lines over a a<br>
> >> blank canvas. There is a tension in provoking the viewer to<br>
> consider a<br>
> >> monolithic sense of Computer Vision (developed and funded<br>
> largely for<br>
> >> the purpose of tracking and surveillance) in comparison with human<br>
> >> vision (oriented towards making sense of the world to facilitate<br>
> >> survival).<br>
> >><br>
> >> In Watching and Dreaming, the specific methods used include<br>
> segmentation<br>
> >> (breaking images into pieces), clustering (recognizing that a<br>
> piece in<br>
> >> the previous image is the same as 'object' as the current image) and<br>
> >> prediction (learning the sequence in which these 'objects' appear).<br>
> >> These methods serve to help the machine generate images that are<br>
> >> grounded in reality, and yet are not a perfect reflection, nor a<br>
> random<br>
> >> composition. The "task" is to make sense of the world by<br>
> recognizing and<br>
> >> predicting perceptual 'objects'. These methods are all on-line and<br>
> >> unsupervised, i.e. they don't make use of previously recorded<br>
> >> information nor depend on a 'right answer' provided by an expert<br>
> to help<br>
> >> them learn.<br>
> >><br>
> >> My point here is that computer vision is no more monolithic than<br>
> >> artificial intelligence. There are many different ways in which<br>
> we could<br>
> >> define, frame and validate both vision and intelligence. It's<br>
> temping to<br>
> >> think of these technologies as monolithic "tools" but they are<br>
> really<br>
> >> aggregations of many different conceptions and approaches linked<br>
> >> together. Each of these approaches imbues its own bias and point of<br>
> >> view. To a segmentation algorithm, every image is a set of<br>
> objects that<br>
> >> can be separated, and borders are often made in places where a human<br>
> >> would not recognize them. To a clustering algorithm, the world<br>
> is made<br>
> >> up of discreet elements where belonging to a group is more important<br>
> >> than 'minor' individual difference. The way Computers Watch Movies<br>
> >> "sees" depends on a conception of foreground and background, between<br>
> >> what moves and what does not.<br>
> >><br>
> >> A gender detector makes the base assumption that the gender<br>
> binary is<br>
> >> real and objective, and thus ignores the "noise" of androgynous,<br>
> >> transgendered, intersex and etc. individuals.<br>
> >><br>
> >> The problem with the biases embedded in our tools is that the<br>
> use of the<br>
> >> tools enforce those biases<br>
> >> (<a href="http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads" target="_blank">http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/10/women-should-ads</a>).<br>
> >> Interestingly, google has changed things and thus typing "women<br>
> should"<br>
> >> no longer produces additional suggestions.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Is it a question a tools, or a question of contexts and conceptions?<br>
> >> What ways of thinking about the world are useful? How do they<br>
> betray our<br>
> >> implicit biases and prejudice? How can we critically reflect on them<br>
> >> when they are so readily internalized into our minds and cultures?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Ben Bogart<br>
> >> Hons. B.F.A., M.Sc, Ph.D.<br>
> >> <a href="http://www.ekran.org" target="_blank">www.ekran.org</a> <<a href="http://www.ekran.org" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org</a>><br>
> >><br>
> >> On 15-02-03 05:41 PM, Renate Terese Ferro wrote:<br>
> >>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
> >>> We are hoping that all of our subscribers, both active<br>
> participants and<br>
> >>> lurkers, will post a couple of times this month to share<br>
> >>> your current work and what tools and or technologies you are<br>
> using to<br>
> >>> that<br>
> >>> end. Some of you may be developing new apps or platforms where<br>
> others<br>
> >>> of<br>
> >>> you are pushing the boundaries of other tools that are more<br>
> ubiquitous.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Just this past week Google?s CEO Eric Schmidt spoke at the world<br>
> >>> economic<br>
> >>> forum in Switzerland exclaiming that ?The Internet is Dead.?<br>
> Schmidt?s<br>
> >>> call was simply the assertion that the internet is so<br>
> ubiquitous because<br>
> >>> of the nature of networked things. Interfaces are and will<br>
> become so<br>
> >>> naturally integrated into our architectural and living environments<br>
> >>> Schmidt stated. The critical question remains how will the<br>
> rights and<br>
> >>> privacy of individuals become impacted.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> <a href="http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-te" target="_blank">http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/google-internet-disappear-future-cyanogen-te</a><br>
> >>> ch<br>
> >>> -news-digest/<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Ironically it was only seven years ago in 2008 that WIRED magazine<br>
> >>> published an article entitled ?The Web Is Dead. Long Live the<br>
> Internet.?<br>
> >>> <a href="http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> A move away from the open search of the web to more enclosed and<br>
> >>> prescriptive apps, music and movie services all driven by the<br>
> ease and<br>
> >>> impact of i-phone technology has enabled the web to become less<br>
> >>> important<br>
> >>> asserted WIRED authors Chris Anderson and<br>
> >>> Michael Wolff when they wrote: ?Sure, we?ll always have Web<br>
> pages. We<br>
> >>> still have postcards and telegrams, don?t we? But the centerOf<br>
> >>> interactive<br>
> >>> media ? increasingly, the center of gravity of all media ?is<br>
> moving to a<br>
> >>> post-HTML environment,? we promised nearly a decade and half ago.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> "The examples of the time were a bit silly ? a ?3-D<br>
> furry-muckers VR<br>
> >>> space? and ?headlines sent to a pager? ? but the point was<br>
> altogether<br>
> >>> prescient: a glimpse of the machine-to-machine future that<br>
> would be less<br>
> >>> about browsing and more about getting.?<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> The internet has experienced dramatic changes since the<br>
> beginning of its<br>
> >>> inception as is the way of any of the technologies we have used<br>
> in the<br>
> >>> past or are currently using. Looking forward to hearing you.<br>
> It is a<br>
> >>> new<br>
> >>> year. Share you tools and technologies.<br>
> >>> Renate<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Renate Ferro<br>
> >>> Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
> >>> Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
> >>> Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
> >>> Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a>><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>>><br>
> >>> URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
> >>> <a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
> >>> <<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
> >>> Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
> >>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> empyre forum<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
> >>> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> >>><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> empyre forum<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
> >> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > empyre forum<br>
> > <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
> > <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
> ><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> empyre forum<br>
> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 10<br>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 22:49:53 +0000<br>
From: Renate Terese Ferro <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>"<br>
<<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] A open call to our subscribers: Week 1: New<br>
Year/New Tools and Technologies<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:D0FBF7C8.1AF98%25rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">D0FBF7C8.1AF98%rtf9@cornell.edu</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Dear all, This is an engaging discussion and I thank all of you. I would<br>
like you all to address how you deal with the conceptual and historical<br>
aspects of any project. Realizing that we all have our abilities and<br>
training that may reside outside of the demands of any given project how<br>
to you manage to bring everything together? How do you actualize these<br>
demands?<br>
<br>
What I find interesting in all of your work is that you all identify your<br>
strengths and where your individual research resides but what about the<br>
reception of the piece and where the work will eventually reach an<br>
audience. Work that is actualized with technological tools often reside in<br>
cross-disciplinary contexts such as in an academic setting or institution.<br>
Are there different expectations for the work depending on who will<br>
receive the work and where it will exist? Do the rest of you work in<br>
collaborative environments? You all have such different backgrounds it<br>
would be interesting to hear your perspectives.<br>
<br>
Jason I think you might be a great person to speak to as well given the<br>
fact that the residency revolves around tools but you also host research<br>
residencies writers and theorists. Is there ever collaborative<br>
resolutions?<br>
Thanks again to all of you for this deep analysis of each of your<br>
practices. It really has been enjoyable to read your posts.<br>
Renate<br>
<br>
<br>
Renate Ferro<br>
Visiting Assistant Professor of Art,Cornell University<br>
Department of Art, Tjaden Hall Office: 306<br>
Ithaca, NY 14853<br>
Email: <<a href="mailto:rferro@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rferro@cornell.edu</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rtf9@cornell.edu" target="_blank">rtf9@cornell.edu</a>>><br>
URL: <a href="http://www.renateferro.net" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net</a> <<a href="http://www.renateferro.net/" target="_blank">http://www.renateferro.net/</a>><br>
<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/" target="_blank">http://www.privatesecretspubliclies.net/</a>><br>
Lab: <a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net</a> <<a href="http://www.tinkerfactory.net/" target="_blank">http://www.tinkerfactory.net/</a>><br>
<br>
Managing Co-moderator of -empyre- soft skinned space<br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/7/15, 2:51 PM, "B. Bogart" <<a href="mailto:ben@ekran.org" target="_blank">ben@ekran.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------<br>
>Hello all,<br>
><br>
>I would like to respond to both Jason and William in this message, since<br>
>I missed Jason's comments before sending my last messages.<br>
><br>
>Jason Bernagozzi wrote: "Of course we cannot assume that the process is<br>
>objective, but there is not enough talk about the aesthetic objectives<br>
>of the artist, who undoubtedly did not want the machine to make anything<br>
>that looked ?ugly?."<br>
><br>
>This could lead to interesting directions since I have a strange<br>
>relationship to aesthetics. I'm personally more interested in the<br>
>process than the outward appearance. The output of the system is<br>
>demonstration or documentation, whereas the actual work is the executed<br>
>process. Part of the reason for this is that in the production process I<br>
>spend more time getting the code to work, and it making sense in the<br>
>context of theory, than evaluating the aesthetics.<br>
>I think of the aesthetics as being an emergent result of the process,<br>
>and short of selection for documentation, is not the primary site of<br>
>artistic validation. This has gotten me into some trouble in<br>
>art-as-inquiry where the process of creating aesthetics objects is<br>
>(sometimes) where the contribution of art lies.<br>
><br>
>As my graduate studies have largely been in a quantitative /<br>
>scientifically oriented program, I've been thinking a lot about the idea<br>
>of objectivity/subjectivity in relation to mediation, and the relation<br>
>between global/local interpretations and meaning. Is objectivity the<br>
>same as a global and unmediated truth? I think that all meaning and<br>
>interpretation is context-dependent and mediated, and thus local. Global<br>
>meaning and interpretation as unmediated is an illusion. As I spend a<br>
>lot of time trying to bridge arts and sciences, it's often difficut to<br>
>get hard objectivists to consider their knowledge as mediated and<br>
>imbued with cultural values and biases.<br>
><br>
>My response to William follows inline:<br>
><br>
>On 15-02-07 04:08 AM, William Bain wrote:<br>
><snip><br>
>> But my first question is: Aren't concepts tools? As infants we spend<br>
>> lots of times sucking our toes and thumbs, figuring out what things<br>
>> like arms and legs can do--forming concepts to put such things to<br>
>> work. Maybe I'm leaving out something you put into your long text.<br>
><br>
>I would agree that concepts are tools. I'm quite interested in<br>
>Barsalou's conception that (concrete) concepts are simulations of<br>
>sensory information that are generated on the fly to match particular<br>
>task demands.<br>
><br>
>In the context of my question "Is it a question a tools, or a question<br>
>of contexts and conceptions?" I'm trying to get at the idea that perhaps<br>
>we should be less concerned with tools manifest in physical artifacts,<br>
>and more concerned with how those tools augment both behaviour and<br>
>cognition. I write about this in another blog post:<br>
><a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/indoctrination-machines/" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/indoctrination-machines/</a> (I think I<br>
>already referred to this in a previous message to empyre). I think the<br>
>physical manifestation of tools is the tip of the iceberg and we should<br>
>be thinking less about them as tools and more of them as systems that<br>
>structure behaviour and cognition. This is an extension of my TEDx talk:<br>
><a href="http://youtu.be/xYtt8qSwJws" target="_blank">http://youtu.be/xYtt8qSwJws</a><br>
><br>
>> Second, you speak of being less interested in using grounds (?) or<br>
>> objects from contexts like Flickr due to "lack of constraint": I'd<br>
>> like to ask, Wouldn't lack of constraint add to the experimental<br>
>> features?<br>
><br>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "experimental features".<br>
><br>
>I think what I was getting at is the idea that rather than my work being<br>
>about communication or expression centrally, it's about reflecting on<br>
>the nature of communication and expression. I am interested in grounding<br>
>because the grounding of concepts (in sensory reality) is itself an<br>
>interesting and open question. It's really an issue of embodiment. How<br>
>our complex symbolic world relates to the messiness and uniqueness of<br>
>actual sensory information. Part of this grounding for me entails a<br>
>requirement for a point of view, and thus a system placed in space and<br>
>time which constrains the sensory patterns available to it. There is a<br>
>problem here though, because even in discussions with specialists there<br>
>was always this question of what the task of the system was, and that<br>
>the ill-formed "task" of making sense did not provide detail enough to<br>
>select appropriate algorithms. It could certainly be argued that, as an<br>
>agent, the dreaming machine's lack of motivation (goal directed desires)<br>
>precludes any useful sense of cognition.<br>
><br>
>If I was to use images from flickr, or images submitted by the public,<br>
>then the unitary point of view of the machine would be lost. The system<br>
>would have a pluralistic point of view and I could think of as<br>
>approaching objectivity and shifting away from locality/subjectivity. I<br>
>suppose I'm interested in exploring the notion of machine subjectivity<br>
>through methods normally contextualized within an objective practice<br>
>(brain and computer science).<br>
><br>
>In the context of the discussion happening now, it seems the interplay<br>
>between old and new media could then be considered in the interplay<br>
>between old and new conceptual systems, perhaps modernism in relation to<br>
>post-modernism?<br>
><br>
>I'm personally more interested in the idea of living technological works<br>
>that keep getting reinvented in new technical and cultural contexts than<br>
>works being preserved in the sense of painting or sculpture:<br>
><a href="http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/convergence-art-technology-process-and-to" target="_blank">http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2014/convergence-art-technology-process-and-to</a><br>
>ol/<br>
><br>
>Great discussion; thanks all for engaging.<br>
><br>
>Ben<br>
><br>
>Thanks for all this very welcome material. It seems to me<br>
>> like a great renewal of Empyre's discussions. Best wishes, William<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________ empyre forum<br>
>> <a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a> <a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
>><br>
>_______________________________________________<br>
>empyre forum<br>
><a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
><a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
empyre mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au</a><br>
<a href="http://empyre.library.cornell.edu" target="_blank">http://empyre.library.cornell.edu</a><br>
<br>
<br>
End of empyre Digest, Vol 122, Issue 7<br>
**************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>