Re: [-empyre-] digitisation and audiences

[Reiner Strasser <reiner.s@netartefact.de>]

> reiner strasser wrote:--
>> Digital has to leave digital that we can perceive it.
>> 
>> (As long as technology is like it is now - I use my senses --- even >when
>> digital is connected to nerves - it is no longer digital --- ignoring >the
>> thesis that our brain is working digital - or similar - synapsis etc.)
> 
> That's a good point Rainer. The assumption most people appear
> to work with is that subject plus the object (the work of art)
> are transformed through a technical process of digitisation.

I do not believe that the w.reader is digital. There surely can be seen some
parallels.
As I just heard these days in an interview of a brain-scientist - one theory
is that the brain is working in such a way that the different parts are
interacting .... in an unknown way ...  forming thoughts.  --- Here is a
nice parallel to multilayered/hyperstructured works in "new media".
The advantage of "new media" is that dualistic thinking can be broken
(enhanced). (somehow digital "101" - is dualistic - using binary code //
true/false - - - on-off) ---
In my sight "art" is formed in the mind (of the viewer/reader). Focusing on
this the object is secundary. "art" is a kind of language (expression).
> 
> It does not necessarily follow that the audience (or 'reader'/ 'viewer') is
> digital, though there are some
> interesting 'effects' arising from the assumption that they are.
> The dot.com boom seemed to be one. The demise of World.com another.
> The evaporation of billions of dollars of speculative capital a
> third.
> 
> Another of these 'effects' is the belief that there is some
> autonomous space where ideas, politics and the law are
> somehow suspended. This was a popular view held especially by
> people interested in something called 'Net Culture' which was
> popular, I believe though I wasn;t interested much in any of that,
> in the early 1990s, [see Nettime for the ageing, indeed greying version]. They
> called this  imaginary fictive space 'cyberspace'
> (which has of course become 'cyber' space in the contemporary
> popular imaginary).
Hmmm - in my view - the Net is not a "space" - but a timebased experienced
communication platform (or something like this).
> 
> Would you like to take your insight further? I wonder how this
> belief in an autonomous space in digital culture impacts the
> gallery and the partly, or relatively, autonomous space of
> the culture industry?
How can the "space" be autonomous when the "users" and at the same time
creators of this "space" are not?
[the Net an electrified expression of human desires?]

> 
> 
> Lachlan
Reiner
(written with "ei" ;) not "ai")