RE: [-empyre-] Modern Antiques, a drone repeating the obvious, perhaps

["Dirk Vekemans" <dv@vilt.net>]

Well, er, beheaded like that it does indeed sound similar, reminding me,like
Henry's original ( & with due respect to its bravery), of Dido's 'moriemur
inultae, sed moriamur'. So, no, i think it's a digital thing, to put it
chiastically you can't have one without the other, or both will run out in a
period orbit. Glad someone sees some sense in it, though.
dv
 
 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Christina McPhee [mailto:christina112@earthlink.net] 
> Verzonden: maandag 6 maart 2006 16:44
> Aan: dv@vilt.net; soft_skinned_space
> Onderwerp: Re: [-empyre-] Modern Antiques, a drone repeating 
> the obvious, perhaps
> 
> generative systems...this is the GO! of dyspeptic (!) Henry's....  
> musing...
> 
> >>  the focus won't be on "everything goes". It will be on  "go with 
> >> everything that works - but GO!"
> >> Linear systems are a tiny subset of non-linear systems.
> 
> cm
> >
> > 0. a multidisciplinary, transvergent scientific research 
> incorporating 
> > art in its programmability. Here i need to refrain myself further 
> > because my knowledge on this terrain is more zilch than the 
> > next-to-nada in way#1, but i 'd like to point my little trembling 
> > finger to how generative art is quickly establishing itself as a 
> > discipline that is related to art by the fact that we can only 
> > perceive it as art, but that from a point of view that, 
> again, i can 
> > only identify as philosophical, might be better of with a more 
> > 'telling' name. Now i do not see it this way, but the zero 
> here could 
> > be interpreted as a reduction of art, but only in the sense 
> that art 
> > is approached as a process that involves algorhytmically definable 
> > steps that can be taken to generative systems (hence the 
> > programmability).
> >
> > Now, coming back to the question that initiated this discussion and 
> > its flight into the technological, i would like to add two more 
> > points, of which the second i think is extremely important:
> >
> > 1. our 20th century experience with the Modern may turn out 
> to be an 
> > exceptionally rich resource for finding algorhytms that 
> contribute in 
> > way #0, because of course the artists involved witnessed, 
> > co-engineered and commented its possibility
> >
> > 2. the same experience might stand out as a warning not to 
> attempt to 
> > humanise the machine because that only leads to further 
> mechanise it 
> > and alienate us from it, but instead to continually try to further 
> > machinise the machine, allowing it its own plane of 
> consistency that 
> > is co- incidental with our own. Here i think is where i find the 
> > reason for my rather intuitive avoidance of thinking in levels, 
> > because thinking in levels here instead of acknowledging that the 
> > human plane and the machine plane are one and the same, 
> would make the 
> > seeming paradox (i have that straight from Deleuze's Fold 
> along with 
> > the mechanical-machinical distinction) into a real 
> contradiction and 
> > lead us nowhere but to further episodes of beau- drilled 
> Matrices with 
> > its doomishly attractive futuristic human-machine wars comfortly 
> > averting our eyes from the real and present war victimising real 
> > people every day.
> >
> > [drone,drone]
> > dv
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
>