[-empyre-] scalable relations-- how does this matter?(orde-materialize?)

[Christiane_Paul at whitney.org]

Hi Anna,
thanks so much for your question - I hadn't thought about some of these connections, very interesting.

Anna Munster wrote:
"I am wondering how you see the relation - at a curatorial and conceptual level rather than purely technical - between the idea of 'scalable' and the commonly used notion of 'scale-free' which abounds particularly in contemporary network science?"

My first response was that I see scalable and scale-free as different properties. What Barabasi & Co. discovered in their study of networks was that the nodes in networks are neither randomly nor evenly connected, but that there are always "very connected nodes" (as to be expected) and that the ratio of these very connected nodes remains constant as the network grows or shrinks (the fascinating part). While scalability refers to a system that remains functioning even if data (or transaction volume) change, scale-free refers to a ratio of connectivity remaining stable as a network grows or shrinks.

Upon second thought, these properties are probably conceptually more related than I initially realized. On a curatorial and conceptual level I saw scalability as a characteristic of each of the works in the exhibition (the way each work responds to increasing amounts of data and allow to establish relations between the information) and the way they work together across the venues. You could equally argue that there is a scale-free property to the network of the exhibition: the "very connected nodes" within each exhibition (meaning the concepts and ideas that strongly connect) remain stable throughout the network of the four exhibition venues (meaning these concept and ideas also resonate with each other across the galleries). I don't know how you would scientifically calculate that ;)

Anna Munster wrote:
"I think your idea of scalable within the aesthetic context perhaps in fact includes both the concept of 'scale free' especially as you put it in terms of the continuing functionality of a database for example in spite of changes in context or transaction quantity."

On a more conceptual (non-technical) level I would agree -- scalability also means that the "scale" of the data doesn't matter (although this understanding of scale-free seems to differ from the network science definitio).

>But perhaps scalability also includes the opposite of this - ie that relations cannot be simply topologically deformed without very real consequences for their relationality. If something can be scaled, then there will be relational aesthetic changes although this may still allow functionality...

Yes, for me this definitely was one of the interesting questions raised by the works in the exhibition. The scale of the data and the way you build relations between that data has an effect on the aesthetics and meaning of the piece. In the case of Sheldon Brown's "Scalable City" the relationality can be either utopian or dystopian -- depending on both how the data is 'deformed' and the viewer's perceptions. In the case of Warren Sack's Conversation Map (http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/ConversationMap/) scalability has the effect that the 'picture of the conversation becomes ever more complex. And since the project maps a newsgroup conversation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, relationality plays out not only on a on a conversational but political, topographical, religious etc. level.

Christiane


-----Original Message-----
From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au on behalf of Anna Munster
Sent: Fri 2/6/2009 1:33 AM
To: soft_skinned_space
Cc: empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] scalable relations-- how does this matter?(orde-materialize?)
 
Hi Christiane,
I've had a brief look at the website but won't be able to experience  
the exhibition - stuck in Australia I'm afraid! What  a pity - looks  
great!

I am wondering how you see the relation - at a curatorial and  
conceptual level rather than purely technical - between the idea of  
'scalable' and the commonly used notion of 'scale-free' which abounds  
particularly in contemporary network science?

I think your idea of scalable within the aesthetic context perhaps in  
fact includes both the concept of 'scale free' especially as you put  
it in terms of the continuing functionality of a database for example  
in spite of changes in context or transaction quantity. But perhaps  
scalability also includes the  opposite of this - ie that relations  
cannot be simply topologically deformed without very real consequences  
for their relationality. If something can be scaled, then there will  
be relational aesthetic changes although this may still allow  
functionality...

Just wondering about your thoughts on this

Best
Anna
>

A/Prof. Anna Munster
Assistant Dean, Grant Support
Acting Director Centre for Contemporary Art and Politics
School of Art History and Art Education
College of Fine Arts
UNSW
P.O. Box 259
Paddington
NSW 2021
612 9385 0741 (tel)
612 9385 0615(fax)
a.munster at unsw.edu.au


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20090206/31f66e56/attachment.html