[-empyre-] Process as Paradigm/trial and error

[Ursula Damm]

Dear empyre list,

having been held back by "institutional duties" I'm coming up a bit  
late with my comment to susanne jaschkos invitation. My text is  
pointing in another direction than baruch gottliebs statement, but  
perhaps an continuation to the last paragraph of his email.

Having worked as a "media artist" since 1996 I had to learn, that in  
contrast to traditional artwork - digital art has no inherent context  
on its own. Existing in a world of discrete data connected to  
meaningful entities only through algorithms, the artworks deploys  
itself through algorithms and the hardware (or material) conditions. A  
traditional artwork - existing in a special, well chosen material with  
traits of treatment, always refers not only to its process of  
fabrication, but also to the context of the material, its provenance  
and perhaps also to a whole tradition of (hand)-craft. Instead a  
digital artwork has to create meaning by establishing these relations  
in code.
In a discussion with Hans-Ulrich Reck at the KHM in Cologne, he argued  
that digital artists behave and feel god-like while creating their  
artwork. I on the contrary felt very lost in the empty digital universe.
Processual art not only exists as a product, but also includes the  
environment of the product through the input and output. (like Roy  
Acott wrote "Process replaces product in importance..." cited by  
Susanne Jaschko).
I very much like the following passage in Susanne Jaschko’s catalogue  
text (p. 132): "Even if the system that generates the process stays  
the same, it produces a flow of differences as a series of subtle  
micro events. Through differential output in the form of unique  
moments and situation in process, hence of presence in art,  
authenticity is generated. In the art system, authenticity is in  
permanent jeopardy, and for that reason is a distinctive quality  
between art and non-art."
To me, authenticity seems to be not only important in regard to the  
"inimitability of processual art at the moment of its presentation",  
but also to underline the validity of the arrangement of the artwork  
(setting of the system), the convenience of the structure of the  
setting related to the processed data/material/information. I believe  
the outcomes of processual art show their validity through employing a  
process that is adequate to the qualities of the processed material.

But processual art is perhaps just a landmark on the way to designing  
organisms.
We are speaking about the software and the hardware, we all know, that  
any kind of abstraction is dependent of the formal system, the code in  
which the process is defined and the code itself depends on the   
support material. Working with digits we live in a binary universe  
having developed a symbolic language directing our way of looking at a  
problem.
But in biology, code (DNA) is processed in cells and bodies. Since we  
are able to decode/sequence DNA, we find ourselves in a completely  
different position: instead of coding ourselves we are decrypting the  
code of nature.

What does that change for artists?

At first we are studying nature, like we were doing life drawing at  
the beginning of our career. We can adopt the techniques of decryption  
from scientists, but we also could use our intuition to speculate and  
fantasise. And we will programme organisms. Then, we will not speak  
about the process of manufacture, but about the relationship between  
us and the organism, its influence on our life and how we release it  
into our every day life.
This should not be a completely unpolitical statement about science  
and art - instead, I would like to focus more on the responsibility of  
artists as beings gifted with intuition to play their role in the  
development of techno-science - not in making "arty science or science- 
y art",  to quote Baruch Gottlieb in an earlier posting.
Being myself part of a transdisciplinary faculty (the Media Faculty of  
the Bauhaus-University in Weimar) we experience the differences  
between a scientific approach to a problem and an artistic practice on  
a daily basis. But surprisingly scientists - in their ultimate  
decisions - only follow their gut feeling just as well as artists.  
Life sciences are bringing up problems which are very complex as they  
are artefacts of their embedding in our every day life and  
environment, asking for a very broad approach, not only a scientific  
analysis, but also social, psychological and aesthetic interpretations.
  As an artist I cannot claim the competence scientist do not have. We  
are rather in the same trouble not being able to overview the  
complexity of an already programmed nature. And we are far from being  
able to critically scrutinize the research methods of the techno  
scientific complex. We can only judge about the impact that techno  
science has on our life. It is fare more complicated to make proposals  
than to critisize. What we can do is to be present where the decision  
making happens in techno science.  This cannot always be in front of  
the public’s eyes, especially if you are dealing with hard problems  
and complex situations. In a time of abundance of information and a  
deficiency of interpretation we need less of the inventor but rather  
the thoughtful and attentive observer.
Creating organisms is a bit like playing god – without having the time  
and the experience that evolution had. How can we avoid failure, if  
even evolution learns by trial and error?
......................................................................................
ursula damm
http://www.ursuladamm.de
http://www.uni-weimar.de/medien/umgebungen/
......................................................................................