[-empyre-] Process as paradigm

Sun May 16 20:21:32 EST 2010

..on Sat, May 15, 2010 at 10:51:34AM +0100, Simon Biggs wrote:
> I would just add that no system is closed and therefore a strictly systems
> based approach to these issues will not work. Also, not all processes or
> agents are evident in a system. In fact, most of the time we are probably
> only aware of a limited number of such factors and no rational, logical or
> empirical methods set will change that. Abduction will often be the
> recourse. Thus a strict systems based analysis is unlikely to reveal the
> fullness of things.
> 
> Whilst systems thinking is a powerful instrument and framework for looking
> at the world it cannot be a complete philosophy of it. That is where
> cybernetics fell down. Thus I would argue that process cannot be
> paradigmatic.

A very interesting argument Simon.

If I read correctly you're saying that as everything is innately 'in process',
any System is itself just a narrow, time windowed description of what is
observed or observable.

Nonetheless, Cybernetics "fell down" where physics, evolutionary biology and
even mathematics are still very strong today - in the formal description and
prediction of continuous, complex change. 

Why is it that the supposedly non-paradigmatic extents of Process survive (we
assume) formal description yet are beyond the scope of systems theory and
cybernetics? Is it because their models are concerned with conceptual
description - of 'characteristics' and metaphors of agency - rather than
Simulation? 

Or, is it more intrinsic: that because Cybernetics /assumes/ an all pervading
connectivity it is concerned less with observation than finding
interconnectedness, in essence a theoretical solopsism?

Cheers,

-- 
Julian Oliver
home: New Zealand
based: Berlin, Germany 
currently: Berlin, Germany
about: http://julianoliver.com

> 
> 
> From: Yann Le Guennec <y at x-arn.org>
> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 21:50:07 +0200
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
> 
> I completely agree. In a systemic approach (or Systems thinking),
> processes are part of the dynamic view on the system, when elements and
> components involved in processes are part of the structural view on the
> system. Agents, or actors, can be seen as system components if they are
> within the limits of the considered system. The nature of a component,
> or element, e.g. artificial, biological, mineral, binary, encoded, ...
> is a property of the element, sometimes allowing or not some kinds of
> interactions with other elements.
> 
>  From this point of view, processes can not be separated from a system,
> they necessarily refer to one. A project is also a system, with inputs
> and outputs. If an art object can be an output of an art practice seen
> as a system, the system itself can be the object for the art practice.
> 
> So, thinking about art in terms of processes *and* thinking about art in
> terms of objects are both sides of thinking about art in terms of systems.
> 
> Systemic art ? .... Let's add Lawrence Alloway to valuable artistic
> references in this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simon Biggs a écrit :
> > This question opens a very interesting can of worms regarding what valid
> > agents can compose a system of a particular kind. Conventionally, generative
> > art has been seen to involve artificial agents, such as software routines
> > and hardware processes. However, why we should limit the character of the
> > agents involved. Why not allow all sorts of agents in such systems 
> > biological, social and ecological systems are just a small number of the
> > potential examples.
> > 
> > The first generation of generative artists emerged at the same time as
> > process became an abiding concern in other areas of creative arts practice.
> > Smithson¹s eco-systems, Campus¹s video systems, Trisha Brown¹s movement
> > systems or Le Witt¹s formal structural systems all share this fascination
> > with constraint, process and emergence. The thinking of people like Jack
> > Burnham, Richard Gregory, Gordon Pask and John Conway were in the mix,
> > blurring differences between aspects of creative practice, engineering and
> > early informatics. The commonality of approach was a structuralist
> > understanding of things, whether formal or more informal.
> > 
> > To take all that in a relaxed manner, where we do not require narrow
> > definitions of what constitutes correct practice, and to situate it in a
> > contemporary post-structuralist context that is very much concerned with
> > notions of expanded agency, complexity and emergent phenomena across all
> > sorts of living and non-living systems might be the more productive route to
> > developing other ways of understanding and imagining the world.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Simon
> > 
> > 
> > Simon Biggs
> > 
> > s.biggs at eca.ac.uk  simon at littlepig.org.uk  Skype: simonbiggsuk
> > http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
> > Research Professor  edinburgh college of art  http://www.eca.ac.uk/
> > Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> > Electronic Literature as a Model of Creativity and Innovation in Practice
> > http://www.elmcip.net/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: Yann Le Guennec <y at x-arn.org>
> > Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 21:27:16 +0200
> > To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I'm very interested in your definition of 'generative image'.
> > 
> > http://www.laboralcentrodearte.org/en/714-catalogue (p55)
> > 
> > The text describes well what i call 'variable pictures' (eg, a networked
> > still picture, always changing, and removing its precedent state,
> > according to some online activities) or 'evolving pictures' (eg a
> > networked still picture transforming itself, according to some online
> > data accumulation processes).
> > 
> > I think that the term 'generative' is now closely linked to what is
> > called 'generative art', dealing with algorithms and systems, looking
> > for some kinds of emergence. That's ok, but a 'generative artwork' is
> > also often defined by its autonomy and self-containment. Is this
> > approach compatible with the picture as a result of a process where the
> > involved system is wide and open, closely linked to other systems (the
> > internet + its users , for example)?
> > 
> > Furthermore, with the expression 'generative image', one can think that
> > the image generates something, not that the image is generated by a
> > system or process ?
> > 
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Yann Le Guennec
> > http://www.yannleguennec.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > 
> > 
> > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number
> SC009201
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> 
> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre