[-empyre-] Process as paradigm

Mon May 17 14:49:54 EST 2010

Is this discussion about creating esoteric loops of inquiry? where there is no 
content, or" work" that the system or organism is activating.
I fear that this is a a question of how to best transport empty railroad cars. 

"A closed system will therefore always contain the same 
amount of matter," 

That my friends is the root of the problem.

We are finding cures, but we have not located the disease.

closed systems, are harmless. 

Chris s

Quoting "sdv at krokodile.co.uk" <sdv at krokodile.co.uk>:

> Simon
> 
> Technically the origins of closed systems thinking is in thermodynamics, 
> consequently your 'no system is closed'  is incorrect as a closed system 
> is able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their 
> environment. A closed system will therefore always contain the same 
> amount of matter, but heat and work can be exchanged across the boundary 
> of the system. Whether the system can exchange heat, work or information 
> across the boundary will depend on the nature of the boundary. In this 
> context and some information systems can and should be considered closed 
> systems.  The way in which the process might become paradigmatic is by 
> extending the scope to include systems which are closed, open and 
> isolated as well.
> 
> steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/05/2010 10:51, 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.
> >
> > 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/
> > *C*reative *I*nterdisciplinary *R*esearch into *C*o*L*laborative 
> > *E*nvironments http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
> > *E*lectronic *L*iterature as a *M*odel of *C*reativity and 
> > *I*nnovation in *P*ractice 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: *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.
> > > Smithson's eco-systems, Campus's video systems, Trisha Brown's movement
> > > systems or Le Witt's 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
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2877 - Release Date: 05/16/10
> 07:26:00
> >
> >    
> 

Christopher Sullivan
Dept. of Film/Video/New Media
School of the Art Institute of Chicago
112 so michigan
Chicago Ill 60603
csulli at saic.edu
312-345-3802