[-empyre-] Process as paradigm: Time/Tools/Agency

Mon May 24 00:51:19 EST 2010

Hi Eileen,

I am going to have to disagree on your comparison. 
You stated that
> The image as output seems to me the most active agent
> because it is out in the world
> communicating.

I don't think it is the image that communicates in the example we are looking at if that was the case then why have any process at all. the software communicates through the image.

> However, if one is more
> interested in the the data set being "algorithmicly"
> processed through a computer, then why waste the paper to
> create an image that is non active at the end?

I think the image can still be a part of the work, I feel that the way the work is described misplaces the location of the agency within the work. On the larger question of agency and images and tools, I think to describe a work as we are discussing by not talking about the software/hardware we do just create an impression of "computer as tool".

Your illustration of a painting on the wall in a museum painted centuries ago cannot be used as an example. Time is not accounted for in the same way. Leonardo and/or his helpers painted an image where time is not considered. Yes it took time to make the work but that time was singular not to be addressed again. The desire of the artist was to create the work as a singular piece that exists in time the process stops when the artist puts down the brush an says "Yep its done". Conservators exist to halt time on such paintings, museums spend money to halt time on works.

Where as a work that exists in space and is intended to change over time is very different. Process denotes actions over time. I happened to be in Toronto a couple of weeks ago and Hans Haacke's work Ice Stick was on display, (someone mentioned Haacke's work in relation to this topic earlier). It consists of a refrigeration unit, and condensed water vapor that is in the form of a stick, for lack of a better description. the work exists in its environment and changes over time. People may look at it and call it a giant popsicle sculpture. But it cant be reduced to only one element, the popsicle cant exist without its refrigeration unit which has to be plugged in to work, and the gallery's environment. these elements are integral to the work, and cannot be seen as tools displayed on a pedestal separate from the work. 

It is like the difference between the terms complicated and complexity that N. Katherine Hayles describes in her book "My Mother was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts" 

Complicated: (within machines) parts interact with each other in defined and predictable ways. reducible

Complex: (computation) many parts interacting with one another to create something different and unpredictable. non-reducible

Erika Lincoln
Electronic Media Artist
Winnipeg/Manitoba/Canada
http://www.lincolnlab.net

--- On Fri, 5/21/10, Eileen Reynolds (Asst Prof) <EReynolds at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

> From: Eileen Reynolds (Asst Prof) <EReynolds at ntu.edu.sg>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Received: Friday, May 21, 2010, 11:18 PM
> Hi Erika,
> 
> The image as output seems to me the most active agent
> because it is out in the world
> communicating.   However, if one is more
> interested in the the data set being "algorithmicly"
> processed through a computer, then why waste the paper to
> create an image that is non active at the end?  If the
> production of the image is just a remnant and record of the
> computer's processing, then no, it is not an active agent,
> and only proof of the actively processing computer and its
> ability to do something.
> 
> My other thought is the old classic - "the computer is just
> a tool".   And since we place these tools on
> such a high pedestal, perhaps the Louvre should instead
> display the paint brush that Leonardo used to paint the Mona
> Lisa rather than just the 30 × 20 inch remnant of the
> pigmented data set that he "algorithmicly" processed through
> the bristles. But I'm not too certain that would interest
> very many.
> 
> -Eileen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> [empyre-bounces at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au]
> On Behalf Of Erika Jean Lincoln [fur_princess at yahoo.ca]
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 11:38 PM
> To: soft_skinned_space
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
> 
> Hi Maria, Yann,
> Isn't it more precise to say that the data set of the
> digital image is "algorithmicly" processed through an
> computer which leads to a different data set which is then
> represented as an image?
> 
> To me the image is not the active agent.
> Thoughts?
> 
> Erika Lincoln
> Electronic Media Artist
> Winnipeg/Manitoba/Canada
> http://www.lincolnlab.net
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 5/20/10, Maria Verstappen <notnot at xs4all.nl>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Maria Verstappen <notnot at xs4all.nl>
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm
> > To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>,
> "Yann Le Guennec" <y at x-arn.org>
> > Received: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:37 AM
> > Dear Yann,
> > In the context of this exhibition the notion of
> "generative
> > image" can be taken quite literal as a still image
> that
> > generates the next image in real time. Subsequently
> this new
> > image forms the basis for the next image, etcetera. In
> case
> > of a screen based work, the viewer experiences this
> ongoing
> > sequence as a dynamic animation.
> > Maria
> >
> > On May 19, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Yann Le Guennec wrote:
> >
> > > Hello dear Empyreans,
> > >
> > > systems are open;
> > > entropy is a mistake;
> > > boundaries are in the mind (of the 'modelizer'=
> > someone making a model);
> > > every process is part of n systems;
> > > quantum physics is a biface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biface);
> > > we build tools we need, to prove what we think;
> > > we use tools someone built (some day), to prove
> what
> > we thought (some day);
> > >
> > > but ... i would still like to know what is this:
> a
> > 'generative image';
> > >
> > > http://www.laboralcentrodearte.org/en/714-catalogue
> > (PDF p: 55)
> > >
> > > Do you mean a picture can generate something, or,
> an
> > image is necessarily a mind projection ? in the
> future
> > (unforeseen) ?
> > >
> > >
> > > best,
> > > yann
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the
> person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it,
> notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose its content.
> Thank you.
> 
> Towards A Sustainable Earth: Print Only When Necessary
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 