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

[christopher sullivan]

My experience is that there is not enough flat out good work coming from years
of experimentation. 
The students are looking for the cure, but there is no illness.
Chris.

Quoting Erika Jean Lincoln <fur_princess at yahoo.ca>:

> chris,
> I think the term new media becomes a misnomer as well. I don't use it because
> it means nothing to me. Where as work that uses communications systems, or
> automated computation seems to be the way to describe these works.
> As for your students making great animation work and it not considered new
> media shows this divide on the term. I agree with you good work is good
> work.
> 
> I wonder about your question regarding the intellectual backing as well, is
> it that new media schools have created a niche where the time in school is
> like that of any other masters or phd program in art and sciences where you
> experiment and publish and do R&D, but not the more formal aspects of fine
> arts?
>  
> Erika Lincoln
> Electronic Media Artist
> Winnipeg/Manitoba/Canada
> http://www.lincolnlab.net
> 
> 
> --- On Tue, 5/25/10, christopher sullivan <csulli at saic.edu> wrote:
> 
> > From: christopher sullivan <csulli at saic.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm: Time/Tools/Agency
> > To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>, "Maria
> Verstappen" <notnot at xs4all.nl>
> > Cc: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre at gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Received: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 2:35 PM
> > 
> > very well put Maria, and inclusive of important
> > distinctions.
> > slavery as a metaphor for a mistreated Machine is a very
> > far reach though.
> > Machines do not have emotions.
> > 
> > "But I think we all agree that a specific medium offers
> > particular
> > possibilities for expression so there is always a feedback
> > loop between"
> > 
> > This to me is a very physical manifestation of the
> > impossibility of making the
> > art you intend, there is always the imperfection of intent
> > and actualization,
> > and that is part of it's beauty. 
> > 
> > I guess the notion here of chance operation is one to think
> > about. I have found
> > in contemporary New media work that chance implies truth,
> > and purpose
> > manipulation, I do feel that minimalism can sometimes lead
> > to this idea, clean
> > up the work, so your viewer won't be distracted by
> > figurative, meaning. I have
> > heard from colleagues that the great digital animation my
> > student make is not
> > new media, because it is recorded, single channel. And even
> > because it is not
> > collaborative. those kinds of rules make my blood boil. It
> > is Media, and it was
> > just made, It could not have been made just years ago, so I
> > think , it is new.
> >      I am not a Luddite by any means,
> > but I am fully engaged in the 
> > vast possibilities of the world outside some relationships
> > that interest you.
> > I do feel that there is room on this planet for many kinds
> > of work. 
> > This moment of remix, and Data scramble, sometimes feels
> > like that moment in
> > post modernism when we were told there are no original
> > ideas, I have seen many
> > since the death of authorship. 
> > 
> > Perhaps the main issue for me is why do we have to have so
> > much intellectual
> > backing behind the work. can't the work just blow you away
> > when you encounter
> > it. I hope so.
> > 
> > I truly appreciate that you realize I care about important
> > work as much as
> > everyone in this discussion, I just want to make sure
> > pluralism remains. 
> > 
> > One last thing, always be suspicious if everyone agrees.
> > > intentions and medium.
> > all good things Chris.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Quoting Maria Verstappen <notnot at xs4all.nl>:
> > 
> > > Hello Chris,
> > > I don't think anyone here was talking about "data and
> > machines being
> > > content"? But I think we all agree that a specific
> > medium offers particular
> > > possibilities for expression so there is always a
> > feedback loop between
> > > intentions and medium. A computer is mainly a
> > processor, a tool to execute
> > > processes. We all use Photoshop or Open Office to
> > process images and texts,
> > > software programs that were initially designed to
> > replace tools like
> > > typewriter, pen, paintbrush, scissors, etc. But the
> > computer as a tool has
> > > much more to offer, with the right skills
> > (programming) we are able to make a
> > > more direct use of the significant features of the
> > processor itself. We still
> > > see it as a tool, but we give the tool possibilities
> > of creating something by
> > > itself. A collaboration between man and machine, in
> > which the machine is not
> > > a total "slave" but having a certain degree of
> > autonomy to act by itself,
> > > allowing unpredictability and surprise. To achieve
> > this we have to design
> > > autonomously operating processes and processes of
> > self-organisation. An
> > > important source of inspiration are the
> > self-organising processes in our
> > > natural surroundings: the complex dynamics of all
> > kinds of physical and
> > > chemical processes and the genetic-evolutionairy
> > system of organic life that
> > > contineously creates new and original forms. So, this
> > way of working can be
> > > seen as contemporary nature study, in which we
> > concentrate on the
> > > possibilities that the underlying mechanisms of these
> > processes can offer art
> > > by implementing processes of development and growth in
> > a computer program. In
> > > these software programs we are not simulating the laws
> > of our physical world,
> > > but instead we define an artificial (machine) nature
> > that has its own
> > > generative principles and spontaneous expressions.
> > > 
> > > It's true that this approach relates to some degree to
> > Modernism, but at the
> > > same time it is fundamentally different. In contrast
> > to modernistic artwork -
> > > that attempts to reveal the underlying harmony of
> > reality by rational
> > > ordering, control and reduction of visual means - we
> > are actually striving
> > > for complexity and multiformity in the final result.
> > On the other hand, we do
> > > use a form of minimalism in the design of the
> > underlying generative process.
> > > The harmony model has been replaced by the conviction
> > that chance,
> > > self-organisation and evolution order and transform
> > reality. For us it is a
> > > challenge is to make these intrinsic qualities of
> > nature manifest in an
> > > actual artwork, to exhibit these artworks in public,
> > to finally establish "a
> > > meaningful dialogue with the world at large".
> > > Best,
> > > Maria
> > > 
> > > Driessens & Verstappen
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On May 25, 2010, at 6:38 AM, christopher sullivan
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > kick me off this group if you like, but I cannot
> > believe that in a world 
> > > > full of hunger, politics, love, sex, children,
> > moose, you name it,
> > > > that so many people think that Data, machines,
> > are content.
> > > > 
> > > > Eilean is making a valid comparison. At least I
> > hope you realize that
> > > those
> > > > using image and sound as generative content, are
> > not just behind the times,
> > > we
> > > > work differently than you, and to much success.
> > > >  As a teacher I have told graduate students
> > that I could not work with
> > > them,
> > > > three times. one wanted to make fashionable
> > purses, one was a color field
> > > > painter (I sent them to fine color field
> > enthusiasts) and one animator who
> > > said
> > > > they where not interested in what there work was
> > about. But in twenty years
> > > I
> > > > have run into nothing but people who look at
> > there medium as a tool. I
> > > much
> > > > beloved tool, but a tool, a skill set, a craft,
> > to be reckoned with
> > > > historically,
> > > > but not the content of there work..
> > > > 
> > > >   this is not about age, (I am 49)
> > my 20 year old students are as bored by
> > > > glitches, chance operations, and algorithms as I
> > am. a computer IS a tool.
> > > If
> > > > you have a relationship with it, that is fine,
> > but many complex
> > > thinkers,(I
> > > > will call myself one) does look at my cameras,
> > sound recorders, computers,
> > > as
> > > > tools.
> > > > We make our work about other things, like most
> > filmmakers, writers,
> > > painters,
> > > > play writes, have been doing forever.
> > > >      Why are so many New Media
> > artists and academics, embracing modernism
> > > at
> > > > this moment in history. do we really have so
> > little faith in having a
> > > > meaningful dialogue with the world at large!
> > where is your blood?
> > > > 
> > > > from the Love, hate, sex, birth, death guy,
> > Chris.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Quoting Erika Jean Lincoln <fur_princess at yahoo.ca>:
> > > > 
> > > >> 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
> > "algorithmically"
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >> 
> > > >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > > >> empyre forum
> > > >> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > > >> 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 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
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > empyre forum
> > > > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> 


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