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

[b gottlieb]

Dear All,

singing in the outpouring here.

as far as I understood it, with processual art, we are in a position
of referring to the contemporary condition of our civilisation having
reached a point where one might almost be able to declare that it is
dependent on automated processes.   I think this is a central question
here.

This amazingly sophisticated "life-support system" we have created
with the technical arts, layer upon layer of physical and virtual
infrastructure (so many, so elaborate and so diffuse that we can no
longer speak of layers),  which engages our individual lives in so
many ways, has truly become a "Second Nature"  with its own
meterologies and flows, as fascinating (at least in as far as it is
made manifest)  as the "First Nature" we used to wonder at, and fear.

The added plus with the "Second Nature" is that we have the sense that
since we built it, we can control it.

I think Processual art addresses this situation in a few ways.

a) producing analogies (literally analog counterparts) to "Second
Nature", as a kind of homage to the "Second Nature" and,
simultaneously, a kind of adieu to (obsolescent notions of ) "First
Nature".  This position I call "Surrender". E.g.van Abbema's bacterial
work, and Kudla's leaves, Boredome research also a subgenre of works
made with fetish objects of obsolete technology: e.g.

b) producing generative models which allow our
still-flesh-and-bones-and-eyes-and-ears meat-world beings to
appreciate and enjoy the complexity of the "Second Nature".  This is
the aestheticising position of mastery and control. E.g. Sack, Rybn,
Driessens & Verstappen, Schmidt and many others in the show

c) a reactionary approach which emphasises the aspects of human
experience which cannot (yet) be technologized.  This is somehow the
position of identification with First Nature itself, integrating
Humanity with all its talents and capacities as part of Nature (and
more specifically terrestrial Nature)) I think of Willy Lemaitre's
work here for some reason, and maybe, my own...?

d) others... (I hope these categories may be useful...)

again, if I understand it, processual art exists where we consider the
interstices between First and Second Nature, between the Life Support
System and good (?) old-fashioned 'Life'. Further, I would like to ask
here if the process we are monitoring in processual art is that of our
dehumanisation.

If we pretend to take the scientific rigour whereby the machines
around us run so reliably and efficiently and attempt to apply that
kind of rigour to our ethics, we must contend that until there is a
certifiable fair trade computer there will be no legitimate critical
position in technological arts.

So few people really want to go back to the old texts through which
the foundations of our notion of humanity has been developed. Do we
believe that our automated systems have, programmed into them,  the
humanism which enabled the science which created them?  Are we in a
position of letting automated processes determine what is better or
worse for us as a species? Because we do not trust the individual
position? (inherent in this is the stepping back from authorship).

This may be one of the central questions of processual art.  If
machines can decide better than we can, and it is only our
responsibility to feed the machine enough data to process into
enlightened instructions, we have invested in the mesh of automated
processes, the 'life-support system, or Second Nature) all the agency
we used to invest in worship.   We will have become pagans in a
polytheistic world of techno-magic and of mystical terror.

For our own good, and for the survival of the species, we increasingly
see the convergence of, one one hand the improvement of automated
processes and, on the other, the adaptation of human behaviour to be
compatible with these. I am not sure if this is what Ursula Damm
refers to when she describes processual art as pre-politically
activist. But certainly, from a Flusserian point of view, this
situation is decidedly apolitical.

Processual Art as an apolitical field of tensions between First and
Second Nature?

all the best

Baruch







>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Process as paradigm: Time/Tools/Agency (Antoine Schmitt)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 10:06:53 +0200
> From: Antoine Schmitt <as at gratin.org>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Process as paradigm: Time/Tools/Agency
> Message-ID: <CBCB628D-8302-4753-BB38-821ED8DD1A9D at gratin.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> Dear Yann,
>
> I think that our respective opinions are not incompatible...
>
> Just to be precise, I indeed consider that programs, computers and
> processes are an artistic mean (call it a tool, medium, material,
> whatever, we can argue interestingly on the best notion..). Then with
> this mean, we as artist do address subjects, themes, have intentions,
> talk about something. And with processual art, we can address any
> theme, including the theme of programs and computers.
>
> I understand and agree with your idea that computers, internet and
> programs today constitutes an environment for us humans, that blends
> into the real environment of atoms (and moreover a "programmable
> environment" which is a nice concept). This is very interesting and
> new and contemporary, and even "real shit". But, but, but, there is no
> reason that any processual artist _should_ address this subject when
> using programs and processes as an artistic material.
>
> Like Philip Galanter said somewhere some time, "In medieval times
> painting was about God. With the Enlightenment painting was about man.
> In Modern times painting was about paint. And now in Postmodern times
> painting is about painting."
>
> I don't know where we stand now in Art History, but there is no reason
> why processual art should (or should not) be about processes (or
> processing).
>
> But of course, it is very tempting, practical and adequate to use it
> just for that, especially in a world, as you say, that is more and
> more processual itself, and where the process paradigm (point of view)
> is more and more prevalent. In a world where God, man, processes,
> processing and processors tend to become just the same thing.
>
>
>
>
> Le 28 mai 10 ? 19:58, Yann Le Guennec a ?crit :
>
> > Antoine Schmitt a ?crit :
> >> Le 25 mai 10 ? 06:38, christopher sullivan a ?crit :
> >>> a computer IS a tool
> >> Of course a computer is a tool, like anything else that an artists
> >> uses to create the artwork, like paint or programs.
> >> The fact is that it is a very special tool because it executes
> >> programs that implement processes. Programs and processes provide
> >> the artists with a new way to make artworks. I think that this new
> >> way is radically new, but this is another discussion. It is new and
> >> different. And we like it (indeed).
> >
> > So, from a materialist perspective, if you consider for example that
> > there is a computer in your car, one in your cellphone, both
> > communicating with satellites, and computers from your cellphone
> > operator,  and computers from your car provider, and other systems
> > on the road, etc... softwares and data are able to circulate from
> > one point to another in this network, with or without your
> > knowledge. Do you consider this kind of system is a tool or an
> > environment ? Something you can use or something you are in ? Surely
> > both, i think this is more like an environment, an usable
> > environment, like a forest or city, but an environment. Today's
> > "cloud computing" and "ubiquitous computing" are going that way. And
> > considering that all radio communications (Wifi, GSM,
> > bluetooth..) ,are literally going through our bodies, we are now
> > physicaly living *in* computers.
> >
> > But when i say that a computer is an environment and not (just) a
> > tool, i think more about the logic contained in computed processes,
> > based on boolean logical doors. When you use such tools, you must
> > accept them, and adapt your mind to this kind of processes, your
> > mind is in the process, the process surrounds it, it's an archetypal
> > environment made of binary digits and processors.
> >
> > At another level, this logic is now everywhere in the social,
> > economical, political space. All these spaces are computed,
> > processed by processors, and that's why we really live now in the
> > computer, and that's why i can't see it just like a tool anymore.
> >
> > So now the question could be: how is integrated processor's logic in
> > processual art ?
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Yann
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> ++ as
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 66, Issue 32
> **************************************