[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 76, Issue 3

[christina]

Simon writes:

"a computer annexes this interval
withdrawn indrawn drawn model
participating in the hallucination of a mathematics
to which in such twitch
subjectivities annexing subjectivities"


in the figure drawing class.

Suspect, the sense that my mind sees only what it knows.
> "We see what we know and what we are conditioned to see"

problem of ontology, a rat-race in a cage
twitching annex-indexically
> "participants are all making marks of what they know"

really  can 'a subject' be 'rendered'?  dream of many yet,
  she  escapes site even as I draw,
her body's charge an energy field, her consciousness resists mere  
countenance, her eyes look back at you not cameras, her body is not a  
room.
neither raum nor noun.
> "viewer (a human) that places the image within a complex symbolic or  
> imagined system of language "

she is not not human not in rendition like a  prisoner of war

who is this programmer, if there were indeed instructions in the  
programmer's wake, after his death,   would she, the 'model' have to  
be instructed, truly rendered?
Tats, tucks, surgically, inscripted,  'culturally conditioned' ,  
emulated, becoming-something,?

may i propose, that drawing and rendering are not equivalent,

....

-c

On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:35 PM, Alex Gibson wrote:

> Drawing with computers has been something of an obsession of mine  
> for nearly 7 years (http://alexgibson.com.au/image/tid/9). It's  
> important to remember that the computer is programmed. The machine  
> carries out the logic, the cause and effect, to the letter (and  
> BIT). The concepts and relationships developed in the program are  
> considered, included or discarded by the programmer, a human.
>
> Agency is a strange idea, and one that is difficult to place. We  
> rarely talk about the agency of pencil and paper, but often we  
> speculate on the agency of code, circuits and complex machines.  
> Computer vision algorithms are breaking down an old specialisation  
> that we humans pride ourselves on, namely being able to recognise  
> stuff within a field of vision and related it to other stuff. But it  
> is the viewer (a human) that places the image within a complex  
> symbolic or imagined system of language and culture, not the computer.
>
> Visibility is the organisation of sense data into inter-subjective  
> and social realities. We see what we know and what we are  
> conditioned to see. This is perhaps most evident in a life drawing  
> class, where participants are all making marks of what they know,  
> and perhaps (as Zizek would say) what they don't know that they  
> know; anatomy, gesture, feeling, perspective, proportion, etc. The  
> subject is isolated, framed and rendered according to the skill and  
> limit of the artists. A computer drawing is no different, except  
> part of the mechanical act of looking is deferred. The wet camera of  
> the human eye and its relational brain to the dry obscura of the cam  
> and its various wares. The machine is programmed with the  
> instructions of the programmer, and these instructions betray  
> prejudices', preferences, aesthetic whims and other culturally  
> conditioned limits that are visible, if we decide to look.
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre