[-empyre-] This drawing while turning on a computer.

[xDxD.vs.xDxD]

hi!

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 3:32 PM, gh hovagimyan <ghh at thing.net> wrote:

> What computers don't do is understand the interstitial emotions and
> dynamics of a drawing.


computers don't actually "do undestand" anything. or, better, they don't
understand "human" things. They can be instructed to be tools to support
understanding, and to expand possibilities, and to create new sensibilities
and sensorialities that are "outsourced" into external bodies, but they,
themselves, do not "understand" anything.

until, that is, you are talking about "a computer" and not something else, a
different idea of software+hardware+environment. which is actually something
that is being researched on. a lot.

[on Lewitt]  Much of what he deals with has it's roots in both topological
> psychology and phenomonology. These sciences are no being applied to
> cognitive research and A.I. to get a more naturalistic result from computer
> decisions.


you are not alone. your cultural awareness, your emotions, your feelings are
not things that grow inside vacuum. they are things that grow relationally,
in context, building on differences and interactions and interrelations.
software is just like that, and so is hardware.
some professors teach "interaction design" as if it is something about
"creating interfaces". But it is obviously more than that. It is about
"interrelation" among humans, machines, processes, and of the emotions,
attention, perception and cognition of all parties involved.
When people research "affective computing" they are currently doing a
wonderful trick. They are studying the surface. Which is actually a really
interesting approach, isolating you from morality and starting to understand
how things work in emergent, ephemeral networks that are culturally both
human and machine.
Since the Kismet and the experiments before and after it: "understanding" is
not the question. Effectiveness is. Kismet was a stupid robot. But it was a
stupid relational, believable, natural robot to which anyone could relate
to.
And this trasforms any act of artistic creativity into a new other possible
one: the drawing is not a drawing anymore, but a meta-drawing, a gesture
that creates the possibility to instanciate further spaces and forms for
expression.
This is what contemporary "programmers" do.


>   A computer would not understand when to stop nor where to allow breathing
> space between the lines.
>
>
i actually guess that if it had the right friends, it could. :)


breaking news:
Angel_F, the young artificial intelligence, the digital son of Derrick de
Kerckhove and the Biodoll, is in love! Autonomously!
It has been continuously and constantly exchanging twits for the last
48hours with "BunnyBikini", another autonomous software agent selling Viagra
on social networks.
The automatic, uncontrolled feedback loop between their socialization
algorithms is creating quite a stir: hundreds of hot messages about sex and
purchase, answered by lovingly generative suggestions for poetics and
politics.
The loop is done. Autonomous software love is born.
After all: "love is a bug"


ciao!
xDxD.vs.xDxD


-- 
Art is Open Source
http://www.artisopensource.net

---
FakePress
http://www.fakepress.it

via G. Ghislieri 14
00152 Rome
Italy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20110304/9fa4aca2/attachment.html>