[-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies & critical engineering

Sun Feb 12 03:55:32 EST 2012

I agree on all your points Julian.

I would like to hear more about your distinction between technology, (topic) and engineering (material) as i think of engineering as a process, and technology as the material.

I would like to add that I see the same kind of lack of critical awarenss in science also. Both are often seen as alien constructions operating indepently of human culture, which I don't buy. I suppose his is due to a, perceived or real, technoscientific elite that shuts down critisism, and simply the complexity of knowledge in both.

As I consider both science and technology (emphasizing the former) as cultural extensions, I believe my role as an artist is to reflect on thier, often invisible, implications for how we construct cultural human identity. In particular notions of creativity, self, consciousness, and the notion of Truth/reality. 

Please excuse any errors, I could not wait to jump in.

Looking forward to the continuing discussion.
B. Bogart

-- 
Sent from my Nokia N900
----- Original message -----
> ..on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:18:06PM +0000, Simon Biggs wrote:
> > Much contemporary computer based art work has a cargo-cult like
> > quality due to such illiteracy. This can be interesting but usually in
> > spite of itself.
> 
> Indeed, also one of the fruits of Bricolage. However with a language like
> Engineering having such influence over the lives and minds of people -
> how we eat, travel, communicate - I really think you need to speak the
> language to truly act critically within its scope. 
> 
> This is what we sought to underscore in the manifesto:
> 
>         http://criticalengineering.org
> 
> I've talked to several artists that have expressed disempowerment in
> this age of database automation, google maps, wireless networking, the
> Cloud etc - technologies that shape how they live and even their
> practice yet they find no entry point to dissassembling and thus
> critically engaging them. It's not enough to talk about how we are
> influenced by all this engineering - technology that becomes social,
> political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us in little better
> position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the mechanics of
> influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as a
> material (engineering).
> 
> Most that receive this email will have little or no idea how it arrived
> to their inbox, unable to accurately describe it to another, not even
> close. At the same time most would be able to describe how a postcard
> arrived at their friends mailbox. Just 15 years.. 
> 
> Ignorance as to how these engineered infrastructures actually function,
> what they do and what is done with them behind their own presentation,
> is actively being abused both inside and out of democracies. 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Julian
> 
> > On 9 Feb 2012, at 13:44, César Baio wrote:
> > 
> > > Hallo all,
> > > 
> > > It is interesting because this remains a field of questions for me.
> > > But I can talk a bit about my experience with this.
> > > 
> > > When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the
> > > device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance
> > > of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture
> > > in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and
> > > images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I
> > > think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view
> > > because for those who can operate with the technology has in your
> > > hand a very powerful language. We say "programming language" but why
> > > not to say something like "technological language"?. Who understands
> > > the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so
> > > only to turn it into other languages.
> > > 
> > > In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to
> > > take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects.
> > > An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some
> > > questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film
> > > and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me
> > > to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video
> > > than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very
> > > strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot
> > > the way deals the other problems of my thesis.
> > > 
> > > I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to
> > > how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these
> > > issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the
> > > forum.
> > > 
> > > > From: gabriel.menotti at gmail.com
> > > > Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 +0000
> > > > To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > > > Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies & critical
> > > > engineering
> > > > 
> > > > Hey!
> > > > 
> > > > > my first area of study was the electronics, and I
> > > > > think that today this has much influence on what I have written
> > > > > and on my experimental projects. [César Baio]
> > > > 
> > > > Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software,
> > > > I’d be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical
> > > > background provides to your research. Are these overt influences
> > > > or more subtle ones? Could you please give some examples – either
> > > > theoretical or empirical?
> > > > 
> > > > Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field
> > > > to another?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > I'm interested in if
> > > > > and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of
> > > > > technology making their production and use more accessible, how
> > > > > are different (and ambiguous) the strategies that the artist
> > > > > uses [CB]
> > > > 
> > > > Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind
> > > > here (there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated
> > > > by Simon and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in
> > > > artistic practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or
> > > > would these strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as
> > > > academic researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they?
> > > > 
> > > > Best!
> > > > Menotti
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> > 
> > 
> > Simon Biggs
> > simon at littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK
> > skype: simonbiggsuk
> > 
> > s.biggs at ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
> > http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/
> > http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> -- 
> Julian Oliver
> http://julianoliver.com
> http://criticalengineering.org
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre