[-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies & critical engineering

Mon Feb 13 21:17:12 EST 2012

We live in a profoundly different world to the 70's and 80's, in regard to media. In the past few years we have entered a post-convergence techno-culture. This is to say that the dynamics of media convergence that typified the 80's and 90's is more or less complete and most electronic media now exist in a digital form, accessible from the same or similar platforms. Even some very old-media (the book, for example) are subject to the same forces of convergence. The effect of this is that it is no longer possible to define media in terms of their technical characteristics. We are required to consider them in their social dimension. The relationship between film and video is an excellent example of how this has panned out. Film remains a generally large scale shared experience, as typified by the cinema. Video remains a small and intimate medium, as typified by the TV or Youtube. However, technically, there is no significant difference in these two media. Details like hardware specification and codec capability aside, they are technically the same. The differences we perceive around them as media are social, not technical (in the 70's and 80's the differences were both and we argued over which was the determiner). The question is whether this "difference" is a hangover from prior mediale norms or due to something more profound about society and its apparatus? I'd suggest it is probably a mix of the two factors and they are likely to be functions of one another. Bolter's concept of remediation is as relevant to understanding what is happening to our technologies and epistemologies as is Foucault's of the dispositif and Latour's ideas on socio-technical systems. What are not relevant are the arguments concerning media specificity that dominated the critical discourses of media culture during the 70's and 80's. In my experience that is a big difference.

best

Simon

On 12 Feb 2012, at 22:59, César Baio wrote:

> 
> GH:
> The main idea of video is a live broadcast or a disjuncture of place/space so your initial premise seems correct to me.  However, video is just one of the multimedia components of digital art/media.  For example. data sensors, audio I/O
> video, stills, photoshop, hacking, animation, video mapping onto 3D, virtual worlds etc.. all hold equal value.  Obviously we're talking/working in an information world.
> 
> Cesar:
> In my opinion, with the digital media we are living in a technical, aesthetic and artistic context very different from the 1970s and 1980s video art. I agree with you that digital is not the same as video. What I mean is that, although I agree with many of the relationships established by Manivich between film and digital, I believe the video has a more intimate relationship with the digital. Briefly, only to exemplify, from the point of view of the technology, although in an analogue way, 
> video was based on the light measurement by numbers. The video already used sampling techniques. It had an information processing system. It was based on some kinds of virtualities - such as size and color balance of the pixel (on the lines) of camera / TV / monitor.
> From the aesthetic point of view, many video artists in the 70's and 80's have based their work on the creation of apparatus in the form of video installations. Many of them explored the creation of synthetic images (abstract ones) by the manipulation of rays of TV tubes, questioning the indexicality of technical image.  They also do hacking on devices (audio and videotapes, cameras, TV monitors etc) to consider other operating logics of media devices. They already have used sensors attached to the videotapes and cameras.
> But that does not mean that we do today is the same thing they did. The questions they addressed have been continuously updated and were joined by others that occur in the field of media networking, mobile devices, gaming and many other fields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:06:36 +0000
> > From: marc.garrett at furtherfield.org
> > To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies & critical engineering
> > 
> > -----------I just realised that yesterday, I sent this post to Julian 
> > personally rather than to the Empyre list by mistake.
> > 
> > Sorry Julian, here it is again resent to its correct location :-)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Julian,
> > 
> > Excuse my late interaction with the list regarding its current 
> > discussion - as usual too much going on. But, I'm happy to be 
> > (momentarily) distracted and jump in here to explore some of the aspects 
> > or key elements you have proposed in your last post...
> > 
> > Within your manifesto you say "The Critical Engineer looks beyond the 
> > 'awe of implementation' to determine methods of influence and their 
> > specific effects."
> > 
> > Now, the implementation of building a manifesto has its own reflective 
> > 'awe', in which we acknowledge not only the subject but the writer(s) at 
> > the same time. I am wondering whether we need to re-consider particular 
> > nuances of habit in relation to the creation of manifestos?
> > 
> > For instance defining the differences of 'one or a group' amongst 
> > others, through the implementation of a manifesto creates its own 
> > meta-rules. It becomes about the manifesto as self (and peer) 
> > initiation, psychologically, socially and defining a particular status.
> > 
> > What is the message beyond the language itself if we consider the 
> > function within a social context, and what are the borders it redefines 
> > and who is it really for?
> > 
> > Is it rather a behaviour statement and perhaps not a manifesto, or both 
> > (and more)?
> > 
> > Just interested :-)
> > 
> > Wishing you well.
> > 
> > marc
> > > ..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
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Other Info:
> > 
> > Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network
> > http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change 
> > since 1997
> > 
> > Also - Furtherfield Gallery& Social Space:
> > http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
> > 
> > About Furtherfield:
> > http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about
> > 
> > Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.
> > http://www.netbehaviour.org
> > 
> > http://identi.ca/furtherfield
> > http://twitter.com/furtherfield
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120213/30f33fb0/attachment.htm>