[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 92, Issue 21

Vicki Sowry ars at anat.org.au
Fri Jul 20 11:55:25 EST 2012


Just a quick note...

ANAT has published a couple of editions of Filter that address
transformations of screen space that listers might be interested in...
In 2009 we published Screen Play, edited by Scott Hessels, himself a
tour-de-force in challenging everything to do with screens:
http://filter.anat.org.au/category/issue-70/

And, in 2010, Exploding the Frame (specifically about fulldome screens and
the impact that 'removing the frame of reference' has on filmmakers and
audiences alike: http://filter.anat.org.au/category/issue-76/

Cheers
Vicki 


On 20/07/12 6:15 AM, "empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au"
<empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> wrote:

> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: July on empyre: Sceens (week 3) (Scott Mcquire)
>    2. Re: stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines (Scott Mcquire)
>    3. Extending the screen beyond the 'Proscenicum Arch'
>       (Andreas Maria Jacobs)
>    4. Re: stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines
>       (Johannes Birringer)
>    5. Re: stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines (Sean Cubitt)
>    6. Re: July on empyre: Sceens (week 3) Anri Sala installation
>       (Karen O'Rourke)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:38:42 +0000
> From: Scott Mcquire <mcquire at unimelb.edu.au>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Sceens (week 3)
> Message-ID:
> <D5267BF1B9394A469E73E9A083FA6EE0398D5BEF at 000S-EX-MBX-QS4.unimelb.edu.au>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Simon?s reference to ?expanded cinema? reminded me of an a conversation I had
> with Jeffrey Shaw a few years ago.  Some snips  of Jeffrey below, which make
> clear the link between experimenting with new screening situations and the
> later interest in immersive experiences.
> 
> Best, scott
> 
> ... my other interest became very strongly focused on the notion of expanded
> cinema. So this was really addressing the cinema per se, and as an artist
> starting to think of myself as a filmmaker who was also clearly completely
> dissatisfied with what cinema was, and still is, which is just this big
> spectacle ? but on the other hand, enjoying it a lot ? but feeling this
> terrible frustration of being this passive audience member.
> 
> All this energy of the drawing that is somehow sublimated into the
> inaccessibility of the precious object, or the energy of the movie, that
> somehow is sublimated into its being trapped on the screen, in the cinema
> auditorium, and the audience are then sort of obligated to have a specific
> relationship with it. And looking for ways to get the film to come out of the
> screen and enter the space of the audience, or to allow the audience to enter
> the space of the film, which is the basic expanded cinema paradigm.
> 
> So I started to do a lot of performances at that time, performance art things,
> which were again all directed at cinema, and they were usually titled
> ?Dissolution of this? or ?Dissolution of that?. So they were called
> ?Dissolutionary Events?. And the notion was that the cinematic illusions would
> be subverted.
> 
> That subversion what sometimes done very literally, like the screen would just
> be made out of paper, and behind the screen I?d have tubing which could be
> inflated, so films projected on this screen, at a certain moment the screen
> would start to break up and burst and tear, and out of the screen came this
> tubing so that the screen, instead of being a plane, became this tubular
> three-dimensional object which then pushed its way out into the audience. And
> the film was still attaching itself to the surface of this tubing; so the film
> was basically being extruded out into the audience and then became a plaything
> for the audience. At that stage the audience was playing both with the tubing
> and with the image that was imprinted on it.
> 
> There were a whole bunch of performances that were done at that time. The
> scenographies for these were quite funky; there was also a very strong erotic
> element in a lot of them. At that time I also came under the spell of a
> surrealist painter called Clovis Trouille, who was making these surreal erotic
> paintings, and I also was influenced by?at that time there was a thing called
> the Destruction in Art Symposium, at the ICA in London. It was my first
> exposure to Fluxus live, actually seeing performances, seeing and hearing
> these people, meeting them.I suppose it also synched well with my own teenage
> sexual energies at that time. So those performances I was doing had a strong
> erotic narrative. [...]
> 
> I suppose one of the high points was the Knokke  which was called Movie Movie.
> That was in ?67, ?68. [MOVIEMOVIE, 1968, 4th Experimental Film Festival,
> Knokke le Zoute, Belgium] That was a very large-scale piece with a very large
> inflatable structure where the whole audience, or a large number of people in
> the audience, threw off their clothes and just jumped in spontaneously ? or
> not so much spontaneously, they were led by Jean-Jacques Lebel. He took off
> his clothes because he understood that this was the right thing to do, because
> you were throwing yourself into the projection screen, into the images that
> were projected onto that screen, and basically you were then body-painting
> yourself with all this cinematic imagery and disturbing, changing the
> curvature and shaping of the screen, so it was really throwing yourself into
> the screen and joining, immersing yourself in the cinematic space.
> 
> And this, after a week of experimental cinema where people were sitting in
> chairs watching fabulous experimental films, and getting more and more pent
> up, more and more energy building up, but unable to do anything? Then suddenly
> at the end there was this finale when suddenly you could jump into the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 18/07/12 10:09 PM, "Simon Biggs" <simon at littlepig.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> I'm mainly referring to the practices of the 60's through to the 80's, that
> were initially termed 'expanded cinema' (Youngblood has to be mentioned in
> this discussion at some point). My own practice is rooted in that period and
> in the days when I did make single screen works (the 70's and 80's), for
> display on monitors and projection screens, I employed irregular framing and
> avoided filling the whole rectangle of the frame. I would leave much of it
> black (which could read as blank) and allow the subject material comprising
> the image to determine the shape of the frame it required. This was easy as I
> produced all my images synthetically (no cameras involved) so was in control
> of every pixel in every frame. Of course, the rectangular 4:3 (as it had to be
> then) frame was still there but, especially when projected straight onto a
> wall and with careful balancing of the projector settings and ambient light,
> to ensure that black didn't read as projected black, the image elements app
>  eared more or less as one with the wall, like a fresco. This allowed the
> elements of the image not only to be read as not a rectangular frame but as
> discrete visual elements. Using multiple projections further enhanced the
> sense that the screen, as a defined area, no longer applied. Since the 1980's
> I've extended this differentiation of the visual elements by making them
> independently interactive, so objects react individually to user/viewer
> presence and action (not just their physical location or movement, but their
> voice, the words they speak - using voice recognition - and other behaviours).
> This requires object oriented programming and some AI algorithms as well as,
> again, attention to how the projected image is delivered and interacts with
> the environment it is in, and taking into account the limits of human
> perception and how our expectations determine what we see. The result is that
> you aren't aware of the screen or frame as such, even though these are always
> there in
>   the apparatus.
> 
> Rafael's work also has elements of this sort of approach, especially his
> relational architecture pieces, which destabilise the projected frame and the
> structures he projects onto. His work is all screen and yet it is difficult to
> perceive where the screen starts and stops or, indeed, whether it is even
> there or not.
> 
> The work that Salvatore refers to functions more like a Warhol multiple -
> using repetition to break our sense of contiguity and spatial relations. This
> is a trick that was used by Paik to great effect in many of his classic and
> influential works, particularly the larger video sculptures like Global Groove
> and Electronic Superhighway.
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> On 18 Jul 2012, at 06:39, Scott Mcquire wrote:
> 
> Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Sceens (week 3)
> Don?t know if we?re ever going to ?throw out? the frame  ? this is a key
> aspect of the continuity I was evoking between earlier screen forms and
> contemporary devices including mobile phones and tablets.
> 
> In an earlier post Kriss Ravetto mentioned Eisenstein, who of course relates
> the (cinema) screen to both the printed page but especially to painting (the
> aesthetic of the golden section etc).  The standardisation of the rectangular
> screen is certainly integral to the current production of screens as commodity
> form, but the frame (which does not have to be rectangular) as a function
> pre-exists this relation, and hence shouldn?t be reduced to it.
> 
> But I take your point about the assimilation of video art ? this where the
> shift of the screen beyond the gallery starts to ask interesting questions
> about protocols of display.
> 
> Scott
> 
> 
> On 18/07/12 6:54 AM, "Simon Biggs" <simon at littlepig.org.uk
> <x-msg://164/simon@littlepig.org.uk> > wrote:
> 
> Video needs to step out of the frame, like sculpture needed to step off the
> plinth 50 years ago. The thing is, from the beginning, video (art) stepped out
> of the frame (Vostell, Jonas, et al). Ironically, video art seems to have
> gained acceptance in the mainstream of the art world as it has chosen to step
> back into the frame again, aping (home) cinema. Sad, really...
> 
> best
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> On 17 Jul 2012, at 19:35, Sean Cubitt wrote:
> 
> Ciao Salvatore, salut Karen, G'day Scott, hello
> 
> I just visited Sung Hwan Kim's installation in the new Tanks space at Tate
> Modern, which attempts something like the open space of fixed screens
> Salvatore talks abut: perhaps not as vividly as the Guangshen Superhighway
> market (though they have tried to keep the ambience of alternative industrial
> spaces / lofts / warehouses and the other marginal spaces used by performance
> and video artists for decades). The social structuring of space is what Kim's
> installation is 'about' rather than what it achieves
> 
> Coming up at the tanks is a day showing Anthony McCall's four cone films (one
> of which is in permanent display at ACMI in Melbourne) - abstract works where
> a shifting line projects through haze creating a 3D projection space ? hints
> and memories of works like Andrea Zapp and Paul Sermon's Body of Water, part
> shown in a derelict mine building where archive footage of miners in the
> showers after their shift was projected onto a 'screen' made of falling water
> (http://www.artdes.mmu.ac.uk/~azapp/art_works.html)
> 
> What's intriguing for our discussion is that there might be another
> distinction to make. On one hand the socialised screen-space of the market as
> a kind of DIY installation, a way of populating and inhabiting a space
> (non-lieu), turning what appears to be the void under a motorway into a Place,
> a process which also describes what Sermon and Zapp did (the installation also
> involved telematic elements but "The shower room is the heart of the
> installation, all the visual and conceptual layers meet here" as zapp writes
> on her site)
> 
> On the other McCall's magical transformation of the black box into a kind of
> sculptural space. Lis Rhodes' Light Music, which has a related aesthetic,
> wasn't working when I visited the Tanks today ? hopefully it will be soon).
> 
> Both suggest something important about screening as a practice: that the
> boredom so many people report about biennial-style video art is based on the
> uninteresting mode of projection, four-square on a white wall, only
> occasionally improved when curators have enough nous to silver, or to project
> onto grey or black
> 
> As Karen says, work like Bill Viola's can rescue themselves from this tedium
> by sheer visual power, and perhaps by evoking other kinds of screen (the
> reredos or altar screen, other decorations which hide while hinting at the
> sacred ritual space behind them). Viola is one of the few who seems ready to
> pry apart the foveal concentration, the selection of what on the screen we
> should be attentive to, for example by masking or otherwise making  obscure
> his angel's faces, so that the peripheral vision opens out not just to
> offscreen space but to the nuanced tonalities of the 'background'
> 
> I've grown to dislike the banal four-square projection: there have been such
> brilliant uses of keystone effects (Stansfeld and Hooykaas for example) - now
> all DLP projectors come with automatic anti-keystoning which can be a bugger
> to switch off -  or of projecting onto corrugation (the People Show), curved
> or textured or otherwise tactile, sculptural, 3D (smoke, water, bodies)
> surfaces and objects . . .
> 
> Should we think of the rectangular screen, bounded with a frame, as a prison?
> Or should we consider it as something like the form of the sonnet, a rigid
> construct into which, however, from Petrarch to Wordsworth, for several
> hundred years, or like the 3-minute pop song, an amazing variety of poetic and
> musical action has been perpetrated? But even so, we need to understand what
> that is
> 
> William Carlos Williams wrote of the beginning of free verse
> "To break the pentameter, that was the first heave"
> Which is itself a pentameter . . . Do we need to throw out the framed screen,
> the regular and normative rectangle? Is that enough (eg in Gary Hill's or Tony
> Ousler's work)? Or can the pure proliferation make the relation with screens
> open out onto other modes of relationship, ways of relating to each other
> otherwise than through the object/commodity?
> 
> S
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "xDxD.vs.xDxD" <xdxd.vs.xdxd at gmail.com
> <x-msg://164/xdxd.vs.xdxd@gmail.com> >
> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> <x-msg://164/empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> >
> Date: Tuesday, 17 July 2012 17:06
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> <x-msg://164/empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au> >
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Sceens (week 3)
> 
> 
> hello everyone,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Scott Mcquire <mcquire at unimelb.edu.au
> <x-msg://164/mcquire@unimelb.edu.au> > wrote:
> What was really interesting was the way the audience shifted around the space
> to watch.  It wasn?t the platform that moved (like the old diorama with
> rotating floor) but the people who would stand, sit, lie in one place then
> turn around or get up and move elsewhere as another came on. The afternoon I
> saw it there were about 60 people doing this together for over 30 minutes.
> This creates a really fascinating spatial ambiance, where screens are
> simultaneoulsy material objects (blocking passage, blocking view) and surfaces
> that open into heterogeneous spaces.
> 
> At one stage, all the screens are just red, then pale with no image, while the
> sound is dispersed throughout the entire gallery.  Everyone kind of wandered
> around, not really looking for or at anything, but enjoying a promenade among
> the screens in each other?s company.
> 
> 
> 
> in this market, in China, under a highway,
> 
> http://www.othermarkets.org/index.php?tdid=17&part=6&txt=0&poststart=0
> 
> dozens of screens are lined up on one side of the space, each tuned in to a
> different channel or dvd
> 
> instead of using a remote to change channel, people move to a different table.
> 
> screens, in this case, are a platform built into public space and into
> people's perceptions. in-between the two, actually.
> 
> both for people who watch them, and for people who use them to propose
> services of various types: as soon as enough people gather around a single
> table, watching something on that channel or dvd, other people immediately
> arrive, offering services of various kinds, videogame consoles (to be attached
> to screens, as well!), board games, food or even internet connections.
> 
> i particularly enjoy this example, as it is a peculiar way in which screens
> modify our perception of space (they are un-movable, yet they suggest how
> people move and reassemble and relate in public space), and their
> configuration suggests the affordances of public space and, thus, also the
> economic (business) models which can be built into them.
> 
> In more than one way it is not different from many geo-referenced mobile
> applications :)
> 
> all the best!
> salvatore
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120718/cd1d72d4/
> attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 00:15:59 +0000
> From: Scott Mcquire <mcquire at unimelb.edu.au>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines
> Message-ID:
> <D5267BF1B9394A469E73E9A083FA6EE0398D5C3A at 000S-EX-MBX-QS4.unimelb.edu.au>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Hi Salvatore, Johannes, and everyone
> 
> I really enjoyed both your posts.  I think it?s clear that the dominant
> trajectory, as Johannes points out, is using screens for varied modes of
> spectacle and surveillance.  But I agree with Salvatore that this context
> makes it even more important to recognise and try to develop alternative
> modalities. I?ve also recently been re-reading Lefebvre, specifically his Le
> Droit de Ville essay, where he emphasises the importance for inhabitants to be
> able to ?appropriate? the time and space of the urban. In relation to screens,
> this kind of appropriation can occur at a variety of levels, but one of the
> most fundamental moves is demanding that screens situated in public locations
> are able to be accessed by different publics, to  support diverse, collective
> inputs (as in the atlante-dell-visioni/atlas-of-the-visions project that
> Salvatore mentions). In our work, we?ve found that there is often an unspoken
> barrier to public interaction with large screens ? precisely because people
> are 
>  so innured to the one-way display mode of advertising and broadcasting.
> 
> Of course, public ?inputs? can cover a whole spectrum from harvesting data via
> crowdsourcing techniques to providing platforms for deeper forms of dialogical
> exchange.  One of the strengths of an work like Rafael?s Body Movies is
> precisely its capacity to use the screen as an interface to inspire, provoke
> and facilitate spontaneous playful interactions among groups of strangers.
> 
> Best, scott
> 
> On 19/07/12 4:55 AM, "xDxD.vs.xDxD" <xdxd.vs.xdxd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> hi Johannes and everyone!
> 
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Johannes Birringer
> <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Surely not in real-time interactive art installations, and
>> I wonder or worry about crowdsourced raising of
>> political consciousness/cognitive compasses, too...
> 
> 
> i'm glad you're bringing this up.
> 
> we obviously know that the objective of neutrality is technically unreachable
> for human beings, but in our practice we try to be at least honest :)  and
> highlight all the points of view that we are aware of.
> 
> the case of the technologies i mentioned earlier (harvest real-time info from
> social networks, use natural language analysis to understand topics/issues and
> expressions/emotions, make info accessible in a variety of ways, from AR to
> screens to body augmentations) is no exception. Even considering the fact that
> it touches many open issues for which we're passionate about ( the
> dictatorship of the algorithm, privacy/intimacy/anonymity, privately owned
> public spaces.. and we could go on and on )
> 
> this is why, for example, we used the same exact technologies for radically
> different projects
> 
> for example as in the Atlas of Rome, where we built a large urban screen in
> which citizens could publish their visions about the city in a variety of ways
> 
> http://www.artisopensource.net/2010/06/13/atlante-dell-visioni-atlas-of-the-vi
> sions/
> 
> or as in VersuS, where we analyzed the digital life of the city of Rome during
> the violent riots in the city of Rome on October 15th 2011
> 
> http://www.artisopensource.net/2011/11/06/versus-the-realtime-lives-of-cities/
> 
> but also as in "Enlarge your Consciousness"
> 
> http://www.artisopensource.net/2012/02/12/enlarge-your-consciousness-in-4-days
> -4-free-2/
> 
> here we used the same technologies to sell unaware social network users'
> emotional states for 9.99 euros at the Artefiera contemporary arts fair in
> Bologna, capturing their emotional flows as expressed on
> Facebook/Twitter/Foursquare and basically, turning them into human
> tamagotchis.
> 
> we sold hundreds of them at the fair. and the most common question we received
> was "but... i could be in one of those boxes?" exposing multiple interesting
> things about the common perception of the processes which are behind these
> techniques and methodologies.
> 
> Yet we perceive opportunity and, most of all, possibility behind this.
> 
> but it's an "old" question, isn't it? Is the "hammer" a tool to drive nails
> into the walls or to smash your head?
> 
> Fact is that all these technologies correspond to specific business and
> strategic models which are relevant to corporations, large cultural operators,
> institutions, governments and many other forms of "power".
> 
> this obviously applies to screens, as well: fixed, urban, ubiquitous,
> body-related, square, key-stoned and frameless
> 
> for example, sticking to my personal research focus, Mitchell's idea of the
> City of Bits, or of McCullough's Digital Ground, or of Zook&Graham's DigiPlace
> are very interesting when brought to the domain of the screen, especially of
> the urban and ubiquitous quality, as they in someway describe the possibility
> to achieve a multi-layered, emergent version of the city, in which multiple
> points of view can be freely expressed across cultures and perspectives.
> 
> This is a very interesting point of view, as it places enormous questions on
> the practices of design and architecture which are authoritarian by their own
> nature: the Designer and the Architect, in the end, make the Plan that will
> shape what i see/traverse/live in the city.
> 
> There is a wonderful liason with this concept in Cl?ment's Third Landscape,
> where he describes the presence of natural environments in urban contexts.
> Normally nature is present in cities under the form of synthetic
> administrative boundaries (the flowers at the center of the roundabout, the
> vegetables in the supermarkets, the "park").
> 
> The Third Landscape, instead, is a place for possibility and opportunity, and
> it is emergent, real-time, temporary, autonomous (the grass in-between the
> bricks).
> 
> And it is the possibly most important factor in determining our cities'
> biodiversity.
> 
> One thing about the Third Landscape is that its existence really depends on us
> and on our "sight", and our sensibility in seeing and recognizing it while we
> lead our daily lives in cities.
> 
> Seeing creates a perception (of the "possibility" of this kind of natural
> environment) and, thus, a spatial affordance ("this type of natural
> environment can exist") and, in turn, a series of critical, constructivist
> practices which can be based onto it (one for all: urban gardening).
> 
> I see a beautiful parallel between this and the theme of the screen in urban
> contexts, be it fixed or ubiquitous or of the many types which can exist
> nowadays.
> 
> people constantly re-program public space. mobile devices and screens
> radicalize this process. If you're jogging in the middle of a park, you
> receive an office phone call on your mobile phone, the park transforms into an
> ubiquitous office for a few minutes, careless of urban planning, zoning and
> administrative boundaries.
> 
> In the same way, if your pocketable (or wall-mounted) screen enables you to
> freely and easily perceive (or "publish") multiple, independent, autonomous,
> emergent interpretations of the same space, space transforms, and other
> practices can emerge.
> 
> in my research, this greatly enhances the ideas of de Certeau's "strategies vs
> tactics", of Lefebvre's "social construction of space"  and of Soja's "Third
> Space".
> 
> In this, great insights can be collected by focusing on de Certeau's idea of
> "daily practices", meaning that it is interesting how Lefebvre wanted to
> capitalize on these kinds of possibilites for the sake of a political agenda
> and, instead, in de Certeau, politics should emerge from the creativity of our
> daily practices, in an interesting inversion.
> 
> and, so:
> 
> whether the vision of the ubiquitous urban screen-net-to-end-all-screens is a
> globalized metropolitan vision for the hyperdeveloped, leaving out the
> regional, the less developed, underdeveloped and non developed (along these
> predicted lines)?
> 
> 
> this is focal issue to confront, in the wider range of issues which we
> commonly call digital inclusion and digital access.
> 
> both at technical and cultural levels.
> 
> "solutions" can never be as simple as "smartphone", "urban screen" or "app".
> They need to confront with the context (cultural, political, social,
> economic...) and, probably, the architectural diagrams of "solutions" should
> have a big box at their base with the word "anthropologist" inside it, before
> sensors, cloud computing, expert systems, screens of any form and type. And,
> possibly, a box with "citizens", as well :)
> 
> 
> 
> And Salvatore mentioned a performance in which bodies "displayed"... (body of
> the performer was a "display" [screen?] of user interactions and, in turn,
> everything that was heard/shown as sound and video of the performance was
> generated my the dancer's movements and biological data.);  Salvatore, could
> you please elaborate on that, and how you, and others here, think about the
> performance side of interactive behaviors and what they might or might not
> indicate?  Following Sean's critique, have consumer relations changed at all
> in principle?
> 
> In Turner's anthropological definition, performance is liminal: it exposes
> conflicts and highlights discontinuities with predetermined order.
> 
> I particularly enjoyed Luisa Valeriani's book "Performers".
> 
> Performers break crystallizations of meaning, recombining imaginaries in
> creative ways: they subvert by playing. Knowledge is not confronted through
> academic discussions, but through practical performative actions.
> 
> Nowadays, consumers are performers, and business models are based on this.
> "Products" have changed, and have become "places for performance".
> 
> Even more, people's (users', consumers') performance has become the "product".
> Think Facebook, the iPhone etc. When we observe iPhone's design with our
> students for the first time we really focus on the fact that most of it's
> success is due to the fact that it's "empty", ready to be used by its "owner"
> to express him/herself by populating it with apps which describe personality,
> desires, perspectives, points of view, daily practices, needs.... iPhone is a
> performative object.
> 
> and (coincidence?) it is a screen. there's practically nothing more to it,
> than a screen.
> 
> a performative screen.
> 
> now: iPhone is, obviously, a very controlled screen
> 
> but its characteristic of being "an empty, ready to be performed, screen which
> constitutes a platform for personal expression" changed everything.
> 
> We see the scenarios of interactivity and (ubiquitous) screens along these
> directions, with the idea of exploring spaces/modalities for liberation of
> these "platforms for expression".
> 
> in the example of the performance i mentioned, all was dedicated to this.
> 
> radicalizing the idea of reactive/interactive environments, we tried to create
> constructivist experience which would shape the sensorial environment
> according to people's interactions in extreme ways, to disclose a set of
> opportunities which we perceived as being critical.
> 
> as suggested in the practice of multiple performers before us, including
> Stelarc, Orlan, Marcel-li Antunez Roca and others, as well as in the ones of
> queer performers, the body is a fundamental space for construction, resonating
> with the ideas of architecture and mutation to explore the possibilities for
> expression and liberation.
> 
> this is why the "construction" was performed at the level of the body.
> 
> people could use interactive toys (interfaces and gadgets) to generate stimuli
> which propagated onto the body of a performer. Patterns of stimuli were
> interpreted as symbols of a choreography. The effect was that multiple people
> could establish physical dialogues to transform the center of focus of the
> performance: the body of the performer. This, in turn, was observed through
> sensors, whore readings were used as parameters of the generative sounds and
> visuals which filled all sides of the environment. Furthermore, sounds and
> visuals were designed to create feedback loops with people, counterbalancing
> their interactions (oversimplifying it: lack of interaction=strong, arousing
> A/V stimulations; lots of interaction=soothing, meditative A/V).
> 
> on one side: the necessity to collaborate (each interface produced only parts
> of the stimulation patterns, so that people contributed to parts of the
> symbols of choreography, with each action producing visible results and only
> coordinated actions produced predictable results once the collaborative
> approach was understood) produced performative dialogues among individuals,
> who worked together to achieve agreed transformations in the body-->space
> 
> on the other side: there was an untold story which was clearly perceived
> this was a mediated, authoritarian experience.
> we decided all the parameters,algorithms, colors, sounds, strategies etc.
> to "modify and liberate space" people could have just stopped using the
> technologies and starting to physically touch/move the body of the performer,
> or even radicalizing everything and tearing the whole place up in pieces,
> turning the location into a chaotic, physical, 4D screen displaying in
> real-time their strong desire for liberated spaces.
> 
> We were prepared for this option, but it didn't happen. Yet we received
> explicit questions about it. People, who enjoyed and actively participated to
> the performance, explicitly asked about this possibility: "Could I just have
> stepped on stage and moved the performer's body with my hands? What would have
> happened?"
> 
> This was an extremely interesting response for us, as it displayed how these 
> kinds of experiences are still authoritarian, in the sense of "design": they 
> are walled gardens, aquariums, in which "designers" establish various degrees 
> of mediated freedom according to which "users" are able to move, act, express, 
> perform, inform, communicate, interact.
> 
> This has been enlightening for us, and we transformed our practice towards 
> different forms of performance/interaction, aiming at creating frameworks for 
> expressions under the form of free/libre tools, hardware/software and 
> methodologies for autonomous, ubiquitous expression which are free to use and 
> which are, after all, our "artworks".
> 
> After that show we stopped producing "closed" artworks and started to adopt 
> the methodology of 1) present opportunities 2) workshop to disseminate and 
> recombine knowledge 3) disappear 4) co-create scenario
> 
> in this the idea of screen becomes of fundamental importance, as we refer to 
> urban contexts and with emergent, open, recombinant, temporary communities 
> which take active part in the performance (be it about art, consumption, city 
> governance... ) by "writing" onto the world using ubiquitous publishing 
> techniques and by becoming aware of the multiple layers of info/action created 
> by other actors through "interactive screens" of multiple types, such as the 
> fixed ones in the Atlas of Rome, or the synthetic sense we created with the 
> Electronic Man
> 
> 
> after writing this, i just realized i wrote an enormously long email!
> 
> sorry! :)
> 
> ( passionate about the topic.... )
> 
> i'll just stop now
> 
> all the best!
> Salvatore
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120719/86acdb40/
> attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 12:11:58 +0200
> From: Andreas Maria Jacobs <ajaco at xs4all.nl>
> To: empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Subject: [-empyre-] Extending the screen beyond the 'Proscenicum Arch'
> Message-ID: <012B2ABD-77F5-4550-8ABB-37E85AEE661E at xs4all.nl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Some real world examples from my artistic practice, to be used as examples and 
> to illuminate the current discussion without too much theory
> 
> Extending the screen beyond the 'Proscenicum Arch'
> 
> 'Web Uebermahlung', paint the screen - 2007: 
> http://rhizome.org/artbase/artwork/46915/
> 
> 'Die neue Elite ist das Volk',Urban screen - 2011: 
> http://rhizome.org/announce/events/57837/view/
> 
> 'Cigarette Girls', Subverting branding screens - 2011/12: 
> http://www.nictoglobe.com/new/room/New%20Room/ma201111a.html
> 
> The Ambassy of Eleutheropolis, Mobile screens - 2004: 
> http://www.nictoglobe.com/new/room/New%20Room/cellphone.html
> 
> Rembrandt 2000, Projecting the screen - 2006 : 
> http://nictoglobe.com/new/query2.html?d=fastbeaming&f=text
> 
> Ey'Ar, Body as screen - 2006: 
> http://nictoglobe.com/new/query2.html?d=eyar&f=text
> 
> 
> Remarks:
> 
> Interface equates not to screen, interface is before or after the screen, i.e. 
> projector, cinema, film - the physical layer, photo-sensitive emulsion on 
> celluoid-, light?, lens etc etc.
> 
> Interface functions as an intermediate of something 'happening' simultaneously 
> in real mind-space or in real body-space, where the mind/body dichotomie is 
> that field of interaction wich is 'touched' by the agency of acting upon it, 
> i.e. it's teleologics
> 
> Real space is 'still' conditional for the functioning of our sensory apparatus 
> and as such imperative to out 'worldy' understanding
> 
> Mapping the (invisible) information layer to a visual or sensory field of 
> experience
> 
> best
> 
> Andreas Maria Jacobs
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:08:02 +0100
> From: Johannes Birringer <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines
> Message-ID:
> <DF657B70CB20304DB745D84933F94B1E02500563B1 at v-exmb01.academic.windsor>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
> 
> 
> Dear all:
> 
> Salvatore's response was beautiful, inspired, and moved me with both its 
> enthusiasm and idealism.  I wish to reflect on it a bit more before [even] 
> attempting a response. 
> But i'd like to pick up from Scott's and Andreas's reply, also debating what i 
> think are the intrinsic weaknesses of (Jeff Shaw on)  "expanded cinema."   I 
> link my comments on expanded cinema to the false claims and impressions 
> marketed under the labels of 'interactivity' and such inanities as "Twitter 
> revolutions". 
> 
> from Shaw:
>>> That was a very large-scale piece with a very large inflatable structure 
>>> where the whole audience, or a large number of people in the audience, threw 
>>> off their clothes and just jumped in spontaneously ? or not so much 
>>> spontaneously, they were led by Jean-Jacques Lebel. He took off his clothes 
>>> because he understood that this was the right thing to do, because you were 
>>> throwing yourself into the projection screen, into the images that were 
>>> projected onto that screen, and basically you were then body-painting 
>>> yourself with all this cinematic imagery and disturbing, changing the 
>>> curvature and shaping of the screen, so it was really throwing yourself into 
>>> the screen and joining, immersing yourself in the cinematic space.
> 
> Scott Mcquire schreibt: 
> 
> ...<<spectacle and surveillance...... that this context makes it even more 
> important to recognise and try to develop alternative modalities. I?ve also 
> recently been re-reading Lefebvre, specifically his Le Droit de Ville essay, 
> where he emphasises the importance for inhabitants to be able to ?appropriate? 
> the time and space of the urban. In relation to screens, this kind of 
> appropriation can occur at a variety of levels, but one of the most 
> fundamental moves is demanding that screens situated in public locations are 
> able to be accessed by different publics, to  support diverse, collective 
> inputs (as in the atlante-dell-visioni/atlas-of-the-visions project that 
> Salvatore mentions). In our work, we?ve found that there is often an unspoken 
> barrier to public interaction with large screens ? precisely because people 
> are so innured to the one-way display mode of advertising and broadcasting.
>>> 
> 
> Andreas Maria Jacobs schreibt:
> 
>>> Interface functions as an intermediate of something 'happening' 
>>> simultaneously in real mind-space or in real body-space, where the mind/body 
>>> dichotomie is that field of interaction wich is 'touched' by the agency of 
>>> acting upon it, i.e. it's teleologics
> Real space is 'still' conditional for the functioning of our sensory apparatus 
> and as such imperative to out 'worldy' understanding
> Mapping the (invisible) information layer to a visual or sensory field of 
> experience
>>> 
> 
> My thoughts, briefly, are:   
> Yes, The Living Theatre and "Paradise Now" (in 1969) happened, and happenings 
> happened. Folks took their clothes off and jumped in (or were "led" into the 
> fray). 
> 
> Expanded cinema expanded cinema and de-framed and dissolved. Inflatables 
> inflated, and i remember trying it also, for visual/aesthetic effect, and it 
> was beautiful at times. 
> 
> In the 1990s, amongst performance practitioners (and theorists), we thought, 
> Artaud is dead, long live Artaud, It seems that Artaud's poetics of space, and 
> the incantations, playful affective athleticisms, and sonorous streaming 
> resonances were beginning to be celebrated and validated in the new age of 
> immersivity (and so-called interactivity). 
> 
> Brecht was forgotten, and though his plays are still performed, his 
> participatory, political testing arrangements (Lehrst?cke or learning plays) 
> are entirely forgotten and may also be considered an artistic failure, failing 
> to produce the (later: Boalian) social transformations or pedagogies that 
> workers in the audiences could apply to "appropriate" decision making, not to 
> speak now of urban space.  What are "public interactions?   Rafael?  
> 
> Why is there so much credit given to "playful" immersion?  why is the sensory 
> valued over the cognitive and pro-active political organization of behavior 
> and decision making, interpretation, withdrawals, denials or choosing?
> 
> Why is it considered "passive" to be amongst an audience that observes and 
> witnesses?   I have not fully read Ranci?re, but tend to think he is arguing 
> on behalf of the discerning "emancipated spectator" that Brecht had in mind. 
> 
> So much theorizing on agency, isn't there.   But what does it mean for the 
> users? to have agency, to download?    Alternative modalities seemed inscribed 
> into the myth of interactivity, it seems to me, but what is this intermediate, 
> in terms of the screens pushing you? 
> 
> 
> respectfully
> 
> Johannes Birringer
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:22:32 +0000
> From: Sean Cubitt <sean.cubitt at unimelb.edu.au>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines
> Message-ID:
> <56BC3EC1095EAB45AD6F538E6BCACB56273202B0 at 000S-EX-MBX-QS3.unimelb.edu.au>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Delightful mail from Savatore, and fascinating response from Johannes . .  . 
> Too much to think about (I came in through street theatre: Living Theatre 
> doing Frankenstein and a little later J?r?me Savary's Grand Magic Circus at 
> the Roundhouse,  doing Mo?se ? Mao ? both in my mind very much out of the 
> Brechtian tradition.
> 
> If tere is a problem, it lies in the way "we" (culture critics) who are so 
> wary of making value judgements, like to describe things we like as "playful", 
> as if that was enough. Play comes in many formsmost of them structuring and 
> ordering, which may well be a good thing, indeed I believe we have an instinct 
> towards order, but like other instincts it can turn nasty ? fascist in this 
> case ? or into its opposite (Freud's entropic death-instinct) - somehting the 
> Living Theatre played on in Frankenstein. Participatory theatre has always 
> felt utopian from Beuys to Boal, because we all need a temporary autonomous 
> zone to make it through the daily Xit.
> 
> There might be another way. If the "private" art of the oil painting can at 
> times give us deep, lasting but very personal experiences on an individual 
> basis, should a"public" art aim to give a slight, passing, but still 
> experiential experience to lots of people? If instead of W?lfflin swooning in 
> front of a statue, a whole population walks six inches to the left of its 
> usual path across a city square . . . .
> 
> One other footnote: as a cinema usher in the 80s, I used to love watching the 
> faces of the audience lit by the big screen. Now on winter's evenings, seeing 
> a face illuminated by a handheld. Both make me think that screening is a 
> mutual thing: that humans are media too, mediating between screens (among 
> other things). Screen images use humans to pass themselves on, to reproduce, 
> specifically because humans can be trusted to mutate whatever they mediate, 
> churn it, forget, misunderstand, misremember, and so when they retell a story 
> or frame a shot in the style of something seen, it is always altered
> 
> Against which we have to place the enormous system of standardisation, patents 
> and copyright, governance and standards bodies, preemptive law suits and the 
> practice of buying out start-ups that militates towards us all mutating 
> furiously in a tiny patch (thinking of Cl?ment's third landscapes) of ground 
> that only masquerades as natural, while in fact based in genetic modification 
> . . .
> 
> Which is perhaps why certain extreme (sometimes extremely formalist) works are 
> as significant as utopian TAZs: Jarman's Blue, for example, on whatever type 
> of screen (I used to screen it from a really poor off-air VHS for years) is 
> always the impossible imagination of blue, in this case as memory of blue in 
> the mind of a blind filmmaker, its purity always only intimated, described, 
> represented, in its absence, by the blue you can see ? the blue of a perfect  
> sky we yearn to stand under
> 
>  sean
> 
> From: "xDxD.vs.xDxD" <xdxd.vs.xdxd at gmail.com<mailto:xdxd.vs.xdxd at gmail.com>>
> Reply-To: soft_skinned_space 
> <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>>
> Date: Wednesday, 18 July 2012 19:55
> To: soft_skinned_space 
> <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au<mailto:empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] stepping out of the frame/konnecting airlines
> 
> hi Johannes and everyone!
> 
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Johannes Birringer 
> <Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk<mailto:Johannes.Birringer at brunel.ac.uk>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Surely not in real-time interactive art installations, and
>> I wonder or worry about crowdsourced raising of
>> political consciousness/cognitive compasses, too...
> 
> 
> i'm glad you're bringing this up.
> 
> we obviously know that the objective of neutrality is technically unreachable 
> for human beings, but in our practice we try to be at least honest :)  and 
> highlight all the points of view that we are aware of.
> 
> the case of the technologies i mentioned earlier (harvest real-time info from 
> social networks, use natural language analysis to understand topics/issues and 
> expressions/emotions, make info accessible in a variety of ways, from AR to 
> screens to body augmentations) is no exception. Even considering the fact that 
> it touches many open issues for which we're passionate about ( the 
> dictatorship of the algorithm, privacy/intimacy/anonymity, privately owned 
> public spaces.. and we could go on and on )
> 
> this is why, for example, we used the same exact technologies for radically 
> different projects
> 
> for example as in the Atlas of Rome, where we built a large urban screen in 
> which citizens could publish their visions about the city in a variety of ways
> 
> http://www.artisopensource.net/2010/06/13/atlante-dell-visioni-atlas-of-the-vi
> sions/
> 
> or as in VersuS, where we analyzed the digital life of the city of Rome during 
> the violent riots in the city of Rome on October 15th 2011
> 
> http://www.artisopensource.net/2011/11/06/versus-the-realtime-lives-of-cities/
> 
> but also as in "Enlarge your Consciousness"
> 
> http://www.artisopensource.net/2012/02/12/enlarge-your-consciousness-in-4-days
> -4-free-2/
> 
> here we used the same technologies to sell unaware social network users' 
> emotional states for 9.99 euros at the Artefiera contemporary arts fair in 
> Bologna, capturing their emotional flows as expressed on 
> Facebook/Twitter/Foursquare and basically, turning them into human 
> tamagotchis.
> 
> we sold hundreds of them at the fair. and the most common question we received 
> was "but... i could be in one of those boxes?" exposing multiple interesting 
> things about the common perception of the processes which are behind these 
> techniques and methodologies.
> 
> Yet we perceive opportunity and, most of all, possibility behind this.
> 
> but it's an "old" question, isn't it? Is the "hammer" a tool to drive nails 
> into the walls or to smash your head?
> 
> Fact is that all these technologies correspond to specific business and 
> strategic models which are relevant to corporations, large cultural operators, 
> institutions, governments and many other forms of "power".
> 
> this obviously applies to screens, as well: fixed, urban, ubiquitous, 
> body-related, square, key-stoned and frameless
> 
> for example, sticking to my personal research focus, Mitchell's idea of the 
> City of Bits, or of McCullough's Digital Ground, or of Zook&Graham's DigiPlace 
> are very interesting when brought to the domain of the screen, especially of 
> the urban and ubiquitous quality, as they in someway describe the possibility 
> to achieve a multi-layered, emergent version of the city, in which multiple 
> points of view can be freely expressed across cultures and perspectives.
> 
> This is a very interesting point of view, as it places enormous questions on 
> the practices of design and architecture which are authoritarian by their own 
> nature: the Designer and the Architect, in the end, make the Plan that will 
> shape what i see/traverse/live in the city.
> 
> There is a wonderful liason with this concept in Cl?ment's Third Landscape, 
> where he describes the presence of natural environments in urban contexts. 
> Normally nature is present in cities under the form of synthetic 
> administrative boundaries (the flowers at the center of the roundabout, the 
> vegetables in the supermarkets, the "park").
> 
> The Third Landscape, instead, is a place for possibility and opportunity, and 
> it is emergent, real-time, temporary, autonomous (the grass in-between the 
> bricks).
> 
> And it is the possibly most important factor in determining our cities' 
> biodiversity.
> 
> One thing about the Third Landscape is that its existence really depends on us 
> and on our "sight", and our sensibility in seeing and recognizing it while we 
> lead our daily lives in cities.
> 
> Seeing creates a perception (of the "possibility" of this kind of natural 
> environment) and, thus, a spatial affordance ("this type of natural 
> environment can exist") and, in turn, a series of critical, constructivist 
> practices which can be based onto it (one for all: urban gardening).
> 
> I see a beautiful parallel between this and the theme of the screen in urban 
> contexts, be it fixed or ubiquitous or of the many types which can exist 
> nowadays.
> 
> people constantly re-program public space. mobile devices and screens 
> radicalize this process. If you're jogging in the middle of a park, you 
> receive an office phone call on your mobile phone, the park transforms into an 
> ubiquitous office for a few minutes, careless of urban planning, zoning and 
> administrative boundaries.
> 
> In the same way, if your pocketable (or wall-mounted) screen enables you to 
> freely and easily perceive (or "publish") multiple, independent, autonomous, 
> emergent interpretations of the same space, space transforms, and other 
> practices can emerge.
> 
> in my research, this greatly enhances the ideas of de Certeau's "strategies vs 
> tactics", of Lefebvre's "social construction of space"  and of Soja's "Third 
> Space".
> 
> In this, great insights can be collected by focusing on de Certeau's idea of 
> "daily practices", meaning that it is interesting how Lefebvre wanted to 
> capitalize on these kinds of possibilites for the sake of a political agenda 
> and, instead, in de Certeau, politics should emerge from the creativity of our 
> daily practices, in an interesting inversion.
> 
> and, so:
> 
> whether the vision of the ubiquitous urban screen-net-to-end-all-screens is a 
> globalized metropolitan vision for the hyperdeveloped, leaving out the 
> regional, the less developed, underdeveloped and non developed (along these 
> predicted lines)?
> 
> 
> this is focal issue to confront, in the wider range of issues which we 
> commonly call digital inclusion and digital access.
> 
> both at technical and cultural levels.
> 
> "solutions" can never be as simple as "smartphone", "urban screen" or "app". 
> They need to confront with the context (cultural, political, social, 
> economic...) and, probably, the architectural diagrams of "solutions" should 
> have a big box at their base with the word "anthropologist" inside it, before 
> sensors, cloud computing, expert systems, screens of any form and type. And, 
> possibly, a box with "citizens", as well :)
> 
> 
> 
> And Salvatore mentioned a performance in which bodies "displayed"... (body of 
> the performer was a "display" [screen?] of user interactions and, in turn, 
> everything that was heard/shown as sound and video of the performance was 
> generated my the dancer's movements and biological data.);  Salvatore, could 
> you please elaborate on that, and how you, and others here, think about the 
> performance side of interactive behaviors and what they might or might not 
> indicate?  Following Sean's critique, have consumer relations changed at all 
> in principle?
> 
> In Turner's anthropological definition, performance is liminal: it exposes 
> conflicts and highlights discontinuities with predetermined order.
> 
> I particularly enjoyed Luisa Valeriani's book "Performers".
> 
> Performers break crystallizations of meaning, recombining imaginaries in 
> creative ways: they subvert by playing. Knowledge is not confronted through 
> academic discussions, but through practical performative actions.
> 
> Nowadays, consumers are performers, and business models are based on this. 
> "Products" have changed, and have become "places for performance".
> 
> Even more, people's (users', consumers') performance has become the "product". 
> Think Facebook, the iPhone etc. When we observe iPhone's design with our 
> students for the first time we really focus on the fact that most of it's 
> success is due to the fact that it's "empty", ready to be used by its "owner" 
> to express him/herself by populating it with apps which describe personality, 
> desires, perspectives, points of view, daily practices, needs.... iPhone is a 
> performative object.
> 
> and (coincidence?) it is a screen. there's practically nothing more to it, 
> than a screen.
> 
> a performative screen.
> 
> now: iPhone is, obviously, a very controlled screen
> 
> but its characteristic of being "an empty, ready to be performed, screen which 
> constitutes a platform for personal expression" changed everything.
> 
> We see the scenarios of interactivity and (ubiquitous) screens along these 
> directions, with the idea of exploring spaces/modalities for liberation of 
> these "platforms for expression".
> 
> in the example of the performance i mentioned, all was dedicated to this.
> 
> radicalizing the idea of reactive/interactive environments, we tried to create 
> constructivist experience which would shape the sensorial environment 
> according to people's interactions in extreme ways, to disclose a set of 
> opportunities which we perceived as being critical.
> 
> as suggested in the practice of multiple performers before us, including 
> Stelarc, Orlan, Marcel-li Antunez Roca and others, as well as in the ones of 
> queer performers, the body is a fundamental space for construction, resonating 
> with the ideas of architecture and mutation to explore the possibilities for 
> expression and liberation.
> 
> this is why the "construction" was performed at the level of the body.
> 
> people could use interactive toys (interfaces and gadgets) to generate stimuli 
> which propagated onto the body of a performer. Patterns of stimuli were 
> interpreted as symbols of a choreography. The effect was that multiple people 
> could establish physical dialogues to transform the center of focus of the 
> performance: the body of the performer. This, in turn, was observed through 
> sensors, whore readings were used as parameters of the generative sounds and 
> visuals which filled all sides of the environment. Furthermore, sounds and 
> visuals were designed to create feedback loops with people, counterbalancing 
> their interactions (oversimplifying it: lack of interaction=strong, arousing 
> A/V stimulations; lots of interaction=soothing, meditative A/V).
> 
> on one side: the necessity to collaborate (each interface produced only parts 
> of the stimulation patterns, so that people contributed to parts of the 
> symbols of choreography, with each action producing visible results and only 
> coordinated actions produced predictable results once the collaborative 
> approach was understood) produced performative dialogues among individuals, 
> who worked together to achieve agreed transformations in the body-->space
> 
> on the other side: there was an untold story which was clearly perceived
> this was a mediated, authoritarian experience.
> we decided all the parameters,algorithms, colors, sounds, strategies etc.
> to "modify and liberate space" people could have just stopped using the 
> technologies and starting to physically touch/move the body of the performer, 
> or even radicalizing everything and tearing the whole place up in pieces, 
> turning the location into a chaotic, physical, 4D screen displaying in 
> real-time their strong desire for liberated spaces.
> 
> We were prepared for this option, but it didn't happen. Yet we received 
> explicit questions about it. People, who enjoyed and actively participated to 
> the performance, explicitly asked about this possibility: "Could I just have 
> stepped on stage and moved the performer's body with my hands? What would have 
> happened?"
> 
> This was an extremely interesting response for us, as it displayed how these 
> kinds of experiences are still authoritarian, in the sense of "design": they 
> are walled gardens, aquariums, in which "designers" establish various degrees 
> of mediated freedom according to which "users" are able to move, act, express, 
> perform, inform, communicate, interact.
> 
> This has been enlightening for us, and we transformed our practice towards 
> different forms of performance/interaction, aiming at creating frameworks for 
> expressions under the form of free/libre tools, hardware/software and 
> methodologies for autonomous, ubiquitous expression which are free to use and 
> which are, after all, our "artworks".
> 
> After that show we stopped producing "closed" artworks and started to adopt 
> the methodology of 1) present opportunities 2) workshop to disseminate and 
> recombine knowledge 3) disappear 4) co-create scenario
> 
> in this the idea of screen becomes of fundamental importance, as we refer to 
> urban contexts and with emergent, open, recombinant, temporary communities 
> which take active part in the performance (be it about art, consumption, city 
> governance... ) by "writing" onto the world using ubiquitous publishing 
> techniques and by becoming aware of the multiple layers of info/action created 
> by other actors through "interactive screens" of multiple types, such as the 
> fixed ones in the Atlas of Rome, or the synthetic sense we created with the 
> Electronic Man
> 
> 
> after writing this, i just realized i wrote an enormously long email!
> 
> sorry! :)
> 
> ( passionate about the topic.... )
> 
> i'll just stop now
> 
> all the best!
> Salvatore
> 
> --
> Salvatore Iaconesi
> 
> Art is Open Source
> http://www.artisopensource.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120719/5c3622b5/
> attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 21:30:29 +0200
> From: Karen O'Rourke <mapper at wanadoo.fr>
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Sceens (week 3) Anri Sala
> installation
> Message-ID: <50086055.6020409 at wanadoo.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> 
> Hi Scott, hi everybody,
> 
> That's how I remember it (2X2+1) - it may have felt like more because of 
> the outside window screening passers-by, as the press release suggests. 
> With his time-coding and orchestration of viewer movements, Sala does 
> give the impression that it is possible to piece together a somewhat 
> complete experience. But it is no more complete than seeing a film once 
> in the theater. Looking now at the material the Centre Pompidou has made 
> available online makes me aware how many aspects I didn't fully explore 
> when I was there! But I suppose that is also cruelly part of any museum 
> experience today...
> 
> I'm not sure myself where my piece will end up. I originally planned to 
> deal with psychogeography and the moving image, with the idea that I'd 
> view some films on my computer screen (the format most compatible with 
> my present whereabouts). But the more I write the more it seems 
> necessary to unpack other kinds of mobile screen-based experiences, 
> using of course that same computer screen.
> 
> Another interesting use of the screen was Simon Fujiwara's performance 
> The Personal Effects of Theo Gr?nberg. Did anyone see that? Fujiwara sat 
> at a desk, telling his story while manipulating objects that were filmed 
> from above & projected onto a large screen  like an overhead projector 
> in a classroom - show and tell.
> http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Manifs.nsf/0/5072D8BC1803628AC12579B3004
> FF8AF?OpenDocument&sessionM=2.10&L=1
> 
> 
> Best,
> Karen
> 
> Le 18/07/2012 06:42, Scott Mcquire a ?crit :
>> Hi Karen,
>> 
>> Was the Sala show 5 screens?  It felt like more!  Shows how 
>> reconstructing from memory can play tricks on you.
>> 
>> I like your point about the interlaced mode of display 'preclud[ing] 
>> viewers watching any one of them from beginning to end'.
>> 
>> In the traditional museum experience viewers had a different kind of 
>> autonomy over the time of viewing -- the object is fixed and stable, 
>> the spectator mobile.  But time-based work like video alters this 
>> situation. For some, this is a threat. As Jessica Morgan puts it, the 
>> video projection 'makes us the victims of its timing'. Boris Groys 
>> extends this to argue that the reception of the artwork is now marked 
>> irrevocably by /incompleteness/.
>> 
>> "In so-called real life, one is forever haunted by the feeling of 
>> being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If during a museum visit, 
>> we interrupt our contemplation of some video or film work in order to 
>> return to it at a later point, we will inevitably be filled with that 
>> very same feeling of having missed something crucial and will no 
>> longer be sure what is really happening in the installation." (Stan 
>> Douglas exhibition catalogue, Kunsthalle Basel 2001)
>> 
>> Like you, it seems to me Sala's 'symphony' was treating this condition 
>> more affirmatively, less about loss or missing something, and more 
>> about new articulations of images and of bodies.  And I agree that 
>> part of the experience is actively composing and recomposing different 
>> narrative trajectories as you move around.
>> 
>> I'd like to know where you piece is going to end up...
>> 
>> Best, scott
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 17/07/12 8:37 PM, "Karen O'Rourke" <mapper at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> 
>>      Hello Scott and Empyreans,
>> 
>>      Your description of Anri Sala's installation has prompted me to
>>     break my lurking silence, as I was in the process of writing about
>>     it .
>>            Forgive me if I go back over some obvious points with
>>     relation to contemporary presentation tropes:
>> 
>>      Traditionally moving pictures are projected to a seated audience
>>     in the confined space of a theater, while still pictures are
>>     viewed one after the other by visitors moving through an
>>     exhibition space. Video art often assumes one of those stances
>>     identifying either as tableau (Bill Viola's slowly moving figures
>>     being an extreme instance of this) or as film unfolding in time.
>>     Installations, it is true, can be somewhere between the two,
>>     combining screen(s), environment and other objects, allowing
>>     visitors to alternately move around the screens or flop down in
>>     front of them. Anri Sala brings the two strains together in his
>>     recent five screen, hour-long symphonic installation at the Centre
>>     Pompidou (2012). Scenes from four different videos appeared on
>>     different screens (moved from screen to screen) throughout the
>>     exhibition space, viewers followed them from one section to
>>     another, plunging into one, then the other, or glancing back and
>>     forth at two playing simultaneously on neighboring screens. Each
>>     video played out on several screens, alternating with the others
>>     so as to preclude viewers watching any one of them from beginning
>>     to end. In 1365 Days without Red, a reenactment of Sarajevo under
>>     siege, people walking through the city would stop on corners, then
>>     dash across the street (presumably to minimize exposure to sniper
>>     fire). The audience too moved quickly, not to escape action but to
>>     follow it (and grab a seat whenever possible), spurred on by the
>>     roaming sound and moving pictures. Though Sala denies any
>>     storytelling motives, a story of sorts could be pieced together
>>     from this kind of juxtaposition (one easily imagines something
>>     resembling Robert Altman's choral films).
>> 
>> 
>>        The opposite tactic was adopted by Patrick Keiller in the
>>     /Robinson Institute/ at Tate Britain (2012). It involved
>>     displaying short sequences from his full-length film /Robinson in
>>     Ruins/ on small screens throughout the exhibition next to framed
>>     paintings, prints, diagrams and maps. They became moving landscape
>>     paintings, something out of Harry Potter---as if to deny  the
>>     film's narrative,  functioning instead as animated hyperlinks
>>     within the exhibition.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>     Forgive this long description, but it does seem to bear out your
>>     point about screens' shifting status as well as Martin's about the
>>     screen being a "part of a larger system - a membrane between
>>     content , landscape and the user".
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      Best,
>>                  Karen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>      Le 17/07/2012 03:15, Scott Mcquire a ?crit :
>> 
>>          Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Sceens (week 3) Hola Sean,
>>         empyricists
>> 
>>          I like your formulation 'the screen is a relation that
>>         appears as an object', but suspect, like a screen, it is
>>         reversible: the screen is also an object that appears as a
>>         relation.  Hence the uncanny oscillation of
>>         material/immaterial, visible/invisible.
>> 
>>          There is a strong logic of standardisation in current uses of
>>         screen technologies --- their location and inscription in
>>         specific socio-technical, architectural and cultural
>>         configurations. We can see this with the production of
>>         handhelds and personal screens in their 10s of millions (the
>>         iPhone is more than 50% of apple's profits ).  It was also
>>         what I was getting at in relation to cinema as a specific
>>         screen architecture.
>> 
>>          In fact, we notice it more today when screens are
>>         non-standard --- for instance, when content cannot move from
>>         one place to another because systems are not interoperable. We
>>         had this experience trying to link up 2 large screens (one in
>>         Melbourne, one in Seoul) for a live interactive art event.
>>          Re-rendering the image in real time for different screen
>>         sizes was tricky.
>> 
>>          I wrote yesterday about the standardisation of screens in the
>>         art gallery situation.  But I also wanted to mention one of
>>         the most striking exhibitions I've seen recently ---  Anri
>>         Sala at the Beaubourg in Paris
>>         
>> http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Manifs.nsf/AllExpositions/3DAA34E4B9D96
>> 668C125795F003AF5E2?OpenDocument&sessionM=2.2.1&L=2
>>         
>> <http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Manifs.nsf/AllExpositions/3DAA34E4B9D9
>> 6668C125795F003AF5E2?OpenDocument&sessionM=2.2.1&L=2>
>> 
>>          Unfortunately no images on the website, so I'll do my best to
>>         describe.
>> 
>>          There were about 8 separate screens built with individual
>>         proscenium shells in large a singe space.  They were all about
>>         6m X 3m, but were not situated against the walls.  Rather,
>>         they were all angled within the space to form divisions and
>>         passages so you could see  2 or 3 at a time.  They displayed a
>>         number of separate video works and still images.   Sometimes
>>         one screen was on, sometimes 2 or more.   So all the works
>>         melded into one another --- quite deliberately exploring the
>>         conjunctions, rather than trying to seal them off by building
>>         separate black boxes to avoid sound/image bleed.  The screens
>>         were also linked --- or delinked --  by a really complex use
>>         of sound (a 24 track soundscape) with multiple speakers
>>         throughout the space: the work is described in publicity as
>>         'symphony'.
>> 
>>           What was really interesting was the way the audience shifted
>>         around the space to watch.  It wasn't the platform that moved
>>         (like the old diorama with rotating floor) but the people who
>>         would stand, sit, lie in one place then turn around or get up
>>         and move elsewhere as another came on. The afternoon I saw it
>>         there were about 60 people doing this together for over 30
>>         minutes. This creates a really fascinating spatial ambiance,
>>         where screens are simultaneoulsy material objects (blocking
>>         passage, blocking view) and surfaces that open into
>>         heterogeneous spaces.
>> 
>>          At one stage, all the screens are just red, then pale with no
>>         image, while the sound is dispersed throughout the entire
>>         gallery.  Everyone kind of wandered around, not really looking
>>         for or at anything, but enjoying a promenade among the screens
>>         in each other's company.
>> 
>>          Scott
>> 
>>          On 17/07/12 12:32 AM, "Sean Cubitt"
>>         <sean.cubitt at unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>             Hi Scott, Ho Empyricists
>> 
>>              Persistence in the fun and fury is a great description:
>>             everything in flux, but there are objects in the flow that
>>             crystallise, even for a short moment, the relationships we
>>             have with each other, with technologies and with the world
>>             -- in short with images. Gunter Kress a few years ago
>>             wrote about 'Screen': Metaphors of Display, Partition,
>>             Concealment and Defence (Visual Communications 9(2),
>>             2004): responding to it in a very useful discussion of
>>             screens in Cinema Journal 51(2) 2012 -- wh. also has a
>>             great contribution from Erkki Huhtamo who joins us later
>>             this month -  Charles Acland writes that there's virtue in
>>             sticking with the 'simplest notion of a screen -- that a
>>             screen is a surface for animation' . We would need to have
>>             another discussion about what constitutes an image (in the
>>             age of data visualisation) to describe the screen as
>>             intermediary between observer/user and image/text/diagram
>>             -- and a detailed account of how such different screens as
>>             handhelds, electronic billboards, domestic, theatrical etc
>>             screens of specific affordances, sizes, shapes etc act as
>>             conduits and/or barriers and/or filters of content (which
>>             as McLuhan told us is always another medium) - let alone
>>             (as many of the contributors to this discussion are expert
>>             in) the valences of animated text
>> 
>>              The screen is a relation that appears as an object:
>>             interestingly enough that is a close pass to one of Marx's
>>             formulations about the commodity -- a real relation
>>             between people that appears to them in the fantastical
>>             guise of an object. Leading to a supposition -- that the
>>             specificity of any individual screen design (and
>>             associated experience?) is an expression of the specific
>>             form taken by the commodity at a specific moment in the
>>             evolution of capital. Taken at its largest scale: the
>>             ubiquity of screens expresses the ubiquity of capital.
>>             Taken at the microscale: the 960x640 iPhone 4S display is
>>             designed (though disputed) to match the maximum resolution
>>             at 12 inches of normal human eyesight. The demon is the
>>             word 'normal': the standard observer (invented in 1931 for
>>             purposes of calibrating colours) is a biopolitical
>>             construct. The screen is intended to give the impression
>>             of continuity in a device whose principle is discrete. It
>>             is "good enough" technology, a principle of modern screen
>>             design. It could be described as an attempt to articulate
>>             device and physiology of the eye into a single seamless
>>             continuum articulating the myth of instant personal and
>>             biologically-integrated satisfaction at the heart of the
>>             atomistic personalisation of neo-liberal consumerism.
>> 
>>              This kind of analysis (okay, you might not like the
>>             Marxism, but the articulation of design with socio-cutural
>>             formations) is a kind of rock in the stream: an empirical
>>             notch to anchor, even if only momentarily, and materialise
>>             the complex of relations between us and what we view -- to
>>             make the immaterial and invisible screen material and
>>             visible -- which is what I think Simon was kicking us off
>>             towards?
>> 
>>              The more transparent (AR) and weightless (wearable) the
>>             screen, the more important it is to notice that, however
>>             briefly and intermedially it exists, it exists.
>> 
>>              Sean
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>             *From: *Scott McQuire <mcquire at unimelb.edu.au>
>>             *Reply-To: *soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>             *Date: *Monday, 16 July 2012 07:14
>>             *To: *soft_skinned_space <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
>>             *Subject: *Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Screens (week 3)
>> 
>>              Re: [-empyre-] July on empyre: Screens (week 3)
>>              Hi everyone
>> 
>>              I haven't had a chance to participate in the discussion
>>             so far but now that I'm back in Melbourne I figure that
>>             I'm ahead of you all (in time zone terms at least!).   So,
>>             after an enjoyable read of most of the posts so far, let
>>             me launch into week 3.
>> 
>>              One of the things that many people seem to agree on is
>>             that there is a new screen paradigm emerging defined by
>>             ubiquity, interactivity and so on. I agree with this
>>             analysis in part, but
>>              I am also struck by the persistence of certain
>>             configurations. In his introduction, Simon suggested that
>>             older screen modalities such as cinema and television were
>>             disappearing. I think this is far from the case. Cinema
>>             numbers in fact grew rapidly in the 1990s and early 2000s
>>             (especially in Asia) and today there are probably more
>>             cinema screens in the world than ever before.   This is
>>             not to say that cinema in 2012 is the same thing as it was
>>             in 1990 or 1950 (half those cinema screens are now digital
>>             --- a term which covers a plethora of different projectors
>>             and operating systems, not to mention social and cultural
>>             affiliations).
>> 
>>              What I want to underline here is the incredible stability
>>             of screen architecture over the century-plus history of
>>             cinema.  Understanding why change to screen architecture
>>             is slow is partly a way of attending to the specificity
>>             that those such as Sean Cubitt and Ian Bogost have been
>>             insisting on throughout this discussion. It's also a way
>>             of resituating debates over the current emergence of new
>>             screen locations and modalities.
>> 
>>              I would argue that there has only ever been one major
>>             change to the cinema screen in over one hundred years ---
>>             the change from the academy ratio format that was
>>             standardized in the 1920s to the widescreen formats that
>>             took over the from the mid-50s. This stability reflects a
>>             number of factors such as the need for standardized
>>             formats to enable the industrial mode of content
>>             production that characterizes cinema from the 1920s, and
>>             the fact that changing screen image ratio demands changing
>>             the most expensive aspect of exhibition --- the real
>>             estate.  In other words, to have a taller or wider screen
>>             often demands a different building.
>> 
>>              Widescreen could have been introduced much earlier ---
>>             all the technical capabilities were there in the 1920s
>>             when filmmakers such as Abel Gance experimented with
>>             multi-screen formats. But, as John Belton points out,
>>             unlike the introduction of sound in the 1920s, there were
>>             no influential corporations such as AT&T, RCA,
>>             Westinghouse and Western Electric/,/ which all held sound
>>             recording patents, and thus had a vested interest in
>>             expanding the market for sound equipment. So it wasn't
>>             until the 1950s that widescreen was introduced as a
>>             necessary response to the crisis caused by plummeting
>>             audiences who were all turning on to television.
>> 
>>              I'd add two partial exceptions to this argument.  One is
>>             IMAX.  This is definitely a different screen format and
>>             one worth discussing more. But it really only survived
>>             thanks to the long-term support of Canadian tax-payers,
>>             who sustained it for several decades and allowed the
>>             format to overcome the perennial chicken and egg problem
>>             of content and venues (why make large format films if
>>             there's nowhere to screen them?  Why build venues if
>>             there's no content?)
>> 
>>              The other, of course, is the digital threshold which is
>>             now significantly impacting cinema exhibition after a
>>             decade or so of slow take-up. I agree this a major change
>>             to the cinema apparatus, assuming this term extends beyond
>>             technology and equipment to embrace new forms content
>>             (live events) and relations to audiences (3D, interactivity).
>> 
>>              However, in many respects the basic arrangement of the
>>             exhibition space, in which the spectator sits immobilized,
>>             silent, and in darkness facing a magnified luminous image,
>>             has been there for a century.  Arguably the experience of
>>             sound in cinema that has changed far more radically in the
>>             last 20 years than has the screen--- I think Johannes
>>             Birringer mentions this ---but agree that's a different
>>             issue.
>> 
>>              This is a long way round of saying that cinema is not
>>             disappearing, but is now complemented by a range of other
>>             screens, both mobile and embedded. If we understand cinema
>>             as a specific viewing situation, we can see how it
>>             continues in some respects elsewhere: for instance, with
>>             the growing standardization of video art displayed in
>>             galleries where the model of single-channel projection
>>             onto a wall has become a de facto standard exhibition
>>             format.  The key variation here is the (potential)
>>             mobility of the spectator, and the variety of points at
>>             which they enter/exit the screening (Boris Groys etc).  We
>>             can also appreciate the way that some of the newer
>>             modalities, such as large screens situated in public
>>             space, are capable of recreating something like the
>>             collective experience of film watching that was a key
>>             aspect of its political valence for theorists like Walter
>>             Benjamin.
>> 
>>              I did want to keep this post short -- something I haven't
>>             managed to do! -- so I'm not going to
>>              broach the changes introduced by the personal screen of
>>             the handheld device.  But I do want to want to make a case
>>             for recognizing continuity and persistent elements midst
>>             the fun and fury of paradigm change.
>> 
>>              Warm regards, Scott
>> 
>> 
>>             ___________________________________________________________
>>              Dr. Scott McQuire,
>>              Associate Professor and Reader, School of Culture and
>>             Communication,
>>              University of Melbourne, VIC 3010.
>>              Office: Rm 124 John Medley (Building 191, enter at gate 10)
>>              T: +61 (0)3 8344 8194 F: +61 (0)3 8344 5494 E:
>>             mcquire at unimelb.edu.au
>>             
>> http://www.culture-communication.unimelb.edu.au/study/mediacomm/staff/scott-m
>> cquire
>>              www.spatialaesthetics.unimelb.edu.au/
>>             <http://www.spatialaesthetics.unimelb.edu.au/>
>>              _________________________________
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>              On 16/07/12 8:02 AM, "Simon Biggs"
>>             <simon at littlepig.org.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>                 Welcome to week three of the empyre discussion on the
>>                 topic of screens. We would like to thank this past
>>                 week's invited discussants Simone Arcangi and Charlie
>>                 Gere, as well as all the empyre members who have
>>                 contributed to the discussion.
>> 
>>                  After the, at times, intense debate of the first
>>                 week, considering what defines a screen as a screen
>>                 and the scope of our topic, the second week has
>>                 focused more on the inter-agency of the apparatus of
>>                 (or around) the screen and its viewers/users. That the
>>                 screen has shifted from being primarily an object of
>>                 visual contemplation to something we employ in our
>>                 interactions with other things has been noted.
>>                 However, the  screen has its histories and theoretical
>>                 baggage and it remains a challenge for us to consider
>>                 it anew - and perhaps it would be erroneous to
>>                 dispatch that historical baggage.
>> 
>>                  This weeks invited discussants have been key in the
>>                 theorisation and historicisation of the screen. They
>>                 are recognised for their panoramic overview of the
>>                 subject and having contributed at critical moments to
>>                 debates around both old and new media. They are:
>> 
>>                  Sean Cubitt, University of Southampton, UK.
>>                  Sean is currently Professor at Winchester School of
>>                 Art but starts at Goldsmiths, University of London, in
>>                 August, previously working  at Melbourne and Waikato
>>                 (New Zealand) Universities. He edits the Leonardo Book
>>                 Series for MIT Press. Forthcoming publications include
>>                 anthologies on ecocinema, media art history, the
>>                 history of British video art and transitions from
>>                 analog to digital imaging. He is working on a new book
>>                 on environmentalism, globalisation and political
>>                 aesthetics. His recent work includes a history of
>>                 screens, tracing the form of LCD and plasma displays,
>>                 as well as cinema and data projection, from printing
>>                 technologies of the 19th century onwards. With luck, a
>>                 book tracing this history, alongside histories of
>>                 colour and other visual technologies, will be
>>                 published in 2013. Its central theme is that Western
>>                 media have moved from a semantic and hierarchical
>>                 model of vision to a democratic but arithmetic one
>>                 which shares its formal properties with the demands of
>>                 bio-politics and the commodity form of the 21st century
>> 
>>                  Scott McQuire, University of Melbourne, Australia.
>>                  Scott McQuire has a strong interest in the social and
>>                 cultural transformations surrounding the deployment of
>>                 new media technologies. In 2004 he co-founded the
>>                 Spatial Aesthetics program for interdisciplinary
>>                 research linking media, art, social theory and
>>                 urbanism. Scott is author or co-editor of 7 books
>>                 including The Media City: Media, Architecture and
>>                 Urban Space (2008) and the Urban Screens Reader
>>                 (2009). His work in the emerging field of urban
>>                 communication has pioneered new ways of understanding
>>                 the social impact of large video screens situated in
>>                 public space. He teaches in the School of Culture and
>>                 Communication at the University of Melbourne.
>> 
>> 
>>                 Simon Biggs
>>                 simon at littlepig.org.uk http://www.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/
>>                  MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
>>                 
>> http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
>>                 
>> <http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>                 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                 _______________________________________________
>>                  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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120719/cc0cab8f/
> attachment.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> 
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 92, Issue 21
> **************************************




More information about the empyre mailing list