[-empyre-] A question concerning the electrification of digital objects

[andres ramirez gaviria]

Hi,

I like to think of the digital in terms of translation. I think of how the
always-present gap that exists at a basic structural level between a
subject and its representations becomes a particular kind of gap in the
digital instance. Analog translations simultaneously create similarity and
difference, a parallel already suggested in the definition of “analog” as
“one item naturally being comparable or analogous to another.”

Digital translations, however, are created based on a system of difference.
Such translations allow for scores of instantiations or mutations with the
source code remaining the only common link. The semantic instability
inherent in such acts of translation seems only compounded by how common
these acts have become – a casual everyday cultural practice that is
consolidated through repeated performance.

A string of code manifested in many different forms is, in a very real
sense, a horizontal representation of information. It represents a
non-hierarchical sphere of interrelationships and multiple meanings where
no single element holds a clear semantic advantage over any other. The
digital translation is animated by the possibility of an infinite ongoing.

Translation between analog forms, on the other hand, is realized through
systems of measured correspondences. Sequential alterations that vary in
time – generally in terms of physical phenomena – determine representation.
These translations retain an equivalent or analogous connection to their
source and are thus less flexible in terms of transformations than their
digital counterparts.

However, seen through the social prism of culture, such a binary
distinction doesn’t seem all that relevant. That very “ongoing” is
generally extended to any form of information processing, not exclusively
to digital processing.

A machine translation, a photo camera converting light into a
two-dimensional image, code represented in a myriad of forms, and an
expedition to Antarctica staged as an operatic light-and-sound public event
are all considered equivalent, even if each one represents very different
processes of transference.

They are all part of a change that suggests a process of internalizing a
different creative mode to conceptualize information, its forms of
production, and its reception.

Best,
Andrés


On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Dennis Moser <dennis.moser at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
> Hello, all,
>
> As someone else who is joining this discussion from the archivist's
> perspective, I'm glad to see Kristie's comments (and points for the Duranti
> and Thibodeau references).
>
> What they call "reproducibility" I would refer to as "instantiation"
> simply because of the semantic baggage that reproduction carries. And in
> the software domain, "instantiation" is a well-understood term.
>
> Best,
>
> Dennis
>
> ~~
> If your first move is brilliant, you’re in trouble. You don’t really know
> how to follow it; you’re frightened of ruining it. So, to make a mess is a
> good beginning. — Brian Eno
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Kristie MacDonald <
> kristie.l.a.macdonald at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>> Hello All,
>>
>> In keeping with Hannah’s line of thought from an "in the wild, on the
>> ground” approach I have been considering the questions posed by our
>> moderators from the archival perspective, based in a practice of media art
>> preservation.
>>
>> When considering "what is a digital object," I am inevitably always drawn
>> to questions of physicality or materiality. How does materiality support/
>> enable digital networks, and the digital objects they hold. As an archivist
>> I am constantly negotiating the relationship between carrier and signal /
>> support and content (ex. a videotape and the signal it holds).
>>
>> In particular, I am faced with the reality of preserving digital objects,
>> which have the capacity to exist independently of *specific* carriers
>> (data tape, optical disks, hard drives etc.) yet also rely on them. If the
>> hard drive fails the digital object is lost. Preservation necessitates the
>> migration of digital objects from carrier to carrier, system to system. How
>> do these physical technologies of creation and access affect our definition
>> of the digital object?
>>
>> Amidst their many observations on the practice of preserving digital
>> objects (or *documents *as they would call them) Luciana Duranti and
>> Kenneth Thibodeau (of the InterPARES project) conclude that preserving
>> digital objects consists of preserving the ability to reproduce them.  It
>> is the digital objects reproducibility  (a quality which allows us to
>> migrate, emulate, and distribute) that seems to be at the centre of its
>> existence from a preservation standpoint.
>>
>> Perhaps at the end of these thoughts my question to the group is - what
>> does longevity mean for our definition of digital object. What relationship
>> is there between how these entities span time (through constant migration
>> and change) and how we perceive them?
>>
>> -Kristie
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Hannah Turner <hannah.turner at utoronto.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Although with less of a philosophical lens, and at the risk of
>>> separating into another corner of the party - I thought I would post some
>>> initial thoughts on the last few posts, and raise a few questions that have
>>> occupied my mind through my work, and pose more questions.
>>>
>>> I wanted to offer, alongside the discussion of the definition of the
>>> digital as both discretized and the holistic, as the previous post put it,
>>> a way to ground or reground this in practice, "in the wild, on the ground”
>>> so to speak. Specifically, I want to ask: what does a definition of the
>>> "digital" allow us to talk about, or help us to conduct practice in
>>> different, new or more productive ways? And what “difference” does this
>>> make to users of these computational systems – if any at all?
>>>
>>> Part of this begs the question - what is an object, and why are these
>>> important? One way to describe them, is that digital objects, as many
>>> people I work with would say, "just" representations of existing objects,
>>> for example, material heritage, and whether it is through a film camera or
>>> a computer, serve the same function and therefore are both described in the
>>> same way?
>>>
>>> The first question, I think, is an interesting one. For example, some of
>>> my research has been to look at how computers and the Internet have enabled
>>> Indigenous communities who are interested in doing research on their
>>> cultural heritage located in museums, and who are geographically dispersed
>>> from these sites, a practice that has been happening for the better part of
>>> 20 years. For many individuals who seek this kind of access, viewing to the
>>> "Real" objects is of utmost importance, but images and representations on
>>> computer screens seem to be good enough placeholders for communities to
>>> identify objects that may or may not belong to them, and begin the process
>>> of repatriation or loans, or begin a dialogue with the museum about viewing
>>> the collections in situ. In any case, the ultimate goal is to be in
>>> presence with the "original" object - and any distinction made between an
>>> image taken with film versus one on the computer may not be relevant at all
>>> in this context, because as I said, they are talked about as if they are
>>> the same.
>>>
>>> It is my suspicion that defining a digital object is of little
>>> consequence in these places - however these same communities are seeking
>>> greater control and power over these digital representations and therefore,
>>> at least recognize the power (and danger) of the digital object to be
>>> endlessly repeated, duplicated (one of Goodman's criteria, I recall). This
>>> has potential ramifications, specifically when some individuals who
>>> carve/make these objects have relied on the income that comes with making
>>> and copying their own works with their hands and tools.
>>>
>>> Another interest of mine, and which falls in line with the original
>>> question concerning the historical or political forces that lie behind this
>>> definition of the "digital", is how the there has been some interesting
>>> push back to work to realign the histories of Western philosophical
>>> discourse of the "digital" and the notational, and situate them in
>>> alternative "digital" practices that are not necessarily considered part of
>>> the canon as of yet, that very much use the "finger" metaphor to describe
>>> digitality. This is just a thought, and a paper called "Wampum as
>>> Hypertext" by Angela Haas comes to mind, although I'd be interested to hear
>>> if there is anything else from other subscribers to help me think through
>>> this point.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> empyre forum
>>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> empyre forum
>> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20141009/c9279952/attachment.htm>