[-empyre-] week two - MATTER

[Ashley Scarlett]

Spheres 1-20 // Sara Ludy <http://www.saraludy.com/spheres120.html>


In both of their emails, Phil and John called attention to the role of
hardware and software, as structural means through which “data files” are
attributed a “representational form” (whether visually, sonically,
haptically, etc.). As many of us have acknowledged, this formalization of
data is necessary in order for the submedial messiness of digital processes
to become *an object* of (potential) experience, or as Jan said “something
you can work with”.



Within this formulation, three intersecting components come to the fore as
relevant to our conversation, namely: structure, process, and
representation. Of course these are not surprising – as Kristy discussed,
and Dragan’s work <http://bw-fla.uni-freiburg.de/> demonstrates, debates
surrounding digital preservation frequently revolve around which of these
should take precedence and why.  (This being said, does anyone know of an
instance where “process” was the central focus of preservation? I’m afraid
I don’t know of any examples that aren’t reductive and/or code-centric…?)
What interests me in this case, somewhat counter-intuitively, is how
centrally the question of loss factors in here; digital preservation seems
to be necessarily bound-up with questions concerning what or how much can
be lost while still conserving the “Thing Itself
<http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/182814>”. (Daniel's discussion on
entropy seems relevant here as well, but in more immediate terms.)



While I don’t want to discount the archaeological value of collecting and
preserving physical devices
<https://www.medienwissenschaft.hu-berlin.dphysicadevices>, or suggest that
“the digital” is not an irreducible tangle of the components listed above,
even the richest instantiations of “ zombie
<https://www.academia.edu/1182981/Zombie_Media_Circuit_Bending_Media_Archaeology_into_an_Art_Method>
media <http://www.recyclism.com/refunctmedia.php>” seem to miss what is
really at stake in a discussion of digital objects and matter. Despite
their importance, talk of game consoles, server farms and e-waste falls
remarkably flat when trying to account for the digital phenomena that these
devices are composing, mediating and making available to us (or not). By
focusing too rigidly on the structure(s) that support the experiential
component of the digital, you inevitably exorcise the weird and haunted
<http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo14413838.html>
attributes that make these things desirable and worth engaging with at all.
(Unless you're a tinkerer, hanging with a busted piece of tech isn't
usually all that much fun...)



In the closing remarks of his last email, Daniel quoted Erwin Schrödinger as
saying, “the code script contains only a description of the executive
function, not the function itself.” Similarly, in an earlier email, Jan
said, “the execution is a totally different entity, which needs a totally
different framework to describe.”  I think that it is precisely this that a
conversation regarding digital objects is aiming to achieve – an account of
the function, the execution, the formalized representation. While
accounting for these frequently lapses into talk of the physical and the
metaphorical, I would agree with Jan that what we are (or should be) in
search of, is a totally different descriptive framework. I would be
interested in hearing Yuk's sense of the feasibility and relevancy of this,
especially given the assertions that he made here
<https://www.academia.edu/2241486/What_is_a_Digital_Object> - starting from
a phenomenological perspective, how do we account for object(ification) of
data? You mentioned that you selected metadata as a means of
(superficially) limiting your object of study - what other parameters might
you have set?



It is for this reason, that I find the notion of “representation” (and
corresponding notions of image and appearance) that is the most intriguing,
and in need of reconsideration, particularly when taken in tandem with a
quote of Yuk’s that I cited in an earlier email/post, namely that “computer
programs work on the presupposition of representation” (Hui 2012:345). The
digital object (as such) exists only in its representation - its appearance
marks the passage of data from a mode of pure potentiality to concretized
actuality. Through this process of emergence (which is successful
regardless of whether or not a glitch appears), it stands as a testament to
the relational coherence of its corresponding system (structure &
processes), and yet it is not this system. It is precisely because it is
not this system that I think we need to question what is it, apart from
this system. Exploring the physical substrates, networked apparatuses, and
textual descriptions that enable the emergence of digital objects has been
and is being undertaken in many fields - I am interested in investigating
the punctal and perpetually refreshing result, that I am convinced is
becoming an increasingly pressing actor within contemporary culture... I
don't know, what do you guys think?


Oh man, I have ended right where I should have begun. Anyway, I'll add some
additional questions that I have on matter (given what the rest of you have
been sharing), and point to some areas that I would be interested in
pushing further through our conversation in the morning. It's late here!


A.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20141016/429c53aa/attachment.htm>