[-empyre-] old media cycles to new: Signal Culture and Jason Bernagozzi

[B. Bogart]

Murat,

I was thinking about what you wrote and I've been wondering if we can 
think of subversion in both technical and cultural terms. Cultural 
subversion could be not adhering to the dominant practices around a 
technology (e.g. breaking the 180 degree rule, which is not highly 
subversive). Technical subversion could be modifying the technical 
system itself (e.g. exposing film to light without a camera). Technical 
subversion may entail cultural subversion because changing the technical 
system involves changing the practices around its use (to some degree, 
at some level of description). Cultural subversion may not involve any 
changes to the technical system itself. That being said, its also 
possible for the media (film) to stay stable in spite of technical 
changes (film -> digital). In these cases there is still stability at a 
high level of description.The following definition applies equally to 
analogue and digital cameras: A camera consists of a lens that focuses 
light on a light-sensitive area that results in the storage of a 
representational image.

Film is stable in the sense that the poetics are defined by a set of 
largely stable practices. I think this stability is related to a 
historical stability in the technology itself. Technological stability 
is the result of a lack of change (to some degree, at some level of 
description) to the technological system (the arrangement of matter that 
constitutes the technology). At some level, every human artifact is 
cultural as it arises in a cultural context and is imbued with cultural 
values (e.g. that representation of images are worth-while at all).

"In our world, computers are as "stable," in the sense of being 
here-to-stay, as film; but their all-pervasiveness of use deprives them 
of limits in the sense we are talking about. That makes them in the 
culture sense--the sense that is relevant here--unstable (a system). My 
question related to that instability."

I don't see the relation between stability and constraints, nor the link 
between instability and systems. I consider stability as the lack of 
change (again at a specific level of description and to some degree) 
over time. Whether it changes or not, there are always constraints in a 
technology. In the case of computers, they are most often limited to 
binary representation. While binary values can produce the illusion of 
continuous values, there is an underlying constraint. Computers have 
changed a lot, but this binary aspect as remained nearly the same 
(except for very special purpose quantum and analogue "computers"). 
These are constraints in the technical system itself, and therefore 
"hard". There are also social and cultural constraints on how 
technologies are used, but these are "soft" in that its social 
convention (not technical details) that enforces them.

At the cultural level and centered on the notion of the "end-user", I 
can see how one could consider computers as unstable in that there does 
not seem to be a stable set of practices around all their uses. At the 
same time, the process of programming computers is relatively stable, 
despite the fact that computers are used in such broad contexts. So we 
have a set of unstable end-user practices around a computer, but 
simultaneously the set of largely stable programmer practices around the 
very same machine.

A system is a set of components that interact. They need not be 
symbolic. A wind-mill is a system, is it symbolic? A person using a 
hammer to hit a nail is a system of a person, a hammer, a nail, and a 
thing the nail is hammered into, is that symbolic? I can see how these 
systems could be re-framed as representational: A wind-mill represents 
the wind-speed in the speed at which grain is ground; a nail's depth 
represents the degree of force applied to the hammer. This is all just 
simple causation. I'm not sure we can reduce symbolic representation to 
causation.

"The computer user's continuous anxiety about losing one's files and 
necessity to keep multiple copies (each one equally unstable) point to 
this ambiguity."

Now I'm reading your sense of "instability" differently. The instability 
(over time) of digital representations is due to the sensitivity of 
those representations to external conditions. Magnets, dropping, power 
surges all have the potential to wipe out digital data. All 
representations (as arrangements of matter and energy) by nature of 
their physicality are sensitive to external conditions. The difference 
is in time-scale. There seems to be a correlation between how slow the 
data is written and how robust it is. It takes a long time to carve 
words into a rock, but it will last a long time. It can still be erased 
by erosion, split by tree roots, et cetera. The instability of digital 
representations are due to the requirement that they are written very 
quickly.

"The major theme of a computer art, as I see it, must one way or another 
confront this ambiguity, undercutting, blurring, making as 
un-transparent as possible the transparency of virtual freedom."

This seems consistent with the notion of art as making the invisible 
visible, or the implicit explicit. It could be argued that this is the 
whole purpose of knowledge and objectivity, to cut through the illusion, 
the subjective, the anecdote in order to expose the underlying reality 
that is independent of context and point of view.

"As I suggested, in my view, the most interesting digital art is 
conceptual, therefore, harder to commodify as 
fetish/prestige/inverstment objects, except perhaps in public spaces."

Does this mean that digital art will never be accepted in contemporary 
art because of its ephemeral character, and because contemporary art 
will always be about objects that can be owned?

As I heard anecdotally, Ghery does not use computers in his creative 
process, he draws and makes models. Others on the team are then left to 
figure out how to realize it in reality, which indeed does require 
computers. I don't know how much back and forth is involved between 
physical constraints and Ghery's vision. The myth I heard was that he 
would scrunch up a napkin into an abstract shape and tell his team to 
figure out how to make it happen.

Ben


On 15-02-14 12:11 PM, Murat Nemet-Nejat wrote:
> ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>
>
>
> "I think this has a lot less to do
> with the actual technology and more to do with the cultural practises
> that constrain its use.}
>
> Ben,
>
> Isn't "subverting" itself a cultural activity? Can it occur in the
> abstract, outside culture. Your concept of "stability," as far as I can
> see, is a cultural concept. It implies certain limits, delineations,
> conditions to its use. In our world, computers are as "stable," in the
> sense of being here-to-stay, as film; but their all-pervasiveness of use
> deprives them of limits in the sense we are talking about. That makes
> them in the culture sense--the sense that is relevant here--unstable (a
> system). My question related to that instability.
>
> "I think you are speaking more about the cultural practises (filming,
> viewing, etc.) that formed around the 'original' technology (e.g. film
> cameras, celluloid, etc.). Film stays film only because the cultural
> practises that have become dominant stay (somewhat) the same, despite
> the underlying technology changing significantly"
>
> As I described above, that's exactly what I am talking about.
>
> "Another interesting question is why computers are so general. I expect
> it's because they allow very complex relationships between abstract
> symbols."
>
> "allow very complex relationships between abstract symbols": is that not
> what a system is? In the last few weeks, I happened to have seen two
> movies relating to Turing, "The Imitation Machine" and a "pseudo"
> documentary based "on his papers, reports," etc.. Both focus on his
> being gay and his mistreatment because of that. They also focus on his
> decoding machine. In that short period during the war, the machine was
> stable, a "tool" to decode the enigma machine. No one was aware of at
> that time the systematic/conceptual/philosophical revolution that tool
> potentially implied. That transformation, a mental metamorphosis, is
> amazing.It alters our, the society's relationship to time and space. It
> diminishes drastically our experience of friction and gravity that
> resist human aspirations, creating an almost euphoric sense of freedom.
> But that freedom is as strongly illusionary because a) algorithmic
> system are extremely unstable (that lack of friction works both ways);
> b) as the film /Matrix/ shows, that "gravitationless" universe creates,
> "exists in" a parallel, virtual world. The gravity and friction of the
> physical world is unaltered. And we as human beings exist in this world
> and are subject to its vagaries. The computer user's continuous anxiety
> about losing one's files and necessity to keep _multiple_ copies (each
> one equally unstable) point to this ambiguity. The major theme of a
> computer art, as I see it, must one way or another confront this
> ambiguity, undercutting, blurring, making as un-transparent as possible
> the transparency of virtual freedom.
>
> "> In other words, don't you have to achieve a certain amount of
>> invisibility to function as an artist?
>
> This seems related to representational vs nonrepresentational arts.
> Indeed invisibility is highly useful in creation the illusion of
> objectivity, but is this the aim of all artists? From my M.Sc. Thesis,
> MAM was my thesis project, Memory Association Machine
> (http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/self-other-organizing-structure-1-2007/)"
>
> the "invisibilty I am talking about is not that of objectivity. I was
> referring to the invisiblity of the work itself. To the degree that the
> computer universe is so vast, the visibilty of a sub-system becomes more
> difficult.
>
> "What do you think of the difficulty
> in electronic media arts acceptance within dominant contemporary art?
> Robotics, electronics, video, etc. all started around the same time in
> the 1960s, so why is video more accepted as contemporary art? I would
> argue that the stability and dominance of practises that made video a
> medium (rather than just electrical technology applied in an art
> context) allowed it to be more accepted, partially because of the
> stability of the practises, and also because of the industrial support
> of video being used outside of art. Perhaps "electronic media art" is
> not a media at all, as it lacks the kind of dominance and stability in
> practises around it of video."
>
> I am not sure if the video art is unrecognized in the art world. To the
> extent it is, two ideas come to mind. At least initially, the video was
> seen potentially as democratizing film making, being a cheaper, simpler
> way of making films. That may have something to do with its earlier
> establishment as a medium. Gradually, people began to see that the video
> image is different from the film image, each having its own
> characteristics, its pluses and minuses, making them potentially
> distinguishable media of art. Second, in our time art is a commodity
> fetching amazing prices. As I suggested, in my view, the most
> interesting digital art is conceptual, therefore, harder to commodify as
> fetish/prestige/inverstment objects, except perhaps in public spaces.
> Multiple museums do show digital works, often as installations, a less
> "stable," less permanent form.
>
> Architecture is incredibly affected by computers. Many visual forms
> buildings take now (Frank Ghery's work being I think a prime example)
> would have been impossible before the advent of computers.
>
> Ciao,
> Murat
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:16 PM, B. Bogart <ben at ekran.org
> <mailto:ben at ekran.org>> wrote:
>
>     ----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
>     Thanks for your close reading Murat, I'll respond inline...
>
>     On 15-02-11 11:04 AM, Murat Nemet-Nejat wrote:
>      > <snip> as I see it, there is a contradiction in your analysis when
>     > applied to computers as a tool. Film has a well defined place in
>     > society. One either goes to the theatre or sits in front of TV or
>     > your lap top or your cell phone, you name it, to watch it. But
>     > computers as tools are all pervasive, affecting every activity of
>     > human behavior. It is no wonder the term "ecology" has entered the
>     > language in relation to digital tools. Your idea seems to fit when
>     > working against a language/style/convention within an industry; but
>     > how can you do so when the tool in question is not really a tool;
>     > but a technological system of thought, of calculation (algorithm, as
>     > I see it, is not a tool but a system) that has incredibly
>     > promiscuous areas of application? Don't you constantly have to
>     > create "sub-sytems" to isolate yourself, to gain some air to perform
>     > your subverting act?
>
>     Indeed you are right that computers are highly general in a way that a
>     hammer may not be. I think there are two issues here, the first is the
>     sense of a tool as existing for a specific purpose vs a tool being
>     general purpose. The second is the granularity of the description, i.e.
>     most tools are made by, or composed of, other tools (that is tools as
>     systems). I'll begin with generalism. I think this has a lot less to do
>     with the actual technology and more to do with the cultural practises
>     that constrain its use. A hammer is meant to hit nails, but it could
>     also be used to kill someone, or pull up weeds (with the claw), or even
>     test for studs in a wall. The affordances of the design of the hammer
>     certainly facilitate particular use, but in my examples above those same
>     affordances are perfectly suitable for other uses not intended by the
>     designer. I think of tools as any arrangement of matter or energy that
>     has utility in a particular use context, the degree of generality does
>     not change the toolness of the tool. All tools are systems because they
>     are meant to create relations, at least between the user and the world.
>
>     Thus, I think its not the technology in isolation that determines
>     generality, but the interaction between the technology and the context
>     of its use. Film is both a set of technologies and a media. When you
>     speak of it being presented in a living-room, a theatre, or on a phone,
>     I think you are speaking more about the cultural practises (filming,
>     viewing, etc.) that formed around the 'original' technology (e.g. film
>     cameras, celluloid, etc.). Film stays film only because the cultural
>     practises that have become dominant stay (somewhat) the same, despite
>     the underlying technology changing significantly.
>
>     Then there is the question of granularity, where we tend to consider a
>     set of technologies as a unified whole, even though it's composed of
>     individual components. A hammer is made of the head and the handle, and
>     each offers different affordances and potential uses. The head on its
>     own may be good enough for pulling weeds, but not very suitable for
>     hammering nails. A 'film' camera is composed of a lens, and a sensor,
>     and a number of processors that deal with transforming the raw
>     information from the sensor into a sequence of images.
>
>     Indeed everything has become a computer, from cars to house-hold
>     appliances. Each provides its own physical affordances to emphasize
>     particular use, but the underlying technology is more general.
>
>     Another interesting question is why computers are so general. I expect
>     it's because they allow very complex relationships between abstract
>     symbols.
>
>     > In other words, don't you have to achieve a certain amount of
>     > invisibility to function as an artist?
>
>     This seems related to representational vs nonrepresentational arts.
>     Indeed invisibility is highly useful in creation the illusion of
>     objectivity, but is this the aim of all artists? From my M.Sc. Thesis,
>     MAM was my thesis project, Memory Association Machine
>     (http://www.ekran.org/ben/wp/2007/self-other-organizing-structure-1-2007/):
>
>     "For a time I considered my interest in the system acting beyond my
>     intentions as a removal of myself — a removal of my intention from the
>     system. In this attempt I was instituting software mechanisms that more
>     deeply ingrained my intention in MAM. This removal was an attempt to
>     remove my "hand" from the work. My intention shifted from the design of
>     the system’s external properties to the design of the interface between
>     the context and the system. This effort moved to a different level,
>     rather than removed, my influence over the system."
>
>      > As usual, a brilliant post. Thank you. By the way, my essay /The
>      > Peripheral Space of Photography/ deals exactly with how photography
>     > gradually realized, achieved its own independence in its early years
>     >  as a medium against the onslaught of experts, "art critics" who saw
>     >  it as a weaker sister of painting, consequently, as a medium of
>      > representation. These presumptions never died down. /The Peripheral
>      > Space/ is an extended review (later published as a book) of The
>     > Metropolitan Museum exhibition "The Waking Dream" on the first
>     > hundred years of photography. The curators of this exhibition heavily
>     > framed almost every one of several hundred amazing photographs in it.
>     > My essay discusses how these frames undercut and go against the
>     > nature of the experience one has looking at them. The essay discusses
>     > what that experience is and how it defines the nature of photography
>      > as an independent medium totally different from paint. <snip>
>
>     Thank you for your kind words Murat. What do you think of the difficulty
>     in electronic media arts acceptance within dominant contemporary art?
>     Robotics, electronics, video, etc. all started around the same time in
>     the 1960s, so why is video more accepted as contemporary art? I would
>     argue that the stability and dominance of practises that made video a
>     medium (rather than just electrical technology applied in an art
>     context) allowed it to be more accepted, partially because of the
>     stability of the practises, and also because of the industrial support
>     of video being used outside of art. Perhaps "electronic media art" is
>     not a media at all, as it lacks the kind of dominance and stability in
>     practises around it of video.
>
>     Ben
>     _______________________________________________
>     empyre forum
>     empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
>     <mailto:empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au>
>     http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
> http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
>