|
 |
|
YASMIN-list > Cybernetics Serendipity Redux |
|
|
|
I notice that there are many people reading and not nearly so many sending messages in this thread.
I wonder if some of the readers believe that the discussion is only
open to the nominated discussants. THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN TO EVERYONE:
just sign on with Yasmin. The discussants are people, most of whom
volunteered themselves, who chose to commit to the discussion.
I hope I can say I have been very impressed by the intensity and depth of many of the posts so far. Thank you.
Ranulph |
dear all
My name Yu-Chuan Tseng from Taiwan.
Since English is not my native language, if I make any mistake in
wording. Please forgive me.
I really enjoy reading all the discussion. The topic about the CS is
part of my PhD dissertation.
I have been an artist, using real time system & random variable to
create a interactive experience since 2003.
It is a difficult job to do programing for me, so, I work with a
friend whose background is engineering.
However, I always thinking about ' what is the Aesthetic Element of
digital art nowadays.
Especially, when art critic criticized my practice is technical nature
and not beautiful at all.
I don't think that the Aesthetic Element of digital art is simply the
environment, interactive experience, immersing or images.
After reading the artiicles and books about 60s art & technology
event( EAT, CS, Software exhibiton...etc)and theory ( Max Bense, Jack
Burnham....), I would like to make assumption that the Aesthetic
Element of digital art is in Cybernetics.
It includes
[software,code]
[ramdom,algorithm]
[Program] "logic program of constructing thinking", "program of the
viewer's participation" ,"program of computer's logic processing" and
"program of artificial and natural environment.
Thanks to Ranulph's encouragement
Yu-Chuan
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, ranulph <ranulph@glanville.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I notice that there are many people reading and not nearly so many sending messages in this thread.
>
> I wonder if some of the readers believe that the discussion is
only open to the nominated discussants. THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN TO
EVERYONE: just sign on with Yasmin. The discussants are people, most of
whom volunteered themselves, who chose to commit to the discussion.
>
> I hope I can say I have been very impressed by the intensity and depth of many of the posts so far. Thank you.
>
> Ranulph
> --------------------
> To become a member & Yasmin list archive: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/
> To join Yasmin-map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin
> To post: yasmin@estia.media.uoa.gr
> To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1
> |
Dear Yasminers
I have been following this discussion, a bit from afar as it
is the "new working year" in my corner of the world and I
am quite busy. My 2 cents.
One thing : I am a great adminer of CS (the exhibition).
Reading the discussion, I can see that no one has yet put on
the table performing arts and technology. There is a whole
world of creation today in theater and even more in dance,
with sensors of various kinds attached (or not) to the body
of the dancers, creating a feedback loop and all kind of
interactions between the flesh body of the dancers, the
computer systems, sound systems, image system, stage design
systems, light systems, robotics, the bodies of the audience.
It seems to me that this direction is adressing cybernetics
in a new way, including the different levels of
consciousness and organisation that Wiener was addressing.
This trend is exploring a rich mesh of relations between
different systems. It is blossoming, it is experimenting,
some are good, some are ...bad, but the experimentation is
very vivid. It includes artists from all over the world (and
a lot of women).
What do you think about this ? How do you consider it in
regards to CS ?
Best
Annick
--
------------------------
Annick Bureaud (abureaud@gmail.com)
tel/fax : 33/(0)1 43 20 92 23
mobile/cell : 33/(0)6 86 77 65 76
Leonardo/Olats : http://www.olats.org
------------------------- |
The Contemporary Cybernetic Exhibition
One thing that might have changed considerably over the years since the
original Cybernetic Serendipity Exhibition, is the nature of what an
exhibition might be and how it might be positioned.
It seems to me that, for instance, the ning site at http://cyberdesign.ning.com/
might be thought of in part as a repository, but also as an
exhibition—of Cybernetic Serendipity and its artefacts, and of some,
recently work inspired by these sources.
I am interested in whether the past 40 years, in which early cybernetic
principles have been applied in the realisation, for instance, of the
internet, lead to new possibilities for exhibitions and what they might
be. Of course, we know of some: online catalogues and virtual
galleries, for instance, but there may be much more to come.
What would the exhibit aspect of a new Cybernetic Serendipity look like, and how should we try to establish such a thing?
Ranulph |
Reflecting on Ranulph's enquiry how the
exhibition aspect of a new Cybernetic Serendipity would look like, I
think several aspects are relevant:
1. Ubiquity – also: local / global ideas
2. Collaboration - Collaboration in the design and creation of the
art-machines, Collaboration in the inspirations and observations for
the art-machines (we as subject), Collaboration in the observations
from the works of art / behaviours by the art-machines.
3. Surprises 4 all – art is a mirror, an attractor / distracter, a
culture container: the evocative power of a big ubiquitous,
collaborative work of art could lead to mass serendipity, so that we
all get new views and ideas.
4. Physical manifestations – the revival of physical aspects from
computation: robots, manufacturing, mass customization, crowds (like in
a flash mob), fablabs, fab@home etc. (this relates to the theme of
embodiment and is (indeed) not necessarily related to the difference
between analogue and digital)
5. from Yu-Chuan: the Aesthetic Element of digital art nowadays. It includes
[software,code] [ramdom,algorithm] [Program]
Side idea:
What if we ask the cybernetics theorists here at Yasmin to tell what
their ideal contemporary cybernetics piece of art would look like, and
if we ask the artists here at Yasmin to tell what cybernetic principles
they strive for in their art? (if you are both, you can do both, if you
are neither of the two, you can also do both) … I will also try to
answer this question myself in a few days time …
Kind regards, Martijn Stellingwerff
|
Hi all,
A new text <a href="http://sipl.technion.ac.il/~avi/texts/tsc.pdf">Time - space compression in cyberspace art</a>
Best,
Avi. |
Jasia
Let me first say what a pleasure it is to be in conversation with you
40 years after you organised Cybernetics Serendipity. Congratulations
for "crystalising" the times in 1968
Your questions about machines producing artefacts for their own
cultural use, I think raises an interesting question about artmaking
within human culture.
Many human languages have never been decyphered, so that we cannot even
decrypt the symbolic production of our own species 3000 years ago. And
within the last 500 years within western civilisation there has been an
ongoing evolution of cultural production both in terms of forms and
contents.
We now look back at certain production and call it "folklore or folk
art" rather than "art", yet as Frieder Nake noted the computer graphics
of 1968 now look to us like " folk art".
I like to tell the story of the 1882 Institute of Art and Technology in
1882 in Manchester, UK when the new technology of the time was...
linoleum..
So I think the answer to your question is yes ! we should include art
works created by machines for their own use in the new cybernetics
serendipity= can anyone give examples of symbolic production created by
machines today which is consumed and interpreted by other machines ?
There are ethologists , such as Dominique Lestel, who are very
interested today in cultural/symbolic production by other species on
the earth, "animal culture". Maybe the new cybernetics serendipity
could include work by animals that have co evolved with us.
These are all questions that the SETI research community has been heavily involved in !!
Roger Malina
(let me apologise for, the problem in the YASMIN email system that
sends multipler copies of each email to some recipients=lets hope this
is not a bug but a feature of machine art)
Hello Yasminers
I've read many interesting messages, and will try in due course to reply to some of them individually, but meanwhile....
I'd like to draw your attention to a book by M.J. Rosenberg, The
Cybernetics of Art - Reason and the rainbow, 1983. In one of the
chapters he discusses the possibility of finding out what one would
have to do to construct a machine that could act as an author.
Let's say that such a machine existed and produced something that would
be incomprehensible to us, and yet it claimed that it was a work of
art. What should we do? Adjust our criteria as to what a work of art
is? After all, we have to do this quite frequently with art produced by
humans. But is the machine telling us the truth? We could then also ask
another similar machine to have a good look at the works produced by
machine no.1, and tell us if it's art or not. Of course, the two
machines could have greater loyalty to each other than to us, and the
second machine could also lie when confirming that the products of the
first one are art.
And, why shouldn't machines have a joke at our expense! Perhaps, they
already do. Everything has consequences for better or worse, and the
creation of learning machines changes our world in more ways than we
dare realize.
Jasia Reichardt |
I have followed this thread for some time and feel quite humbled by the knowledge and expertise of its contributors.
One of the problems with this thread is that it is linear, there are
many possible branches that could be followed: analogue vs/&/or
digital; society, culture and cybernetics then and now; interactive or
responsive; art as a political/social force etc etc..
This medium is not ideal for expanding, exploring, cross linking these
themes – there is no fabric only a thread. And this leads me to my
observation relating cybernetics from the then to the now.
We are very much situated in the networked information age, unlike
then, where cybernetic ideas were either concepts related to broader
systems (socio/geo/economic etc) or focussed towards machines and
human/environmental interaction, all sharing the common theme of
feedback.
Perhaps we are actually far more cybernetic in the now – being meshed
to the machine - hooked into the networked information world – creating
and sharing knowledge and information collaboratively, participating in
blogs, web2, open source, creative commons, nins...
Spore, a new game from the makers of the Sims, perhaps represents an
extreme creative example of where we (or many others) are at in the
now, participating in user created content, massive online worlds and
high degrees of creative and social interaction. It is not the
Cybernetics I remember, which was very focussed on self-regulatory
systems, but it does represent the type of interaction I think Ranulph
might be looking for – two or more people producing surprise through
interacting with some form of machine/technology.
My personal interest however lies in the creative properties of
alternative paradigms to the digital, works that use non Von Neumann
(VN) computing, hyper processing, where the materials or physics carry
out complex emergent and surprising activities. See http://www.vimeo.com/user448111 for two examples - Static Machine and Electrochemical Synthesiser.
There may be complex cybernetic processes of feedback occurring in
these works, but they do not demonstrate the types of conversational
interaction Ranulph mentions. Also in my mind, they are not works of
art, rather experiments that produce surprise and an insight into
real-world of complexity vs those that can be created through computer
simulation.
I end with two hopefully provocative threads to unravel – i) that
"Social Interactive Cybernetics in the Now" may be more likely to be
found in the interactive worlds and experiences that are currently
being created in the online gaming communities and ii) Analogue and
alternative paradigms to Von Neumann digital computing offer a richer
and more emergent potential for "Future Cybernetics" than conventional
programming and VN computing.
For example, see the work of Jonathan Mills - "The Evolution of an Unconventional Supercomputer". http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/jonathan.html
--
Artist/Experimentalist
MSc Computers and Cybernetics, MA Fine Art.
http://www.mimetics.com
artsinformatica.blogspot.com
|
>>On 9/9/08 19:53, "rmalina" <rmalina@prontomail.com> wrote:
>>So I think the answer to your question is yes ! we should
include art works created by machines for their own use in the new
cybernetics serendipity= can anyone >>give examples of symbolic
production created by machines today which is consumed and interpreted
by other machines ?
Interesting point. I have just finished an essay (about post-textual hermeneutics) that addresses this same question (in part).
To quote (myself):
In contemporary science we see graphic representation in ascendance
over written text as the complexity of the data-sets involved increase
beyond the capacity of the written word to contain them and our ability
to interpret such information through text is tested to the limit. It
is now often left to computers to interpret our complex data-sets for
us, employing codes that are rarely, if ever, read by a human being.
Knowledge is now created and disseminated via diverse media and
codifying systems, invisible to us as often as they are visible.
Rendering these invisible landscapes and networks in a manner by which
we can apprehend them has become one of the functions of the
contemporary artist, designer and informatician.
end quote.
http://hosted.simonbiggs.easynet.co.uk/texts/trans.htm
The implication here is that the production of meaning (and thus value)
has been automated and so has its consumption. This is not an unusual
situation. It is common-place. We just do not see it because it is done
by (stupid) machines. The stock-market would be one example. SETI would
be another. Surveillance is possibly the most pervasive (and sinister)
example.
Regards
Simon
Professor Simon Biggs
edinburgh college of art
s.biggs@eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk
simon@littlepig.org.uk
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|
Hello YASMINistas,
I've just joined the list. I teach both traditional art fundamentals
(academic drawing, Bauhaus 2D design) and digital media skills in the
midwestern US industrial "rustbelt", making use of past careers as a
San Francisco Mission District community muralist and Silicon Valley
onscreen interface/icon designer.
I further try to combine--or mine--them in artworks, "community art
machines" including '90s muralized kiosks that you can see in my part
of ylem.org gallery.
Son of a power systems electrical engineer (MIT '29) who told Norbert
Weiner jokes, and '80s grad student of SF State's Steve Wilson and
Bryan Rogers, I recognize, interrogate and skeptically question the
(limited?) role we assign the machine. And probably fetishize it;
archaic symbols for pentodes and diodes emerge in paintings...
And I am especially interested in your work in the Mediterranean. Next year, collaborations could be considered.
Thanks,
--Mike M.
Michael R. Mosher
Assoc. Professor, Art/Communication & Digital Media
Saginaw Valley State University
University Center, MI 48710
* * * |
My name's Mike Leggett and am new to the list
- I'm currently completing a PhD in Sydney concerned with hypervideo -
but during the time of the CS was making films and photography, so will
contribute some brief personal responses to the show and some
contextual information that hasn't surfaced through the previous
contributions.
CS was an early, maybe the first, exhibition at the new Institute of
Contemporary Arts (ICA) premises in central London. The ICA represented
'progressive' (somewhat retrospective) visual art practice, its
founders having organised the Surrealist Exhibition in London in 1936.
The show that followed (?) ‘When Attitudes Become Form’, was another
landmark show, though more attuned to the developing contemporary
visual arts scene. More on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Contemporary_Arts
But the new ICA space nonetheless initially addressed a demand for
‘alternative practice’ spaces outside the academies, such as had been
initiated by the Arts Lab (1966) and the New London Arts Lab /
Institute for Research in Art & Technology (IRAT) opening in 1969.
As a then recent graduate, my art and professional filmmaking practice
used electromechanical technology of course, so the addition of the
computer presented no great conceptual leaps. As filmmakers we were
familiar with the Whitney brothers’ film work with analogue machines,
and we had for many years practised the logic brainteasers in job
adverts on the Tube for trainee computer operators! But working
applications of the computer in the field was what the show promised
and delivered – to an extent. It was like walking into the Science
Museum rather than an art exhibit (being before the days of
professional exhibition designers), with a ‘show-and-tell’, work in
progress approach.
This was suitably refreshing for me – the style of address amplified
process and system rather than expression or figuration, though such
areas were not unfamiliar at the time through the work of contemporary
painters and sculptors (some associated with the ICA). But the Art in
the show would have been of no interest to the traditional art
collector or connoisseur, who might have been taken by the elegant
framed plotter drawings, but not the objects, in particular the
sensor-based ones, on the floor – clunky, mechanical and given to
fantastic abstraction. (Has someone checked the Press reviews? I expect
they were of the gee-wizz variety.)
The show intrigued me and I bought a copy of the Studio International
special issue – a definite mark of approval - to keep the ideas and the
technology in view!
|
Hi Mike
One detail. I was talking to somebody else who saw the CS show and they
commented on how the Studio International ‘catalogue’ wasn’t so much a
catalogue as a post-event edition of a regular magazine (I also have a
copy and it is sort of somewhere between a magazine and a catalogue).
They also remembered many of the works in the publication were not in
the show itself. As they put it, the show consisted mostly of
information sheets tacked on the wall and very few actual objects or
artworks. Is this your memory – or is your recollection different to
this?
On an aside, my partner dug out a video of the Nine Evenings event and
we were looking at it last night. Not a lot of work to be seen, but a
little (a Robert Breer ‘float’ with Deborah Hay draped across it,
Cunningham being pushed around in a box by somebody who may or may not
have been Rauschenberg, Lucinda Childs’ dancers posing on stage, etc).
Mostly there were scenes of what appeared to be crowds of very confused
people, craning to see what was going on, trying to work out what was
part of the show and what was incidental. Reminded me of many a
performance art evening of the late 70’s and early 80’s.
My partner thought it would be great if something like Nine Evenings
was to happen again – especially if it was as improvised as the
original seemed to be. Perhaps having attended one too many of those
performance art evenings I wasn’t so open to this idea.
Was CS at all like this? I have the impression it was a lot more focused and ‘controlled’.
Best
Simon
On 10/9/08 08:58, "legart" <legart@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
My name's Mike Leggett and am new to the list - I'm currently
completing a PhD in Sydney concerned with hypervideo - but during the
time of the CS was making films and photography, so will contribute
some brief personal responses to the show and some contextual
information that hasn't surfaced through the previous contributions.
CS was an early, maybe the first, exhibition at the new Institute of
Contemporary Arts (ICA) premises in central London. The ICA represented
'progressive' (somewhat retrospective) visual art practice, its
founders having organised the Surrealist Exhibition in London in 1936.
The show that followed (?) ╢When Attitudes Become Formâ•˙, was
another landmark show, though more attuned to the developing
contemporary visual arts scene. More on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Contemporary_Arts
But the new ICA space nonetheless initially addressed a demand for
╢alternative practiceâ•˙ spaces outside the academies, such as had
been initiated by the Arts Lab (1966) and the New London Arts Lab /
Institute for Research in Art & Technology (IRAT) opening in 1969.
As a then recent graduate, my art and professional filmmaking practice
used electromechanical technology of course, so the addition of the
computer presented no great conceptual leaps. As filmmakers we were
familiar with the Whitney brothersâ•˙ film work with analogue machines,
and we had for many years practised the logic brainteasers in job
adverts on the Tube for trainee computer operators! But working
applications of the computer in the field was what the show promised
and delivered â•„ to an extent. It was like walking into the Science
Museum rather than an art exhibit (being before the days of
professional exhibition designers), with a ╢show-and-tellâ•˙, work in
progress approach.
This was suitably refreshing for me â•„ the style of address amplified
process and system rather than expression or figuration, though such
areas were not unfamiliar at the time through the work of contemporary
painters and sculptors (some associated with the ICA). But the Art in
the show would have been of no interest to the traditional art
collector or connoisseur, who might have been taken by the elegant
framed plotter drawings, but not the objects, in particular the
sensor-based ones, on the floor â•„ clunky, mechanical and given to
fantastic abstraction. (Has someone checked the Press reviews? I expect
they were of the gee-wizz variety.)
The show intrigued me and I bought a copy of the Studio International
special issue â•„ a definite mark of approval - to keep the ideas and
the technology in view!
--------------------
To become a member & Yasmin list archive: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/
To join Yasmin-map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin
To post: yasmin@estia.media.uoa.gr
To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1
Professor Simon Biggs
edinburgh college of art
s.biggs@eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk
simon@littlepig.org.uk
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|
Greetings
I'm new to this group. Briefly. After 4 1/2 years of monastic
experience and a BA in literature I worked directly with Marshall
McLuhan (1967-68)at Fordham University. Played a role in generating the
video movement in NYC. (Google: 'Radical Software', see 'Cybernetic
Guerilla Warfare' issue #3). Learned cybernetics by engaging Gregory
Bateson in a conversation about the difference between a logic of
classes and a logic of relationships. Published 'Cybernetics of the
Sacred' in 1974 and 'Video Mind, Earth Mind' in 1992. Presently,I'm
Associate Professer in Media Studies at New School. Extensive work as a
video artist. (In general, much of video art work has been built on
thinking in circuits. See Slavko Kucunko's Video Installation book). My
papers and tapes now being archived by the Smithsonian Institute. http://www.earthscore.org.
Rmolina cited complexity theorist Stuart Kaufman's new book on
"Reinventing the Sacred'. Bateson's last book 'Angel's Fear' is along
the same lines. I would be interested in that theme being part of any
cybernetic redux. Can cybernetic art help negotiate a new coupling
between science and religion that takes responsibility for our
ecolgical systems? |
Yasminers
Ken Knowlton , who was in cybernetics serendipity, sends us this message which he oked for me to repost
roger
to rmalina
show details 4:55 PM (4 hours ago)
Reply
Roger Malina:
I'm concentrating, in remaining years (just possibly decades), on making things, and writing.
I don't ignore your request but just can't find the time. There are a few things that someone in the project
might like to read, and maybe even use somehow:
(1) regarding those earlier years, and two published papers:
"On the Frustrations of Collaborating with Artists" http://www.kenknowlton.com/pages/05collab.htm
"Portrait of the Artist as a Young Scientist" http://www.kenknowlton.com/pages/04portrait.htm
(2) More recently, my artwork from the past 20 years on http://www.KnowltonMosaics.com
Best Regards,
Ken Knowlton |
Yasminers
Michael Noll, who also was in cybernetics serendipity sends us this remark
roger
Roger --
Cybernetics is concerned with feedback and control systems. In terms of art,
I suggested its use in which computer-generated imagery would be presented
to people and changed according to their emotional response in a feedback
environment [A. Michael Noll, "The Digital Computer as a Creative Medium,"
IEEE Spectrum, October 1967]. The paper is available at my web site:
http://noll.uscannenberg.org/
But such a "cybernetic" artistic experience did not occur.
I am not sure precisely what Jasia meant by "cybernetic serendipity." My
guess is that she was using a nebulous term to define a new area of art
involving computers and technology broadly -- a very wise definition by
her.
Michael
-- Dr. A. Michael Noll
Professor Emeritus of Communication
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Loa Angeles, CA 90089-0281
Home page: http://noll.uscannenberg.org |
In response to Simon, re CS in London, 1968.
I visited CS at the ICA. If I'm honest, I was disappointed. I'd
expected something much more futuristic looking (this was, I guess, a
style notion). And many things weren't working: I guess we still have
that lesson to learn. As Frieder suggested, the graphics were less
dramatic than the interactive objects. Pask's Colloquy wasn't working,
but was clearly both interactive (in the true sense) and time based.
There were strange moves, too: Herbert Brun, a composer, showed some
drawings that looked like spirographs. I wondered what had happened to
his music. I was disappointed at the music, but sound is so difficult
in an exhibition. I understood the importance of the show, that there
was something very new, but somehow the newness passed me by. To be
honest about this, I probably wasn't up to seeing the novelty in it.
There was a small experimental publication that I found recently (don't
know where it is, just now). Jasia told me the exhibition was done
without a budget and the Studio International special issue was the
best she could do as a sort of catalogue. But it is not a 1 to 1 with
the exhibition. Her book, Cybernetics, Art and Ideas also came out of
the show.
The sort of running around you talk of (Nine Evenings) we used to do in
a place called the Electric Garden, in Covent Garden. I had a group
that mixed sound and did live onstage electronic music, and we would
sample the evening and mix it down to a piece that dancers would
improvise to at the end. All this was analogue, before synthesisers.
These sorts of events were called happenings. It seems to me that
performance art is really just happenings with a po face. We were doing
this in the mid 1960s.
An interesting event that might be recreated was the series of concerts
Rauschenberg, Johns etc put on at the Carnegie Hall to celebrate John
Cage's 50th (?) birthday.
Well, a little reminiscence. Hopefully enough.
Ranulph |
I thought I’d wait and write another
portmanteau response. But the messages are very demanding (I’m
sometimes glad to say): ad now I fear I’ve waited too long! Nor do I
want to write at silly length: as Frieder says, long messages don’t
help discussion. I think I’ll write in segments.
I note some interesting themes again and would like to bring some of
them together. Let me start with a possibly questionable insight.
It seems to me that art is today might be considered more a way of
thinking and acting than an outcome of such thinking and acting. I note
Richard Brown’s comment about creating experiments, rather than
artworks (but we showed some of them in an art gallery in Pask Present—http://www.paskpresent.com).
I think of my friends ArtStation claiming that the only decent thinking
being done nowadays was by artists (the overstatement was, I hope, for
polemical purposes). Perhaps what artists bring is their approach, the
way of working: a certain imaginative curiosity that asks “I wonder
what would happen if...” an then sets about having a go. This could be
seen as a reflection of the preoccupation cybernetics has with process:
Charles François remarked that cybernetics is the dynamic counterpart
of systems theory.
So maybe what we might be seeing is two ways of thinking coming
together? Perhaps that’s what we need to develop the current cybernetic
exhibition? For me, the interesting possibility, which Martijn
mentions, is of ubiquitous and collaborative exhibitions, plus
distance. I wonder about the exhibition that is designed for and in the
internet (rather than presented on it). What does this remoteness mean,
and what happens to matters of representation. What happens when an
exhibition only exists on the internet as when an art work only exists
in code? Each is temporarily realised, rather as in a performance, at
the particular moment by the particular realisation involved.
(Naturally, I look for surprise and delight, as always.)
Maybe this is the source of the aesthetic that Yu-chuan mentions, tying
it into cybernetics as she suggests? I have to be careful here:
cybernetics is not computing and cyberneticians do not (have to) do
coding. Computers are cybernetic machines (or environments for
cybernetic actions), and programming is a cybernetic activity. But this
is not the equality so many seem to think it is. It might be helpful to
separate and distinguish the two fields!
This theme of alienation, which I relate to working at a distance,
seems to me critical. Frieder raises it (and I’m so glad that he’s
taking part in this debate. It’s wonderful to have one of the original
artists, and I hope there will be more). I enjoy the way he talks about
the role of algorithms, of code. Connecting again to Yu-chuan, should
the art perhaps be thought of as being in the code. I know that we
don’t look at code, but, if I may make a personal analogy, I regard the
papers I write as an art activity. Just as one can try for beautiful
code, I try for very tightly and exquisitely written cybernetics. Most
people don’t worry about that, but I do. I see how my concern in how I
write papers as being like how artistic coders write code of beauty.
I have some other comments, but I’m going to send them in a separate message.
Ranulph |
Dear Simon
A couple of points. The special issue of
Studio International was published for the opening, so it wasn't post event. I
think that the only work which is in the Studio and was not in exhibition was
the project of Gustav Metzger. There were also two issues of the ICA magazine
that related to the exhibition, and of course there were lectures.
One day, collecting all the available
material most of which is in Kawasaki, it would be possible to make a chart with
all the objects in place.
If anyone were to be interested in such
an exercise, one day when I have time, I'd be happy to help.
with best wishes
Jasia
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:46
AM
Subject: Re: [YASMIN-msg] Cybernetics
Serendipity Redux
Hi
Mike
One detail. I was talking to somebody else who saw the CS show and
they commented on how the Studio International ‘catalogue’ wasn’t so much a
catalogue as a post-event edition of a regular magazine (I also have a copy
and it is sort of somewhere between a magazine and a catalogue). They also
remembered many of the works in the publication were not in the show itself.
As they put it, the show consisted mostly of information sheets tacked on the
wall and very few actual objects or artworks. Is this your memory – or is your
recollection different to this?
On an aside, my partner dug out a video
of the Nine Evenings event and we were looking at it last night. Not a lot of
work to be seen, but a little (a Robert Breer ‘float’ with Deborah Hay draped
across it, Cunningham being pushed around in a box by somebody who may or may
not have been Rauschenberg, Lucinda Childs’ dancers posing on stage, etc).
Mostly there were scenes of what appeared to be crowds of very confused
people, craning to see what was going on, trying to work out what was part of
the show and what was incidental. Reminded me of many a performance art
evening of the late 70’s and early 80’s.
My partner thought it would be
great if something like Nine Evenings was to happen again – especially if it
was as improvised as the original seemed to be. Perhaps having attended one
too many of those performance art evenings I wasn’t so open to this
idea.
Was CS at all like this? I have the impression it was a lot more
focused and ‘controlled’.
Best
Simon
On 10/9/08
08:58, "legart" <legart@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
My name's
Mike Leggett and am new to the list - I'm currently completing a PhD in
Sydney concerned with hypervideo - but during the time of the CS was making
films and photography, so will contribute some brief personal responses to
the show and some contextual information that hasn't surfaced through the
previous contributions.
CS was an early, maybe the first, exhibition at
the new Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) premises in central London. The
ICA represented 'progressive' (somewhat retrospective) visual art practice,
its founders having organised the Surrealist Exhibition in London in 1936.
The show that followed (?) ╢When Attitudes Become Formâ•˙, was another
landmark show, though more attuned to the developing contemporary visual
arts scene. More on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Contemporary_Arts
But
the new ICA space nonetheless initially addressed a demand for
╢alternative practiceâ•˙ spaces outside the academies, such as had been
initiated by the Arts Lab (1966) and the New London Arts Lab / Institute for
Research in Art & Technology (IRAT) opening in 1969.
As a then
recent graduate, my art and professional filmmaking practice used
electromechanical technology of course, so the addition of the computer
presented no great conceptual leaps. As filmmakers we were familiar with the
Whitney brothersâ•˙ film work with analogue machines, and we had for many
years practised the logic brainteasers in job adverts on the Tube for
trainee computer operators! But working applications of the computer in the
field was what the show promised and delivered â•„ to an extent. It was like
walking into the Science Museum rather than an art exhibit (being before the
days of professional exhibition designers), with a ╢show-and-tellâ•˙, work
in progress approach.
This was suitably refreshing for me â•„ the style
of address amplified process and system rather than expression or
figuration, though such areas were not unfamiliar at the time through the
work of contemporary painters and sculptors (some associated with the ICA).
But the Art in the show would have been of no interest to the traditional
art collector or connoisseur, who might have been taken by the elegant
framed plotter drawings, but not the objects, in particular the sensor-based
ones, on the floor â•„ clunky, mechanical and given to fantastic
abstraction. (Has someone checked the Press reviews? I expect they were of
the gee-wizz variety.)
The show intrigued me and I bought a copy of the
Studio International special issue â•„ a definite mark of approval - to keep
the ideas and the technology in view!
--------------------
To
become a member & Yasmin list archive: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/
To
join Yasmin-map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin
To
post: yasmin@estia.media.uoa.gr
To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1
Professor Simon
Biggs
edinburgh college of art
s.biggs@eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk
simon@littlepig.org.uk
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype:
simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|
Regarding the timing of the catalogue. Jasia
indicates, and the following might tend to support this, that the
Studio International catalogue was released for the opening of the
exhibition. So for the bibliographers among us: There are three
versions of the CS catalogue as far as I can tell. In 1968 two versions
with card wrappers can be found
1: the Studio International “special issue” which may have been really
just the regular issue of SI and has the ICA logo and the price 25s on
the front cover and a set of very interesting ads in the back pages
(pp.102-104) and inside back cover.
2: another version of the Studio International special issue which
lacks the ICA logo and price and also lacks the ads in the back (the
pages are blank and unnumbered)
Both of these have a grey paper insert bound in that solicits membership of the ICA and subscriptions to Studio International.
3: In 1969 a third version was published by Praeger in the US to
accompany the tour of CS to the US (where did it actually go?). This
version has a hard-cover binding with a dust wrapper and most usefully
it has an index as page 101.
cheers
Stephen JOnes |
YASMINisters,
Evidently this show decades ago, and its problematic Studio
International documentation, is of central importance and remains worthy
of discussion and analysis.
But what is the state of cybernetics and art/the arts today?
I'd like to see some lists offered here of the top five contemporary
practitioners of whom we should all be aware, and their key works.
Artists, feel free to include yourselves in your list if you think
you're doing important work.
This should illuminate differing definitions of what's "cybernetic"
too.
Thanks,
--Mike M.
Michael R. Mosher
Assoc. Professor, Art/Communication & Digital Media
Saginaw Valley State University
7400 Bay Road
University Center, MI 48710
>>> "JASIA REICHARDT" <jreichardt@btopenworld.com> 09/11/08 7:17 am >>>
Re: [YASMIN-msg] Cybernetics Serendipity ReduxDear Simon
A couple of points. The special issue of Studio International was
published for the opening, so it wasn't post event. I think that the
only work which is in the Studio and was not in exhibition was the
project of Gustav Metzger. There were also two issues of the ICA
magazine that related to the exhibition, and of course there were
lectures.
One day, collecting all the available material most of which is in
Kawasaki, it would be possible to make a chart with all the objects in
place.
If anyone were to be interested in such an exercise, one day when I
have time, I'd be happy to help.
with best wishes
Jasia
----- Original Message -----
From: Simon Biggs
To: YASMIN-messages
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [YASMIN-msg] Cybernetics Serendipity Redux
Hi Mike
One detail. I was talking to somebody else who saw the CS show and
they commented on how the Studio International ‘catalogue’ wasn’t
so much a catalogue as a post-event edition of a regular magazine (I
also have a copy and it is sort of somewhere between a magazine and a
catalogue). They also remembered many of the works in the publication
were not in the show itself. As they put it, the show consisted mostly
of information sheets tacked on the wall and very few actual objects or
artworks. Is this your memory – or is your recollection different to
this?
On an aside, my partner dug out a video of the Nine Evenings event
and we were looking at it last night. Not a lot of work to be seen, but
a little (a Robert Breer ‘float’ with Deborah Hay draped across it,
Cunningham being pushed around in a box by somebody who may or may not
have been Rauschenberg, Lucinda Childs’ dancers posing on stage, etc).
Mostly there were scenes of what appeared to be crowds of very confused
people, craning to see what was going on, trying to work out what was
part of the show and what was incidental. Reminded me of many a
performance art evening of the late 70’s and early 80’s.
My partner thought it would be great if something like Nine Evenings
was to happen again – especially if it was as improvised as the
original seemed to be. Perhaps having attended one too many of those
performance art evenings I wasn’t so open to this idea.
Was CS at all like this? I have the impression it was a lot more
focused and ‘controlled’.
Best
Simon
On 10/9/08 08:58, "legart" <legart@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
My name's Mike Leggett and am new to the list - I'm currently
completing a PhD in Sydney concerned with hypervideo - but during the
time of the CS was making films and photography, so will contribute some
brief personal responses to the show and some contextual information
that hasn't surfaced through the previous contributions.
CS was an early, maybe the first, exhibition at the new Institute
of Contemporary Arts (ICA) premises in central London. The ICA
represented 'progressive' (somewhat retrospective) visual art practice,
its founders having organised the Surrealist Exhibition in London in
1936. The show that followed (?) â●?When Attitudes Become Formâ●?,
was another landmark show, though more attuned to the developing
contemporary visual arts scene. More on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Contemporary_Arts
But the new ICA space nonetheless initially addressed a demand for
â●?alternative practiceâ●? spaces outside the academies, such as
had been initiated by the Arts Lab (1966) and the New London Arts Lab /
Institute for Research in Art & Technology (IRAT) opening in 1969.
As a then recent graduate, my art and professional filmmaking
practice used electromechanical technology of course, so the addition of
the computer presented no great conceptual leaps. As filmmakers we were
familiar with the Whitney brothersâ●? film work with analogue
machines, and we had for many years practised the logic brainteasers in
job adverts on the Tube for trainee computer operators! But working
applications of the computer in the field was what the show promised and
delivered â●„ to an extent. It was like walking into the Science
Museum rather than an art exhibit (being before the days of professional
exhibition designers), with a â●?show-and-tellâ●?, work in progress
approach.
This was suitably refreshing for me â●„ the style of address
amplified process and system rather than expression or figuration,
though such areas were not unfamiliar at the time through the work of
contemporary painters and sculptors (some associated with the ICA). But
the Art in the show would have been of no interest to the traditional
art collector or connoisseur, who might have been taken by the elegant
framed plotter drawings, but not the objects, in particular the
sensor-based ones, on the floor â●„ clunky, mechanical and given to
fantastic abstraction. (Has someone checked the Press reviews? I expect
they were of the gee-wizz variety.)
The show intrigued me and I bought a copy of the Studio
International special issue â●„ a definite mark of approval - to keep
the ideas and the technology in view!
--------------------
To become a member & Yasmin list archive:
http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/
To join Yasmin-map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin
To post: yasmin@estia.media.uoa.gr
To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1
Professor Simon Biggs
edinburgh college of art
s.biggs@eca.ac.uk
http://www.eca.ac.uk
simon@littlepig.org.uk
http://www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
number SC009201 |
Supposing that we are, at least in some way,
proposing a new version of Cybernetic Serendipity I thought I would
introduce several artworks that I think bear consideration for
inclusion on the basis of their approximation of some of the cybernetic
principles I outlined in a previous post.
Mari Velonaki – Fish-Bird
http://www.csr.acfr.usyd.edu.au/projects/Fish-Bird/index.htm
To the audience Fish-Bird appears as a pair of wheel-chairs (disarming
your notions of the autonomous creature) quietly rolling about in the
gallery space, among a mess of short thermal-paper printouts all over
the floor. Go quietly into their space and sooner or later (not that
much later) one of the wheel chairs will tootle up to you like a shy
animal coming to sniff you out. If you sit quietly it will hang around
for a little while and then wander off, if you’re active and noisy
it’ll get out of your way. Stay a little longer and observe their
behaviour, they move towards each other and one or other will print out
a text.
They know where each other is, they move towards each other as if in
communication or they break off into separate areas of the space. The
overall installation is monitored for audience presence and wheel-chair
location by laser-scanners on the periphery of the space and video
cameras in the ceiling. Behaviours are encoded in a finite state
machine and the resolving of a set of conditions – the day of the week,
the time you spend with them, etc – governs their interaction with each
other and with you. The feedback loop is closed through the laser and
camera data being processed by an installation controller system which
in turn stage-manages the wheel-chairs. All this is not at all obvious
to the audience and the two robots seem to be interacting with each
other and with the audience in a gently sentient manner.
The work consists in a set of pre-programmed behaviours executed as
conditions determine, but so does our activity once we have learned the
behaviours of our culture and of course the range of conditions that we
resolve is vast. The communication link is private and the whole thing
is directed from an hierarchical centre.
If a truly autonomous cybernetic version were to be developed it might
have to make its communications overt and clearly recognisable to the
other, so each would have to carry their own proprioceptive, sensing
and behavioural systems and ideally develop, over some growth period,
sets of appropriate behaviours. It is these behaviours that become the
signals, overtly sensible events, and each creature would need to be
able to “see” that the other’s behaviour is analogous to something it
can do. That is, the signal triggers an internal, pre-established
sequence. Communication here becomes a kind of dance.
Stelarc’s Prosthetic Head
http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/prosthetichead/index.html
The Prosthetic Head is a large video projection of a 3D model of
Stelarc’s head. It responds verbally to questions or comments typed
into a keyboard on a plinth set in the gallery space in front of the
projected avatar. The Head’s responses are selected from a set of
installed phrases based on the knowledge that Stelarc gives it. It also
has a range of gestural responses: smiles, head movements, eye
movements and gaze, and can seem to become quite involved in the
conversation. It uses an embedded conversational agent software (a la
Eliza) to generate its responses from its internal knowledge and your
questions.
It appears to be generating feedback to your enquiries, but since it
selects from a pre-specified set of sentences, this is actually an
illusion since, as yet, it has no capacity to generate novel
statements. The feedback is what you provide based on its selections
and your interpretation not so much of what it said but of why it might
have said it. It functions as a product of our projections – and this
brings up an important question: to what extent do we all do that when
we are relating to each other?
However the Prosthetic Head is structurally open enough to make a
wonderful test bed for experimenting with most of the technical
(computer-based) ways of learning, recognising and generating speech.
It is also potentially valuable as a vehicle for developing vision
especially in face and gesture recognition. The evidence so far is that
all of these processes do not seem to be possible through top-down
AI/programming but are more the kinds of things that neural networks
are useful for. So if one was to develop new artworks from this
approach it would be useful to include a great deal of the work coming
out of neural nets research and especially neural and self-constructing
hardware systems, for example some of the work from Phil Husbands’
group at Sussex University.
I am prompted by these thoughts to ask how would we develop a machine
that could speak spontaneously and respond generatively to verbal
stimulus? First it has to have an engine for generating sounds (like
phonemes), then it has to have an engine for linking sequences of
sounds into ‘somethings’ analogous to words, each sequence then being
required to connect to some kind of state of knowledge of itself or its
world, or more usefully to be the ‘mental’ representation of that state
of knowledge. This is self-constructing hardware and is the plasticity
of neuro-physiological brains. This then confers a meaning on the
sequence. But more importantly the sound generating engine has to be
controlled by the listening engine so that the machine has a means of
modulating its sound/phoneme generation so that the sounds its
‘teachers’ hear start to be recognisable/interpretable. As the machine
learns to babble in more and more coherent ways its feedback reception
and production reward it more and more so that the pleasure of
communication, of getting what it wants motivates the process. This is
Deleuze and Guatarri’s desiring machine.
In some ways the work introduced in an earlier post by García and
Aróstegui takes the most sophisticated approach I’ve seen so far. They
talk about their use of an evolvable hardware paradigm in a robotic
installation called POEtic Cubes. They propose “autonomous elements
(robots) [implemented in hardware] that are able to adapt or evolve
their behavior depending on the specific actions performed by the user.
In this way the cooperation between these elements constitutes an
artificial organism that is changing continuously.” Their robotic cubes
incorporate all the necessary sensors and actuators to make them
autonomous. They implement an adaptive technique in which “The behavior
of every component is influenced by the actions [of] the remaining
ones”, augmented with evolvable parameter sets by which the adaptations
exhibited by the objects (cubes) are allowed to tend towards some sort
of self-regulative process. Behaviours of the audience directly
influence the behaviours of the robot cubes and in contrast to
Velonaki’s Fish-Bird the POEtic Cubes are fully autonomous.
see < http://leoalmanac.org/journal/vol_15/lea_v15_n05-06/RParicioMArostegui.asp >
Other works that are important here are Char Davies’ Osmose and Ephemere [see http://www.immersence.com/] and Ken Rinaldo’s Autopoieses [see http://www.kenrinaldo.com/].
With Osmose for example one is deeply immersed and fortunately the
latency issue that plagued VR is reduced enough for one’s
actions/motions to feedback computer responses in imagery and sound
that are engaging enough for the whole experience to be quite magical.
One builds up a conversation not with the machine but with the space it
presents and that space is open (though bounded) and ready to be
explored.
Rinaldo’s Autopoieses robotic sculptures “interact with the public and
modify their behaviors based on both the presences of the participants
in the exhibition and the communication between each separate
sculpture”. The sculptures “talk with each other through a hardwired
network and audible telephone tones, which are a musical language for
the group” [Rinaldo].
Jasia brings up the notion of a machine that makes its own output for
itself and does not intend in any way to communicate with an audience
(or at least I think that was what she was suggesting). I have great
trouble with this notion because it does not allow of any feedback-loop
and so cannot be self-modifying, or if it does notice what it is doing
it is doing it in a “private language” in Wittgenstein’s sense of the
term and is thus not communicating and in effect not making art.
Velonaki’s wheel-chairs are making outputs that are artworks and though
they are only ostensibly for communication between them as “love poems”
and other ‘thoughts’ they do happen to be also human readable and quite
entertaining in their own way. García and Aróstegui’s cubes also
communicate with each other as well as with an audience, but here the
communication seems more to be that between cells of a single
swarm-like organism and perhaps only incidentally with an audience
although the audience is said to be able to learn how to ‘drive’ the
cubes. The important thing here also is that they become
self-organising through their intra-swarm communications mechanisms.
Again I’ve said far too much but I hope some of what I’ve talked about
points to useful characteristics of artworks that could be included in
CS-II
cheers
Stephen Jones |
dna live goes live cinema
i will be performing my dna live project at the
lichtblick kino
fr 12/09 22hs
kastanienallee 77
p-berg - berlin
+info
patricio
|
I am delighted to see the beginning of a
discussion of what artworks might go in CS, if it were now. I hope this
will also spill over into how such an exhibition might be, today. And
no doubt we'll have some clues on developments in cybernetics.
I am wondering what art/artists I might add: but my main focus has been
on developments in general understanding, not in the particular.
Thank you very much! Keep it coming!
Ranulph |
dear all
There is a article by Simon Ford talked about the project "FiveScreens with Computer "of Gustav Metzger.http://www.metamute.org/en/Technological-Kindergarten
Yu-Chuan
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM, JASIA
REICHARDT<jreichardt@btopenworld.com> wrote:> Dear
Simon>> A couple of points. The special issue of Studio
International was published> for the opening, so it wasn't post
event. I think that the only work which> is in the Studio and was
not in exhibition was the project of Gustav> Metzger. There were
also two issues of the ICA magazine that related to the> exhibition,
and of course there were lectures.>> One day, collecting all the
available material most of which is in Kawasaki,> it would be
possible to make a chart with all the objects in place.>> If
anyone were to be interested in such an exercise, one day when I
have> time, I'd be happy to help.>> with best wishes>
Jasia>>>> ----- Original Message -----> From: Simon
Biggs> To: YASMIN-messages> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008
9:46 AM> Subject: Re: [YASMIN-msg] Cybernetics Serendipity Redux>
Hi Mike>> One detail. I was talking to somebody else who saw the
CS show and they> commented on how the Studio International
'catalogue' wasn't so much a> catalogue as a post-event edition of a
regular magazine (I also have a copy> and it is sort of somewhere
between a magazine and a catalogue). They also> remembered many of
the works in the publication were not in the show itself.> As they
put it, the show consisted mostly of information sheets tacked on>
the wall and very few actual objects or artworks. Is this your memory –
or> is your recollection different to this?>> On an aside, my
partner dug out a video of the Nine Evenings event and we> were
looking at it last night. Not a lot of work to be seen, but a little
(a> Robert Breer 'float' with Deborah Hay draped across it,
Cunningham being> pushed around in a box by somebody who may or may
not have been> Rauschenberg, Lucinda Childs' dancers posing on
stage, etc). Mostly there> were scenes of what appeared to be crowds
of very confused people, craning> to see what was going on, trying
to work out what was part of the show and> what was incidental.
Reminded me of many a performance art evening of the> late 70's and
early 80's.>> My partner thought it would be great if something
like Nine Evenings was to> happen again – especially if it was as
improvised as the original seemed to> be. Perhaps having attended
one too many of those performance art evenings I> wasn't so open to
this idea.>> Was CS at all like this? I have the impression it
was a lot more focused and> 'controlled'.>> Best>>
Simon>>> On 10/9/08 08:58, "legart"
<legart@ozemail.com.au> wrote:>>> My name's Mike Leggett
and am new to the list - I'm currently completing a> PhD in Sydney
concerned with hypervideo - but during the time of the CS was>
making films and photography, so will contribute some brief
personal> responses to the show and some contextual information that
hasn't surfaced> through the previous contributions.> CS was an
early, maybe the first, exhibition at the new Institute of>
Contemporary Arts (ICA) premises in central London. The ICA
represented> 'progressive' (somewhat retrospective) visual art
practice, its founders> having organised the Surrealist Exhibition
in London in 1936. The show that> followed (?) ╢When Attitudes
Become Formâ•˙, was another landmark show,> though more attuned to
the developing contemporary visual arts scene. More> on:> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Contemporary_Arts>
But the new ICA space nonetheless initially addressed a demand for>
╢alternative practiceâ•˙ spaces outside the academies, such as had
been> initiated by the Arts Lab (1966) and the New London Arts Lab /
Institute for> Research in Art & Technology (IRAT) opening in
1969.> As a then recent graduate, my art and professional filmmaking
practice used> electromechanical technology of course, so the
addition of the computer> presented no great conceptual leaps. As
filmmakers we were familiar with the> Whitney brothersâ•˙ film work
with analogue machines, and we had for many> years practised the
logic brainteasers in job adverts on the Tube for> trainee computer
operators! But working applications of the computer in the> field
was what the show promised and delivered â•„ to an extent. It was
like> walking into the Science Museum rather than an art exhibit
(being before the> days of professional exhibition designers), with
a ╢show-and-tellâ•˙, work> in progress approach.> This was
suitably refreshing for me â•„ the style of address amplified>
process and system rather than expression or figuration, though such
areas> were not unfamiliar at the time through the work of
contemporary painters> and sculptors (some associated with the ICA).
But the Art in the show would> have been of no interest to the
traditional art collector or connoisseur,> who might have been taken
by the elegant framed plotter drawings, but not> the objects, in
particular the sensor-based ones, on the floor â•„ clunky,>
mechanical and given to fantastic abstraction. (Has someone checked
the> Press reviews? I expect they were of the gee-wizz variety.)>
The show intrigued me and I bought a copy of the Studio
International> special issue â•„ a definite mark of approval - to
keep the ideas and the> technology in view!>>
--------------------> To become a member & Yasmin list archive: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/> To join Yasmin-map: http://haystack.cerado.com/yasmin> To post: yasmin@estia.media.uoa.gr> To unsubscribe: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin/unsubs.php?lid=1>>>> Professor Simon Biggs> edinburgh college of art> s.biggs@eca.ac.uk> http://www.eca.ac.uk>> simon@littlepig.org.uk> http://www.littlepig.org.uk>
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a
charity registered in Scotland, number> SC009201>>> |
In response to the artwork examples given by
Stephen Jones, I would like to propose that a "new media type", the
"metaverse" and other on-line user programmable 3D(/nD) virtual spaces
are potent locations for "cybernetic art in the now".
One example is CARP - Cybernetic Art Research Project, set in Second Life.
Quote from http://www.gallery-diabolus.com/CARP/carp-06.pdf
"The word: „Cyberspace“ is known now as an artword, its born from the
word „Cyber“ (a shortform from the english word „Cybernetic“ that again
comes from the greek word „Kybernetike“; „The art of navigate“ and the
word „Space“. On the world famous Macy-Conferences in the years 1946
till 1953 Cybernetik was something of high interest. Wellknown and
famous scientists as Alan Turing, John von Neumann and Heinz von
Foerster started here from scratch the modern computertechnics and the
programm-architecture, today the basics for the Cyberspace. The real
Cyberspace was opened by Secondlife. So you speak of web 3-D or so
called Metaverses. The Metaverses are Internet-based virtual
time-space-infrastructures. The miracle that we are experiencing today:
the Cyberspace, the dematerialized virtual time-space, the worldwide
webbed society. where we „surf around„ with lightspeed. An artist that
is NOT using this virtual universe as a challenge and a goal doesnt
deserve the name „Avantgarde“
This e-book dedicated to the pioneer of the Cybernetic Art
Nicolas Schöffer.
He was one of the most important artists of the second half of
twentieth century. Father of Cybernetic Art, thus of so-called
„interactivity“, he wanted to bring a prospective and
non-backward-looking vision of Art, which could help mankind to develop
itself with a good hold on true creative and liberating possibilities
of our times."
See also their ning : http://diabolus.ning.com/
--
Artist/Experimentalist
MSc Computers and Cybernetics, MA Fine Art.
http://www.mimetics.com
artsinformatica.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
