|
 |
|
YASMIN-list > Cybernetics Serendipity Redux |
|
|
|
We come to the end of the Cybernetic
Serendipity Redux discussion on Yasmin. Many thanks to all who have
made this possible: the people in Greece who construct and maintain the
site, the administrators for Yasmin and Leonardo, my co-moderators, all
who contributed by writing and by reading, the people over at the ning
site, and, of course, Roger Malina for being willing to take this on,
for guidance and continual support. Thank you.
I have promised to produce a summary. It will not be long, it will be
incomplete, and each reader will, no doubt, think it inadequate. In
true second order cybernetic manner (see later), I accept it as mine,
and I write it from my perspective and to present my understanding:
nothing more, nothing less.
The purpose of this discussion was firstly to celebrate early
cybernetic art, especially as it was presented by Jasia Reichart in the
Cybernetic Serendipity Exhibition. Jasia, herself, helped us start by
recapitulating and extending the original exhibition to bring it into
the world of what might be today’s cybernetics, as she saw it. (Others
from the original exhibition also joined in.) There was debate about
the origins of cybernetic art (I had never intended to imply that
Cybernetic Serendipity was the beginning: it merely marked the
arrival). For every first artist, there will be one before: if Nicholas
Schöffer originated cybernetic art, Gordon Pask preceded him with
Musicolour. And so on. The point is that cybernetic art has a long
tradition. It may be that how long is most of all a matter of how we
think of art, of what an art object is. Two important aspects of this
phase were the clarification of what might constitute a cybernetic art
work (is it, for instance, sensors and real time technologies, or is it
a matter of boundaries, and all that that entails) and the question of
the relation between cybernetic and avant garde art.
Jasia suggested that a new cybernetic art would involve organic
computing systems and genetic algorithms creating art. It seemed from
the discussion that artists were thinking more in terms of avatars and
populations in various virtual worlds, including second life.
Cybernetician participants pointed out that cyber-this and cyber-that
(e.g. cyberspace) rarely have any meaningful connection with
cybernetics, and to talk of them is to derail the discussion. Not
everyone agreed. There was a similar discussion of the meaning of
(cybernetic) art works, while some would deny any such meaning.
Others continued to search for properties of cybernetic art:
collaboration, interaction, digital aesthetics and so on, or to wonder
if code, for instance, might itself be art, and whether there are
helpful alternative computing paradigms. The point was made that
artists and scientists both have long trainings, and that it’s not easy
for one to be the other, just as it’s often difficult for the one to
stand scrutiny by the other. Jasia asked how we could construct a
machine could act as an author. Eventually, a small list of
contemporary cybernetic art works was produced. Surprisingly, to me,
there was little interest in discussing what a cybernetic exhibition
might be today: would it be, for instance, single gallery based, or
gallery based at all. It was noted that the debate was centred on the
visual, whereas many technological developments are first made in
music, which is also a performative and collaborative art.
A couple of contributors wondered what had happened to cybernetics, if
there had been any recent developments. Most, however, were happy to
talk of cybernetics as it had been at the time of Cybernetic
Serendipity, making cybernetics itself a museum piece. But much changed
as cybernetics developed a self-reflexive approach to observing
systems, called second order cybernetics. I introduced the people
(including Gordon Pask) and the arguments behind this development and
interpreted some of its findings to concerns that might interest
artists. There was a small response, but it seemed that those on the
list were happy to live with the cybernetics of 1968. Or perhaps it was
just difficult to react to the newer insights.
I felt that there was a lot of interesting history in the debate, and
that the older cybernetic art is quite well. It may be the job of art
to deal with embodiments as it is the job of cybernetics to abstract
from them: the interest in new materials as media for cybernetic art
was interesting. The question of whether the cyber prefix connects to
cybernetics was left open. I was surprised at the lack of interest in
the cybernetic exhibition. although perhaps the discussion of avatars
and second life was a discussion of the cybernetic exhibition, in
disguise. As for second order cybernetics, I hope that my second
interpretation holds: it would be most interesting to see artists
playing in a world informed by those ideas and that thinking.
Ranulph |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
