Thanks Chuck,



I guess that you must compliment Terry that placed the matter on the right 
position (I suspect that we are meaning exactly the opposite but we are 
still good friends, anyhow. ;-)

François Xavier has also a point here, about Frankenstein and Faust. I would 
add Pinochio and Gollem, also. In fact I wrote a short paper for the Utrecht 
Cumulus conference that dealt with Samsa, Gollem, Pinochio and Leverkhun, 
but it was not about automation, but about research/academic strategies.

About my little definition,

We could also add the Pigmalion myth for the three-dimensional people.



More than Frankenstein, I find Pinochio interesting since he lasted as a 
Moral myth through emotion. Obviously the Kubric/Spielberg fantasy "AI" just 
tears apart our poor little hearts because of the ambiguity of automatized 
beings showing emotions. There will be no happy end for real Pinochios. Or 
Gepetos, I might add.

Well, all this gives us a pretty good picture about the everlasting issues 
that this questions about automation can bring up.



Pigmalion is the only ancient myth about artificial people. I guess there 
must be a lot more but the remarkable thing about it is that it starts with 
sculpture, therefore an art (artificialis stuff). So we should start here 
concentrating on Galatea and Pigmalion. Don't forget that this impenitent 
sculptor finds every women imperfect and decides to embark on the task of 
producing a model to demonstrate perfection. The poor guy felt in love with 
his creation and prays to Venus make the thing alive. Well, Venus hears the 
praise and concedes the whish. The son of the couple, Pafo, erects a temple 
to Venus in Cyprus.

Apart from the most obvious origin of the myths (Dad, why do we have this 
temple devoted to Venus? And Dad invents the first story that comes to mind) 
it is interesting why this things last and even become a film located in a 
age of mechanical wonders (one century ago, more or less). My Fair Lady, in 
a nearly fascist view, places commoners on the same level as inert ivory for 
the ancient Greeks. It is funny the infernal paraphernalia used to help the 
correct accent. From the artificial earning of the Cypriot sculptor we 
arrive to the social engineering of Rex Harrison (or Sir Bernard Shaw's 
irony of such thing).



The all thing is misogynous, as automation and automates seldom are. A 
lonely planet Design seems to be.





My best regards,



Eduardo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Burnette" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: Automata and redefinition of design practice (was: Robotic 
thought)


> Eduardo
>
> What a great insight and comment!
>
>
> On 1/16/06 12:19 PM, "Eduardo Corte Real" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Design as a
>> disciplinary activity may be tracked from the moment on when the 
>> awareness
>> of the separation between design and automation started. In a sense a
>> designer starts being the "composer", the "editor", the "forecaster" of
>> automations.
>
> Warm regards,
> Chuck