Gavin - All
Thanks for this mention. The context of the Senster example was based
on Minsky and Papert's "Perceptrons" published in 1968 which
effectively killed off research into bottom-up, embodied,
interactionist Artificial Intelligence - AI - (in favour of the top-
down disembodied minds AI approach preferred by Minsky) for almost 20
years. So Ed Ihnatovicz' SAM (1968) and Senster (1970) are
particularly important since they demonstrate an embodied approach to
AI from an artist working during a period that scientists were
effectively unable to pursue work of this kind. For this reason Ed has
become an important figure in the history of A-life for scientists
even though his contribution is still largely ignored by the arts
mainstream (no surprises there).
Alex Zivanovic maintains a good site about Ed's work: http://www.senster.com/
As Gavin mentions he (Zivanovic) also has a chapter about
Ihnatowicz (as does Ed's son Richard) in "White Heat Cold Logic:
British Computer Arts 1960-1980". Googling "Edward Ihnatowicz" gets
some good links. It's hoped that SAM may be exhibited at the Kinetica
Arts Fair in London in February: http://www.kinetica-artfair.com/
Best
Paul
On 6 Nov 2009, at 10:15, Gavin Artz wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am not so sure about the deprofessionalising of artistic practice,
> so much
> as smoothing that professionalism through out all human activity.
> It
> seems a bit odd that art practice should be limited to galleries, or
> festivals, or specific public art objects.
>
> ANAT’s Art/Science residencies have great professional development
> and often
> traditional art outcomes, but it is also inherently an innovation
> process
> (using innovation in its industry/technical way).
>
> This was really driven home when Paul Brown gave the keynote at MASS
> in
> Melbourne this year where gave the example of the Senster (great
> little
> excerpt in “White Heat Cold Logic” - Paul has also kindly agreed to
> give the
> closing keynote at ANAT's Super Human Symposium). This came about
> from
> artists asking how will humans interact with robots in a time when
> most
> people were having a hard time getting them to build cars. This
> question
> has only been asked by mainstream interdisciplinary research
> (psychology and
> engineering) in the last 5 years as the drive to have home help robots
> becomes a strategic priority in countries like Japan and Korea.
>
> In research environments artists ask how will that technology apply to
> society, culture and me. This is basically an innovation process –
> no that
> anything may come out of it, but it seems true as a process. This is
> the art
> of art along the lines of the Brook’s quote.
>
> Also Super Human Exhibition has opened at the RMIT Gallery in
> Melbourne
> <http://www.superhuman.org.au> - so maybe one of the last
> opportunities to
> enjoy an Art/Science exhibition.
>
> and
>
> Here is a link to a small post I did for Collections Australia
> Network, more
> about digital than art science, but it seems to be a very quickly
> growing
> dialogue in Australia at the moment.
>
> http://keystone.collectionsaustralia.net/publisher/Outreach/?p=3437
>
>
> Gavin Artz
> CEO
> Australian Network for Art and Technology (ANAT)
> ph: 61 8 8231 9037
> http://www.anat.org.au
>
> ANAT: Celebrating a generation of innovation [1988-2009]
>
> ANAT is supported by the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an
> initiative of
> the Australian, State and Territory Governments; the Australian
> Government
> through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body,
> and the
> South Australian Government through Arts SA.
>
>
> On 5/11/09 7:11 PM, "Simon Biggs" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Put simply, Brook’s argument suggests repatriating creativity to
>> everyone
>> and the de-professionalisation of the role of the artist. I’d vote
>> for that
>> (but I have always been a turkey when it comes to Christmas).
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Simon Biggs
>>
>> Research Professor
>> edinburgh college of art
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.eca.ac.uk
>>
>> Creative Interdisciplinary Research into CoLlaborative Environments
>> CIRCLE research group
>> www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.littlepig.org.uk
>> AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Simon Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: Simon Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 21:06:57 +0000
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] overcoming token science and the
>> new media
>> ghetto
>>
>> Hi Melinda et al
>>
>> I've been reminded of a recent blog post by Lucas Ihlein in which he
>> discusses Donald Brook's *The Awful Truth About What Art Is*. I'm
>> interested
>> in the way in which Brook's 'definition' of art dissolves the
>> spaces between
>> disciplines, and also takes it away from being the exclusive domain
>> of
>> artists.
>>
>> I hope Lucas doesn't mind my very long quote of his writing...
>>
>> From
>> http://www.lucazoid.com/bilateral/brooks-way-with-kinds-categories-and-memes
>> /(retreived
>> 19 October 2009):
>>
>> "For Brook, art is at play whenever a revelatory experience opens
>> us up to
>> new ways of being in the world. This may inspire awe, it may create
>> fear or
>> pleasure or disgust. In any case, art is present at moments of
>> revelation or
>> epiphany, when the world is seen in a genuinely new light. What is
>> alluring
>> about this approach (remarkably akin to the pragmatist aesthetics
>> of John
>> Dewey and his followers, although Brook does not acknowledge the
>> connection)
>> is that art can be an integral part of all spheres of human
>> endeavour: not
>> just actions by artists in the artworld. This notion acknowledges
>> something
>> that is already instinctually felt in everyday life, embodied, for
>> example,
>> in the use of the word in describing such Oarts’ as cooking,
>> motorcycle
>> maintenance, or jewellery theft. Art is a way of knowing the world
>> through
>> skillful material interactions. Furthermore, beyond such artisanal
>> applications, Brook emphasises the creative and lateral leaps of
>> faith that
>> can occur unexpectedly in any field, when the surprising results of
>> one’s
>> toil yield new insights. By carefully unpicking the terms Oart’ and
>> Owork of
>> art’, Brook moves us beyond the limitations of demarcational thinking
>> embodied in an Oeither/or’ construction (either something is a work
>> of art
>> or it is not), and towards a more inclusive Oand/also’ position.
>> Art, he
>> writes, is not the success or failure of a crafted attempt to
>> achieve a
>> desired outcome in the world, but the revelation or insight such
>> success or
>> failure may generate."
>>
>> Also, this thread is pretty good evidence of just how useful Google
>> Wave
>> might be for online conversations.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Simon Ellis
>> www.skellis.net
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 23:59, Melinda Rackham <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> hey Roger and list!
>>>
>>> for me the first approach has always been moving this sort of work
>>> into
>> the
>>> public arena- working in hospitals, research labs, engineering,
>>> astrophysics, dance, nano tech etc, city wide festivals that hold
>>> free
>>> events attended by diverse publics. when i was at ANAT initially
>>> planning
>>> the Superhuman events, the driving concept of the Curatorial
>>> Masterclass
>>> was to engage with and educate mainstream arts curators and
>>> writers so
>> that
>>> this work easily slipps into the public consciousness, becomes
>>> part of
>>> common experience and s an expected/respected form of cultural
>>> engagement.
>>>
>>> but in hindsight i wonder does "art", passively sitting in major
>>> public
>>> gallery contexts, have any immediate lasting impact - i'm planning
>>> to go
>> to
>>> the copenhagen climate change shows in december - how many world
>>> decision
>>> makers went to openings, sipped wine, had an awakening experience
>>> that
>>> challenged them to rethink their perspectives? or does the
>>> exposure to new
>>> perspectives subtlety wash away at a lower level, building to a
>>> momentum
>> in
>>> society as a whole? does work that is scientifically rigorous
>>> always make
>>> the best art? climate change may hit a fashionable peak, but will
>> curators
>>> and institutions desert it when the next wave of popularity comes
>>> along?
>>>
>>> currently i'm working on a project which is giving me a new
>>> understanding
>>> the importance of moving art~science into small communities where
>>> it is
>> not
>>> just an elitist concept, but actually provides practical
>>> applications
>> which
>>> enhance everyday life and address everyday issues - The Avoca
>>> Project in
>>> regional Victoria, provides an accessible interface on an intimate,
>> domestic
>>> and community level, as well as to an art audience in a place that
>>> is
>>> profoundly affected by climate change issues.. this project is set
>>> up to
>>> evolve over 10 years and slowly builds new potentialities and
>> practicalities
>>> involving many fields of art, technology, science and academic
>> collaborative
>>> research.
>>> http://www.avocaproject.org/
>>> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/group.php?gid=184126442570
>>>
>>> many things planned... money to be sought :)
>>> looking fwd to seeing many of you in Melbourne!
>>>
>>> warm regards,
>>> Melinda
>>>
>>> Melinda Rackham (PhD)
>>
>>
>> Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland,
>> number
>> SC009201
====
Paul Brown - based in OZ October 09 to January 2010
mailto:[log in to unmask] == http://www.paul-brown.com
OZ Landline +61 (0)7 3391 0094 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
OZ Mobile +61 (0)419 72 74 85 == Skype paul-g-brown
====
Visiting Professor - Sussex University
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
====
|