Yes - on that I think we are in agreement. Art hasn't kept up with a lot of things. Too much recent navel gazing...
best
Simon
On 23 Nov 2012, at 12:45, Martin John Callanan (UCL) wrote:
> [subject changed at Sarah's request as discussion isn't directly
> linked to this month's theme]
>
>
> I think you've missed the essence of my argument Simon.
>
> We are essentially making the same argument, just from different positions.
>
> I'm suggesting tools must become MORE one with us.
>
> I'm suggesting art hasn't kept pace with the tools used in it's production.
>
> m
>
>
> On 23 November 2012 11:38, Simon Biggs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> My counter arguent to this is obvious and consists of two main points.
>>
>> Firstly, there is no method by which we can de-mediate our relations with
>> things. We are mediated through and through. We are our tools and our tools
>> are us. To think otherwise is extremely idealistic; essentialist and
>> fundamentally dualist.
>>
>> Secondly, the computer is just the latest step in the evolution of human
>> language, and all that is subsequent to that (such as social form, culture,
>> knowledge, etc). If we are to dispense with computers then are we to
>> dispense with language? An interesting proposition - but also ridiculous.
>>
>> I'm with Heidegger on how we should understand the relationship between
>> humans and things. They are ontologically fluid and of one another. We
>> cannot exist separate to our tools and media and what we do, and why, is an
>> inescapable function of those relations - just as we are ourselves.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>
Simon Biggs
[log in to unmask] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
[log in to unmask] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.org.uk/
MSc by Research in Interdisciplinary Creative Practices
http://www.ed.ac.uk/studying/postgraduate/degrees?id=656&cw_xml=details.php
|