Without wishing to be seen stating the blatantly obvious but...
Some discussion of 1st and 2nd order cybernetics might be appropriate here
(and I'm not the best informed respondent). Ranulph - are you lurking and
care to comment?
I think biosemiotics has already been discussed (sorry I'm not able to
follow the discussion as closely as I would like)?
Paul
On 17 March 2014 14:53, Bronac Ferran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Andy Warhol was perhaps joking (or maybe not) when he said: 'I think
> everybody should be a machine'. The thing about machines is that high
> performance is often associated with them, the dictionary definition of
> performance includes what machines do so perhaps this is all a redundant
> discussion.
>
> B
> Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]>
> Sender: "Curating digital art - www.crumbweb.org" <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:25:42
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] Can non-human
> entities perform?
>
> Hi List,
>
>
> Thanks to all for weighing in on these recent questions (and please
> continue!). Roger, I agree that differentiating between living and
> non-living is impossible, and I appreciate Jack's comment that those who do
> separate the machine from the human may be more afraid of the development
> of technology than those who don't.
>
>
> So Jack brings up fear, an emotion, and affect, and this makes me wonder
> about emotion and code. GH says that non-human entities (machines?) can't
> make art...
>
>
>
> But can "they" make a joke? We know that code can invoke fear, but can it
> make us laugh? Jeff Crouse, who collaborates with respondent Stephanie
> Rothenberg works with code and humour. I would be interested to hear what
> the list has to say about fear or humour in relation to code.
>
>
>
> LOL
>
> Victoria
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:06 PM, G.H. Hovagimyan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 4:52 AM, roger malina <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > in this frame- i want to argue that the codes of simulations do
> 'perform'
> > > and of course the whole field of artificial life art explores this (
> the
> > VIDA
> > > competition is 15 years old this year- a teenager !
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi List & Roger,
> > Taking a hint from you. Code is an extension of human thinking. It's like
> > a score for a symphony. The human mind that wrote the code may be
> thought
> > of as "the composer." When a symphony is performed you have musicians
> and
> > you have the conductor.
> > You also have the audience. The conductor listens to the way the
> musicians
> > perform the work and makes sure they are on tempo and on time. He/She
> also
> > can interpret the work according to the way in which He/She feels it
> should
> > be played. There's another part to music an that is the live
> performance.
> > The audience focuses their hearing and seeing on different performers.
> > They feel the human effort to play the work. They understand and hear
> the
> > nuances and mannerisms of the players. You might be able to write the
> > algorythm to make all these subtle variations occur but the audience will
> > simply say that sounds like a performance. They know the difference
> > between live and simulation. Jaron Lanier's book, Who Owns the Future
> > talk about how the human effort is the basis for translation software.
> > This software is now available and it devalues the work of the
> translators.
> > It's putting them out of work. So the larger issue in art has always been
> > whether it can be simulated and whether this devalues or obsoletes
> artists.
> > This get back to the idea in art of form vesus content. Content, theme,
> > emotion, human life and perception are at the core of all art making.
> You
> > can't replace that with a machine or a program. The real communication
> > between artist and audience is about what it's like to be human at any
> > particular time. I use computers and software as tools and also as part
> of
> > the structural and communication systems existent today. I convey my own
> > emotions, feelings and perceptions about being human using those tools.
> > It's no different that using a really good microphone to amplify and
> > enhance a human voice. So the short answer is Yes non-human entities can
> > perform but no they can't make art.
> >
> >
> >
> > G.H. Hovagimyan
> > http://nujus.net/~gh
> > http://nujus.net/~nublog
> > http://artistsmeeting.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> // Victoria Bradbury
> <PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com
> Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org
> New Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org> <CommComm>
> Attaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com> // Collaborator
>
--
====
Paul Brown - based in the UK March to May 2014
http://www.paul-brown.com == http://www.brown-and-son.com
UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228
Skype paul-g-brown
====
Honorary Visiting Professor - Sussex University
http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
====
|