 |
 |
Hi gh and all gh wrote: >As long as there's a Rennaissance frame or a proscenium arch or a browser or an app, the commercial and governmental interests will control what information you get and how you get it. Assuming that the networks are closing into our personal space, I believe we (as artists/ programmers) need to humanize the data space and give people more control. My question is do we need a framing structure for psychological safety? So that we know what is and isn't us, what is symbolic and what is real because if we suffer momentarily from Virilio's picnolepsy then it might be disturbing mentally? What does it mean 'to humanize the data space'? Do you mean to make symbolic code fool us into losing our sense of self-space etc? Or to reveal what the symbolic data space is really made of Sarah -----Original Message----- From: gh hovagimyan Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:06 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] March Discussion Begins: The Performativity of Code Right on Jack! There's a sequence in Minority Report where Tom Cruise is going through a walkway tunnel while his irises are scanned and personalized holographic adverts are beamed at him. That's more than a possible future. I agree that digital artists in particular need to consciously seek ways to broaden the implementations of controlling code to include shut offs. One piece I recently did was an alternative network interface that gets rid of the browser. You access it by moving your hands and grabbing information icons. This is closer to the Minority Report set-up but the viewer controls the way the information is laid out and how it is accessed. As long as there's a Rennaissance frame or a proscenium arch or a browser or an app, the commercial and governmental interests will control what information you get and how you get it. Assuming that the networks are closing into our personal space, I believe we (as artists/ programmers) need to humanize the data space and give people more control. I know that sounds vague but it makes sense to me! Maybe someone else can comment on the physical space/ data space overlap? On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:05 AM, Jack Stenner wrote: > Beyond the look of code, though, what interests me these days are various > strategies to unpack ideology in code, or ways power, though code, is > formed/masked via its operation in culture. Critical Code Studies, > Software Studies, Platform Studies, E-Lit, and “digital humanities” > (troublesome as the term may be) in general, are exciting in this regard. > Cinematic practice is changing and is a potential point of intervention. > Reconsidering subjectivity through the lens of speculative realism, > object- oriented ontology, non-philosophy, and others has a bearing here. > In terms of performativity, I think what interests a lot of artists right > now is how/if we can make a difference in the world. DOING > something/anything has never been more important. For me, this is where > practices developing in the Humanities are useful and creatively > nourishing for artists. The MCA (Shanken’s term for Mainstream > Contemporary Art) thinks it’s going to do this with little workshops in > museums (sorry for the snarky dig at so many RA practices). I think > artists working with technology have the potential to contribute at a > more foundational and socially relevant level, even if it just means how > to tune out. Exciting times!