JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  December 2008

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING December 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Digest - 3 Dec 2008 to 4 Dec 2008 (#2008-192)

From:

George Poonkhin Khut <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

George Poonkhin Khut <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:56:44 +1100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (196 lines)

Hi everyone

Firstly, a big thankyou to CRUMB and Adinda for supporting this
conversation. Its a great chance to connect with others working in this
field and address some important issues.

Before responding to Kristinaıs post (great blog!) Iıd like to explore this
idea of Œgoing beyond just science or therapyı and examine what we imply
when we say Œjust therapyı, since this is something Iıve been moving closer
to in my recent work, The Heart Library Project
http://www.georgekhut.com/arts-health/the-heart-library/

ŒJUST THERAPYı

 It seems to me that there is considerable overlap between the
theoretical interests of contemporary (critically-engaged) art,
psychoanalysis, and somatic bodywork (i.e. Body-Mind Centring, Feldenkrais,
Alexander etc.), and most of this comes down to the strong phenomenological
flavour of much of this work. Considered in this way, there are a lot of
interesting conversations that could be developed across these disciplines.

Phenomenologically aligned clinical practices have much to offer other
disciplines in relation to their understandings of/approaches to the
subject/subjectivity, the processes and situations through which it evolves,
and techniques for engaging people in sustained, imaginative and physically
embodied processes of reflection and action.

The main difference between Œartı and clinical practice, as I see it, is in
the social context surrounding a persons experience, and the instrumentality
of these practices in relation to the clients motivations, and the
contractual obligations that accompany this instrumentality (you-the client
have engaged me the therapist/tutor to assist you in moving through some
difficulties you are encountering).

But even here, the boundaries are slippery: a survey of the diversity of
contemporary arts-health practices will reveal that even in traditional
health care settings (hospitals, nursing homes, healthcare centres etc. )
there is a growing appreciation of the value of creative arts practice in
the rehabilitation and empowerment on the whole person. Lizbethıs work in
arts-health is a great example, as is the work of Manchester based Arts for
Health http://www.artsforhealth.org/ (thanks to Uni Newcastle, Arts-Health
research centre, NSW, Australia!)

The designation of arts-health practice as Œartı or Œart therapyı is fairly
arbitrary, and I sense, fairly irrelevant to the people engaged in these
practices: we need the art-worldıs  acknowledgement to the extent that we
are dependant on funding that is determined through peer-review systems
(i.e. Australia,UK?), and wish to remain involved in conversations that take
place in contemporary art theory and practice (which remain, for me at
least, of great interest!). Of course the sheer messiness and emotional
intensity of these processes are always going to be a barrier for fine arts
curators focussed on an aesthetics of precision, distance and coolness, but
thankfully we still have curators and producers prepared to take on
genuinely challenging, and potentially messy processes like these (i.e. full
of vulnerability, raw emotion, intimacy etc.). As contemporary artists
re-engage with communities, ethnographic methodologies and relationally
focussed aesthetics, these distinctions become less important.


DUALISTIC PERSPICTIVES: BIO-SENSORS, SPORTS-MONITORING SYSTEMS etc.

Kristina, I know what you mean, and its a good point when you raise the
implied separation of body-mind in these designs, but its worth
acknowledging that these designs have moved into the realm of individual
personal practice (i.e. People actually use commercial biofeedback systems
like Heartmath, Journey to the Wild Divine etc. on a daily basis) ­ and this
integration into personal practice, can sometimes do more for the
Œembodimentı of holistic methodologies, than our various prototype
experiments and exhibitions. Richard Shusterman has discussed the normative
dimension of these type of practices in his various writings on
Somaethetics, in relationship to Foucault's critiques of body-shaping,
normative institutional practices. I wont go into this issue today, but I
suggest its just important that people have access to a diversity of tools
and practices, regardless of their socio-economic situation.

What concerns me at this stage is the way various commercial biofeedback
companies stake out IP claims on what are essentially millennia old
meditation practices, or fundamental psychophysiological phenomena
(respiratory sinus arrhythmia, breath awareness, visualisation of
energy/warmth moving through the body etc.)... I realise that thatıs what
businessı do, and have read Pine and Gilmore's ŒThe Experience Economyı
(economic progress = taking things that where previously free and abundant,
and selling them back to people as value added/transforming experiences),
but the socialist/anacho-syndicalist in me wants to counter this notion of
economic progress! As an artist exhibiting in not-for-profit government
supported cultural centres (perhaps naively) I think this is where I can
make a contribution: providing Œfreeı (i.e. common-wealth supported) public
experiences that inspire and motivate audiences to engage with these
processes and issues in their own lives, in their own way.

PRACTICAL CHALLENGES: BIOMETRICS

I was going to talk about this from a curatorial, exhibition design
perspective, but Kristinaıs mobile work has got me interested in the issue
of accuracy more generally. Having exhibited bio-sensor works for the past
six years, Iım interested to get everyone else's experience with regard to
the accuracy of data that can be collected in public exhibition settings.
Iıve found it very difficult to ascertain the accuracy of my readings.

Acknowledging the value of ambiguity in an interactive design, and the role
it can play in facilitating reflect, Iım also at a point where I would like
to be able to fulfil what I believe is an unspoken contract between artist
and audience in these works ­ that the lights, sounds, sensations being fed
back to them, are in actual fact, a reflection of something biological
process that  is ACTUALLY taking place, and not simply interference noise
from them wiggling the sensors around, or bugs in my Max/MSP patch etc.

Iıve only worked with stationary interactions, and still face challenges
with the accuracy of data. Key weak points include sensor contact, timing
problems with CPU related calculation errors, and signal processing
errors/noise between the sensor and the computer. No one needs to know this
dirty little secret! and I certainly donıt go out of my way to talk about in
press! Iıve worked around this so far ­ by focussing on other aspects of the
interaction, and this has been worthwhile and rewarding (i.e. Relational
aspects of the experience, reflection of experience in interaction, inviting
people to explore how different emotions alter the work etc.) but feel its
time I see how improvements to the accuracy and reliability of these systems
could alter the experience of the work for people using it.
This is about a transition from proposition to practice, and the range of
experiences unique to actual practices (i.e. Such as might be experienced in
clinical biofeedback or somatic bodywork).

Well, Iıve run out of time to write more ­ will get back in a few days.

Thanks again, and look forward to all your contributions


George Khut

Mobile 0417 566 425 (International 61 417 566 425)
E-mail  [log in to unmask]
URL http://www.georgekhut.com/

> In my view, many of them make us see our own bodies as objects or machines
> that can be trimmed, controlled, kept in balance - separate from ourselves,
> our dreams, our experiences of being in the world, in our bodies.

Katrina, I fear its even worse that that ­ corporate institutions and people
designing for them probably ARE interested in trimming, ballancing and
controlling THE WHOLE PERSON, INCLUDING our dreams, experiences and being in
the world. Just take a look at reality TV ­ the various IDOL contest, Œ So
you think you can danceı etc. tragic monocultural imperialism, all wrapped
up in a rhetoric of achievement, transformation and the realisation of
personal dreams. How does NOKIA position itself in relation to these
socio-economic trends, Iıd be very interested to learn more.



s

5/12/08 
> 11:01 AM, NEW-MEDIA-CURATING automatic digest system at
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> I am also really looking forward to this discussion - and in  particular, I
> am keen to discuss the value implications and the  dualistic perspectives
> (separating mind and  body) that many of the  bio-sensor, health- or
> sports-monitoring systems enforce. In my view,  many of them make us see our
> own bodies as objects or machines that  can be trimmed, controlled, kept in
> balance - separate from ourselves,  our dreams, our experiences of being in
> the world, in our bodies. I  think this connects to Hannah's idea of
> relating to something else  than the "objective".
> 
> In my own work, we have been trying to use bio-sensors to connect  scraps
> and bits of our everyday bodily experiences to various social  events in the
> world and our own accounts of what has been going on. We  have tried to
> create a systems that do not tell the user what they  have experienced but
> instead provide materials to reflect on.
> 
> An example from my group is the Affective Diary system:
> http://www.sics.se/interaction/projects/ad/ Another example is the Affective
> Health system: http://affectivehealth.blogspot.com/
> 
> In short, both systems logs users' movements (accelererometers) and  arousal
> (GSR). Affective Health also logs pulse. These data are then  representated
> back to users in evocative shapes, forms and animations  that do not *tell*
> users what they are experiencing, but are open- ended "surfaces" that they
> can inscribe meaning into in various ways. A lot of people really like our
> systems, but there are also those  (mainly academics who have not used the
> system) that object to them,  feeling that it is sad that we should have to
> have technology to  communicate with ourselves. They fear it is a kind of
> prosthesis and  that it distances ourselves even more from our corporeal
> experiences.
> 
> My question is therefore: is it possible to use bio-sensors and create  for
> embodied interactions that relate to our whole selves - subject/ object,
> body/mind, rational/irrational - and what would that mean? And  am I right
> in claiming that a lot of existing systems convey a  conceptualisation of
> the world that makes us think of the our own  bodies as objects rather than
> our lived embodied experiences?
> 
> Anyway, this was a very brief introduction of what I find fascinating  in
> this field. Before writing tons more, I look forward to seeing more  of what
> others have been thinking of relating to this field.
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager