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  October 2010

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Rethinking Curation talks

From:

Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:48:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (173 lines)

Thanks Charles,

I will read the Hatten article. I appreciate these thoughtful 
responses. It seems like we mostly agree and we are down to semantics?

In my article, I initially do define the glitch as a real-time event 
and I define the resultant visuals as a trace/residue/archive of the 
event. But then you are right, subsequently I am less concerned with 
this semantic distinction. There are artists like lo-vid who build 
their own hardware which directly creates signals that are sent to 
audio speakers and to video projectors simultaneously. Are the 
projected visuals a second-order "interpretation" of a source signal, 
are they a "manifestation" of the signal, or are they the signal? 
Virilio seems useful here. Light is a force in the world. It has a 
speed limit. As everything in the world speeds up, the light that 
precedes the arrival of an object (you can see the bomb coming) and 
the arrival of the object itself are pushed increasingly toward 
simultaneity. The less the lag, the more the source signal is 
simultaneous to the received bodily affect. And puters do speed 
things up a lot (although not as fast as nuclear reactors speed 
things up).

Regarding noise, Cage is useful for me. He wouldn't listen to records 
but would open his window in Manhattan and listen to the traffic. The 
traffic wasn't loud or bothersome to him. It was enjoyable. He 
enjoyed it because of its unexpected variety and unpredictability. 
Perhaps these street sounds were cosmically "scored," but only by an 
impossibly complex multitude of contingent historical, economic, 
architectural, technological, and social forces.

Regarding the straw man of people uploading their souls, I don't know 
anybody like this anymore, but The Well and Wired magazine were rife 
with this stuff back in the day. Extropianism, transhumanism, 
artificial intelligence.

  Deconstruction (as practiced by Derrida) has two steps. The first is 
to invert a set of binaries (speech/text, light/dark, top/bottom, 
man/woman) so that that the (presumed) lesser term is shown to be 
just as preferable as the (presumed) greater term. But that is just 
the first step. The second step involves a further undermining of the 
(presumed) lesser term so that neither term winds up on top or on 
bottom. His goal is not merely to invert the dichotomy, but to undo 
it altogether.

I am trying to do something like this with the dichotomies I 
delineate. I perceive that the (presumed) greater term is still 
transcendence, and that the (presumed) lesser term is immanence. So I 
begin by critiquing transcendence. But I don't meant to leave us with 
mere bodily immanence, with some materialistic, animalistic 
interpretation of human-ness. I mean to indicate that the two are 
inextricably combined (which is where I differ from Derrida, who 
would continue undermining this "inextricably combined" state until 
there was nothing left).

I still think "uttered" human language is a radically different 
"medium/force" than a-linguistic sound or a-typographic visuals. 
Different critical rules apply, because humans process Meredith Monk 
singing English words differently than they process her singing 
Martian phonemes. An Italian opera is a qualitatively different 
experience for someone who speaks Italian and someone who doesn't. I 
don't believe these difference are reducible to behavioralist or 
evolutionary models of human-beingness. Nor are these differences 
discoverably merely by analyzing the isolated script of the opera 
based on one set of semiotic criteria and analyzing the lighting, 
acoustics, score, and costumes based on a separate set of affective 
criteria.

Best,
Curt



>On Oct 15, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:
>
>>  In the '80s,
>
>Yes, I was working with Nam June Paik and Amira Baraka in the early 
>1980s, so I do have a memory of the time. ;-)
>
>Anyway, enough cattyness. I have to thank you for bothering to 
>wrestle with this subject, which gets saddled with 
>more-than-its-share of bad theory.
>
>>  My interest in human language is that it is both affective and 
>>semiotic (and several other things besides). Not all art is subject 
>>to semiotic analysis. Not all art that incorporates human language 
>>is subject solely to semiotic analysis. This is where Bakhtin 
>>becomes so useful -- he is thinking about uttered human language as 
>>the intersection of lived affect and transcendent signified.
>
>I don't want to give the impression that Bakhtin isn't worth your 
>while, but there's really no shortage of very interesting work on 
>the pre-linguistic aspects of the arts. Here's a link to a couple 
>chapters of Robert S. Hatten's _Interpreting Musical Gestures, 
>Topics and Tropes_ that I think you might find interesting:
>
><http://vze26m98.net/curt/hatten-2004.pdf>
>
>I also want to restate what I think is the difference between noise 
>and glitch, and why I think it's important to be careful with the 
>distinction. Starting with a common sense definition of Glitch from 
>Wikipedia:
>
>"A glitch is a short-lived fault in a system. It is often used to 
>describe a transient fault that corrects itself, and is therefore 
>difficult to troubleshoot."
>
>A fault is an event within the system.
>
>When we hear a sound, unless we already know, we instinctively look 
>around for its cause, the object that made it. So a sound is its own 
>event, likely caused by some event. We want to create an index 
>between the two. Vision works differently in that visually we attend 
>directly: there is no second thing to index.
>
>So a glitch can produce a sound, but the glitch is the (often 
>absent) cause of the sound. You can also extend this to some of the 
>visual artifacts you discuss: your "glitched book of Durrow" isn't 
>the glitch itself, it's the residue of a glitch long gone. Does a 
>glitch ever show itself except through an index?
>
>Noise can refer to the indeterminate interferences that Shannon 
>theorized, but we should note that his use of "noise" is a slang 
>appellation, just like "glitch." Common sense definitions of noise 
>might refer to the loud jackhammers outside my window, or 
>air-to-ground missiles coming across the Pakistani border. There's 
>an aspect of "unwantedness" and in these cases, "unbearable 
>loudness." But in neither case are they "accidental." Shannon's 
>definition of noise doesn't encompass these meanings.
>
>As Hatten remarks: "We are evolutionarily designed, and 
>developmentally conditioned, to interpret and synthesize complexes 
>of sensations into the following emergent meanings:
>
>1) Object or event
>2) Plausible agency or cause
>3) Movement/direction/intensity/character
>4) Emotional valency
>5) Any necessary responses (e.g. survival, reflexes) as well as any 
>desirable ones (e.g., socialization, aesthetic pleasure).
>
>So doesn't "noise" fit into meaning #1 and "glitch" into meaning #2, above?
>
>Finally, I'd warn you against creating a straw man argument with the 
>"transcendental ideal of disembodied code": "The myth that humans 
>can upload their souls is related to the myth of pure signal 
>transference. Both of these myths are derived from residual Platonic 
>dichotomies which need to be exploded."
>
>Do you really know anyone who thinks this? (Other than Karlheinz 
>Stockhausen?) Any hacker writing in an imperative language knows 
>they're chained to an abstraction of the underlying machine, and if 
>they're writing in a functional language, they're dealing with it as 
>an (ugly) interface. Computer musicians are constantly wrestling 
>with latency issues. Real-time programers are constantly counting 
>CPU cycles not because tasks have to happen fast, but because they 
>must always take the same amount of time.
>
>I think the effect it has on your essay is to chase away the other 
>side of your dichotomies. You're still stuck with a dualism, just on 
>the other side. As you say "these extremes intersect and entangle in 
>the ongoing, lived and present moment." As Hatten remarks: "Humans 
>trade higher cognitive processing, including generalization, 
>conceptualization, and language, for the vast categorical 
>inventories that animals such as the bloodhound possess."
>
>I'd attempt to entangle the proprioceptive with the cognitive. To 
>ignore these human faculties returns me to my original comment about 
>glitch art being a kind of modern day Impressionism: Monet's "all 
>eye" (and no brain).
>
>Best wishes, Charles

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
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