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  March 2011

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING March 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: quantum/digital/analogue

From:

Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 23 Mar 2011 22:15:45 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (117 lines)

yes!
"...to ask an artist to adjudicate a debate between a philosopher and 
a physicist"


Here is Steven Shaviro on Kant's proposition that beauty is neither 
merely objective nor merely subjective:
"...the strange status of aesthetic judgment. I may judge a flower to 
be beautiful, yet I know that 'beauty is not a property of the flower 
itself'; the flower is beautiful 'only by virtue of that 
charactteristic in which it adapts itself to the way we apprehend 
it.' So beauty is not objectively *there,* in the world. It is not 
*in* nature; it is rather something that we attribute *to* nature. An 
aesthetic judgment, therefore, is one 'whose determining basis 
*cannot be other* than subjective.'

YET AT THE SAME TIME [emphasis curt's], beauty isn't *merely* 
subjective. It isn't just something that we project upon whatever it 
is that we see, hear, feel, touch, or taste. The attribution of 
beauty is not an arbitrary imposition. There is nothing about it that 
is special, or particular, to the person who happens to be making the 
judgment. It is not even 'universally' subjective... Rather, a 
judgment of taste involves an uncoerced *response,* on the part of 
the subject, to the obect that is being judged beautiful. Aesthetic 
judgment is a kind of *recognition*: it's an appreciation of how the 
object 'adapts itself to the way we apprehend it,' even though, at 
the same time, it remains indifferent to us."

He then proceeds to relate this to D&G's parable of the orchid and the wasp.


ryan griffis wrote:
>"What you say might be nice and interesting but it has no 
>cosmological relevance because it only deals with the subjective 
>elements, the lived world, not the real world."
>http://e-flux.com/journal/view/217
>
>
>On Mar 23, 2011, at 7:07 PM, NEW-MEDIA-CURATING automatic digest system wrote:
>
>>  Date:    Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:26:25 -0400
>>  From:    Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Subject: Re: quantum/digital/analogue
>>
>>  Hi Simon (and all),
>>
>>  I have been following the dialogue thus far. Here are some thougts:
>>
>>  First, it is surprising how quickly the discussion headed toward
>>  sub-atomic physics. There seems to be a kind of
>>  formalist/essentialist consensus that if we can sort out the
>>  differences between digital and analog at that "fundamental" scale,
>>  we will have definitevely sorted out all the differences. But things
>>  happening at that scale don't seem all that pragmatically relevant to
>>  the scale(s) and speed(s) of new media art. Unless these principles
>>  from physics are interpreted in a kind of metaphorical or symbolic
>>  way, in which case we are back to Derrida.
>>
>>  Perhaps the relationship between analog and digital things (and our
>>  model for understanding that relationship) varies and modulates as we
>>  change scales and speeds. At the scale and speed of a human body, the
>>  analog and digital are in one kind of relationship; at the scale and
>>  speed of a city or a global economy, the analog and digital are in
>>  another kind of relationship. Is there some "unifying" meta-principle
>>  governing these shifts in scales/speeds? (And is this governing
>>  meta-principle analog or digital!) Are there certain critical
>>  state-changes along this scale/speed continuum that rupture and
>>  radicalize the differences between analog and digital?
>>
>>  Also, regarding new media art, there is another kind of significant
>>  distinction between those receiving the art, and those making the
>>  art. As a practicing new media artist, I may be greatly concerned
>>  with the nuanced material differences between analog and digital (as
>>  I perceive them at the scale with which my art is engaged). But these
>>  process/production differences may pragmatically mean very little to
>>  a person in the gallery experiencing my art. Here I would be
>>  interested to hear from a third perspective, a curatorial one. How
>>  does curating new media alter one's understanding of the differences
>>  between digital and analog? What new differences arise that are not
>  > encountered from the perspective of either the artist or the
>>  user/patron/viewer/actant.
>>
>>  In my experience, media theorists and practicing artists (and
>>  academic ontologists policing the borders of overlapping artistic
>>  genres)  make a whole lot more fuss over analog/digital distinctions
>>  than most new media works actually warrant (at least from the
>>  perspective of a gallery visitor). Some new media works may be
>>  metaphorically or (re)presentationally "about" the digital/analog
>>  divide, but oftentimes the work itself fails to enact these
>>  distinctions as an affectively experiencable event. So perhaps the
>>  distinctions between analog and digital blur and are not so relevant
>>  at both  the sub-atomic scale/speed and the dividuated human body
>>  scale/speed (although in different ways and for different reasons).
>>  What happens at macrocosmic scales/speeds? What happens at chip-level
>>  scales/speeds? What may happen at future scales/speeds? Probably
>>  qualitatively different things happen. The differences between analog
>>  and digital themselves differ at different scales/speeds. Ye olde
>>  difference differing.
>>
>>  Regarding language, I have to throw Bakhtin into the mix. By adding
>>  Bakhtin, Peirce's tri-partism doesn't always have to bear the entire
>>  constructivist burden of overcoming Saussure's dualism. (Traveling
>>  east toward Bakhtin thus avoids a a kind of pan-Atlantic, historical
>>  meta-dualism.) Bakhtin's concept of "the utterance" means that the
>>  (digital?) semiotic aspects of language as a system of meaning are
>>  always dependent upon and colored by a series of event-based,
>>  affective (analog?), embodied historical utterances (and vice versa).
>>  Language as a force in the world, tweaked and modulated by the forces
>>  of the world. This understanding of language heads toward
>>  Lakoff/Johnson, and perhaps to/through Deleuze.
>>
>>  And, as if things weren't confounded enough:
>>  http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_licb3pwkSG1qb58eqo1_400.jpg
>>
>>  Best,
>>  Curt

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