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:

Andreas Maria Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Andreas Maria Jacobs <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:40:37 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (241 lines)

Interesting analogy i.e. newtonian vs. einsteinian metaphysics

It is a much made mistake in not properly making the right 'scale' and  
the corresponding 'point of view' in analyzing and reflecting upon  
'worldly' matters within a 'mental' framework

So much of the analog/digital paradigmatical remarks will fail because  
of not 'fitting' in the 'right' context

Best

Andreas Maria Jacobs

w: http://www.nictoglobe.com
w: http://burgerwaanzin.nl

On Mar 27, 2011, at 15:30, Curt Cloninger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Danny,
>
> On Thursday, I responded to your previous post, but I can only  
> assume my response got moderated, for what reason I'm not sure.  I  
> am copying you directly on this response as well as sending it to  
> the list. Below is that prior response:
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I'm no expert on Kant either, but here Shaviro is revisiting Kant's  
> third critique and focusing on aesthetic judgment, which he claims  
> problematizes and threatens to undo all of Kant's categorizing thus  
> far. Aesthetic judgment isn't based on any prior conceptual  
> criteria, so it is not bound by ethics or reason. This is why  
> aesthetic judgment can't be universally subjective (there are no  
> universal categories or concepts upon which it could be based).  
> Aesthetic judgment is more like a lived, affective relationship  
> between a human and something in the world.
>
> I brought this up not to talk about Kant per se, but to agree with  
> Latour (via Ryan Griffis) that there can be a fruitful space of  
> dialogue between objective science and subjective speculative  
> philosophy  that is suggested as least as far back as Kant (and  
> incidentally, is suggested in the context of art).
>
> When I say "we're back at Derrida," I don't mean we're back at  
> Derrida always talking about physics (although that would be  
> delirious to read). I mean we're back at Derrida's mojo of using  
> language and analogy to find creative points of slippage between  
> "objective" facts and where they lead via Grammatological play. What  
> might Derrida make, for instance, of the practice of speaking of the  
> analog analogically? I don't think there is anything wrong with  
> Derrida's mojo; I'm just pointing out that it moves us beyond  
> "objective" science.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I don't mind (I grudgingly respect) Derrida, I just think he makes a  
> scatalogical art critic. He tends to use the art work as a launching  
> pad for word play, and his art critical essays wind up more  
> concerned with language than with the art itself. Hence, "a trap."
>
> The difference between art making and art writing is that art itself  
> is able to engage with physics in ways that are not subject to  
> semiotic or linguistic "regimes" (to use Deleuze's term).
>
> Furthermore (and this point has not really been addressed in our  
> dialogue here), what physics is doing at at sub-atomic levels may  
> not be directly relevant to scales and speeds of new media art  
> production and curating (except via metaphor and analogy). As an  
> engineer building a bridge, it may be intriguing (and even fruitful)  
> to apply Einsteinian physics (via analogy and metaphor) to bridge- 
> building, but in terms of actually engaging with the material as a  
> maker, perhaps Newtonian physics are more appropriate to my the  
> scale and speed of my media.
>
> You write: "If a true exchange is to occur across disciplines then  
> the distinctive forms of technique and rhetoric in each must be  
> posed equally as objects of investigation and transformation." Yes,  
> with this I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> Best,
> Curt
>
>
>
>
>
>> Isn't physics (or any natural science) both a craft and a  
>> discipline? The only way a non-physicist understands physics is  
>> through the metaphors established through the rhetorical writing  
>> practices (as Simon notes, full of metaphor) that hold the  
>> constative knowledge of the discipline. Physics is not understood  
>> by us through being skilled on the bench, which would be a much  
>> more real way of understanding what physics is. I find Curt's  
>> disavowal of the literary nature of any cross-disciplinary exchange  
>> in favour of a "direct" "enactment" ironic for that reason. The  
>> idea of physics presents itself to the non-physicist precisely  
>> through analogy. Those in the sciences usually know this, usually  
>> implicitly. As Thrift dryly notes,
>>
>> "In many of the books on complexity written by practising  
>> scientists there seems to be an obligatory final chapter which  
>> suggests the ways in which the metaphors of complexity will  
>> refigure science and will then go on to provide an explanation of  
>> the whole world by providing a new worldview. Then, it's off into  
>> every domain of current intellectual effort imaginable with every  
>> kind of false or tawdry analogy possible, as if to prove that these  
>> inheritors of systems theory can forget all about equifinality."
>>
>> One cannot locate rhetoricity only outside scientificity. If a true  
>> exchange is to occur across disciplines then the distinctive forms  
>> of technique and rhetoric in each must be posed equally as objects  
>> of investigation and transformation. While Curt again raises the  
>> spectre of Derrida's attention to language as some example of a  
>> "trap" that somehow displaces the possibility of art-science  
>> collaboration, my completely contrary experience is that it is only  
>> those practitioners, in the arts or the sciences, who, like  
>> Derrida, fully engage the implications of technical knowledge in  
>> their fields who are able to develop effective relationships with  
>> others. From my point of view, anyone in the arts who disavows the  
>> power of metaphor disavows a long-held pillar of our disciplinary  
>> contribution.
>>
>> Apologies for the long drift off topic this recent thread brings,  
>> but on the other hand it does seem another way of broaching a  
>> related question to "analogue/digital"
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Danny
>>
>> --
>> http://www.dannybutt.net
>> +64 21 456 379
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/03/2011, at 6:59 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>>
>>> I thought the Law of the Excluded Middle was something the Con-Dem
>>> government had invented just for us in the UK ;)
>>>
>>> But more seriously - or perhaps less so.
>>>
>>> Physics can be a great metaphor in art. It can be a great metaphor  
>>> in all
>>> sorts of things. That's what physics is. So, when I propose that  
>>> everything
>>> is digital and that each digital unit is quantum, simultaneously  
>>> zero and
>>> one, I am proposing a metaphor.
>>>
>>> In this respect physics is art. Sometimes it is great art!
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26/03/2011 17:49, "Curt Cloninger" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jon,
>>>>
>>>> This Whitehead maxim seems applicable:
>>>> "The true philosophical question is, how can concrete fact exhibit
>>>> entities abstract from itself and yet participated in by its own
>>>> nature?"
>>>>
>>>> If insights from physics are to be applied to art, some abstraction
>>>> will necessarily have to occur (otherwise you're simply left  
>>>> talking
>>>> about physics, or reducing art to physics -- an analytic philosophy
>>>> trap). But how to fruitfully cross-apply these abstractions to art
>>>> without:
>>>> a) slipping into grammatological wordplay (Derrida interminably
>>>> riffing on Adami, a post-structuralist trap),
>>>> b) cross-applying these new abstractions using old school  
>>>> dialectical
>>>> metaphysics (metaphysics which presume the existence of an
>>>> analog/digital divide in the first place).
>>>>
>>>> And (beyond the philosophical), how to make art that engages with
>>>> these analogDigital conundrums (Leibniz's monadism wrestling with
>>>> Bergson's concrete duration) in ways that enact and foreground said
>>>> conundrums rather than merely re-presenting them via analogy.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Curt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jon wrote:
>>>>> I think this is precisely the problem: that the metaphysics many  
>>>>> of
>>>>> us take for granted is inherited from outdated science textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physicists have known since the beginning of the last century that
>>>>> nature's building blocks are assembled in messy states of
>>>>> superposition rather than lined up in neat compartments. ("Is the
>>>>> spin up or down? It's both!") Yet so many humanists I read,
>>>>> especially among the  poststructuralists, yammer on about binaries
>>>>> and dichotomies as though the Law of the Excluded Middle were an
>>>>> incontestable truth. Or, almost as bad, as though they are the  
>>>>> first
>>>>> to realize it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nor are all scientists immune from this outmoded determinism. Most
>>>>> biologists I speak to have heard of quantum mechanics, but
>>>>> implicitly assume that atoms are minuscule billiard balls  
>>>>> careening
>>>>> predictably around, instead of some perverse foam that oozes
>>>>> contradictory states of matter when you're not looking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even Newton didn't understand the metaphysical implications of his
>>>>> theory. Though a heretic by contemporaneous standards, Newton was
>>>>> still a devout Christian, and during his life wrote more about
>>>>> religion than science. He is remembered among metaphysics scholars
>>>>> for positing an absolute frame of reference for space and time, in
>> >>> contrast to Einstein's later relativistic one. Except that  
>> Newton's
>>>>> equations *are* relativistic for the scales he was considering--a
>>>>> fact he obscured by giving lip service to an absolute frame in  
>>>>> order
>>>>> to reconcile his formulas with the dogma of his time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The design of digital computers to date has only reinforced the  
>>>>> lay
>>>>> perception that everything around us can be boiled down to 1s and
>>>>> 0s. The advent of quantum computers to which Simon alluded could
>>>>> challenge that perception--and maybe even give nonphysicists their
>>>>> first glimpse of nature with her hair down.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Simon Biggs
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://www.littlepig.org.uk/
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> http://www.elmcip.net/
>>> http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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