Barbara - Thanks for these links to your works. I like the way you
describe #4 - I always struggle with thinking through this part of coded
work - the presence of images and video - and your code explicitly breaks
these down (or disturbs them).
Xtine - *On the Web* has such a lovely echo/loop of paper and web media,
text and design, and such a simple gesture of traveling through the book,
pen in hand, replacing road with web, then laboriously scanning to
re-create the work online.
A BIG THANK YOU to everyone who posted this month to share your thoughts
and to tell us about your projects. I enjoyed this discussion immensely
and hope that it was valuable to each of you to get some thoughts on paper
and bounce them around among the respondents and list members.
Thanks especially to those who were actively reading and or responding,
working to pull out some difficult, sometimes controversial ideas around
the performativity of code (in a practical sense).
I hope, as GH mentioned, that perhaps something more can come out of the
connections that we have made here - be it an exhibition, a continued
private discussion, or a future in-person meeting.
For those of you that are new to the list, we also hope you stay and
participate in future CRUMB discussions.
And as always, if something pops to mind that continues some of the lines
of thought started this month, feel free to post or to message me
privately, I will be glad to keep in touch.
Bye for Now.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Lattanzi, Barbara K <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Hi everyone.
> Thanks to you, Victoria for the opportunity to participate in this
> And, Neal, thanks for that surprising reference to "Basic English" that I
> never knew existed.
> Briefly, there are 2 software works in a series of mine begun a couple of
> years ago. They are both documented in videos on my vimeo site,
> The series engages with the invisibility of code as paradoxical expression
> of its presence... The two works are these: "The Hole in the Sock" (2012),
> and "ALAALLL, a light at a level below" (2012)
> Here is a list by way of a description:
> 1. Both these works of software appear as a generative works...Their
> surfaces appear to be an immaterial, formal play of lines.
> 2. What appear as formal movements of the lines are determined by an
> interaction of 2 "forces" (modalities of expression).
> 3. One force is a mathematical expression that generates a quasi-periodic
> series of numbers, i.e., the number set is given temporal-visual form...a
> visualization that never repeats itself exactly.
> 4. The second force is a representational element (excerpt from an
> archival film) that is invisible (in the offscreen buffer), at a level
> below the visualization.
> 5. Although you can hear the soundtrack of the cinematic excerpt that
> constitutes the invisible representations, it is not the sounds that affect
> the surface visualizations.
> 6. You cannot "see" the thing you hear. But the computer can "see" (in
> the video buffer) the thing that you hear...The computer "sees" via the
> code analyzing the representations.
> 7. The nonrepresentational mark and evidence of what you cannot see is
> carried by perturbations of the visualization.
> 8. In other words, the changes in the optically-gathered images of the
> archival film (along with its historical resonances) are dynamically
> sampled and used to aggressively contaminate, push, and pull the formal
> play of lines.
> In this approach, the invisible remains invisible, but its presence is
> felt by a disturbance of the "pure" mathematical expression.
> Barbara Lattanzi
> Associate Professor of Interactive Arts
> School of Art and Design
> NYSCC at Alfred University
// Victoria Bradbury
Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org
New Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org> <CommComm>
Attaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com> // Collaborator