Print

Print


hi all, 

Thanks Victoria for inviting me, massive apologies for not being more present - I now have all the time in the world... this month! to contribute.

I'm putting together a collection of material that relates to my interest in various filtering devices (as well as other operations), being put into play with re the production of new texts - which I'm likening to new 'science fictions', that may well have an element of subjectivity enmeshed within them - I'd be very grateful if anyone has any further suggestions on this?

I also want to produce a sound work in tandem with my financial algorithm work, and would be very grateful if anyone felt like participating in this?  It would mean hooking up at a specific date and time to produce a new sound work, collectively - a collective performative piece relating to live news reading (live, but I would also be recording it).  It would involve being available for a specific time and date, sometime over the summer - the exact play of this is yet to be determined, but it'd be great it anyone was interested in being a part of it - it would have a live production side to it, at Banner Repeater at some point.  (bit vague at this stage, I realise) - mail me at [log in to unmask]

It's been great reading all the interesting threads of conversation - thank-you very much. 

Ami 


 
Banner Repeater
Platform 1
Hackney Downs Railway Station
Dalston Lane
Hackney
E8 1LA

www.bannerrepeater.org


>________________________________
> From: Victoria Bradbury <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] 
>Sent: Monday, 31 March 2014, 15:52
>Subject: Re: [NEW-MEDIA-CURATING] March Discussion
> 
>
>Hello List,
>
>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.
>
>Victoria Bradbury
>
>
>
>
>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
>> conversation.
>>
>> 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,
>> vimeo.com/idiomorphics/videos
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------
>> Barbara Lattanzi
>> Associate Professor of Interactive Arts
>> School of Art and Design
>> NYSCC at Alfred University
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>// Victoria Bradbury
><PROJECTS> www.victoriabradbury.com
>Researcher @ www.crumbweb.org
>New Media Caucus <http://www.newmediacaucus.org> <CommComm>
>Attaya Projects <http://attayaprojects.com> // Collaborator
>
>
>
>