-----------I just realised that yesterday, I sent this post to Julian
personally rather than to the Empyre list by mistake.
Sorry Julian, here it is again resent to its correct location :-)
Hi Julian,
Excuse my late interaction with the list regarding its current
discussion - as usual too much going on. But, I'm happy to be
(momentarily) distracted and jump in here to explore some of the aspects
or key elements you have proposed in your last post...
Within your manifesto you say "The Critical Engineer looks beyond the
'awe of implementation' to determine methods of influence and their
specific effects."
Now, the implementation of building a manifesto has its own reflective
'awe', in which we acknowledge not only the subject but the writer(s) at
the same time. I am wondering whether we need to re-consider particular
nuances of habit in relation to the creation of manifestos?
For instance defining the differences of 'one or a group' amongst
others, through the implementation of a manifesto creates its own
meta-rules. It becomes about the manifesto as self (and peer)
initiation, psychologically, socially and defining a particular status.
What is the message beyond the language itself if we consider the
function within a social context, and what are the borders it redefines
and who is it really for?
Is it rather a behaviour statement and perhaps not a manifesto, or both
(and more)?
Just interested :-)
Wishing you well.
marc
..on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:18:06PM +0000, Simon Biggs wrote:
Much contemporary computer based art work has a cargo-cult like
quality due to
such illiteracy. This can be interesting but usually in spite of itself.
Indeed, also one of the fruits of Bricolage. However with a language like
Engineering having such influence over the lives and minds of people -
how we
eat, travel, communicate - I really think you need to speak the
language to
truly act critically within its scope.
This is what we sought to underscore in the manifesto:
http://criticalengineering.org
I've talked to several artists that have expressed disempowerment in
this age of
database automation, google maps, wireless networking, the Cloud etc -
technologies that shape how they live and even their practice yet they
find no
entry point to dissassembling and thus critically engaging them. It's
not enough
to talk about how we are influenced by all this engineering -
technology that
becomes social, political and cultural infrastructure - this leaves us
in little
better position. It must be engaged it directly to understand the
mechanics of
influence. This is the difference between a topic (technology) and as
a material
(engineering).
Most that receive this email will have little or no idea how it
arrived to their
inbox, unable to accurately describe it to another, not even close. At
the same
time most would be able to describe how a postcard arrived at their
friends
mailbox. Just 15 years..
Ignorance as to how these engineered infrastructures actually
function, what
they do and what is done with them behind their own presentation, is
actively
being abused both inside and out of democracies.
Cheers,
Julian
On 9 Feb 2012, at 13:44, César Baio wrote:
Hallo all,
It is interesting because this remains a field of questions for me.
But I can talk a bit about my experience with this.
When it comes to technology, you look different when you know the
device from it inside. It makes me think too much on the importance
of clearing the black box claimed by Flusser. So think of a culture
in which people produce technology as nowadays they produce text and
images. It leads to reformulation of the concept of technology. I
think this is an immense power of the empirical point of view
because for those who can operate with the technology has in your
hand a very powerful language. We say "programming language" but why
not to say something like "technological language"?. Who understands
the language written by programmers is the computer, but he does so
only to turn it into other languages.
In the theoretical aspect, for example, at various times I am led to
take my technical background and compare it with aesthetic aspects.
An example of this happened in a part of my dissertation I put some
questions to some arguments used by Manovich when he relates film
and digital. My background in video gave me important clues for me
to understand that digital is much more closely related to the video
than to the film. Not by chance this relationship feels very
strongly also in the aesthetic field. It comprehension changed a lot
the way deals the other problems of my thesis.
I find these very thought-provoking issues. I'm very curious as to
how each of the people who cross these areas deals with these
issues. To me it would be fascinating to hear other people on the
forum.
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:59:37 +0000
To: [email protected]
Subject: [-empyre-] ambiguous artistic strategies& critical
engineering
Hey!
my first area of study was the electronics, and I
think that today this has much influence on what I have written
and on my
experimental projects. [César Baio]
Being fascinated by the way some programmers write about software, I’d
be very curious to see what kind of insights this technical background
provides to your research. Are these overt influences or more subtle
ones? Could you please give some examples – either theoretical or
empirical?
Also, do you see some coherence in the way you move from one field
to another?
I'm interested in if
and how artistic practice can reformulate the concept of
technology making
their production and use more accessible, how are different (and
ambiguous)
the strategies that the artist uses [CB]
Julian Oliver’s appeal for a “critical engineering” comes to mind here
(there was a debate about it on empyre on July ’11, moderated by Simon
and Magnus). Do you think there is anything particular in artistic
practice that allow it to employ ambiguous strategies, or would these
strategies be within the reach of anyone – such as academic
researchers or technicians? Otherwise, shouldn’t they?
Best!
Menotti
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
[email protected]
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
[email protected]
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Simon Biggs
[email protected] http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK
skype: simonbiggsuk
[email protected] Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/
http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
[email protected]
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
--
Other Info:
Furtherfield - A living, breathing, thriving network
http://www.furtherfield.org - for art, technology and social change
since 1997
Also - Furtherfield Gallery& Social Space:
http://www.furtherfield.org/gallery
About Furtherfield:
http://www.furtherfield.org/content/about
Netbehaviour - Networked Artists List Community.
http://www.netbehaviour.org
http://identi.ca/furtherfield
http://twitter.com/furtherfield
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
[email protected]
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
