It may be interesting to refer to Andersen and Pold's article in "World of the News": "Is the 'interface' an alienating ideal for human/computer activity?" (p4).
Under the sub-heading "Consumer Control", they write, "Have the aspirations of the avant-garde (everyone can be an artist) come through with software (=no more alienation)? To unveil this all-encompassing cover-up, one must focus on the work of the interface, and analyse the production of compatibility; the work of the interface." Also, about Ivan E. Sutherland's Sketchpad from 1962: "Sutherland's separation of data processing and visual representation is a division between machine-like signals and human signs. Interfaces exist to create compatibilities between signs and signal processes - they are 'algorithmic signs', perceivable (by humans) and computable (by computers) and thus connecting the aesthetic/perceptible with the algorithmic domain". Best wishes, Magnus On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:13:34AM -0800, B. Bogart wrote: > Hello Cassinelli Alvaro, > > I have two thoughts on the idea of "honest technology". > > 1. What does honesty/transparency mean in the context of so many layers > of abstraction? Is there any honesty in there, or is a computational > system a simulacrum? No matter how much you expose to the user, there > will always be something hidden. > > 2. Rooted in my recent research in cognitive science it seems clear to > me that habituation, our ability to see the novel as normal, is at the > core of transparency. We can learn to make anything transparent with > enough time and practice. This is actually how we function in the world, > if we needed to be conscious of every tacit or habituated behaviour we > would never be able to get the big picture. Perhaps the details obscure > what is important, rather than exposing it. That being said, there is no > way of performing self-criticism without the ability to at least switch > between the big picture and the details, transparency and opacity, the > truth told and the truth proved. > > B. Bogart > www.ekran.org > > On 12-02-11 04:02 AM, Cassinelli Alvaro wrote: > > Hello everyone. I've been silently reading all these posts from the > > past months, and learning a great lot :) > > Last post from Julian prompted me to reply, because indeed this is one > > of the topics that has been always in my mind as an artist/engineer > > (btw, my name is alvaro cassinelli, www.alvarocassinelli.com). At one > > point I thought about launching a research project called "Honest > > Technology", here it is what it meant by that: > > > > Honest technology? > > The problem with transparent interfaces is that the technology that > > makes them work tends to be literally transparent or invisible; > > therefore, these interfaces, although easy to use may be unconsciously > > perceived as “trickery” - precisely because the gears of the machinery > > remain hidden from the user. Unless you are a hacker, you will relate > > to these interfaces as Harry Potter with a magic wand: there is no > > knowledge nor model of its inner workings, and you may end up > > suspecting the technology, and losing the sense of control. Showing > > the guts of the machine does not change the problem: electronic > > circuit boards are not like gears - the mechanism is not obvious. So, > > the question is how to design an interface that is perhaps less > > “transparent”, but whose working is more “obvious”? (thus empowering > > people). I am very interested in this problem, and I wonder if the > > solution involve people creating their own technology from scratch (as > > Lea Buckley believes) or other solutions such as developing extremely > > “hierarchical tools” that would enable one to play Robison Crusoe and > > build, say, a computer in less than a week starting from sand (the > > “reductionist” approach to knowledge). Or still, the solution may > > involve atomic, multi-purpose units that could be configured to create > > whatever we imagine (the nano-technology approach?). Finally, perhaps > > there is a way to render “magical thinking” compatible with empowering > > knowledge, by designing a standard set of “magic rules” that could be > > combined intuitively (this could be a super-set of “intuitive > > physics”). An instantiation of this solution could be the “invoked > > affordances” approach (see my "invoked computing" demo). > > Interestingly, such approach to interface design would naturally lead > > to the construction of “Alternate Realities” (in the sense of J. > > McGonigal). > > > > Another related question: If I knew everything (I mean *everything*, > > from theory to practice) about how to make a computer for instance, > > starting with raw materials (sand, water, etc), how long it would take > > for me to actually build one? What is the actual bottleneck? the speed > > of my motion? the decision making? (the SOCIAL interaction factor!). > > And what if I know that too (I mean, exactly what decisions I have to > > make, who to call for help, etc, so there is no waste of time for > > planning), then could we estimate the time it would take to this > > modern "Robinson" to build his laptop with GPS and wireless connection > > and send an email to the distant civilization that would come to help > > him? > > > > Cheers, > > Alvaro Cassinelli > > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Julian Oliver <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> ..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 > >> > >> -- > >> Julian Oliver > >> http://julianoliver.com > >> http://criticalengineering.org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> empyre forum > >> [email protected] > >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre > > _______________________________________________ > > empyre forum > > [email protected] > > http://www.subtle.net/empyre > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > [email protected] > http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum [email protected] http://www.subtle.net/empyre
