----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- A few years back, Empyre hosted a discussion on the "E-Ject"… which, eventually, was turned into a paper for DAC: "E-Ject: On the Ephemeral Nature, Mechanisms, and Implications of Electronic Objects": https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2xv6b6n0
This has been a good thread to follow. I wanted to comment on your statement: "This being said digital mediums that by nature exist less as authoritative isolated objects and are more dependent on their relationality may allow for multiple, co-existent, even contradictory structures of memory." This is what I am puzzling through with regards to my research on objects created in Flash. Soon, people might not even know how to read or access important works of art from the 1990s. This is different than losing something from culture because it is considered unimportant, or not considered at all. Rather, we are experiencing a split of literacy. On the one hand, media obsolescence is like Hopkins' comment on the forgetting that comes when a language and its community of users dies. To the vast range of human users, swaths of culture die off when a medium becomes obsolete. On the other hand, as Marino notes, the code is still there (even if it is not readily readable to the software/platform/interface you are using). In many cases, there are pre-networked digital objects that are locked into archives, gathering dust, decaying, etc. But there are many inaccessible and dead works that can still be saved, stored, analyzed as code… from a machine perspective. The only thing I can think about, is the situation in the middle ages, when monasteries processed unknown (and even dead) languages while the larger community outside used a spoken vernacular to conduct its affairs (occasionally dipping into the world of deep coding to intervene in the deeper structures of codes like law and theology and record). In a way, it is a reflection of the new power dynamic in which we place machines and their reading practices in a central role. Davin Heckman On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Sean Rupka <sru...@gmail.com> wrote: > ----------empyre- soft-skinned space---------------------- > > Hi Attila and Mark, > > I think this may speak to aspects of both your posts so I will leave this > here. > > Let me echo the thanks to Quinn for organize this and quickly apologize for > being a bit late to the game. > > Just to riff a bit on some of your points Atilla. I think, as I understand > it, I completely agree with your suggestion that memory itself, thought of as > “human memory” has always been intertwined with techne, dependent on some > form of prosthesis outside of ourselves to serve as referent. To this extent > as well I agree that immanent to memory is it is consistently built on a lack > that is compensated for through a reiteration of the relation to a past. What > I mean to say, if memory is considered as a particular relation to the past, > the selective nature of memory itself implies the converse as well, that > every relation to a past via memory is a non-relation to an alternate past. > > How might this relate to digital objects or the digitization of information? > I would raise multiple questions here that I believe my interlocutors may be > better positioned to comment on. > > The relationship between memory and technological artifice has been > problematic at least since the time of Plato. The externalization and perhaps > expropriation of memory, the location of memory elsewhere in objects > (memorials) could in fact be destructive. The openness of such objects as > memorials has long been linked to discussions of their success or failure as > memorials. > > The question I would raise then vis-à-vis digital objects and memory relates > directly to the question of what is the digital object and from whence does > its authority emanate? The idea of digital archives for example calls to (my) > mind the contradictory stances of both something eternal and unchanging but > as well their ultimate fragility. This fragility has been pointed out as > deriving from the nature of the medium itself (the ease of its > re-writeability, erasability, as well as very real possibility for the > decay/degeneration or loss of information, vulnerability to changes in > technology, obsolescence). Insofar as digital objects' immateriality compared > to traditional objects are free from what we generally call decay, their > relation to memory itself changes. We could for example say the materiality > of decaying objects has traditionally been the ironic source for their > identity, by their increasing 'lack' over time of what they once were we > judge their authenticity, through their decay we have some referent to the > fact that two times (past and present) are bridged. Digital decay I would > suggest does not act in the same way. > > This being said digital mediums that by nature exist less as authoritative > isolated objects and are more dependent on their relationality may allow for > multiple, co-existent, even contradictory structures of memory. > > I am thinking of Ernst here when I suggest that the digital realm is > dependent as much upon its relationality and its structure as it is upon > concrete bits of information. To bring a quote in “Ultimate knowledge (the > old encyclopedia model) gives way to the principle of permanent rewriting or > addition (Wikipedia) (Ernst 2013). Here memory then could be seen as > ultimately formed through its reaffirmation and changed through the shifting > frequency of future iterations, searches and relationships. > > Now is this in and of itself radically new? Perhaps not. Memory has likely > always been competitive. But there is something interesting in the shifting > ontological nature of the digital object and that perhaps is due further > investigation. > > Further though, if what is essential for a human appropriation or > extrapolation of memory from digital data which in its sheer amount far > exceeds the ability of any one individual to take in at any given time (thus > necessitating a certain selective forgetting but as well pointing towards an > interesting gap between information and knowledge that is no doubt > exacerbated by such a form) how much are we externalizing memory in a > technological artifice that we, somewhat unawares, become incapable of > accessing largely through our inability to process such databases? Becoming > crippled under the weight of data? > > Marks question here of source code as reminder seems pertinent and > interesting but I need to ponder it a bit further, and I would echo his > reference to Chun by quoting her from an essay I recently read (The Digital > Ephemeral, 2008) “The major characteristic of digital media is memory. It’s > ontology is memory…” > > I feel like this may have become a rant but these were a few thoughts I had > to hopefully add to the conversation. > > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://empyre.library.cornell.edu _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
