Re: [-empyre-] vibration and movememt (cosmic scale)
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- dear all thanks for the thoughtful response, Douglas and Nina, and and I am reading on, the discussion is opening up such a wide horizon now, yes, up to the cosmic scale you invoke Douglas, but also a scale that goes much beyond what Nina called the more narrow body and material focussed sense perceptions & sensation, the anthropomorphized versions of sensation (and motion analysis / motion capture)? > ...visit to the Lab of Ornithology, I am reminded of the anthropomorphic undertone with which the concept of the body and epistemology through sensation is often infused. Does paying attention to the body means attending to the vibration as I feel the vibrations through the flesh and bones as it stands on the airport floor? Or, does only a given material's seeming continuous material connection to what I think of as the object that is body constitute thinking about the body? The latter position, then, to address Marcus' question, does come down to "modes of sensing." At this point, I am not ready to subscribe to that. And, I doubt whether all of the artists with which Douglas deals in Earth Sound would subscribe to that as well. >> Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you not subscribe to? The ritual and cosmic associations now brought up by Douglas's re-reference to Benjamin's "One-Way Street" and "On the Mimetic Faculty" – recontexted to war-time destruction (through technologies), self-annihilation and ecological catastrophe -- where are you pointing the sonic pathways now? Many here may not have read your book yet (sorry, I have not yet), and thus I feel the framework of course seems to have been hugely expanded, and I cannot follow yet, and I think the nereges or forces have not been fully discussed yet, only where you wish to stay away from (new age and psychic channeling etc, the Rausch of the trance folks out in the desert at the Burning Man revelations..) You very recent example of Pauline Oliveros – or Nina's and Marcus's reference to ornithology or rather to the birds, animals and other species interests me obviously, as does Benjamin's imaginary dance with the clouds, dancing the storms [= "sensuous similarity"] – interests me, and there could be a political reading desired by Marcus, not sure, when you speak of > Oliveros produce[s] overtones from subaudible fundamentals, even if they cannot be felt, the audible sounds do not necessarily abdicate their epiphenomenal relationship. > that is a daring formulation, I feel, anthropomorphizing sound into an agent, and there then are co-agencies, some that are not known/recognized (like invisible drones that capture us or shoot us, not drone music) But maybe you read waves and ultrasound etc as forces that operate on the universe, on the earth, on social spaces and habitats, but the imperceptible ones, what effect do they have on humans, animals, objects, architectures, ecologies? what type of agency would be that that could be resisted or coopted, or in-corporated (whether along the axis of an anatomy or furtherfield) or contested (the sounds and epiphenemena that are dangerous to the health of the planet or the inhabitants). Could you all say a bit more about the overtones, or what Marcus mentioned regarding tuning or being out of tune - "The unpresentable aspects of sound and vibration become a model for the unpresentable as such"? regards Johannes Birringer [Douglas schreibt] [..] On "non-sensuous similarity"...has any Benjamin scholar out there approached this directly? I read Mimesis and Alterity years+ ago and don't have my books nearby right now. It seems to me that the faculty of the mimetic faculty/doctrine of the similar that informs it should neither be brought into a perceptual or apperceptual frame too quickly, nor into one of a drive. Rather, it is something either within humankind (since "the ancients" as Benjamin calls them) or operating at a larger scale (I wouldn't know how to characterize it). It surely is not merely manifested in seeing animals in constellated stars, or kids imitating people, things and forces; in one of the most amazing (long) paragraphs in One-Way Street, "To the Planetarium"I discuss this on page 77f. in ESES, sees an alienated/repressed union with the cosmos practiced ritually by "the ancients" sputtering along in "the poetic rapture of starry nights" but really snapping back with a vengeance on the killing fields of WWI. "Human multitudes, gases, electrical forces were hurled into the open country, high-frequency currents coursed through the landscape, new constellations rose in the sky, aerial space and ocean depths thundered with propellors, and everywhere sacrificial shafts were dug into Mother Earth. The immense wooking of the cosmos was enacted for the first time on a planetary scale--that is, in the spirit of technology." There is so muc
Re: [-empyre-] vibration and movememt (cosmic scale)
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Hi, Johannes! > Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you > not subscribe to? I simply meant that if "modes of sensing" refers to human range of sensing, I am not sure where I stand in regards to that. (But, it does seem limiting.) When I wrote that yesterday, I wrote it thinking I was in agreement with Marcus. Is that right, Marcus, or perhaps I am misreading you? I think it was actually Marcus who first brought up the phrase, "modes of sensing," in this conversation. Would you mind sharing more about what that mean to you? Nina On Jun 13, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Johannes Birringer wrote: > --empyre- soft-skinned space-- > dear all > > thanks for the thoughtful response, Douglas and Nina, and > and I am reading on, the discussion is opening up such a wide horizon now, > yes, up to the cosmic scale you invoke Douglas, > but also a scale that goes much beyond what Nina called the more narrow body > and material focussed sense perceptions & sensation, > the anthropomorphized versions of sensation (and motion analysis / motion > capture)? > > >> > ...visit to the Lab of Ornithology, I am reminded of the anthropomorphic > undertone with which the concept of the body and epistemology through > sensation is often infused. Does paying attention to the body means attending > to the vibration as I feel the vibrations through the flesh and bones as it > stands on the airport floor? > > Or, does only a given material's seeming continuous material connection to > what I think of as the object that is body constitute thinking about the > body? > > The latter position, then, to address Marcus' question, does come down to > "modes of sensing." At this point, I am not ready to subscribe to that. And, > I doubt whether all of the artists with which Douglas deals in Earth Sound > would subscribe to that as well. >>> > > Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you > not subscribe to? > > The ritual and cosmic associations now brought up by Douglas's re-reference > to Benjamin's "One-Way Street" and "On the Mimetic Faculty" – recontexted > to war-time destruction (through technologies), self-annihilation and > ecological catastrophe -- where are you pointing the sonic pathways now? > Many here may not have read your book yet (sorry, I have not yet), and thus I > feel the framework of course seems to have been hugely expanded, and I cannot > follow yet, and I think the nereges or forces have not been fully discussed > yet, only where you wish to stay away from (new age and psychic channeling > etc, the Rausch of the trance folks out in the desert at the Burning Man > revelations..) You very recent example of > Pauline Oliveros – or Nina's and Marcus's reference to ornithology or rather > to the birds, animals and other species interests me obviously, as does > Benjamin's imaginary dance with the clouds, dancing the storms [= "sensuous > similarity"] – > interests me, and there could be a political reading desired by Marcus, not > sure, when you speak of > >> > Oliveros produce[s] overtones from subaudible fundamentals, even if they > cannot be felt, the audible sounds do > not necessarily abdicate their epiphenomenal relationship. >> > > that is a daring formulation, I feel, anthropomorphizing sound into an agent, > and there then are co-agencies, some that are not known/recognized (like > invisible drones that capture us or shoot us, not drone music) But maybe you > read waves and ultrasound etc as forces that operate on the universe, on the > earth, on social spaces and habitats, but the imperceptible ones, what effect > do they have on humans, animals, objects, architectures, ecologies? what type > of agency would be that that could be resisted or coopted, or in-corporated > (whether along the axis of an anatomy or furtherfield) or contested (the > sounds and epiphenemena that are dangerous to the health of the planet or the > inhabitants). Could you all say a bit more about the overtones, or what > Marcus mentioned regarding tuning or being out of tune - "The unpresentable > aspects of sound and vibration become a model for the unpresentable as such"? > > > regards > Johannes Birringer > > > > > > [Douglas schreibt] > > [..] > > On "non-sensuous similarity"...has any Benjamin scholar out there > approached this directly? I read Mimesis and Alterity years+ ago and don't > have my books nearby right now. It seems to me that the faculty of the > mimetic faculty/doctrine of the similar that informs it should neither be > brought into a perceptual or apperceptual frame too quickly, nor into one > of a drive. Rather, it is something either within humankind (since "the > ancients" as Benjamin calls them) or operating at a larger scale (I > wouldn't know how to characterize it). It surely is no
Re: [-empyre-] vibration and movememt (cosmic scale)
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- I just returned back from a technology and feminism workshop in NY and am now getting back into the flow of the conversation. Thanks to Marcus, Nina, and Douglas but yes I would also love to hear more about what you are thinking in terms of "modes of sensing." I just saw the Lygia Clark exhibition at the MOMA and am thinking about the resonances of the discussion on vibrations, movement, the gesture, and sound within the broad expanses of installation and performance art from of course Clark's work but also Fluxus. Great exhibition also at MOMA on Cage's sound classes at The New School for Social Research where Cage's influences resonated through to artist's working across the arts. Thanks to all of you and Johannes for the posts. Returning to reality Renate Sent from my iPad > On Jun 13, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Nina Eidsheim wrote: > > --empyre- soft-skinned space-- > Hi, Johannes! > >> Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you >> not subscribe to? > I simply meant that if "modes of sensing" refers to human range of sensing, I > am not sure where I stand in regards to that. (But, it does seem limiting.) > > When I wrote that yesterday, I wrote it thinking I was in agreement with > Marcus. Is that right, Marcus, or perhaps I am misreading you? I think it was > actually Marcus who first brought up the phrase, "modes of sensing," in this > conversation. Would you mind sharing more about what that mean to you? > > > Nina > > > >> On Jun 13, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Johannes Birringer >> wrote: >> >> --empyre- soft-skinned space-- >> dear all >> >> thanks for the thoughtful response, Douglas and Nina, and >> and I am reading on, the discussion is opening up such a wide horizon now, >> yes, up to the cosmic scale you invoke Douglas, >> but also a scale that goes much beyond what Nina called the more narrow body >> and material focussed sense perceptions & sensation, >> the anthropomorphized versions of sensation (and motion analysis / motion >> capture)? >> >> >> ...visit to the Lab of Ornithology, I am reminded of the anthropomorphic >> undertone with which the concept of the body and epistemology through >> sensation is often infused. Does paying attention to the body means >> attending to the vibration as I feel the vibrations through the flesh and >> bones as it stands on the airport floor? >> >> Or, does only a given material's seeming continuous material connection to >> what I think of as the object that is body constitute thinking about the >> body? >> >> The latter position, then, to address Marcus' question, does come down to >> "modes of sensing." At this point, I am not ready to subscribe to that. And, >> I doubt whether all of the artists with which Douglas deals in Earth Sound >> would subscribe to that as well. >> >> Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you >> not subscribe to? >> >> The ritual and cosmic associations now brought up by Douglas's re-reference >> to Benjamin's "One-Way Street" and "On the Mimetic Faculty" – recontexted >> to war-time destruction (through technologies), self-annihilation and >> ecological catastrophe -- where are you pointing the sonic pathways now? >> Many here may not have read your book yet (sorry, I have not yet), and thus >> I feel the framework of course seems to have been hugely expanded, and I >> cannot follow yet, and I think the nereges or forces have not been fully >> discussed yet, only where you wish to stay away from (new age and psychic >> channeling etc, the Rausch of the trance folks out in the desert at the >> Burning Man revelations..) You very recent example of >> Pauline Oliveros – or Nina's and Marcus's reference to ornithology or >> rather to the birds, animals and other species interests me obviously, as >> does Benjamin's imaginary dance with the clouds, dancing the storms [= >> "sensuous similarity"] – >> interests me, and there could be a political reading desired by Marcus, not >> sure, when you speak of >> >> Oliveros produce[s] overtones from subaudible fundamentals, even if they >> cannot be felt, the audible sounds do >> not necessarily abdicate their epiphenomenal relationship. >> >> that is a daring formulation, I feel, anthropomorphizing sound into an >> agent, and there then are co-agencies, some that are not known/recognized >> (like invisible drones that capture us or shoot us, not drone music) But >> maybe you read waves and ultrasound etc as forces that operate on the >> universe, on the earth, on social spaces and habitats, but the imperceptible >> ones, what effect do they have on humans, animals, objects, architectures, >> ecologies? what type of agency would be that that could be resisted or >> coopted, or in-corporated (whether along the axis of an anatomy or
Re: [-empyre-] vibration and movememt (cosmic scale)
--empyre- soft-skinned space-- Yes, I was just trying to think about ways of talking about an expanded sensorium that would include the ways various "non-human" creatures sense the environment -- thermal sensing for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoception So, modes of sensing would leave open how many ways of sensing there are (I think Douglas said there are 23 now!). But then my interest was also in asking if thinking about an expanded sensorium covered the entire range of possibilities by which an organism might relate to/through vibration ... in other words is there something other than sensing? Is thinking a kind of sensing ... or not ...? Johannes, as to your question of what imperceptible forces might mean to us ... that's a huge issue. Douglas' book addresses that in terms of electromagnetism, which is often not perceptible (for example you don't hear your own brain waves, or others') but which is nonetheless there (you can measure or track it, and amplify it and/or transduce it so that it does become perceptible). So Douglas is documenting the work of artists such as Alvin Lucier, who make use of work in physics, and technologies that render imperceptible forces perceptible (Lucier uses EEG technologies that can track electrical activity aka brainwaves in the brain, and works out a performative mode of transducing those waves, turning them into audible sounds). I suspect both Douglas and I are referring to recent theoretical work by the speculative realist writers (for example Timothy Morton, Graham Harman, Ray Brassier) who make an anti-postmodern argument that there really is something there ... but that it's not phenomenologically accessible. So then, you have a variety of artists who are finding ways of transducing and (re)presenting in different ways what would otherwise be unpresentable (sounds too deep to hear, brain waves, quantum events etc.). But then the question arises: are they presenting the unpresentable (which would seem by definition impossible) or ... what? Is it a kind of model or metaphor that suggests what cant be presented? On 2014-06-13, at 2:55 PM, Nina Eidsheim wrote: > --empyre- soft-skinned space-- > Hi, Johannes! > >> Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you >> not subscribe to? > I simply meant that if "modes of sensing" refers to human range of sensing, I > am not sure where I stand in regards to that. (But, it does seem limiting.) > > When I wrote that yesterday, I wrote it thinking I was in agreement with > Marcus. Is that right, Marcus, or perhaps I am misreading you? I think it was > actually Marcus who first brought up the phrase, "modes of sensing," in this > conversation. Would you mind sharing more about what that mean to you? > > > Nina > > > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Johannes Birringer > wrote: > >> --empyre- soft-skinned space-- >> dear all >> >> thanks for the thoughtful response, Douglas and Nina, and >> and I am reading on, the discussion is opening up such a wide horizon now, >> yes, up to the cosmic scale you invoke Douglas, >> but also a scale that goes much beyond what Nina called the more narrow body >> and material focussed sense perceptions & sensation, >> the anthropomorphized versions of sensation (and motion analysis / motion >> capture)? >> >> >>> >> ...visit to the Lab of Ornithology, I am reminded of the anthropomorphic >> undertone with which the concept of the body and epistemology through >> sensation is often infused. Does paying attention to the body means >> attending to the vibration as I feel the vibrations through the flesh and >> bones as it stands on the airport floor? >> >> Or, does only a given material's seeming continuous material connection to >> what I think of as the object that is body constitute thinking about the >> body? >> >> The latter position, then, to address Marcus' question, does come down to >> "modes of sensing." At this point, I am not ready to subscribe to that. And, >> I doubt whether all of the artists with which Douglas deals in Earth Sound >> would subscribe to that as well. >> >> Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do you >> not subscribe to? >> >> The ritual and cosmic associations now brought up by Douglas's re-reference >> to Benjamin's "One-Way Street" and "On the Mimetic Faculty" – recontexted >> to war-time destruction (through technologies), self-annihilation and >> ecological catastrophe -- where are you pointing the sonic pathways now? >> Many here may not have read your book yet (sorry, I have not yet), and thus >> I feel the framework of course seems to have been hugely expanded, and I >> cannot follow yet, and I think the nereges or forces have not been fully >> discussed yet, only where you wish to stay away from (new age and psych
Re: [-empyre-] vibration and movememt (cosmic scale)
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Johannes: Thanks. Noticing the small earth sounds and noises of natural radio that were heard in the telephone in the last-quarter of the 19th century was a means to open an examination of the relationship between sounds and electromagnetism, as two energies (in a classical physics frame). In the book I put a specific historical tracing of natural radio (in particular, whistlers) on the larger backdrop of a social and cultural development of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just like I don't get into the body that much, I also hold back from wandering out into the wider cosmos too much, opting to remain primarily terrestrial (Earth), and going out to the moon, Sun and Jupiter now and then. Whistlers are generated by lightning, go out six earth radii into outer space (in the magnetosphere) and return to the opposite hemisphere. So they are terrestrial to the extent that they have an "earth return". For eco-theory and practice purposes, I think it's important to remain tethered to the earth and not always evaporate out into the cosmos as pop theoretical physics is prone to do. In Earth Sound Earth Signal I bring up Benjamin's To the Planetarium to introduce how some of the energies in this euphemistic repressed union with the cosmos were among the signal corps on both sides and that while listening for enemy code or locating position (Direction Finding) of the signal whistlers were inadvertently heard, and the science proper of whistlers proceeded immediately thereafter (with Barkhausen in 1919, then Eckersley and others). In terms of historical media theory, this is where Friedrich Kittler had to invoke radio in order to associate it only with the coding and ciphering if an inscriptive telos was to be maintained that would then head to computation, whereas attention to D/F would have generated, as I mentioned before, the "other half" of communications in transmission. On another note, I think what is "invisible" or not is overrated. As I say in the book, a major attribute of what makes things visible--light--is itself not visible: its movement. Douglas > The ritual and cosmic associations now brought up by Douglas's re-reference > to Benjamin's "One-Way Street" and "On the Mimetic Faculty" � recontexted > to war-time destruction (through technologies), self-annihilation and > ecological catastrophe -- where are you pointing the sonic pathways now? > Many here may not have read your book yet (sorry, I have not yet), and thus > I feel the framework of course seems to have been hugely expanded, and I > cannot follow yet, and I think the nereges or forces have not been fully > discussed yet, only where you wish to stay away from (new age and psychic > channeling etc, the Rausch of the trance folks out in the desert at the > Burning Man revelations..) You very recent example of > Pauline Oliveros � or Nina's and Marcus's reference to ornithology or > rather to the birds, animals and other species interests me obviously, as > does Benjamin's imaginary dance with the clouds, dancing the storms [= > "sensuous similarity"] � > interests me, and there could be a political reading desired by Marcus, not > sure, when you speak of > > > > Oliveros produce[s] overtones from subaudible fundamentals, even if they > cannot be felt, the audible sounds do > not necessarily abdicate their epiphenomenal relationship. > > > > that is a daring formulation, I feel, anthropomorphizing sound into an > agent, and there then are co-agencies, some that are not known/recognized > (like invisible drones that capture us or shoot us, not drone music) But > maybe you read waves and ultrasound etc as forces that operate on the > universe, on the earth, on social spaces and habitats, but the > imperceptible ones, what effect do they have on humans, animals, objects, > architectures, ecologies? what type of agency would be that that could be > resisted or coopted, or in-corporated (whether along the axis of an anatomy > or furtherfield) or contested (the sounds and epiphenemena that are > dangerous to the health of the planet or the inhabitants). Could you all > say a bit more about the overtones, or what Marcus mentioned regarding > tuning or being out of tune - "The unpresentable aspects of sound and > vibration become a model for the unpresentable as such"? > > > regards > Johannes Birringer > > > > > > [Douglas schreibt] > > [..] > > On "non-sensuous similarity"...has any Benjamin scholar out there > approached this directly? I read Mimesis and Alterity years+ ago and don't > have my books nearby right now. It seems to me that the faculty of the > mimetic faculty/doctrine of the similar that informs it should neither be > brought into a perceptual or apperceptual frame too quickly, nor into one > of a drive. Rather, it is something either within humankind (since "the > ancients" as Benjamin calls them) or operating at a larger scale (I >
Re: [-empyre-] vibration and movememt (cosmic scale)
--empyre- soft-skinned space--Senses are like the table of elements, a new one gets added every few years; except elements get heavier and senses get lighter. Regarding "making the imperceptible perceptible." The term is often equated with technology when in fact trees and pinnae "sonify" wind. I am not that versed in the speculative realist writers you mention Marcus, except for Tim Morton who is a good friend of mine. We did a very interesting speaking tour through New Zealand, the two of us sitting on stage discussing things ecological, throwing it out to audience and taking it from there. These were audiences from broad walks of life and I'm not sure those who know Tim's published work know about what an excellent public intellectual he is in such settings. Tim and I differ on certain things. I agree that notions of nature are a liability in nature writing where you have to pull on a pair of hiking boots to be ecological, but I think "nature" has a powerful rhetorical function when discussing media, since media are imagined to have no nature (except with recent green media analyses although, again, I'm also interested in a radically positive approach). Energies are more easily relational (they are more than that, of course) than objects, but then again I think there is some confusion in a slip-and-slide between objects and things. I forget who had the Latourian litany that included "electromagnetism" among its objects, but it only makes sense if objects are philosophical entities and, since I am primarily a historian developing theory from the grassroots up, I leave philosophy on that level to philosophers. I did find the OOO discussions very helpful but only intersected them at a particular point. Someone may want to have a go at energy-oriented this or that, but it's not on the to-do list on my fridge. Douglas > --empyre- soft-skinned space-- > Yes, I was just trying to think about ways of talking about an expanded > sensorium that would include the ways various "non-human" creatures sense > the environment -- thermal sensing for example: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoception > > So, modes of sensing would leave open how many ways of sensing there are (I > think Douglas said there are 23 now!). But then my interest was also in > asking if thinking about an expanded sensorium covered the entire range of > possibilities by which an organism might relate to/through vibration ... in > other words is there something other than sensing? Is thinking a kind of > sensing ... or not ...? > > Johannes, as to your question of what imperceptible forces might mean to us > ... that's a huge issue. Douglas' book addresses that in terms of > electromagnetism, which is often not perceptible (for example you don't > hear your own brain waves, or others') but which is nonetheless there (you > can measure or track it, and amplify it and/or transduce it so that it does > become perceptible). So Douglas is documenting the work of artists such as > Alvin Lucier, who make use of work in physics, and technologies that render > imperceptible forces perceptible (Lucier uses EEG technologies that can > track electrical activity aka brainwaves in the brain, and works out a > performative mode of transducing those waves, turning them into audible > sounds). > > I suspect both Douglas and I are referring to recent theoretical work by > the speculative realist writers (for example Timothy Morton, Graham Harman, > Ray Brassier) who make an anti-postmodern argument that there really is > something there ... but that it's not phenomenologically accessible. So > then, you have a variety of artists who are finding ways of transducing and > (re)presenting in different ways what would otherwise be unpresentable > (sounds too deep to hear, brain waves, quantum events etc.). But then the > question arises: are they presenting the unpresentable (which would seem by > definition impossible) or ... what? Is it a kind of model or metaphor that > suggests what cant be presented? > > > On 2014-06-13, at 2:55 PM, Nina Eidsheim wrote: > > > --empyre- soft-skinned space-- > > Hi, Johannes! > > > >> Nina could you please expand on that past part, what modes of sensing do > you not subscribe to? > > I simply meant that if "modes of sensing" refers to human range of > sensing, I am not sure where I stand in regards to that. (But, it does seem > limiting.) > > > > When I wrote that yesterday, I wrote it thinking I was in agreement with > Marcus. Is that right, Marcus, or perhaps I am misreading you? I think it > was actually Marcus who first brought up the phrase, "modes of sensing," in > this conversation. Would you mind sharing more about what that mean to you? > > > > > > > Nina > > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Johannes Birringer > wrote: > > > >> --empyre- soft-skinned space-
