Re: LIFESCIENCE: Re: A Reactionary Reaction

[Trevor <tebatt@dds.nl>]

---------------------------------------------------------
ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
LIFESCIENCE
Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
http://www.aec.at/lifescience
---------------------------------------------------------
On 19-May-99, Prof. Dr. Birgit Richard wrote:
>---------------------------------------------------------
>ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 99
>LIFESCIENCE
>Linz, Austria, September 04 - 09
>http://www.aec.at/lifescience
>---------------------------------------------------------

>hi trevor,

>Trevor schrieb:

>> If the "Media is the Message" (and I certainly believe it plays an
>> important part) then the precise nature of the medium is important if we
>> are to understand how it "mediates" in society.
>>

>that is absolutely correct but it is still not clear why the computer that is
>a
>medium that is the message too and depends on certain structures, destroys
the
>medium,
>it is a dematerialisation okay, i commit that but the computer is one of the
>strongest medias that infiltrates structures of society.
>so what you mean is dematerialisation that leads to an output with material
>substance, which is a very important point for lifescience too because you
are
>changing an abstract structure a plan and out comes a living thing you
>constructed
>on the paper or in the computer

I think we should understand that there are subtle changes of meaning involved
between "Media" in "Media Studies" and "Media Art".

Within "Media Studies" one can study how the computer is a "medium" for
social communication, expression, development or whatever.

Within "Media Art" one can see that the "medium" computer (except on a fairly
trivial level) generally does not form an essential part of the work -as for
example, sculpture where the "physical" characteristics of materials such as
clay, bronze, wood or stone would. Most of the material presented by computer
is in fact "digitised" from other sources (video, photo, text, sound
recordings, etc..) and manipulated by processes (arbitrarily) defined by the
software suppliers -so the original characteristics are lost and everything is
reduced to "digitized mush". The almost exclusive use (and perception) of the
computer in these terms is rather unfortunate -and comes because most people
(including professionals -teachers, critics and curators) erroniously see the
computer as the successor to "video art" when in fact artists were programming
computers for some time before video was available (either as a (tape) storage
or (vdu) image presentation medium). Unfortunately, if enough people believe
something -they convince themselves that it is true.

>> Users only see the "User Interface" and always operate within the world
>> which is being simulated for them. It is a "conceptual" world and not a
>> "material" world.
>>

>d4accord again

So -this is the context within which I say the concept of "medium" (and the
understanding of how it interacts with content in the generation of art) has
dissapeared -because the "material" has vanished and people (generally) have
little understanding or interest in the underlying concept(s). People see the
computer as "freeing them from media constraint" more than they use these
"constraints" as a creative aspect of the artistic morphogenetic dialogue. 

>> >>           Post Modernism       has   destroyed      Value and Meaning
>>
>> >> this sounds very conservative
>>
>> I cannot deny it.
>>
>> Post Modernism may be "morally" correct in equalising all value systems
>> (relativism) but it is "methodologically" wrong -because it prevents us
from
>> looking to see how "meaning" changes in different contexts (relativity).

>but this is a very tiny view into the universe of postmodern thought, there
>are
>other positions that are very keen on looking on the different relationships
>between all the differentiated groups. also very moral theories about justice
>and
>values (latest writing of derrida).

Well, I understand (and agree) where it is comming from -but I also understand
there is little restraint on where P-M is going to (and that it is likely to
end up in the museum next to Phrenology, the Ether and other exotic products
of the (pseudo-)scientific mind).

Obviously, the situation is complex (and full of exceptions) -my original
statements were an attempt to sketch (in "soundbite" format) a few of the
current tendencies in modern art/culture which contributed to undermining
(potential) critical restraints on "artistic practice". 

>>
>> >a very thrilling and dangerous at one time. mass murderers and serial
>killers
>> >war
>> >criminals they totally lost the connection to human reality and are let by
>> >ideological and psychological principles that makes them forget to think
>> about
>> >the
>> >consequences. the same with the geneticist working in his laboratory doing
>> his
>> >science job without considering what military or commercial consequences
>this
>> >might be producing.
>>
>> But what is "human reality" if ALL reality is "virtual"?
>> Is "human reality" different to "non-human reality"?
>>

>yes sure it is, due to the theory of constructivism every human perception
>creates
>a different view of the world and maybe every animal has its own view that we
>are
>not able to reconstruct.

Indeed, on the perceptual level -the medium clearly determines (largely) the
message. Which is why perceptual aspects should be an important part of the
artist's creative dialogue with their work.

Greetings, 
trevor


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to the English language version of LIFESCIENCE
To unsubscribe the English language version send mail to
lifescience-en-request@aec.at (message text 'unsubscribe')
Send contributions to lifescience@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------