Notas/Notes
posted by G. Alfonso at 28.6.07
0 comments
28.6.07
The Contextualization of Ars Systematis
3-Conclusion
Throughout this essay many characteristics, both formal and theoretical, differentiated one artwork from another. Informed by the observations previously made, this third and last section will assemble a brief comparative table that, hopefully, will help on the conclusion of our exercise. First of all, however, we should clarify the rationale, the methodology and the terminology employed by this last section. The fact that many terms and concepts employed by the research are drawn from semiotics may cause some confusion. It is important to note that this study does not share semiology’s target; therefore, it is not interested on analysing the cognitive process evolved from the interaction between observer and artwork. Our main intention always has been the contextualization of The Nature of Speech among its’ contemporary peers. Consequently, we concentrate our efforts on the most fundamental mechanism shared by all new digital media artworks: information process and its’ representation. New digital media used as a platform and not as a tool, is at the same time the cause, justification and support for such system. Inherited from new digital media logic and purpose, the system is therefore central to all artworks seen on this text. Now, if the system itself is a common denominator, the same cannot be said about its’ components: input, process, and output.
These building blocks could be defined as:
Input – The information received by the system.
Process – The logic in which information is transformed from input to output. This process can evolve on two ways: Cyclical and Linear. A cyclical process does not accumulate input information over time; a linear process, on the other hand, does.
Output – The information transmitted by the system
These units offer the possibility to objectify our comparative analyses. Their recurrence in all digital media artworks makes them ideal for such study. In addition to these three components, Observer and Subject complete our table. By looking at the observer we expect to identify his position in relation to the artwork system. On the other hand, looking at the artwork subject we are informed of its’ content and concern.
Reading Black Shoals description at the table we realize the importance of its’ passive observer and liner system; it consequently becomes clear that this artwork offers an experience parallel to that of cinema. On the other side of this spectrum, however, The Nature of Speech and Volume present the observer with an action/reaction system. This observer does not passively appreciate a linear narrative; instead, it sees their movements being instantly translated into the artwork respective output.
In relation to The Nature, we can see that the artwork most similar in its’ strategies is also the only artwork that comments on itself. This fact, however, is not just pure coincidence. In order to achieve its’ interaction between body movement, sound and light, Volume had to conform to an cyclical system; at least, from the point of view of an observer, this system can instantly respond at any change in input.
The most interesting observation, however, comes from our last artwork, Eduardo Kac’s Genesis. Despite not achieving the same level of similarity found between Volume and The Nature, Genesis is certainly the artwork most aligned with my own practice. If observed carefully, its’ subject is almost identical to that of The Nature. Speech is just a form of information output; it always transmitted by coded information in the form of sound. While Kac’s artwork refer to the whole system of information, The Nature focus on just one form of output. Of course we know that speech, a particular form of output, is much more than simple information. In our society speech is also power; and it is our relationship with this power that is dealt in The Nature. In addition to this semantic relation, both Kac and myself share an interest on method and research as a form of artistic practice. Always informed by Kac’ texts and theory, Genesis is part of a larger project called Transgenic Art (Kac. 1998 internet accessed). Therefore, realizing that The Nature of Speech also works within a larger project, Ars Systematis, does not surprise one.
Bibliography
Clastres, P. (1977), Society Against State, Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Druckrey & Ars Electronica. (1999), Ars Electronica: Facing the Future, The MIT Press
Hartnett, G. (1996), Leonardo Music Journal – Editorial, The MIT Press
Manovich, L. (2001), The Language of New Media, The MIT Press
Manovich, L. (2002), Data Visualisation as New Abstraction and Anti-Sublime, (Internet), Available from: http://www.manovich.net (Accessed 10 April, 2007)
Murray, J. (1997), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, The MIT Press
Nunez, A. (2006), Ars Systematis, Project Proposal, unpublished
Osthoff, S. (2001), Eduardo Kac's Genesis: Biotechnology Between the Verbal, the Visual, the Auditory, and the Tactile, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/osthoffldr.html (Accessed 20 April, 2007)
Portway & Autogena. (2001), Black Shoals Stock Market Planetarium, (Internet), Available from: http://www.blackshoals.net/project.html (Accessed 10 April, 2007)
Kac. (1998), Transgenic Art, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html (Accessed 20 April, 2007)
Kac. (1999), Genesis, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/geninfo2.html (Accessed 20 April, 2007)
Kac. (1998), Transgenic Art, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html (Accessed 10 April, 2007)
Stallabrass, J. (2003), Internet Art: The Online Clash of Culture and Commerce, London: Tate Publishing
Stallabrass, J. (1999), High Art Lite, London: Verso
Stocker & Schopf. (1999), Preface for Ars Electronica: Facing the Future, The MIT Press
United Visual Artists. (2006), Volume, (Internet), Available from: http://www.uva.co.uk/index.php/archives/49 (Accessed 15 April, 2007)
Wilson, Stephen (2002), Information arts: intersections of art, science and technology, The MIT Press
Throughout this essay many characteristics, both formal and theoretical, differentiated one artwork from another. Informed by the observations previously made, this third and last section will assemble a brief comparative table that, hopefully, will help on the conclusion of our exercise. First of all, however, we should clarify the rationale, the methodology and the terminology employed by this last section. The fact that many terms and concepts employed by the research are drawn from semiotics may cause some confusion. It is important to note that this study does not share semiology’s target; therefore, it is not interested on analysing the cognitive process evolved from the interaction between observer and artwork. Our main intention always has been the contextualization of The Nature of Speech among its’ contemporary peers. Consequently, we concentrate our efforts on the most fundamental mechanism shared by all new digital media artworks: information process and its’ representation. New digital media used as a platform and not as a tool, is at the same time the cause, justification and support for such system. Inherited from new digital media logic and purpose, the system is therefore central to all artworks seen on this text. Now, if the system itself is a common denominator, the same cannot be said about its’ components: input, process, and output.
These building blocks could be defined as:
Input – The information received by the system.
Process – The logic in which information is transformed from input to output. This process can evolve on two ways: Cyclical and Linear. A cyclical process does not accumulate input information over time; a linear process, on the other hand, does.
Output – The information transmitted by the system
These units offer the possibility to objectify our comparative analyses. Their recurrence in all digital media artworks makes them ideal for such study. In addition to these three components, Observer and Subject complete our table. By looking at the observer we expect to identify his position in relation to the artwork system. On the other hand, looking at the artwork subject we are informed of its’ content and concern.
Reading Black Shoals description at the table we realize the importance of its’ passive observer and liner system; it consequently becomes clear that this artwork offers an experience parallel to that of cinema. On the other side of this spectrum, however, The Nature of Speech and Volume present the observer with an action/reaction system. This observer does not passively appreciate a linear narrative; instead, it sees their movements being instantly translated into the artwork respective output.
In relation to The Nature, we can see that the artwork most similar in its’ strategies is also the only artwork that comments on itself. This fact, however, is not just pure coincidence. In order to achieve its’ interaction between body movement, sound and light, Volume had to conform to an cyclical system; at least, from the point of view of an observer, this system can instantly respond at any change in input.
The most interesting observation, however, comes from our last artwork, Eduardo Kac’s Genesis. Despite not achieving the same level of similarity found between Volume and The Nature, Genesis is certainly the artwork most aligned with my own practice. If observed carefully, its’ subject is almost identical to that of The Nature. Speech is just a form of information output; it always transmitted by coded information in the form of sound. While Kac’s artwork refer to the whole system of information, The Nature focus on just one form of output. Of course we know that speech, a particular form of output, is much more than simple information. In our society speech is also power; and it is our relationship with this power that is dealt in The Nature. In addition to this semantic relation, both Kac and myself share an interest on method and research as a form of artistic practice. Always informed by Kac’ texts and theory, Genesis is part of a larger project called Transgenic Art (Kac. 1998 internet accessed). Therefore, realizing that The Nature of Speech also works within a larger project, Ars Systematis, does not surprise one.
Bibliography
Clastres, P. (1977), Society Against State, Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Druckrey & Ars Electronica. (1999), Ars Electronica: Facing the Future, The MIT Press
Hartnett, G. (1996), Leonardo Music Journal – Editorial, The MIT Press
Manovich, L. (2001), The Language of New Media, The MIT Press
Manovich, L. (2002), Data Visualisation as New Abstraction and Anti-Sublime, (Internet), Available from: http://www.manovich.net (Accessed 10 April, 2007)
Murray, J. (1997), Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, The MIT Press
Nunez, A. (2006), Ars Systematis, Project Proposal, unpublished
Osthoff, S. (2001), Eduardo Kac's Genesis: Biotechnology Between the Verbal, the Visual, the Auditory, and the Tactile, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/osthoffldr.html (Accessed 20 April, 2007)
Portway & Autogena. (2001), Black Shoals Stock Market Planetarium, (Internet), Available from: http://www.blackshoals.net/project.html (Accessed 10 April, 2007)
Kac. (1998), Transgenic Art, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html (Accessed 20 April, 2007)
Kac. (1999), Genesis, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/geninfo2.html (Accessed 20 April, 2007)
Kac. (1998), Transgenic Art, (Internet), Available from: http://www.ekac.org/transgenic.html (Accessed 10 April, 2007)
Stallabrass, J. (2003), Internet Art: The Online Clash of Culture and Commerce, London: Tate Publishing
Stallabrass, J. (1999), High Art Lite, London: Verso
Stocker & Schopf. (1999), Preface for Ars Electronica: Facing the Future, The MIT Press
United Visual Artists. (2006), Volume, (Internet), Available from: http://www.uva.co.uk/index.php/archives/49 (Accessed 15 April, 2007)
Wilson, Stephen (2002), Information arts: intersections of art, science and technology, The MIT Press
posted by G. Alfonso at 28.6.07
0 comments
The Contextualization of Ars Systematis
2- Similarities
The project takes the form of a darkened room with a domed ceiling upon which a computer display is projected, like a planetarium. Audiences are immersed in a world of real-time stock market activity, represented as the night sky, full of stars that glow as trading takes place on particular stocks (Portway & Autogena. 2001 internet accessed)
Black Shoals Stock Market Planetarium (2001), an art project created by Joshua Portway and Lise Autogena, is a clear example of a new digital media artwork. Always dependant on information – in this case the constant movement of capital - Black Shoals follows the same mechanism that our artwork The Nature does: Information is organized by the artwork system and, consequently, represented by its’ mediums. Media theorist Lev Manovich believes this same mechanism has a special importance. Such is the importance that a concept was created around the same act: info-aesthetics. Manovich’s aesthetics “refers to various new contemporary cultural practices which can be best understand as responses to the new priorities of information society: making sense of information, working with information, producing knowledge from information” (2002 internet accessed).
Even though they share a common internal mechanism, Black Shoals and The Nature completely disagree on the terms trough which information is processed and represented; in other words, they differ in both their input and output. Originally informed by the artwork original idea, concept and/or intention, both (information) process and representation have unique variations: On one hand, Black Shoals is fed by a huge database whilst its’ observer contemplates a motion picture; The Nature, on the other hand, is informed by the spatial position of its’ observer/participants that, in turn, are subject to sound waves.
Ironically, from the point of view of its’ observers, the most compelling difference between these artworks is actually their own position within it. The difference is obvious. Portway and Autogena’s project relies much of its’ experience in sight and contemplation. Safe as an observer, you are not involved in the general system of the artwork – information process and its’ representation. Proposing the exact opposite, The Nature of Speech involves the observer while it simultaneously shapes the information process. However, an individual observer, at this situation, does become much more than a mere vehicle for information. These observers also become responsible for a perceptual common space, shared by all observers and affected directly by their own action.
In a recent show at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, a “ sculpture of light and sound” (United Visual Artists. 2006 internet accessed) designed by the corporation like group, United Visual Artists, also focused itself on how to promote an action/reaction system between observer and artwork. Consequently, Volume (2006) “responds spectacularly to human movement, creating a series of audio-visual experiences” (United Visual Artists. 2006 internet accessed). Presenting and using the exact same method founded in The Nature, Volume’s observer/participant is given no choice but to interfere with the information process. This act, in return, affects the common space shared by all observers. Volume’s emphasis on its’ own feedback system, however, hides some of its’ real concerns as an art piece. When compared to both The Nature and Black Shoals, Volume seems to be a purely aesthetic endeavour; it does not comment on anything other than its’ own qualities.
Such an idea and rationale is extremely linked to the modernist period. Others have pinpointed this same relationship between new media art and modernistic thought (Stallabrass. 2003 p26; Stocker & Schopf. 1999 p14), tracing media art development back to the experimental work of many “isms”. Despite its’ main medium, new digital media, Volume is closely related to that ideology of the avant-garde which prevailed for most of the twentieth century; aesthetic experience is, therefore, its’ main concern. There are plenty of new digital media artists that still follow this same line of investigation and practice. Yet, for the attentive reader, it is also clear that Volume’s apolitical position is not apolitical at all. The moment an artwork is classified or conceived as being a purely aesthetic object it is also the moment of its’ ideological enlistment. Such political phenomenon, however, does not concern this paper (For a clear introduction on the same subject, please read Ars Systematis, Phd Proposal).
At this point it is important to stress that, despite varying immensely in content (concept), input and output, all three artworks discussed in this essay share that same basic mechanism: information process and its’ representation. Perhaps this mechanism is new digital media own justification of existence. On this case, however, any artwork produced with this same medium would inadvertently inherent such mechanism. Paradoxically, our next contemporary does not use a computer to process and represent information per se. Instead, Eduardo Kac’s artwork, Genesis (1999), employs the ultimate system for processing and representing information: life itself. Genesis, in his own words, “explores the notion that biological processes are now writerly and programmable, as well as capable of storing and processing data in ways not unlike digital computers” (cited in Osthoff. 2001 internet accessed). Kac’s approach to subject and practice is, as usual, based on a complex but rather logic set of events and theories:
“The key element of the work is an "artist's gene", a synthetic gene that was created by Kac by translating a sentence from the biblical book of Genesis into Morse Code, and converting the Morse Code into DNA base pairs according to a conversion principle specially developed by the artist for this work. The sentence reads: "Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." It was chosen for what it implies about the dubious notion--divinely sanctioned--of humanity's supremacy over nature. Morse code was chosen because, as the first example of the use of radiotelegraphy, it represents the dawn of the information age--the genesis of global communication. The Genesis gene was incorporated into bacteria, which were shown in the gallery. Participants on the Web could turn on an ultraviolet light in the gallery, causing real, biological mutations in the bacteria. This changed the biblical sentence in the bacteria. After the show, the DNA of the bacteria was translated back into Morse code, and then back into English. The mutation that took place in the DNA had changed the original sentence from the Bible. The mutated sentence was posted on the Genesis web site. In the context of the work, the ability to change the sentence is a symbolic gesture: it means that we do not accept its’ meaning in the form we inherited it, and that new meanings emerge as we seek to change it” (Kac. 1999 internet accessed).
Constituted by a chain of events originated on its’ own conceptual logic, Genesis is the only artwork in which its’ use of various mediums resembles The Nature; as a result, it too relies on that semantic bound seen on Part 1. Its’ visuals, objects and creatures are all semantically interconnected by the installation space, concept and, more importantly, system. Working within the same principle of action/reaction found on Volume and The Nature, Genesis observer also plays an part on its’ system. The most visible difference, however, comes from the fact that Genesis achieves the exact same system without the support of new digital media. Genesis active observer does not accomplish interaction by acting upon a code or algorithm; instead, it directly influences the artwork bacterial development. Conducted by the laws of natural selection, Genesis bacterial development entirely assumes the role usually associated with new digital media: information process. Kac’s emphasis on information process, both as a medium and as a subject, is such that its’ outcome, the representation of information, is almost neglected. Despite being able to visualize the actual physical development of bacteria, we are not able to contemplate at the changes made by genetic evolution and its’ embedded message. Unfortunately these genetic changes, exciting as they are, are only translated back to English at the end of the exhibition; placing Genesis alongside Black Shoals as an artwork that have an necessary beginning, middle and end on its’ system.
The project takes the form of a darkened room with a domed ceiling upon which a computer display is projected, like a planetarium. Audiences are immersed in a world of real-time stock market activity, represented as the night sky, full of stars that glow as trading takes place on particular stocks (Portway & Autogena. 2001 internet accessed)
Black Shoals Stock Market Planetarium (2001), an art project created by Joshua Portway and Lise Autogena, is a clear example of a new digital media artwork. Always dependant on information – in this case the constant movement of capital - Black Shoals follows the same mechanism that our artwork The Nature does: Information is organized by the artwork system and, consequently, represented by its’ mediums. Media theorist Lev Manovich believes this same mechanism has a special importance. Such is the importance that a concept was created around the same act: info-aesthetics. Manovich’s aesthetics “refers to various new contemporary cultural practices which can be best understand as responses to the new priorities of information society: making sense of information, working with information, producing knowledge from information” (2002 internet accessed).
Even though they share a common internal mechanism, Black Shoals and The Nature completely disagree on the terms trough which information is processed and represented; in other words, they differ in both their input and output. Originally informed by the artwork original idea, concept and/or intention, both (information) process and representation have unique variations: On one hand, Black Shoals is fed by a huge database whilst its’ observer contemplates a motion picture; The Nature, on the other hand, is informed by the spatial position of its’ observer/participants that, in turn, are subject to sound waves.
Ironically, from the point of view of its’ observers, the most compelling difference between these artworks is actually their own position within it. The difference is obvious. Portway and Autogena’s project relies much of its’ experience in sight and contemplation. Safe as an observer, you are not involved in the general system of the artwork – information process and its’ representation. Proposing the exact opposite, The Nature of Speech involves the observer while it simultaneously shapes the information process. However, an individual observer, at this situation, does become much more than a mere vehicle for information. These observers also become responsible for a perceptual common space, shared by all observers and affected directly by their own action.
In a recent show at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, a “ sculpture of light and sound” (United Visual Artists. 2006 internet accessed) designed by the corporation like group, United Visual Artists, also focused itself on how to promote an action/reaction system between observer and artwork. Consequently, Volume (2006) “responds spectacularly to human movement, creating a series of audio-visual experiences” (United Visual Artists. 2006 internet accessed). Presenting and using the exact same method founded in The Nature, Volume’s observer/participant is given no choice but to interfere with the information process. This act, in return, affects the common space shared by all observers. Volume’s emphasis on its’ own feedback system, however, hides some of its’ real concerns as an art piece. When compared to both The Nature and Black Shoals, Volume seems to be a purely aesthetic endeavour; it does not comment on anything other than its’ own qualities.
Such an idea and rationale is extremely linked to the modernist period. Others have pinpointed this same relationship between new media art and modernistic thought (Stallabrass. 2003 p26; Stocker & Schopf. 1999 p14), tracing media art development back to the experimental work of many “isms”. Despite its’ main medium, new digital media, Volume is closely related to that ideology of the avant-garde which prevailed for most of the twentieth century; aesthetic experience is, therefore, its’ main concern. There are plenty of new digital media artists that still follow this same line of investigation and practice. Yet, for the attentive reader, it is also clear that Volume’s apolitical position is not apolitical at all. The moment an artwork is classified or conceived as being a purely aesthetic object it is also the moment of its’ ideological enlistment. Such political phenomenon, however, does not concern this paper (For a clear introduction on the same subject, please read Ars Systematis, Phd Proposal).
At this point it is important to stress that, despite varying immensely in content (concept), input and output, all three artworks discussed in this essay share that same basic mechanism: information process and its’ representation. Perhaps this mechanism is new digital media own justification of existence. On this case, however, any artwork produced with this same medium would inadvertently inherent such mechanism. Paradoxically, our next contemporary does not use a computer to process and represent information per se. Instead, Eduardo Kac’s artwork, Genesis (1999), employs the ultimate system for processing and representing information: life itself. Genesis, in his own words, “explores the notion that biological processes are now writerly and programmable, as well as capable of storing and processing data in ways not unlike digital computers” (cited in Osthoff. 2001 internet accessed). Kac’s approach to subject and practice is, as usual, based on a complex but rather logic set of events and theories:
“The key element of the work is an "artist's gene", a synthetic gene that was created by Kac by translating a sentence from the biblical book of Genesis into Morse Code, and converting the Morse Code into DNA base pairs according to a conversion principle specially developed by the artist for this work. The sentence reads: "Let man have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." It was chosen for what it implies about the dubious notion--divinely sanctioned--of humanity's supremacy over nature. Morse code was chosen because, as the first example of the use of radiotelegraphy, it represents the dawn of the information age--the genesis of global communication. The Genesis gene was incorporated into bacteria, which were shown in the gallery. Participants on the Web could turn on an ultraviolet light in the gallery, causing real, biological mutations in the bacteria. This changed the biblical sentence in the bacteria. After the show, the DNA of the bacteria was translated back into Morse code, and then back into English. The mutation that took place in the DNA had changed the original sentence from the Bible. The mutated sentence was posted on the Genesis web site. In the context of the work, the ability to change the sentence is a symbolic gesture: it means that we do not accept its’ meaning in the form we inherited it, and that new meanings emerge as we seek to change it” (Kac. 1999 internet accessed).
Constituted by a chain of events originated on its’ own conceptual logic, Genesis is the only artwork in which its’ use of various mediums resembles The Nature; as a result, it too relies on that semantic bound seen on Part 1. Its’ visuals, objects and creatures are all semantically interconnected by the installation space, concept and, more importantly, system. Working within the same principle of action/reaction found on Volume and The Nature, Genesis observer also plays an part on its’ system. The most visible difference, however, comes from the fact that Genesis achieves the exact same system without the support of new digital media. Genesis active observer does not accomplish interaction by acting upon a code or algorithm; instead, it directly influences the artwork bacterial development. Conducted by the laws of natural selection, Genesis bacterial development entirely assumes the role usually associated with new digital media: information process. Kac’s emphasis on information process, both as a medium and as a subject, is such that its’ outcome, the representation of information, is almost neglected. Despite being able to visualize the actual physical development of bacteria, we are not able to contemplate at the changes made by genetic evolution and its’ embedded message. Unfortunately these genetic changes, exciting as they are, are only translated back to English at the end of the exhibition; placing Genesis alongside Black Shoals as an artwork that have an necessary beginning, middle and end on its’ system.
posted by G. Alfonso at 28.6.07
0 comments
The Contextualization of Ars Systematis
Introduction: The Method
The act of contextualizing both an artwork and ones’ artistic practice reveals two very different acts in itself. At first instance, the process of contextualization happens at the subject level. Exploring the subject - in our case the most well defined characteristics of Ars Systematis - is the first step towards an analytic contextualization. Only a well defined subject is capable of showing its’ contemporary relatives, both aesthetical and conceptual. In other words, you simply cannot contextualize something if you do not know what was that thing in the first place.
This process, contextualization, may sound obvious for some in first place. However, it is when we realize the subtleties involved with context that we see our certainties fading. Purely visual aestheticism for example, as understood by the majority of the art field, does not fully directly our research. In the quest for historical and textual relations between an artwork and its’ relatives, sight may count very little. A purely aesthetic endeavour might end up with just another incomplete picture of the complex historical relations between an artwork and its’ contemporaries. In relation to Ars Systematis, the project in focus on this paper, the very nature of the artwork makes impossible for an analyses based purely in aesthetic terms (Nunez. 2006 p3). We should also note that this paper is valued not only as an academic piece of writing, but also as an important practical tool for situating ones’ work. Without the help of this exercise it becomes hard to define and situate Ars Systematis within contemporary art practice.
Informed by our initial commentary on the nature of context, this paper will divide itself in three sections: As mentioned above, the first section is dedicated at the definition of Ars Systematis as an artwork. Section two, on the other hand, is based on the observations of section one and searches for Ars Systematis contemporary relatives. Finally, looking at the relations found on section two, our third section will schematically draw a line on the most important and urgent issues presented throughout the text.
1- Ars Systematis informed
Shaped by a reaction against purely aesthetic propositions in conceptual art, Ars Systematis aims “interactive metaphors as a way of communicating by non-visual means ideas or concepts” (Nunez. 2006 p2). Rather than belonging to a certain class of object or medium, Ars Systematis is characterized by its’ emphasis on concept. It does not have a predetermined medium per se; instead, it has a self-conscious set of parameters and functions.
The first artwork to appear from Ars Systematis is The Nature of Speech (2007 Working title). Proposed initially as a part of my first proposal for Ars Systematis, this artwork embodies all the features described on the same text (Nunez. 2006). For practical reasons related to the nature of our exercise, the contextualization of my own practice, we will use The Nature of Speech as an example of Ars Systematis. The use of a single artwork not only further objectifies our study but also supports Ars Systematis with a (multi) medium.
In The Nature of Speech the medium(s) depicts a system based on observations regarding the nature of speech and the written word. Intended to be a commentary on the relations of speech, power, information and ethics, The Nature follows the line of thought better exemplified and beautifully drawn by Pierre Clastres in his 1974 book, Society against the State:
“To speak is above all to possess the power to speak. Or again, the exercise of power ensures the domination of speech: only the masters can speak. As for the subjects: they are bound to the silence of respect, reverence or terror. Speech and power maintain relations such that the desire for one is fulfilled on the quest of the other. Whether prince, despot, or commander-in-chief, the man of power is always not only the man who speaks, but the sole source of legitimate speech: an impoverished speech, a poor speech to be sure, but one rich in efficiency, for it goes by the name command and wants nothings save the obedience of the executant. Static extremes in themselves, power and speech owe their continued existence to one another; each is the substance of the other, and the persistence of their coupling, while it appears to transcend history, yet fuels the movement of history: there is a historical event when - once what keeps them separate, hence dooms them to non-existence, has been done away with - power and speech are founded in the very act of their meeting. To take power is to win speech” (1974 p128).
The relational system in which Clastres focus is not visually represented in The Nature of Speech. Despite being metaphorically materialized by a book, speech is not pictographically represented at the installation. Nor is there a representation of “power” to be observed. Instead, the relation between power and its’ subjects are at the same time performed and felt by the observer. The painful sound that silence and assault the observer is, at the same time, ones’ speech and power. Space becomes a metaphor for ones’ behavioural attitude towards the speaker/speech: you can either confront, conform or posses it according to your spatial position. Morally more complicated, however, is the dilemma faced by the person who chooses to control speech and/or examine knowledge. This person can, by the simple act of closing the book, silence all speech and difference on the room.
Despite formal and sensual differences, all mediums are semantically related in The Nature. If taken apart and observed in isolation, the different mediums employed by the installation would not relate to each other and, consequently, to the system. Our question here is not to purely investigate the properties inherent on each particular medium. Commenting on the possibilities of sound as an artistic medium, a similar argument is raised by Gerald Hartnett. On an editorial for Leonardo Music Journal Hartnett states that:
Outside of representing - i.e. inventing - social and historical determinations, sound objects are themselves indeed as empty of referential capacity as music itself. This is where arguments that privilege the "materiality" of sound over music falter, and it is also precisely why sophisticated, interesting audio art depends upon producing an economy of difference through a tactic of textual positioning that is only capable of being effected by including recorded speech (in the case of radio art) or by locating "sound/noise" in a proximity to objects/images (in the case of installation work and film produced [with] in sound) (1996 p4).
Despite our distinct vocabularies, we can recognize that his “ economy of difference through a tactic of textual positioning” is, in reality, the force behind that semantic bound between different mediums. It may be that the very “modular” (Manovich. 2001 p30) nature of new media requires such composition with mediums. Placed at the heart of the artwork, new digital media is responsible for processing and controlling other mediums. Following its’ parameters (the system), the installation process the information given by its’ audience. In any given scenario, however, the installation is always dependant on information; the system that the artwork represents is simultaneously informed and based on pure information. For all its’ qualities, both formal and theoretical, The Nature of Speech is a clear example of new digital media artwork. Dependant on information materialized by bits and electrical currents, this hybrid artwork and its’ line of thought, Ars Systematis, is just but one example of a much wider phenomena.
The act of contextualizing both an artwork and ones’ artistic practice reveals two very different acts in itself. At first instance, the process of contextualization happens at the subject level. Exploring the subject - in our case the most well defined characteristics of Ars Systematis - is the first step towards an analytic contextualization. Only a well defined subject is capable of showing its’ contemporary relatives, both aesthetical and conceptual. In other words, you simply cannot contextualize something if you do not know what was that thing in the first place.
This process, contextualization, may sound obvious for some in first place. However, it is when we realize the subtleties involved with context that we see our certainties fading. Purely visual aestheticism for example, as understood by the majority of the art field, does not fully directly our research. In the quest for historical and textual relations between an artwork and its’ relatives, sight may count very little. A purely aesthetic endeavour might end up with just another incomplete picture of the complex historical relations between an artwork and its’ contemporaries. In relation to Ars Systematis, the project in focus on this paper, the very nature of the artwork makes impossible for an analyses based purely in aesthetic terms (Nunez. 2006 p3). We should also note that this paper is valued not only as an academic piece of writing, but also as an important practical tool for situating ones’ work. Without the help of this exercise it becomes hard to define and situate Ars Systematis within contemporary art practice.
Informed by our initial commentary on the nature of context, this paper will divide itself in three sections: As mentioned above, the first section is dedicated at the definition of Ars Systematis as an artwork. Section two, on the other hand, is based on the observations of section one and searches for Ars Systematis contemporary relatives. Finally, looking at the relations found on section two, our third section will schematically draw a line on the most important and urgent issues presented throughout the text.
1- Ars Systematis informed
Shaped by a reaction against purely aesthetic propositions in conceptual art, Ars Systematis aims “interactive metaphors as a way of communicating by non-visual means ideas or concepts” (Nunez. 2006 p2). Rather than belonging to a certain class of object or medium, Ars Systematis is characterized by its’ emphasis on concept. It does not have a predetermined medium per se; instead, it has a self-conscious set of parameters and functions.
The first artwork to appear from Ars Systematis is The Nature of Speech (2007 Working title). Proposed initially as a part of my first proposal for Ars Systematis, this artwork embodies all the features described on the same text (Nunez. 2006). For practical reasons related to the nature of our exercise, the contextualization of my own practice, we will use The Nature of Speech as an example of Ars Systematis. The use of a single artwork not only further objectifies our study but also supports Ars Systematis with a (multi) medium.
In The Nature of Speech the medium(s) depicts a system based on observations regarding the nature of speech and the written word. Intended to be a commentary on the relations of speech, power, information and ethics, The Nature follows the line of thought better exemplified and beautifully drawn by Pierre Clastres in his 1974 book, Society against the State:
“To speak is above all to possess the power to speak. Or again, the exercise of power ensures the domination of speech: only the masters can speak. As for the subjects: they are bound to the silence of respect, reverence or terror. Speech and power maintain relations such that the desire for one is fulfilled on the quest of the other. Whether prince, despot, or commander-in-chief, the man of power is always not only the man who speaks, but the sole source of legitimate speech: an impoverished speech, a poor speech to be sure, but one rich in efficiency, for it goes by the name command and wants nothings save the obedience of the executant. Static extremes in themselves, power and speech owe their continued existence to one another; each is the substance of the other, and the persistence of their coupling, while it appears to transcend history, yet fuels the movement of history: there is a historical event when - once what keeps them separate, hence dooms them to non-existence, has been done away with - power and speech are founded in the very act of their meeting. To take power is to win speech” (1974 p128).
The relational system in which Clastres focus is not visually represented in The Nature of Speech. Despite being metaphorically materialized by a book, speech is not pictographically represented at the installation. Nor is there a representation of “power” to be observed. Instead, the relation between power and its’ subjects are at the same time performed and felt by the observer. The painful sound that silence and assault the observer is, at the same time, ones’ speech and power. Space becomes a metaphor for ones’ behavioural attitude towards the speaker/speech: you can either confront, conform or posses it according to your spatial position. Morally more complicated, however, is the dilemma faced by the person who chooses to control speech and/or examine knowledge. This person can, by the simple act of closing the book, silence all speech and difference on the room.
Despite formal and sensual differences, all mediums are semantically related in The Nature. If taken apart and observed in isolation, the different mediums employed by the installation would not relate to each other and, consequently, to the system. Our question here is not to purely investigate the properties inherent on each particular medium. Commenting on the possibilities of sound as an artistic medium, a similar argument is raised by Gerald Hartnett. On an editorial for Leonardo Music Journal Hartnett states that:
Outside of representing - i.e. inventing - social and historical determinations, sound objects are themselves indeed as empty of referential capacity as music itself. This is where arguments that privilege the "materiality" of sound over music falter, and it is also precisely why sophisticated, interesting audio art depends upon producing an economy of difference through a tactic of textual positioning that is only capable of being effected by including recorded speech (in the case of radio art) or by locating "sound/noise" in a proximity to objects/images (in the case of installation work and film produced [with] in sound) (1996 p4).
Despite our distinct vocabularies, we can recognize that his “ economy of difference through a tactic of textual positioning” is, in reality, the force behind that semantic bound between different mediums. It may be that the very “modular” (Manovich. 2001 p30) nature of new media requires such composition with mediums. Placed at the heart of the artwork, new digital media is responsible for processing and controlling other mediums. Following its’ parameters (the system), the installation process the information given by its’ audience. In any given scenario, however, the installation is always dependant on information; the system that the artwork represents is simultaneously informed and based on pure information. For all its’ qualities, both formal and theoretical, The Nature of Speech is a clear example of new digital media artwork. Dependant on information materialized by bits and electrical currents, this hybrid artwork and its’ line of thought, Ars Systematis, is just but one example of a much wider phenomena.
posted by G. Alfonso at 28.6.07
1 comments
