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

0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home