posted
  • place: Cedaredge, Colorado

pulling plugs

Can you make a harsh illustration about leaving Twitter because of its toxicity?

I finally pulled the plug on Twaddle, aka eX, deleting my account last month. Long overdue, and I would call on anyone else who is still propping up one of the least socially-conscious oligarchs on the planet to cease-and-desist. Meanwhile, I’ll cheer that misfit on to Mars. As for the rest of them, well, let them eat cake.

Back in the ‘aughts’ I routinely early-adopted social media platforms to maintain current experience for my teaching on what was then still called “new media”. A decade into the World-Wide-Web, 2003 or so, Web 2.0 had arrived, signaling the evolution of general ‘interactive’ web platforms that allowed for user-driven and collaborative experiences. Web 2.0 transformed the internet from a generally static platform into a space where users could dynamically create and share content, but its rise also brought about critical (social, behavioral, personal) concerns that I explored in many of my workshops and lectures. This era’s defining features—social media, user-generated content, and algorithms that tailor information, and now AI—have amplified both personal expression and misinformation, often blurring the lines between fact and opinion. While Web 2.0 promised a democratized digital space, it has led to powerful tech companies amassing vast troves of user data, raising privacy issues and consolidating control over information flow, features almost completely unregulated in the US. Surveillance Capitalism anyone? Algorithms designed to maximize engagement have also been criticized for promoting social echo chambers and polarizing content, contributing to social divides. It’s all about eyeballs in the ‘attention economy‘. Through their perversely inverted efforts to be user-centered, the oligarchs of Web fostered a landscape where manipulation, privacy concerns, and misinformation are increasingly prevalent: it’s user-centered alright, but the user is merely the object of extracted wealth.

Yup, here we are. I hadn’t been active on Twaddle for some years aside from attention paid to the CGS work account up until last year, and a very occasional glance at my feed. It was functional for a time, but the ‘new ownership’ indeed sent it to 100% shit, stimulating the departure. The entire arc of evolution completely confirmed my hypothesis how those who control a communications protocol control both the form(s) and content of the communications occurring. Not only that, but the protocol and its ‘owner’ actually tap off a certain amount of power—real social power—from those using the platform. The X possessor is a case in point, and a case that threatens the stability of the social system. I long ago departed from FazeBuch (2010) and mostly from InstaHam (still have an account but don’t post and rarely look at it).

What about BlueSky and Mastodon? They provide more direct user control without a central governing entity. Back to distributed models versus centralized models: a deep conflict that’s been raging since computing began!

Of course, in the end, there is no privacy left in the US social sphere. What you consume—from food to media, everything; where you go; who you communicate with; what you say; what you do; how much money you have; what medical issues you have; where you work; what you studied; your interests and beliefs; your voting history; your criminal and court records; ad infinitum …

Not only that, all those terabytes of data are subpoenable in a court of law: What’s your level of confidence in the justice system in the US these days?

On the related topic of concentration of wealth, that this infographic is more than ten years out of date makes it even more disturbing:

posted
  • place: Bremen, Germany

Paragraphs on Computer Art, Past and Present by Prof. (emer.) Dr. Frieder Nake

[Ed: My old friend Frieder’s meditations on computer art are foundational as per his inimitable style of thought and expression. I am honored to present this text here on the tech-no-mad blog, though the blog platform itself is suffering computability problems of its own, my apologies! See also Frieder’s precise and quite humorous presentation on the history of computer art at eyeo in 2014.]

Revised version (2011) of a paper of the same title that appeared in: Nick Lambert, Jeremy Gardiner, Francesca Franco (eds.): CAT 2010. Ideas before their time. Connecting the past and present in computer art. London: British Computer Society 2010. p. 55-63. Appears here by permission of the author.
Sol LeWitt published his “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art” in Artforum, June 1967. It became an influential theoretical text on art of the twentieth century. It played the role of a manifesto even though it appeared when its topic – concept over matter – had already existed for about a decade. Digital (or algorithmic) art had had its first exhibitions in 1965. It seems it never produced a manifesto, with the exception, perhaps, of Max Bense’s “Projects of generative aesthetics” (1965, in German). Since computer art is a brother of conceptual art, it is justified in this late manifesto to borrow the style of the old title.

1 There are no images now without traces of digital art. Digital Art exists as computer art, algorithmic art, net art, web art, software art, interactive art, computational art, generative art, and more. When it made its first appearances, in Stuttgart and New York, the name “computer art” was thrown against art history and into the faces of art critics. It was a proud name and a bad one. “Algorithmic art” would have been the correct term. The superficial “computer art” disguised the revolutionary fact: the algorithmic principle had entered the world of art.

2 The algorithmic principle is the principle of computability. Whatever exists in the domain of computability exists insofar as it is computable. Alan Turing, Alonzo Church, and others had in the 1930s saved mathematics as the only discipline of the human mind that can say clearly what it says. Those heroes had clarified the concept of computability. They had thus created a new basis for mathematics. Soon after, the computer appeared as the machine to turn science into engineering. There had, of course, before been devices for mechanical calculation, but no computing automaton. more “Paragraphs on Computer Art, Past and Present by Prof. (emer.) Dr. Frieder Nake”

posted

all watched over …

Who can resist the ominous simplicity of Brautigan’s All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace?

I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

posted

Frieder on the history of the algorithmic turn in art

Eyeo 2014 – Frieder Nake from Eyeo Festival // INST-INT on Vimeo.

Frieder gives a great performance, lecturing on the history of algorithmic art. He’s marvelous at extemporaneous speaking and this, of course, a subject for which he is known as a (the!) pioneer. Every conversation I’ve ever had with him arrives instantly at some synthesis of this level of intelligence, knowledge, thought, humor, and/or empathetic sharing, no wonder his students really thrive!

posted
  • place: Prescott, Arizona

What can we do?

What can we do? We should not call a moratorium on people-oriented data banks; it would serve little useful purpose and society would be set back. Moreover, historically, mankind has advanced by living dangerously, trying things, and after the fact, learning how to control what he has done. Perhaps that is the best way to do it — best because we seemingly cannot foresee the consequences of new technologies that we conceive. If we were that perceptive, we might not be sufficiently adventuresome and thus might not progress as rapidly as we ought to. So I think we should not panic and cry “let’s hold everything until we know what we are doing.” There is technical work to be done, and this is the responsibility largely of the computing industry and its technical people. Certain system design problems need to be understood so that we can conceive overall systems with complete and adequate safeguards. Legal issues do need to be resolved. They will involve protective measures for the individual and means for fixing liability; they may also involve regulation of operators of information systems.

Ware, W., 1971. Computers in Society’s Future. Available at: https://cryptome.org/2014/04/computer-society-future.htm.

posted

Carl Canary

Frieder tells me that a student of his challenged him to deal with Twitter, so, starting a few months ago, he committed to making a Twitter account and sending one tweet a day for the following year. For some brilliant insights into informatiks, computing, human systems, digital art, algorithm, follow @CarlCanary!

posted

feudal allegiance

In the old days, traditional computer security centered around users. However, Bruce Schneier writes that now some of us have pledged our allegiance to Google (using Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and Android phones) while others have pledged allegiance to Apple (using Macintosh laptops, iPhones, iPads; and letting iCloud automatically synchronize and back up everything) while others of us let Microsoft do it all. ‘These vendors are becoming our feudal lords, and we are becoming their vassals. We might refuse to pledge allegiance to all of them — or to a particular one we don’t like. Or we can spread our allegiance around. But either way, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to not pledge allegiance to at least one of them.’ Classical medieval feudalism depended on overlapping, complex, hierarchical relationships. Today we users must trust the security of these hardware manufacturers, software vendors, and cloud providers and we choose to do it because of the convenience, redundancy, automation, and shareability. ‘In this new world of computing, we give up a certain amount of control, and in exchange we trust that our lords will both treat us well and protect us from harm (PDF). Not only will our software be continually updated with the newest and coolest functionality, but we trust it will happen without our being overtaxed by fees and required upgrades.’ In this system, we have no control over the security provided by our feudal lords. Like everything else in security, it’s a trade-off. We need to balance that trade-off. ‘In Europe, it was the rise of the centralized state and the rule of law that undermined the ad hoc feudal system; it provided more security and stability for both lords and vassals. But these days, government has largely abdicated its role in cyberspace, and the result is a return to the feudal relationships of yore,’ concludes Schneier, adding that perhaps it’s time for government to create the regulatory environments that protect us vassals. ‘Otherwise, we really are just serfs.’ — Hugh Pickens

posted

Nicholas Carr

A very intelligent and sympatico Carr (author of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” makes a local visit (he’s currently a Boulderite) to present a compelling ATLAS talk last week about neural/behavioral change springing from IT usage.

this snippet from his blog RoughType:

The “PC is dying” and “Web is dying” tropes that have been bouncing around the meme-o-sphere express a real transformation in the world of computing/media/life. But they express it through the warped retinae of the techno-nostalgist, the high-tech Luddite. The PC and the Web aren’t dying. As cultural forces, they’re more powerful, more inescapable than ever. What the PC and the Web are doing is maturing, the former exploding into a welter of slick consumer appliances, the latter contracting into a corporate-controlled menu of slick services. They’re both assuming what promise to be their stable forms. The high-tech Luddite, or HTL, confuses maturing with dying, because what’s being lost in the maturation process is the thing which the HTL most values, most yearns to protect. Like all Luddites, the HTL is what Kirkpatrick Sale termed a rebel against the future. He wants to arrest progress in order to maintain what he sees as the ideal state of computing, to continue in perpetuity that brief Homebrew interregnum between Mainframe Dominance and Media Dominance. The High-Tech Luddite still thinks Woz will win.

posted
  • place: Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington and South Acton, Massachusetts

Thursday, 01 November, 1962

EAE in to inform me that L2 is to go ahead with the DP Center for STV; he is Nr. 2 man to Walter Wells and wants me to look after the building. He gave me WW notes on the subject, which noted a Mr. Dave Moore in Div. 7, he turns out to have done such a job b4 — four times, so he is well aware of the process. He pointed out that the film processing is a problem and from his experience with PRESS, it needs a full-time man. Moore worked out a preliminary estimate of 18,000 sq. ft. and a tentative bldg layout. Jim Fitzgerald, who runs the Computer Center, provided a wealth of info in a 1-hour discussion.

Rain

Went in to town, in the afternoon, taking LCH to school. Picked up a Prot. Bible for CR, obtained 2 estimates for body repairs to the Ford, and bought some bread and bananas.

Castro in a radio & TV address — for 1-1/2 hours — rejected inspection of missile site clearance, altho he may have left a loophole.

Waxed the left side of the Willys.

posted
  • place: University of Colorado-Boulder, Colorado

M of IT – Day 7 – 19 September

week 4:

19 september – day 7 – Arrival in the Present
link to collective notes

assignment: readings to be FINISHED for today:

Rheingold, H., 2000. Tools for Thought: the history and future of mind-expanding technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chapters 4, 5, & 6

Hacker, B.C., 1993. Engineering a New Order: Military Institutions, Technical Education, and the Rise of the Industrial State. Technology and Culture, 34(1).

O’Regan, G., Chapter 6 – The Internet Revolution. In A Brief History of Computing.

assignment: on your blog platform, generate at least 3 questions for EACH of the three readings.

assignment: paired off with designated partner, answer 3 of the questions they (your partner) have posed on their blog so far (groupwork – dedicate 2 hours for engagement); post both questions and answers to your blog – include the name of your partner, the questions, and the answers in your blog entry (due Wednesday, 26 September).

asides (extra credit – 3-400 word blog entry on one of these):
Are You A Psychopath If You Don’t Have A Facebook Account? We Don’t Think So
What is Peer-to-Peer?
The Information Palace
Twitter Use 2012 (Pew Internet – Social Networking)
Latest AlphaDog Robot Prototypes Get Less Noisy, More Brainy
The Cure is Open Source
Welcome to the first digital presidential election
State of Broadband 2012 (pdf)

posted
  • place: Indianapolis, Indiana

Kenneth Harry Olsen 1926 — 2011

death

Ken was a good friend of my father’s and our family through church. I was a bit young at that time, but I did end up meeting him when in Boston attending the Annual Conference of the AAAS (the same time I met Dr. Linus Pauling, Vice-President Rockefeller, and Dr. Harold Edgerton). I was at the meeting with my father, and there was an opportunity to do a tour of DEC which we did, ending with a personal meeting with Ken. He definitely was a presence, and I clearly remember him asking me some questions about what I would be doing in university. When I told him geophysical engineering, he said maybe I could come work for him. (In retrospect, I think DEC was involved with some aspects of remote-sensing, possibly developing magnetic survey instrumentation and data processing techniques for the military(?).)

My father and he worked on technical issues at Park Street Church (in the “Radio Room” — where they coordinated audio for the services along with the outgoing signals for local radio broadcasts). He and his family were guests at our home on a number of occasions, and I know he and my father spent many weekends at the church solving what seemed to be endless problems with the sound system.

Later, although I never did connect the dots, I was involved with what I recall was the DEC VAX 11/750, the size of a (large) washing machine, for doing some EM work with Dr. Keller at the School of Mines. And I have the vague memory of driving to California from Colorado with JC, Stefan, Steve, Julie, and maybe others in a school van toting one of those heavy (and expensive!) DEC machines for the school booth at the SEG convention in Los Angeles. The breakfast stop in Vegas was memorable as were the starry skies when we stopped for a case or two of beer in the middle of the night before crossing the state line into dry Utah.

NYT obit and a profile in Electronic Design. Also, as an ongoing legacy, there is the Ken Olsen Science Center at my mother’s alma mater, Gordon College — it houses Ken’s archive.

posted

Freedom in the Cloud

Freedom in the Cloud: Software Freedom, Privacy and Security for Web 2.0 and Cloud Computing

Absolutely brilliant talk by Eben Moglen — Professor of Law and Legal History at Columbia University, and founder, Director-Counsel and Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center — at an Internet Society – New York Chapter event back in February of this year.

In these two videos he presents an image of what exactly happened in terms of the internet infrastructure, completely outside the purview of political or wide social awareness which presents extreme danger to the fundamentals of our civil society. Explicit, clear, concise insights into the situation presented by corporate ‘log aggregators’ like Google and Facebook as well as the issues underlying how they threaten YOUR freedom.

posted

notes prior to Memory Seminar with Andrew Hoskins

The concept of memory is related to my own work and practice — as an artist, part of my work does relate to the creation and preservation of my personal archive. Also, memory is a feature of collective Techno-Social Systems as a mapping of embodied participation in that system over time. It is also a concept to consider in the wider perspective of my work which examines human presence, encounter with the Other, collective social systems and their impact on the individual and finally, creative action.

Memory is the trace of energies from the surrounding situation that literally impress (on) the embodied self. Making the radical assumption framed by the words of physicist David Bohm, that

… there is a universal flux that cannot be defined explicitly but which can be known only implicitly, as indicated by the explicitly definable forms and shapes, some stable and some unstable, that can be abstracted from the universal flux.

Phenomenal events and configurations of these energies pass through the body (as simply another manifestation of this flux), leaving altered states of be-ing. These embodied traces persist in time, but as with all life and being, are transitory. They exist as change, and are often experienced as a fundamental awareness of difference — “I originally felt like that, but now I feel like this, having experienced this event.”

External memory storage situations via digital technological mediation are, by nature, material, reductive, and transitory. They are subject to decay and loss as with any other external (and internal) means.

Three significant issues arise in the process of externalized memory storage. The first is in the process of creating the artifact. As with any pre-digital artifact, making a “memory” artifact requires that the Self (or someone) step out of living and mediate their presence in the operation of the device that creates the artifact. This stepping out applies not only to the making of the artifact but also to the (onerous) process of archiving. This process radically changes the experience of a life-trajectory by an individual. And, as suggested by Quantum ideas, the observer affects that which is observed, the act of making memory artifacts actually affects the scenario that is being recorded.

A second major issue occurs when any of these processes are taken over by extensions of the Techno-Social System, they subject the Self to a loss of autonomy. (i.e., cloud computing as one example of a centralized architecture that removes the trace of the digital artifact wholly out of the purview of the individual (creator, participant).) The levels of loss of autonomy exist on a sliding scale — loss occurs whenever the individual is not in control of the mediatory storage (its provenance, creation, organization, archiving, sustenance, distribution, demise, destruction). Any externalization falls under this regime.

The third issue lies in the maintenance of archive. As a fundamentally ordered system (timely retrieval is critical for a functioning archive), the archive requires an essentially constant energy influx to maintain that order. That energy source is, at base, the human being. How much personal energy will humans participating in a Techno-social system be willing to dispense of or provide/support in order to maintain an ever-growing energy burden of either a collective or individual archive? Is this why the Library of Alexandria burned?

posted

thesis proposal :: Background

Background for Research

While individual human presence in this world has fundamental repercussions on be-ing, it is the ever-present and synergistic exchange between humans — forming what I call a “continuum of relation” — that governs much of life. This energetic field of human relation is sometimes fraught with difficulties and complications in spite of the rich and necessary dynamic it brings to life. Technology, as a ubiquitous factor in mediating human relation, often dominates while presented as providing the only opportunity for mediated connection and interaction between humans.

Presence, as apprehended by the Other, circumscribes a range of sensory inputs that require energy (from the Self) to stimulate and drive. The efficacy and sustainability of human connection builds on the very real and tangible transmissions and receptions of energy between the Self and the Other. An interconnected plurality of dialectic human relation may be described as a network. These networks, made up of a web of Self-Other connections form the base fabric of the continuum of relation. Technology appears in these networks as the mediating pathway that is the carrier of energy from node to node, person to person. Technological systems also appear to apply absolute restraints on and attenuation of the idiosyncratic flows inherent in that continuum of relation. The discrete objects that populate the (technological) landscape of the continuum of relation and that modulate the character of communications are literally artifacts of a materialist point of view. A primary assumption in my research is that a materialist or mechanistic view of the world no longer suffices to adequately circumscribe the phenomena occurring within the continuum of relation. more “thesis proposal :: Background”

posted
  • place: Lübeck, Germany

e-culture and good food

Over in Lübeck, meet miga and then head to lunch with Andreas at Nui which I remember from the teaching at ISNM before. Had to get some outline of what is happening to the slowly sinking Titanic and what is required from me when I do a short course on e-culture in the spring.

Content: This seminar will explore the entire global regime of the trans-disciplinary field called “e-culture” as an intersection of digital technologies and cultural practices. Using case-studies to find out what is working and what is not, we will examine the technologies that most affect this sector, the political and economic policies that form it, and the social systems where it finds its place. As one model for the engagement of “new media’ technologies and social systems, “e-culture,” along with the “Creative Industries,” are the scene for much innovation, research, hype, and media reportage. This seminar will hunt for some truth by examining specific situations, precedent, technological infrastructures, and current trends.

Key phrases include: infotainment; web 2.0; economics of attention; locative media; wearable computing; technology globalization; media research; reception, storage, and transmission of culture; creative industries; cultural patrimony; cultural computing; corporate culture; jobs?; non-governmental organizations (NGO’s); ubicomp (ubiquitous computing); e-government; society of spectacle; globalization/dislocation of culture; Ikea for the Art Market; European Union effects; Soros Centers; networking; creative action; Road Warriors; First or Second Life?; the Finnish Model; future scenarios; borders and cultural difference; collaborative presences; and so on.

posted
  • place: Chino Valley, Arizona

ubicomp

Inane story on NPR, dancing around the hype of ubiquitous computing (still?) — With the installation of a network of sensors on house plants that will send wifi info to their owner about their condition.

Who sets up this network? Who maintains it? Who interacts with it? When and why is it interacted with? Under what conditions is it necessary to interact with it? Or is it ever necessary to interact with it? Those people who are so interested in spreading digital networks somehow forget the necessity of manufacturing, deployment, installation, configuration, and, especially, maintenance. Not to mention the actual (life-)time necessary to interact with the data being gathered, tweaking it if necessary (or even possible) into a form that is understandable and usable to the idiosyncratic self, NOT the generic Everyman (who is the Grail of the data collectors).

These questions point back to the cultural (d)evolution which mandates a rolling over of systems from localized individual control to a centralized social command-and-control. Now, a big argument used by the ubicomp community is that the existence of these networks liberates the localized Everyman from the drudgery of some localized chore or another. Watering house plants, in this case. But there is a hidden factor — the subsequent reliance of the individual on the centralized system of production and (standardized control) — which creates and deploys these devices. It costs money to have these devices. And the greater the deployment, the larger the social infrastructure necessary to produce and deploy these devices and systems. Think, for example, of the mining and basic industry that provides the raw materials that go into the construction of the machines used to make and deliver the devices. The individual consequently must be participating in this larger system in order to receive the device. To participate in that system requires a payment of (life-)time (converted in the grind of social production to cash). So the (life-)time freed-up by the device is more than consumed by the (life-)time drawn from the individual in this general participatory process. Think of working at a long-term job so that you have the long-term income to pay for the apartment where you have the house plants. Stability is a core value here to consider here as well — without long-term stability (a stable environment), exotic house plants are imperiled. To have house plants assumes this long-term stability (which the social system relies on!). So not only is this further reliance on the deployed ubicomp system NOT about liberation — it is the opposite — it is about a subtle enslavement to a greater social system for which instability is anathema. The drawing-off of the lifetime (and life energy) of the individual into that social system is the primary source of power for the centralized social system.

All of this is on a sliding scale. But assuming that condition, there likely is a certain tipping point where one might go too far and not have the possibility of retrieving individual autonomy. Where is this point? Have we reached it? Clearly it is different in different social systems, despite the healthy state of global systems which draw their energy from widely-dispersed humans. Tolerance for autonomy is different in different socio-cultural systems. Intolerance for instability is generally higher in more organized systems (which came first, the need for organization or the intolerance for instability and dis-order?)

posted
  • place: Chino Valley, Arizona

V2

tuning in to Lev Manovich‘s lecture/discussion at V2. last time I saw Lev was at my flat in Helsinki in 2000, I made dinner for him, Tapio, and Susanna. His topic is “scale effects.” Stephen Kovats, a curator at V2, sent an email invitation to myself and a handful of other folks who frequently participate in such live/online events. it is a non-standard way to participate, for sure, watching and hearing the event via an audio/video stream, and reacting to that via an IRC channel that is projected into the lecture space. there is much more that one could do to push this format for live interaction, but it usually ends up being rather mundane and polite.

sotto voce: after self data-mining. computers scaling social forms. (dialectic between increasing quantity, size, creates new effects. examples Wikipedia. scaling in visual culture. one million hours of programming online. (BBC?) company in San Diego makes 6 giga-pixel images. (factors — image size, data volume, podcasting, moblogs) Bruce Sterling, the future. ubiquitous computing. media ecology. listing newest, hippest pop technologies. What about the societies in which this technological consumerism takes place in? medical imaging – PET, MRI, CT. graphical browsers took off. 30-40 years of media history. What about the impact of scaling up of existing media? What is tradition of quantitative effect scaling. very much based on a Cartesian system. Mcluhan’s suggestion that increasing of speed changes the social system. With scale being a parameter for comparison of media implementations. Speed: processing speed relating to visual presentation. algorithm already developed in Durer’s time. so, scaling causes the development of a “whole new media”… new visualizations important to contemporary science. resolution yardstick. but the available visual cortex (field of vision) can cover a small fragment of the image at any one time. redefining new media. normal media flattens the world, then surveillance. 4k digital Cinema. adam says it’s all smoke and mirrors. I think it seems to be using conventional metrics — based in Cartesian worldviews? temporal, spatial, compression. the collective. “as much data as we want.”

the parallel irc discussion (see below) leaves much space for wondering at Lev’s success. there seems a close linkage between text production and influence, something I have mentioned many times in other places. he made careful note that he is working on two new books and is proceeding at a rate of 2500 words a day. seems linear, quantitative, and retro. hmmmm. but it works within the attention economy.

posted

The Energy Dynamics of Technologically-Mediated Human Relation within Digital Telecommunications Networks

A proposal by John Hopkins for Doctoral Thesis research at the University of Bremen, Department of Computer Science (Informatiks) [editor’s note: this initial proposal never was submitted following the accident of 04 July 2005 that set life on another trajectory.]

1.0 Statement of Problem

1.1 Introductory note

Beginning with a series of broad general statements that converge to frame the trans-disciplinary space of my inquiry, I will move to proposals that are more specific. This approach is an important feature of the research itself — where the applicability and efficacy of a model is best challenged when looking from absolute specific cases to increasingly general situations and vice versa. In framing this essentially divergent research, I would suggest that the proposal first be considered as a whole — as I understand that the depth of my knowledge-base varies across some of the disciplinary spaces. more “The Energy Dynamics of Technologically-Mediated Human Relation within Digital Telecommunications Networks”

posted
  • place: Trondheim, Norway

Iteration One: Research Plan for Doctoral Studies at UIAH/TAIK

BACKGROUND

It is first pertinent to precede the research plan with a brief overview of my rather eclectic background.

My own relationship with technology was deeply influenced by my father who worked in various capacities for the US government and MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory as a telecommunications expert, operations analyst, and engineer. It received a firm grounding during a rigorous applied education in Geophysical Engineering with a specialization in Potential Fields Methods (Time-Domain Electromagnetics, Gravity, and Magnetics) at the top school in the world for that particular specialty. An unsatisfactory career as an international explorationist for a multinational oil company ended with my decision to pursue photography, a long-time personal avocation. After becoming a Master Printer (in black&white photography) in NYC and working in several professional photographic positions there, I returned to school and studied, notably, with the experimental film-maker Stan Brakhage. It was during these studies, concluding with an MFA in Photography/Video/Film that I began teaching and spending a significant amount of time in Europe, where I was frequently exhibiting my photographic work in Germany and France. I subsequently relocated to Reykjavík, Iceland where I started up a modest Photography and New Media program for students at the Icelandic College of Art. Since 1995 I have been working as a nomadic artist and free-lance educator teaching a range of workshops in 12 countries that orbit around the issues of networked computing, technology, creativity, dialogue, and personal activism. more “Iteration One: Research Plan for Doctoral Studies at UIAH/TAIK”

posted
  • place: en route Köln - Kiel, Germany

northward again

Moving again. North, away from spring. Fragments of the world do not add up to anything that is expressible. Tractors in the fields. Greening. The greening of the world is not fragmentary, but is pure (I want new words and ways of moving them to the page). Tired of the same places, I guess, but the same friends bring a special closure to all movements, the small circles that can be memorized, closed, and stored away for next retrieval. Kiel is not so large, and it is easy to find the Muthesius Hochschule where I meet Hubertus in the late afternoon. The flat where I will stay for the duration of the workshop is in a special building of the Christian-Albrechts Universität zu Kiel. It overlooks the harbor. Here I am , another seafaring situation, on the main harbor, and not far away, the Nordsee-Ostsee Kanal. Here is another history of the War, the U-boat, untersee boot. A large cruise ship moves by the window, heading for Gotebourg. A few people are clustered on the top decks while Irish farmers protest cuts in beef production and silent pictures from a tornado in Minnesota play on the feed line into the room. Suspended dis-animation, curious. Palestinians chant and throw stones on the West Bank. Israeli soldiers shoot them. When does this end? Is this only ignorance to think that these things can be overcome? Teevee.

We go to dinner, all the while discussing the critical issues of being. Hubertus started here two years ago as Director of the FORUM, an interdisciplinary program of lectures and workshops that runs parallel to the regular study program in Design, Fine Arts and so on. Something of a unique program where he is given almost complete autonomy to bring people in — the students don’t realize the luxury and possibility, especially given Hubertus’ massive personal and professional network and his own significant professional output. Paying for dinner, his credit card is rejected apparently because of a problem with the dates on the local dial-up machine and the central computer — it seems the central computer had not yet had its clock adjusted for DayLight Savings which went into effect last Sunday at 0200. Is this a foreshadowing of the Millineum Bug? It is easy to be pessimistic about all this. Technophobia aside, human nature fore-fronted; it is fallible, grotesquely so, not much thought needed to figure that. Has the world ever been in mass chaos? Perhaps in the Plague times, although that was very much a process with a discrete temporal vector pre-determined by a combination of transport speeds of the time and the latency period of the Plague itself. Now, given the immediacy of computing, and despite the fact that computer networks are not everywhere on the globe, they do control aspects of life that touch almost every human being through an instantaneous Butterfly Effect. If, for example, anything in the chain of production of wealth is disrupted, the entire chain reels from the effect … What is the minimum percentage needed to affect the whole chain? How sensitive is modernity? (Can we look at Yugoslavia as an example, or Somalia, Japan, elsewhere?) Is it a card house?