I used to imagine my body can not roll into a ball, hence the question was between necessity and contingency, right?
What was the necessity?
It seems the inability to roll into a ball?
..or a necessity for bones?
However, is this a necessity – bones – or some contingent evolution that turned out this way?
..and can be re-designed?
Is this radical? Redesign?
Can be re-artified?
Who’s the artist here?
Why not taken from the current and into some yet to be evolutions?
Isn’t that a re?
I doubt as when we get into evolutions, the contingency of remaining as is – is also viable, no?
Are we out of evolution now?
Nope.. But we can speed processes up, provide ways to imagine bonelessness bodies, etc.?
Nope.. Is that evolution? Stack in a body?
Evolving might include no-body?
Might turn techno.. However, to begin with, don’t we need to begin with art?
With a wonder, no? 😉
Bumped into details about the Total Potemkin exhibition at the Barn, 15-28 February 2014, Oxford.
Def can not make it to the organic location, but can do the digital blurb site..
Am reflecting re seemingly minor elements in the content form as a way to imagine reflection with the way, I think, the exhibition is imagined – content seems to have form and structure sensibilities/aesthetics.
Usually, perhaps disturbingly for me at times, exhibitions/gallery-shows give details of the artists national links if not even idendities – when often these have nothing to do with the event/s.
Here, I think its a 1st for my notice, that the blurb defines the artists as “european” rather than english/british/eritreans/papua new guineans/etc..
Another sort of 1st for me is the use of: “medium of technology” to describe an artist interest, in this case, Marc Adrian‘s.
Technology in general as a medium..
I wonder how this might or might not link with Beuys’ social technology ideas..
just had a look at breaking tech addiction (addicts?) camp..
How do they know that they are addicted to the tech, rather than, for example a certain rhythm of usage?
In fact, the article didn’t get me because am unclear if they think – forget about being – their addiction is in effect a repetition (and dependency on it or not) – or a dependent link/usage of tech that is inhibitive and debilitating..
Just bumped into this poetic computation school – yup another School/Edu/Institutional/ Element – however tbh my 1st reaction was:
Well.. So in a sense, should I not apply the critique I gave myself onto that http://sfpc.io/ activities? The reason, I seem to recall I didn’t develop more of a few elements was that I thought was:
– being too easy upon myself.. too self evident, taking X – eg a computer lingo – and making it poetic.
– too conservative in the sense that it felt like applying the known – an idea/imagination of poetics/art/culture – in a new environment, eg coding language of digital devices.
– the focus of the freshness/newness/reason-of-interest coming from the digital-devices-coding/technology/tool rather than the cultural-technology/art/poetry/imagination/ideas/language.
In a sense, isn’t the interest shown that the sfpc is banged about on the web, is pressingly that coding rather than a certain or certain newly found ways of imagining? (ie a newly found tool to apply established ways of imagining..)
Have noticed recently that devices like http://getpebble.com/ get more wide spread, or more main-streamly manufactured. Apple will have one, Samsung will as well, and that’s fairly main stream..
People think of these devices as watches. In fact, I think they are referred to as “smart watches”. However, I think, for me, the interesting bit is that they represent a function change of mobile devices. The link between the wrist device and a pocket/bag/mobile device might change the way we use the mobile devices and imagine them. Currently, the mobile device is there for me to use for answering calls with, to check my email, to take a pic with, etc.. However, the idea with “smart watches” is exactly to turn such usages slightly redundant, or utterly so. The idea is that via the connection between the wrist device and the mobile one, I could check messages on my wrist. I could leave the mobile device in my pocket, and take a picture, or add stuff to my calendar tapping on my wrist..
In fact, the mobile device is kind of becoming sort of mother-ship onto which various other gadgets could connect, liase, and offer better design and function solution than a slab could.
For me, I think that the mobile device, from a do it all – where everything is concentrated, like a mini PC – is going to evolve to, in a sense, mobile server. In that sense, it will serve my calls to a voice chat device, a camera device might be on my eyes, a keyboard device on my arm, and so on.. However, if indeed we are talking about a mobile server, will such devices be there to talk to one another? to share inter-dependency and distribution? Or will these servers be dependent upon a death star in the shape on a corporation which will control each via a forest of its arbitrary will and political power?
Consider the theatre of airports.
The media of porting from one designated area to another. X is the spot for stateland#1. Through the medium of an arbitrary line, we have to Show a passport and cross – trans – to area Y where slightly different rules are being mediated, eg “duty free” shops.
All these acts in the airport theatre wouldn’t occur without power. Without someone cowing another to consider harsh consequences if they did not play in that show. Power assumes people just want to get from a to b – hence will tolerate stuff they might not otherwise. Also, as it tends to be, people that come to challenge the powers that run airport theatres, usually tend to be having ideas of running the very same theatre, under very similar power rules – only difference is the person/s who holds the reins and gets the money..
Coming back to art.. So to have a theatre such as an airport – or a computer application, for that matter, where commands are used to express power in relation to users and machine/tech – the actors in that play do not need to have much talent. No other talent that that of following rules. (..which perhaps am sounding like berating – but i find it hard to do.. is that why am into surfing?)
In a sense, the arbitrariness of talent – as in born with a talent to act/play/sing/draw/write/etc. – is being replaced perhaps by a more general requirement to be valued, eg follow rules. In this case though, the arbitrariness is in power. We still have to contend with specific decisions that are born of power rather than a process which we can sway and suffer no ill effects from that..