Showing posts with label artist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label artist. Show all posts

Saturday, June 08, 2013

Proto-Computing - an Interview with Ralf Baecker

At CODE2012 I presented a paper on "programmable matter" and the proto-computational work of Ralf Baecker and Martin Howse - part of a long-running project on digital materiality. My sources included interviews with the artists, which I will be publishing here. Ralf Baecker's 2009 The Conversation is a complex physical network, woven from solenoids - electro-mechanical "bits" or binary switches. It was one of the works that started me thinking about this notion of the proto-computational - where artists seem to be stripping digital computing down to its raw materials, only to rebuild it as something weirder. Irrational Computing (2012) - which crafts a "computer" more like a modular synth made from crystals and wires - takes this approach further. Here Baecker begins by responding to this notion of proto-computing.



MW: In your work, especially Irrational Computing, we seem to see some of the primal, material elements of digital computing. But this "proto" computing is also quite unfamiliar - it is chaotic, complex and emergent, we can't control or "program" it, and it is hard to identify familiar elements such as memory vs processor. So it seems that your work is not only deconstructing computing - revealing its components - but also reconstructing it in a strange new form. Would you agree?
RB: It took me a long time to adopt the term "proto-computing". I don't mean proto in a historical or chronological sense; it is more about its state of development. I imagine a device that refers to the raw material dimension of our everyday digital machinery. Something that suddenly appears due to the interaction of matter. What I had in mind was for instance the natural nuclear fission reactor in Oklo, Gabon that was discovered in 1972. A conglomerate of minerals in a rock formation formed the conditions for a functioning nuclear reactor, all by chance. 
Computation is a cultural and not a natural phenomenon; it includes several hundred years of knowledge and cultural technics, these days all compressed into a microscopic form (the CPU). In the 18th century the mechanical tradition of automata and symbolic/mathematical thinking merged into the first calculating and astronomical devices. Also the combinatoric/hermeneutic tradition (e.g. Athanasius Kircher and Ramon Llull) is very influential to me. These automatons/concepts were philosophical and epistemological. They were dialogic devices that let us think further, much against our current utilitarian use of technology. Generative utopia.

Schematic of Irrational Computing courtesy of the artist - click for PDF

MW: Your work stages a fusion of sound, light and material. In Irrational Computing for example we both see and hear the activity of the crystals in the SiC module. Similarly in The Conversation, the solenoids act as both mechanical / symbolic components and sound generators. So there is a strong sense of the unity of the audible and the visual - their shared material origins. (This is unlike conventional audiovisual media for example where the relation between sound and image is highly constructed). It seems that there is a sense of a kind of material continuum or spectrum here, binding electricity, light, sound, and matter together?
RB: My first contact with art or media art came through net art, software art and generative art. I was totally fascinated by it. I started programming generative systems for installations and audiovisual performances. I like a lot of the early screen based computer graphics/animation stuff. The pure reduction to wireframes, simple geometric shapes. I had the feeling that in this case concept and representation almost touch each other. But I got lost working with universial machines (Turing machines). With Rechnender Raum I started to do some kind of subjective reappropriation of the digital. So I started to build my very own non-universal devices. Rechnender Raum could also be read as a kinetic interpretation of a cellular automaton algorithm. Even if the Turing machine is a theoretical machine it feels very plastic to me. It a metaphorical machine that shows the conceptual relation of space and time. Computers are basically transposers between space and time, even without seeing the actual outcome of a simulation. I like to expose the hidden structures. They are more appealing to me than the image on the screen.



MW: There is a theme of complex but insular networks in your work. In The Conversation this is very clear - a network of internal relationships, seeking a dynamic equilibrium. Similarly in Irrational Computing, modules like the phase locked loop have this insular complexity. Can you discuss this a little bit? This tendency reminds me of notions of self-referentiality, for example in the writing of Hofstadter, where recursion and self-reference are both logical paradoxes (as in Godel's theorem) and key attributes of consciousness. Your introverted networks have a strong generative character - where complex dynamics emerge from a tightly constrained set of elements and relationships.
RB: Sure, I'm fascinated by this kind of emergent processes, and how they appear on different scales. But I find it always difficult to use the attribute consciousness. I think these kind of chaotic attractors have a beauty on their own. Regardless how closed these systems look, they are always influenced by its environment. The perfect example for me is the flame of a candle. A very dynamic complex process communicating with its environment, that generates the dynamics.



MW: You describe The Conversation as "pataphysical", and mention the "mystic" and "magic" aspects of Irrational Computing. Can you say some more about this a aspect of your work? Is there a sort of romantic or poetic idea here, about what is beyond the rational, or is this about a more systematic alternative to how we understand the world?
RB: Yes, it refers to an other kind of thinking. A thinking that is anti "cause and reaction". A thinking of hidden relations, connections and uncertainty. I like Claude Lévi-Strauss' term "The Savage Mind".

Read More...

Monday, March 12, 2007

Lisa Jevbratt - Infome Imaging

Lisa Jevbratt has been doing data art for some time now. Her 1:1 (1999) was one of the first data-vis works to gain critical attention in new media art circles. I re-read some of Jevbratt's writing recently, and the artist pointed me to this 2005 paper, which in part sets out the concept of the Infome. Jevbratt seems to be changing direction - towards bio/eco practices - but her work remains significant, especially while data is the new code/black/whatever, for the Processing generation. The Infome idea is particularly interesting, because it creates a distinctive sense of just what data is.

Jevbratt's Infome is a kind of data cosmology - the Infome is an "all-encompassing network environment/organism that consists of all computers and code." Once you get past the biological analogy, the Infome offers a way to treat data as a kind of material that is concrete and self-sufficient, but also shaped by the (social, political, technological) forces outside it. Data is indexical, but not in the empirical sense of measurement or simple correspondence. Instead Jevbratt uses another material (geological) analogy; the Infome is a kind of landscape in which external forces and structures are overlayed and condensed. Another nice twist is that visualisation becomes recursive: "Images can now simultaneously be reality, since they are part of the Infome, and an imprint of that reality, as if the image produced by a potato stamp were also a potato."

Jevbratt's images of the Infome in 1:1 and Infome Imager Lite aspire to this kind of material directness, making a "slice" or "imprint" of the data. She describes the images as "real, objects for interpretation, not interpretations." This desire to present the data "in itself" closely resembles the "pure data" aesthetics of the audiovisual databenders I mentioned in "Hearing Pure Data" (2004). We can make the same critiques of Jevbratt's work - that we can't see the data in itself, only its specific mapping. Jevbratt does take great care to explain the mappings used, and best of all in IIL she encourages the user to experiment with changing mappings and datasets - an artistic precursor of the public data literacy now mentioned in relation to social data-vis services Swivel and ManyEyes. The critique still stands though; it's clearest in the way Jevbratt wraps all these visualisations around the rectangular picture plane - a structure that has no inherent relation to the data, but a significant relation to the art-world context that these works function in.

For Jevbratt these data-impressions allow us to "use our vision to think" - information and pattern arise from a perceptual process, rather than a computational analysis. Like much other data art, Jevbratt resists providing information, in the sense of meaning or message; instead she offers a substrate for information, a field of potential meaning. She writes of seeking "something unexpected," "hints, suggestions, and openings" that lead us into the Infome itself, its immanent, collective dynamics, even its emergent, distributed agency. It's a kind of data mysticism, but also an attempt to sense the real but otherwise imperceptable shapes of digital culture.

Read More...