After yesterday’s fantastic insight into Steve’s brain, how he sees and assesses a space (how we should ultimately see and think of all aspects of our work and placement of it) I start to feel quite excited about it. I need to get in and start playing in the space (Gray’s). His parting advice yesterday was “Keep busy, keep writing” (special study). I need to start to bash out ideas and just “start writing” (as the man said!).
I sketched out some rough Ideas on some of the experiments I’d like to construct. It’s a flood of ideas, one leading to another. I’ve been inspired, but I need to make sure I don’t tie these thoughts down, without playing with the concepts first. I know I need to work with specific elements (design, text, computers, INFORMATION) but I shouldn’t pre-empt the whole process of creating works. I do want to thread through ideas from previous works (Steve talks of his interest in how I saw the “you and I” installation develop through to the INtent experiment, and how it “appeared” to be open to input / ideas from the public (all be it a stoned 20 something). It is that openness – undefined but created by me. It is that quest to create something that can survive and exist on its own merits through me that will get me the MFA, it is that understanding that creating an artwork must be unrestrained by my simplistic definitions (“find your language Phil”). It is in reading periodicals and reviews that one can start to obtain the language for discourse – intellectual vocabulary that gives authority and conviction to my practice. I’ve got the ideas, sure, I’ve got the ability to create and “release” work into the wide world. It is my inability to talk about it without pitching (Jo and Tom) and without constraining the concepts within the work for an audience (Steve).
Saturday, 23 June 2007
walk round the degree show
We aim to have a group crit with Steve, to discuss several of our special studies in a group...but only Susie, Mary and I turn up for it. We start to bumble through some personal stuff, it doesn't feel right, Steve looks like he'd rather not be wasting his time here, so he suggests we take a stroll round the show, and crit others work, and keep note of the spaces and possibilities for our show / work.
We head to Kelly Connor's video works on level 2.5 ... the painting storeroom...a strange but fascinating space to show work. She has several videos, all looking at "energy", we have a hotplate with water dripping onto it, a smelting / casting video, a communications tower flickering on a hilltop, a tractor ploughing and gulls fleeing and returning, a drain being unblocked and the piece de resistance, several projected workmen, stretching down the entire length of a cramped and cluttered space holding old frames, stretchers, sculptures etc. We stay in the space discussing the merits of the work. Steve is an excellent guide; his insights (or ideas) around the works are very enlightening. I crudely convey points of view...my conversation with Kelly from Monday...I tentatively put the idea that I see the workmen as ghosts or residues of previous occupants, dutifully sorting, ordering and dismantling objects. It is amazing the ideas that a few pixels can invoke, when projected into an interesting space. If this were "just" on a wall, a traditional white backdrop, it wouldn't have any of the impact. It would appear as a documentary of a process. This is the lesson Steve wants us to have, an understanding of the context of space and place. How this is integral and essential to the meaning of the work we produce. It should be one of the main considerations of our placement and creation of work. I also venture an honest comment about the smelting / casting work. "I don't quite "get it", I see it as a documentation of a process, and as nothing else". Steve kindly explains the possibilities (by "looking at the wider context") - he talks of the videos relationship to the others in the room, he talks of the concepts of energy within the making of an ingot - as well as the energy it takes to "show" the work inside the TV. He takes the TV's construction into the equation, the constraints of technology - the slickness Vs the ancient methods of casting. He talks of the colours within the work, "talking" to the shining lights of the transmitter video ... It is this level of detail and consideration I too must embrace, if I have any chance of passing the MFA. Steve is obviously street ahead in this practice, but I think it's the confidence to think outside the box, to think and consider all the possibilities that enter my head when looking at work, I must embrace the bizarre and the strange, I must think outside the box - to push my understanding and practice at the same time. I must apply these same rigorous considerations to ensure that my work can hold up to scrutiny, so I can talk about the work on all levels. I must find my language, as Jo and Tom said last semester.
We head to PEM (Photographic Electronic Media), and explore the well crafted and prepared spaces. We note that the context is far more traditional in presentation, the use of screen (not as story teller, but the "comfortable" conveyor of image). There are not many surprises here, but the work is professional, the work is considered. We agree and disagree that several works "do it" for us, but we all agree that the professionalism shines through in these two departments (sculpture and PEM).
We head to sculpture, and I confidently talk about Martin Nelson’s work, as I've had a few discussions with him about his work (and development). I actually sound convincing, I have a lot of ideas about his work, it seems to speak to me, to allow me to speak for it. I "get it" on several levels...would I if I had not have met the man? If he hadn't told me of his intentions and development of the work? I do consider the work "at face value", but I also start to disassemble the concepts by questioning the content and material of the work. The premise is, the floor sculptures are binary representations = building blocks based on 1's and 0's, where groups of 1's present us with cubes in relative ratios. I speak to Steve about the material, as if the work was "about absolutes" (1 & 0), yet the material that makes this point, (wood) is also representative of another subatomic level of this "simplification". I liken it to atoms, scientists used to think that atoms were the smallest things that make "everything"...but we now know that quarks, Muons, Nuons, Higgs Boson particles etc make up atoms... so it is this complexity within a simple system that are offered to us...levelled consideration (perhaps not by the artist, but certainly by an intelligent and highly critical audience). It is the investment of time that affords us the opportunity to consider a work fully... We skitter round the rest of sculpture, we read statements and dissect people’s understanding and approach to work making. Several statements are picked out by Steve and held up to scrutiny, ambiguous (in a bad way), far to undefined and un-informing us of their intentions – I take note. He also makes us scrutinise the space (sans art), how perfect it appears, this enables the focus on the work – no deviation or distraction for the eye – concentrating our gaze on the art. Which takes us to printmaking and painting.
Looking at the spaces, the painters care only for the paint on the canvas. We see many large paintings, surrounded by shabby, taped and mucky walls. Is it indicative of the single mindedness of the painters? “You should look at only the painting on the wall” – fair point, but surely to enhance that clean focus, maintenance and sprucing up the very vessels that support “your art” would certainly create a better experience for art and audience? It is this level of detail that strikes me, where Steve is concerned…to know that this man looks at the floor, the ceiling, the walls before even considering the art, is amazing. I need to start being as rigorous, to expend that much energy into critically assessing space, context and art. The message I get is, become the picky critic, know the areas that need addressing, before someone else points them out to you. It’s that knowledge that gives you the strength; conviction and confidence to say “I am in control of this”, to deftly beat the critics off at the pass, to think for them, before them.
Indeed, this is the crux of the MFA, the advancement of my practice through rigorous, critical assessment. It is raising awareness of detail, in areas that one wouldn’t necessarily consider “essential” to creation of work. It is the next level of professional development. Knowing that context, placement and rigor (research, execution and discourse around the subject) is crucial. If I didn’t consider the walls, floor, dust and detritus piling up in the corner of the room, I will now! This feels good, to start to get this tour, we’re having a very worthy afternoon.
We head to Kelly Connor's video works on level 2.5 ... the painting storeroom...a strange but fascinating space to show work. She has several videos, all looking at "energy", we have a hotplate with water dripping onto it, a smelting / casting video, a communications tower flickering on a hilltop, a tractor ploughing and gulls fleeing and returning, a drain being unblocked and the piece de resistance, several projected workmen, stretching down the entire length of a cramped and cluttered space holding old frames, stretchers, sculptures etc. We stay in the space discussing the merits of the work. Steve is an excellent guide; his insights (or ideas) around the works are very enlightening. I crudely convey points of view...my conversation with Kelly from Monday...I tentatively put the idea that I see the workmen as ghosts or residues of previous occupants, dutifully sorting, ordering and dismantling objects. It is amazing the ideas that a few pixels can invoke, when projected into an interesting space. If this were "just" on a wall, a traditional white backdrop, it wouldn't have any of the impact. It would appear as a documentary of a process. This is the lesson Steve wants us to have, an understanding of the context of space and place. How this is integral and essential to the meaning of the work we produce. It should be one of the main considerations of our placement and creation of work. I also venture an honest comment about the smelting / casting work. "I don't quite "get it", I see it as a documentation of a process, and as nothing else". Steve kindly explains the possibilities (by "looking at the wider context") - he talks of the videos relationship to the others in the room, he talks of the concepts of energy within the making of an ingot - as well as the energy it takes to "show" the work inside the TV. He takes the TV's construction into the equation, the constraints of technology - the slickness Vs the ancient methods of casting. He talks of the colours within the work, "talking" to the shining lights of the transmitter video ... It is this level of detail and consideration I too must embrace, if I have any chance of passing the MFA. Steve is obviously street ahead in this practice, but I think it's the confidence to think outside the box, to think and consider all the possibilities that enter my head when looking at work, I must embrace the bizarre and the strange, I must think outside the box - to push my understanding and practice at the same time. I must apply these same rigorous considerations to ensure that my work can hold up to scrutiny, so I can talk about the work on all levels. I must find my language, as Jo and Tom said last semester.
We head to PEM (Photographic Electronic Media), and explore the well crafted and prepared spaces. We note that the context is far more traditional in presentation, the use of screen (not as story teller, but the "comfortable" conveyor of image). There are not many surprises here, but the work is professional, the work is considered. We agree and disagree that several works "do it" for us, but we all agree that the professionalism shines through in these two departments (sculpture and PEM).
We head to sculpture, and I confidently talk about Martin Nelson’s work, as I've had a few discussions with him about his work (and development). I actually sound convincing, I have a lot of ideas about his work, it seems to speak to me, to allow me to speak for it. I "get it" on several levels...would I if I had not have met the man? If he hadn't told me of his intentions and development of the work? I do consider the work "at face value", but I also start to disassemble the concepts by questioning the content and material of the work. The premise is, the floor sculptures are binary representations = building blocks based on 1's and 0's, where groups of 1's present us with cubes in relative ratios. I speak to Steve about the material, as if the work was "about absolutes" (1 & 0), yet the material that makes this point, (wood) is also representative of another subatomic level of this "simplification". I liken it to atoms, scientists used to think that atoms were the smallest things that make "everything"...but we now know that quarks, Muons, Nuons, Higgs Boson particles etc make up atoms... so it is this complexity within a simple system that are offered to us...levelled consideration (perhaps not by the artist, but certainly by an intelligent and highly critical audience). It is the investment of time that affords us the opportunity to consider a work fully... We skitter round the rest of sculpture, we read statements and dissect people’s understanding and approach to work making. Several statements are picked out by Steve and held up to scrutiny, ambiguous (in a bad way), far to undefined and un-informing us of their intentions – I take note. He also makes us scrutinise the space (sans art), how perfect it appears, this enables the focus on the work – no deviation or distraction for the eye – concentrating our gaze on the art. Which takes us to printmaking and painting.
Looking at the spaces, the painters care only for the paint on the canvas. We see many large paintings, surrounded by shabby, taped and mucky walls. Is it indicative of the single mindedness of the painters? “You should look at only the painting on the wall” – fair point, but surely to enhance that clean focus, maintenance and sprucing up the very vessels that support “your art” would certainly create a better experience for art and audience? It is this level of detail that strikes me, where Steve is concerned…to know that this man looks at the floor, the ceiling, the walls before even considering the art, is amazing. I need to start being as rigorous, to expend that much energy into critically assessing space, context and art. The message I get is, become the picky critic, know the areas that need addressing, before someone else points them out to you. It’s that knowledge that gives you the strength; conviction and confidence to say “I am in control of this”, to deftly beat the critics off at the pass, to think for them, before them.
Indeed, this is the crux of the MFA, the advancement of my practice through rigorous, critical assessment. It is raising awareness of detail, in areas that one wouldn’t necessarily consider “essential” to creation of work. It is the next level of professional development. Knowing that context, placement and rigor (research, execution and discourse around the subject) is crucial. If I didn’t consider the walls, floor, dust and detritus piling up in the corner of the room, I will now! This feels good, to start to get this tour, we’re having a very worthy afternoon.
Wednesday, 20 June 2007
Keep it open...let it breath
I meet with Steve Hollingsworth today, for a first crit of the MFA.
It is as helpful as it is confusing.
Steve is interested in the area of information within a media context. He warns me to steer clear of "dealing with the truth" ("there is no such thing as a truth").
I show him my questionnaire, and he doesn't seem too interested in it, he seems to think that its restrictive, or that I know what I'll get back from my limited participants...I thought it did (or has) brought several interesting points of view, about truth and trust, about how people perceive the words, and how they implement them in their everyday observations and interactions. I am particularly interested in the arguments that people have with themselves, when trying to specifically define something they take for granted. Steve does say that it's "rigorous" (my ears prick up, thinking this is a good thing), but he's disappointed that it seems so prescriptive.... I was hoping it was open and non prescriptive...think again peep.
We start to talk about the philosophy books I am reading at the moment, and I talk about my interest in Turin, and his interest in computers during the second world war, and how he subsequently developed a test (to which no one has yet satisfied) to create a computer / program that can fool people into thinking they are sentient or intelligent... I am still reading the texts, and continuing research in this area, I think (and Steve seemed to think too), that this was something to get my teeth into.
One Excellent piece of advice Steve gives me, is "don't just illustrate a philosophers theory"... I understand this to mean that I shouldn't take a set of ideas, and translate them literally into a work of art. Like making a bad conversation in a pc - to highlight (illustrate) the inaccuracy of a computer's ability to "converse" (for example)...
I have to remember this point. Steve also talks about not making things before I've found the room (within Gray’s). He's adamant that I should create works from experiments within the context of my research. Computers, Texts, Graphics. I am getting confused as to how one can make art form things that you don't know exist yet. I still don't feel right thinking of ideas - before I've got materials...but I do, and I come up with lots of them...but are these just illustrations? Just single point - non-expansive, non-poetic and tired obvious banalities?
"Don’t make something that looks like art"...I don't know quite how to know yet, what I make that IS are, and what "just looks like art"...
This criticism is the big killer for my creativity. I've been scared into non-action, I am petrified to even contemplate thinking about making anything now...I think I am even expected to only make something that fits within the Tutors understanding of "my strengths" (graphics). I want to make an installation; I want to create an experience for the senses. I want to make something that is experimental that does titillate the brain...and do I know what for that will take yet? No!...but I hope it isn't constrained by "graphics", it's too easy (for me)...but is it for the tutors? Are they "expecting" something they know I can make? (Surely that's a bad thing?) But, all this is conjecture, and I might just be paranoid and stupid.
It is as helpful as it is confusing.
Steve is interested in the area of information within a media context. He warns me to steer clear of "dealing with the truth" ("there is no such thing as a truth").
I show him my questionnaire, and he doesn't seem too interested in it, he seems to think that its restrictive, or that I know what I'll get back from my limited participants...I thought it did (or has) brought several interesting points of view, about truth and trust, about how people perceive the words, and how they implement them in their everyday observations and interactions. I am particularly interested in the arguments that people have with themselves, when trying to specifically define something they take for granted. Steve does say that it's "rigorous" (my ears prick up, thinking this is a good thing), but he's disappointed that it seems so prescriptive.... I was hoping it was open and non prescriptive...think again peep.
We start to talk about the philosophy books I am reading at the moment, and I talk about my interest in Turin, and his interest in computers during the second world war, and how he subsequently developed a test (to which no one has yet satisfied) to create a computer / program that can fool people into thinking they are sentient or intelligent... I am still reading the texts, and continuing research in this area, I think (and Steve seemed to think too), that this was something to get my teeth into.
One Excellent piece of advice Steve gives me, is "don't just illustrate a philosophers theory"... I understand this to mean that I shouldn't take a set of ideas, and translate them literally into a work of art. Like making a bad conversation in a pc - to highlight (illustrate) the inaccuracy of a computer's ability to "converse" (for example)...
I have to remember this point. Steve also talks about not making things before I've found the room (within Gray’s). He's adamant that I should create works from experiments within the context of my research. Computers, Texts, Graphics. I am getting confused as to how one can make art form things that you don't know exist yet. I still don't feel right thinking of ideas - before I've got materials...but I do, and I come up with lots of them...but are these just illustrations? Just single point - non-expansive, non-poetic and tired obvious banalities?
"Don’t make something that looks like art"...I don't know quite how to know yet, what I make that IS are, and what "just looks like art"...
This criticism is the big killer for my creativity. I've been scared into non-action, I am petrified to even contemplate thinking about making anything now...I think I am even expected to only make something that fits within the Tutors understanding of "my strengths" (graphics). I want to make an installation; I want to create an experience for the senses. I want to make something that is experimental that does titillate the brain...and do I know what for that will take yet? No!...but I hope it isn't constrained by "graphics", it's too easy (for me)...but is it for the tutors? Are they "expecting" something they know I can make? (Surely that's a bad thing?) But, all this is conjecture, and I might just be paranoid and stupid.
Sunday, 17 June 2007
inTent day 1
I'm in Gray's today, setting up the "you" part of my "you and I" installation for the public to get a taste of "interactive art". Anita Haywood, Merlyn Riggs, Moira Third, Mary Cane and Mark Duguid join me in presenting a broad spectrum of work to which the common theme is "interactivity”: art that is only "complete" when an audience makes it.
Moira asks the audience to describe photographs she's taken
Mark videos people "playing" to be then digitised and transported into a video world
Merlyn has several works, a closet of un-wearable cloths along with reasons as to why her participants can't wear them, a cloth to be cut and sewed back together, and a plaster sculpture waiting to be "made" through the destruction and declaration of where and why (with one hit) from the participant
Anita asks people to act Shakespeare, in any language but English
and my exploration of personal space, volume and colour...
it's a quiet day, just as well, we're all ironing out several problems, the set up takes longer than we all expected.
The TV I am given doesn't work, so I go home and commandeer my flat screen from home.
works a treat.
no one visits my secluded part of the tent....probably just as well!
till tomorrow.
PS - no MFA work today, busy on revisiting and tweaking the past.
Moira asks the audience to describe photographs she's taken
Mark videos people "playing" to be then digitised and transported into a video world
Merlyn has several works, a closet of un-wearable cloths along with reasons as to why her participants can't wear them, a cloth to be cut and sewed back together, and a plaster sculpture waiting to be "made" through the destruction and declaration of where and why (with one hit) from the participant
Anita asks people to act Shakespeare, in any language but English
and my exploration of personal space, volume and colour...
it's a quiet day, just as well, we're all ironing out several problems, the set up takes longer than we all expected.
The TV I am given doesn't work, so I go home and commandeer my flat screen from home.
works a treat.
no one visits my secluded part of the tent....probably just as well!
till tomorrow.
PS - no MFA work today, busy on revisiting and tweaking the past.
Saturday, 16 June 2007
my birthday
today is my birthday, how nice. 34 again...no, for the first time ever.
Murray, Kerry, Hannah, John, Suzanne and Iona come round for tea n coffee (and juice n cakes).
John gives me an amazing book on "text within art"...I am pretty stoked by the thought, it's a fantastic Thames and Hudson book ("writing on the wall: word and image in modern art"). John had looked through the book too, and we talked about certain pieces, "the great bear" by Simon Patterson (in the book there is a statement: "the artist as a subverter of conventional codes") - the fact is, we "assume" we know what the "picture" is, but on closer inspection, another form of communication is hijacking our known position on the "London underground" (or pictorial, bastardised representation of the London underground). We therefore must always closely inspect and pay attention to information, no matter how much we think (or, assume) we know what it is about.
This gets me thinking about newspapers, I'd like to explore changing the articles in newspapers...I want to make a "fake" sun (cover), screen printed onto newssheet, I could take a guardian or independent cover, and make it look like a sun newspaper...sneak into shops and replace the original cover with the bastardised version...I wonder what the "sun reader" would think? all of the liberal views presented in a familiar format...would they read it as a sun "voice", or would they tell, straight away it was "an impostor?"
It’s an exploration of the acceptance of "truth" (one "they" are used to), is it a psychosis, "pick up sun...read words...agree...page three...ah, nice tits...get to the sport, these immigrants are pissin me off"...(or do I assume too much of sun readers?)
Just a thought: truth is the undeniable account of something that happened* - an impossible collection of information that reflects a particular point in time.
OPINION is based on truth, whether it follows the logic of the facts or not (which can then turn truth into a lie). The ability to believe or disbelieve "fact" and "truth" is the defect of the human brain - the ability for decisions to be taken in a non-logical (or emotional) assessment of a given point in time. It is this human condition, the need to form opinions that defend "the self", to commune with like minded people and to communicate this position to others that leads "truth" to become "lie" and vice versa. It is emotion, defence, historic and collective perceptions, which dictate that people follow their understanding of "truth". If people did not adhere to these human traits, the world would be more "ruthless" (seen through the eyes of our understanding of right and wrong) - but to be absolute (void of emotion and sensibilities based on rules we all know) would render human spirit void, we'd "simply" be animals** - no right and wrong, no love or hate it would be a world of inconsequential events.
* and of course, the language (or interpretation of the use of language when “describing” an event) will even skew and contaminate the absolute truth.
** and that is an assumption on my part that animals “don’t” have some form of understanding of “right and wrong” – the consequence of a lion killing an eating a bison, is that an animal dies and the pride survive another day.
-------------
gabi and I head to Gray's for the Alumi reception, and meet Chloe and Pat. Chloe gives me three books for my birthday:
The Norton anthology of Theory and Criticism, the great philosophers & literary theory: an anothology. She's spledidly marked a few pages on "truth and trust"...what a great present! now all I need is the ability to freeze time, and read the 4000 or so pages in all three books. Doddle. (only kidding, you know me)
Murray, Kerry, Hannah, John, Suzanne and Iona come round for tea n coffee (and juice n cakes).
John gives me an amazing book on "text within art"...I am pretty stoked by the thought, it's a fantastic Thames and Hudson book ("writing on the wall: word and image in modern art"). John had looked through the book too, and we talked about certain pieces, "the great bear" by Simon Patterson (in the book there is a statement: "the artist as a subverter of conventional codes") - the fact is, we "assume" we know what the "picture" is, but on closer inspection, another form of communication is hijacking our known position on the "London underground" (or pictorial, bastardised representation of the London underground). We therefore must always closely inspect and pay attention to information, no matter how much we think (or, assume) we know what it is about.
This gets me thinking about newspapers, I'd like to explore changing the articles in newspapers...I want to make a "fake" sun (cover), screen printed onto newssheet, I could take a guardian or independent cover, and make it look like a sun newspaper...sneak into shops and replace the original cover with the bastardised version...I wonder what the "sun reader" would think? all of the liberal views presented in a familiar format...would they read it as a sun "voice", or would they tell, straight away it was "an impostor?"
It’s an exploration of the acceptance of "truth" (one "they" are used to), is it a psychosis, "pick up sun...read words...agree...page three...ah, nice tits...get to the sport, these immigrants are pissin me off"...(or do I assume too much of sun readers?)
Just a thought: truth is the undeniable account of something that happened* - an impossible collection of information that reflects a particular point in time.
OPINION is based on truth, whether it follows the logic of the facts or not (which can then turn truth into a lie). The ability to believe or disbelieve "fact" and "truth" is the defect of the human brain - the ability for decisions to be taken in a non-logical (or emotional) assessment of a given point in time. It is this human condition, the need to form opinions that defend "the self", to commune with like minded people and to communicate this position to others that leads "truth" to become "lie" and vice versa. It is emotion, defence, historic and collective perceptions, which dictate that people follow their understanding of "truth". If people did not adhere to these human traits, the world would be more "ruthless" (seen through the eyes of our understanding of right and wrong) - but to be absolute (void of emotion and sensibilities based on rules we all know) would render human spirit void, we'd "simply" be animals** - no right and wrong, no love or hate it would be a world of inconsequential events.
* and of course, the language (or interpretation of the use of language when “describing” an event) will even skew and contaminate the absolute truth.
** and that is an assumption on my part that animals “don’t” have some form of understanding of “right and wrong” – the consequence of a lion killing an eating a bison, is that an animal dies and the pride survive another day.
-------------
gabi and I head to Gray's for the Alumi reception, and meet Chloe and Pat. Chloe gives me three books for my birthday:
The Norton anthology of Theory and Criticism, the great philosophers & literary theory: an anothology. She's spledidly marked a few pages on "truth and trust"...what a great present! now all I need is the ability to freeze time, and read the 4000 or so pages in all three books. Doddle. (only kidding, you know me)
Thursday, 14 June 2007
our place in this world
I am getting a few questionnaires returned now, some interesting points emerge, not that people's perceptions of "truth" are anything radical or ground breaking, but to see that people actually argue with themselves on paper. I can see the struggle that people have to actually identify what "truth" is. This is where my interest lies, the knowledge that people talk of "truth" - how everyone is supposed to know what it is (like an unwritten rule), but they still can't quite put their fingers on it.
I am also noticing that when people fill in the questions, they do so in order of sequence, that is to say, they don't read all the questions first, or read them in groups, to determine what to say in each answer. I have carefully ordered the questions to make people think of elements on their own. It is particularly obvious in the "technology" section, where I ask: "Do you trust technology to convey truth?" and many of the responses deal with the human implementation and involvement of the technology, then after this question, I ask "Do you trust the human element in implementation of technology?" - to which most people have already answered that, by thinking that technology IS human implementation, and not "just" a collection of wires and switches. Is technology "programming" ? it is fascinating to think that "all technology" has been developed by "human hand" - circut boards designed by a person, to which human programmers write code to facilitate the switches and gates within these boxes for a myriad of purposes, shopping, news, voting, census...killing imaginary aliens on an imaginary planet in an imaginary future...
The knowledge that our lives are directed by our actions (collectively and individually), in understood realms (personal experiences) and complex "leave it to the experts" realms - we seem to have it hard wired into our brains that anything we see, must in some form revert back to our influence or relativity. Even looking at the natural world, where mankind has not had a "hand in making", we anthropomorphises, we seem to assume ownership (farming, ecological "missions", preservation areas etc). This all points to a very selfish perspective of our place in this world. I wonder if ants care for the well being of the planet? I wonder if when ants chew trees, they "understand" the ramifications of their actions?
has all this come from asking "what is the truth?"...a large area indeed.
the degree show opens tonight - the sculpture department looks cool...lovely space
I am also noticing that when people fill in the questions, they do so in order of sequence, that is to say, they don't read all the questions first, or read them in groups, to determine what to say in each answer. I have carefully ordered the questions to make people think of elements on their own. It is particularly obvious in the "technology" section, where I ask: "Do you trust technology to convey truth?" and many of the responses deal with the human implementation and involvement of the technology, then after this question, I ask "Do you trust the human element in implementation of technology?" - to which most people have already answered that, by thinking that technology IS human implementation, and not "just" a collection of wires and switches. Is technology "programming" ? it is fascinating to think that "all technology" has been developed by "human hand" - circut boards designed by a person, to which human programmers write code to facilitate the switches and gates within these boxes for a myriad of purposes, shopping, news, voting, census...killing imaginary aliens on an imaginary planet in an imaginary future...
The knowledge that our lives are directed by our actions (collectively and individually), in understood realms (personal experiences) and complex "leave it to the experts" realms - we seem to have it hard wired into our brains that anything we see, must in some form revert back to our influence or relativity. Even looking at the natural world, where mankind has not had a "hand in making", we anthropomorphises, we seem to assume ownership (farming, ecological "missions", preservation areas etc). This all points to a very selfish perspective of our place in this world. I wonder if ants care for the well being of the planet? I wonder if when ants chew trees, they "understand" the ramifications of their actions?
has all this come from asking "what is the truth?"...a large area indeed.
the degree show opens tonight - the sculpture department looks cool...lovely space
little meeting
Susie and I head into the art school to hook up with Jonathan, just to keep each other supported and informed as to developments etc. We head to the library (for coffee, not books) and sit on the lawn, discussing life in general - which is indirectly pertinent to our MFA course.
Jonathan wants to leave Aberdeen, he's fed up with it all here - mostly inspired by the lovely people who inhabit union street after 9pm (he'd encountered a particularly lecherous and drunken oaf after the Aberdeen artists' opening he'd said, which started him really thinking about where he is in life. He also seems to be having some troubles at home, but in his inimitable, secretive and poetic fashion, we are non the wiser.
Susie is getting all scientific, in an artistic way (?!) she'd logging temperatures, cloud cover etc, all for her documentation of her swimming - an immersion (physically) into the landscape. Some cross pollination of "information gathering and usage" with my practice...we've got a lot in common, which is helpful - to sing from the same hymn sheet is always a bonus!
I talk about my questionnaire, and we start the debate about "what truth is"...and we've all got some semblance of understanding, about how it's all to do with perception, points of view (physically and mentally), about how one "truth" is a lie to others. They do worry it's "a large area" to look at, but I am sure I can fine tune the research to question technologies role in conveying "a truth" (news, television, information points (town centres etc).
Jonathan wants to leave Aberdeen, he's fed up with it all here - mostly inspired by the lovely people who inhabit union street after 9pm (he'd encountered a particularly lecherous and drunken oaf after the Aberdeen artists' opening he'd said, which started him really thinking about where he is in life. He also seems to be having some troubles at home, but in his inimitable, secretive and poetic fashion, we are non the wiser.
Susie is getting all scientific, in an artistic way (?!) she'd logging temperatures, cloud cover etc, all for her documentation of her swimming - an immersion (physically) into the landscape. Some cross pollination of "information gathering and usage" with my practice...we've got a lot in common, which is helpful - to sing from the same hymn sheet is always a bonus!
I talk about my questionnaire, and we start the debate about "what truth is"...and we've all got some semblance of understanding, about how it's all to do with perception, points of view (physically and mentally), about how one "truth" is a lie to others. They do worry it's "a large area" to look at, but I am sure I can fine tune the research to question technologies role in conveying "a truth" (news, television, information points (town centres etc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
