In the book "What Things Do", the author, Verbeek, talks about mediation of technology, in particular the function and sign of technology.
For example: "a speed bump not only functions to slow down traffic, it mediates the relation of users of the road and the space around it, signifying that space as a pedestrian terrain through making it safe."
As such, function and sign can be analyzed separately. This 'sign' is actually corresponding to Latour's Actor Network theory of 'delegation'. What has been inscribed in the technology? What are the meaning or desire?
I am thinking about in the art world, the artifact, such as JODI's work GeoGoo, other than visually presented as performing objects, what has been inscribed in the work if we think about the use of icons and maps in the work, there is a critical element inside the work. Can we describe this as a sign or as latour's term "delegation" ? Technology is used as a way to critique the network. This strategy is commonly used in network art, for example Benjamin's artwork Facebook dematricator.
To move the notion of signs to generativity/liveness, how might be understand liveness through signs? What the code does is not just performing an action from its functional perspective, but more performing a critique of culture/technology or translating a specific meaning through the artwork performance. This requires us to look at the materials, how the artists use the materials for example likes/google map icons etc to delegate their desire and inscribe into the artwork. In that sense, we have to look into the materials of an artwork. What it means by performing live? Why is it so important to perform as live? What is the aesthetics of liveness when we think from the materials aspect of an artwork?
Perhaps it demonstrates the dynamics and unpredictability of artwork/network.
From Bucher (2012), she mentions her methodological approach towards her thesis. "I adopt the view that technical objects and elements afford meanings and possibilities for action, based on how they work and function. My methods are therefore influenced by approaches to media that explicate the need to read and interpret technology based on its materiality and procedurality." (p.73)
Can I also use the similar approach to understand why it has to be performed as live? To relate to generativity, shall we look at the rules that the author defines?
For example: "a speed bump not only functions to slow down traffic, it mediates the relation of users of the road and the space around it, signifying that space as a pedestrian terrain through making it safe."
As such, function and sign can be analyzed separately. This 'sign' is actually corresponding to Latour's Actor Network theory of 'delegation'. What has been inscribed in the technology? What are the meaning or desire?
I am thinking about in the art world, the artifact, such as JODI's work GeoGoo, other than visually presented as performing objects, what has been inscribed in the work if we think about the use of icons and maps in the work, there is a critical element inside the work. Can we describe this as a sign or as latour's term "delegation" ? Technology is used as a way to critique the network. This strategy is commonly used in network art, for example Benjamin's artwork Facebook dematricator.
To move the notion of signs to generativity/liveness, how might be understand liveness through signs? What the code does is not just performing an action from its functional perspective, but more performing a critique of culture/technology or translating a specific meaning through the artwork performance. This requires us to look at the materials, how the artists use the materials for example likes/google map icons etc to delegate their desire and inscribe into the artwork. In that sense, we have to look into the materials of an artwork. What it means by performing live? Why is it so important to perform as live? What is the aesthetics of liveness when we think from the materials aspect of an artwork?
Perhaps it demonstrates the dynamics and unpredictability of artwork/network.
From Bucher (2012), she mentions her methodological approach towards her thesis. "I adopt the view that technical objects and elements afford meanings and possibilities for action, based on how they work and function. My methods are therefore influenced by approaches to media that explicate the need to read and interpret technology based on its materiality and procedurality." (p.73)
Can I also use the similar approach to understand why it has to be performed as live? To relate to generativity, shall we look at the rules that the author defines?
No comments:
Post a Comment