WEEK 3: Manovich essay discussion

In response to a discussion about Lev Manovich's essay about

The Practice of Everyday (media) Life:

http://digital-environments.wikispaces.com/Manovich+essay

http://manovich.net/

It would be safe to state that there is a lot one can say about only one aspect of the internet. The compelling nature of the discussion we had in class lies in the impact digital environments has had and is having on our actual lives. The internet having been introduced and shuffled in to public domains throughout the last 25 years. Generations of the future will be born into an era where the internet is in use and used across the world. It has shifted from being an area used for publication to a realm of communication, which is very significant fluctuation. The internet content is increasingly produced by amateurs and this has particular consequence as it is an example that many more people are becoming able to express them selves and communicate in a creative way exploiting digital environments. Every continent is in some way on line, all countries and potentially all people could communicate with each other. Through out the discussion, questions emerged that challenged how this effects our lives. 

Here is lecture expressing a positive assessment of the facilities available to us through internet communication and the implication it can have on physical relationships.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stefana_broadbent_how_the_internet_enables_intimacy.html

QUESTIONS:

The first part of the essay has lots of statistics about media use, can you add any personal experiences to support or contradict these facts? One example of misguided internet statistics lies in the fact that users are continually shifting how, when and where they communicate. With the increasing use of mobile technology and mobile internet, some people today can be 'online' all day long with out much inconvenience to their lives or routines. The internet is a fluid field (or pool) of data with users logging in and out all the time, individuals signing up to news letters, remaining logged on to sites for days, having their emails added to databases and so on and so fourth. Manovich's statistics were perhaps completely true at one point in time, 2008 is recent history. The fact that this essay was written in 2008 and the internet has since then already changed dramatically makes it easy to disagree with their certitude. 
One example of change being the increase in users of twitter. As long  users continue using, digital social migrations will continue to spread in to a variety of new and already existing networks. By writing about change there is an indication that such things are inevitable. 
I will use myself as an example: I have not used my my-space account for a long time (over half a year perhaps). Statistically, because I am still registered I am still a user. As Manovich states himself, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’? So perhaps the methods we exploit to gather and analyse data will bustle into methods that integrate the mappability of web 2.0 and real time analysis with be more capable and/or these methods will be more adaptive or general terms that firmly refer or anchor themselves to the particular point time. 
This wedsite on INTERNET STATISTICS:  http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Indicates, 25.6 % of the population of the world having used the internet for September 30, 2009. The deomographic numbers are based on data gathered by the US census beuro. This graph might be out dated in a only a few months. (Please click for greater detail or follow the link to internetworldstats.com to see how they are changing)

Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democraticing of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big business’
Like the many other millions of internet users, I get sent adverts (or spam) to my inbox, with out fail these messages either go to junk, which is seldom checked and always deleted (a method employed by many of the receivers of such information). Its a very interesting time for business because it is so competitive and people are very sensitive to information privacy, making them perhaps doubtful of intrusive spam.  EBAY is one significant development in terms of trading. Users can be sellers and reach potential buyers. The advertising partly takes place in the searching process as all things are categorised. Reputation, nonetheless does NOT cease to be of importance, people like to have a reason to trust whoever they are buying from.
Adverts appear when I access my facebook account but considering all the information in the 'about me' section of my profile is utter nonsense its very unlikely any advertisers with be able to get through to me. The only extent to which advertising on Facebook has directly effected my existence is when I have been made aware of a particular event which has appeared interesting to me and brought to my attention by someone I know. So the element of a person interacting with you still seems to be very important in a successful internet commerce. 
I think the influence of the internet becoming more democratic and is slipping out of the hands of big businesses into the hands of people for example who that are happy to promote ideas or events for free and out of interest. This signifies an interesting view of the future for modern economics (which is quite difficult for me to get my head around.) There will always be a demand for something, and somewhere some one will always be willing to provide a solution to for fill it. So there will always be opportunity for business, but not in a conventional hierarchical way.


Takes for example the success of WIKIPEDIA, which is free and exists as verified user generated content in comparison to to the diminishing ENCATRA, which you had to pay for. Similarly the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE (is also user generated).


There certainly exists a strategy and tactic in the way the internet is shuffled between users when money is involved. The goal to materialise revenue via a far reaching medium- the internet, cheaper that any other kind of media and user friendly, it could potentially develop a massive clientele. Some of whom may without the use of internet may never be made aware of your services and how they can benefit them from the comfort of their own homes. This concept is extremely attractive to business. Even when primarily there is no financial transition being made from a network or database, the database in use will still certainly have value because of its potential commercial value. People often discuss their concerns about social websites such as facebook, twitter, my-space and to a greater extent second life. Concerned because of privacy issues that are embroiled in the fact that their personal information could fabricate revenue for someone. Another concern is the influence that online socialising has on relationships because a broad physical experience of the world (socially, objectively, personally, etc) is much better for us in comparison to residing within one or few realms which do in-fact mute some of the greatest aspects of being human e.g: regardless of how far interactive technologies could go, optically or haptically there is nothing quite as good as a REAL breath of fresh air. Surely? 
Questions concerning the ownership of data on facebook for example yields intrigue from users. The answer is that the data provides revenue for some one or some group of peoples somewhere beyond the internet. Facebook make it impossible for you to completely shut down/erase your profile, you can merely suspend or freeze it. Only recently did this enterprise hold the rights over all things published and posted, and the content on Facebook is only vaguely real considering it goes through such a rigorous selection process by the individual. Leading me to assume that as there is no real, informative meaning to the information on facebook (although it can be at times entertaining) this however is that the trivial pool provided by facebook has value. It seems that it can be a target indicator to advertisers, and the persistence of internet advertising directs me to conclude that SOME revenue is actually made. Facebook can only really indicate some facts concerning peoples lifestyles e.g. photos may reveal what people get up to on the weekend which may (or may not) be of importance to employers when selecting employees.  It is interesting that people are selective of the information they post or allow to be posted about them selves despite this fact. I like to contemplate who they are trying to appeal too if such is the case. It is easy to be skeptical of such networks internet, although it is an unavoidable response to how it has changed our time. Perhaps its only a matter of time before big businesses will have no choice but to adopt the role of the average user to be successful. Like many wolves in sheeps clothing.

What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘ it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s live becomes as common as email’? It is already possible to continually broadcast one's life, regarding you have continual internet connection and some mobile devise with a camera that allows you to do so. The benefit of continual broad casting being as common as email is hard for me to understand, its seems like it would be really boring and unnecessary to watch (unless perhaps for vital research or art? This idea reminds me a bit of the film The Trueman Show). 

Nonetheless, twitter is extremely popular and concerns itself with thousands of one sentence 'broad cast' from thousands of contributers.


THE MAPPABILITY OF WEB 2.0
Here is a link to interesting, paradoxical and rather sad counters comparing internet activity to child death's related to hunger: http://www.wfp.org/1billion

WEEK 2: What is digital (and related topics)

'The interpretation of a binary sequence into something meaningful'

This was the best thing I could think of. Data in the form of a sequence being translated possibly into networks in the form of pictures, sounds, games, messages etc. All things that hold some kind of importance to us.

"Very simply, 'analogue' is used to describe systems which operate using the principle of signals whose characteristic varies in proportion to some other function which they represent. An example is a gramophone record where the depth of the groove varies in exact proportion with the sound pressure level recorded. By contrast, 'digital' systems work on the principle of numerical representations and calculation."

from: http://www.techmind.org/digital/

1) PROBLEM SOLVING: Digital technologies offer a solution to problems relevant to our time and culture that are relative to modern culture and technology. Concerning communications to and from a mass audience across vast distances, the typical problems we might expect involving time and reliability are now easily avoidable if not void in some places with many people being able to access alternative ways to send messages, have real-time conversations and spread news and ideas. Technically, by making it easier for us to communicate, we have solved and important problem. Computers are also able to solve long complex problems and calculations making a cost and time effective alternative providing ourselves with more time to do other things that a computer can only assist in doing e.g. create and discover. 
There are things that computers are very unlikely to achieve, such as creation and abstract thought. But a possible argument against the statement 'COMPUTERS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO CREATE' resides in the possibility that there is an underlying order (or law) to everything in the universe (the fabled and ever mysterious 'Theory of Everything'). If there is a universal physical law that we can discover, then in some way events are statistically predictable by some use of probability theory. If the likely-hood of an event can calculated (through probabilities) then it potentially can be done by a computer. No such thing can currently be proven and even though this topic is interesting this is that my priority. 

With regards to probability: Please visit blog entry on LE POMP: Monday, 9 November 2009

Probability and Patterns: Vagueness beyond your standard drunken memory is nothing more than fact

(http://thejenistempire.blogspot.com/2009/11/probability-and-patterns-vagueness_09.html)

2) MAKING LINEAR TASKS EASIER GIVES US TIME TO MAKE, DISCOVER AND PLAY: If I want to find the answer to something I cant remember, the internet provides me with an instant and diverse solutions. This is exciting, because it means such a task can be done by a machine, giving me more time to be creative or interactive in a human way. However the down side lies in the risk that we could neglect our memory and leave things to be learnt in a way that is not thorough or substantial enough. We already rely heavily on the directories and operations of computers and the internet as a substitute for linear memorising and operations. 
This in its self has a good side because it connects us to each other. A practical example of the benefits of using computers is when they are used in scientific research in inaccessible areas such as Mars and Volcanoes- I personally dont see the point in manned space missions, our technology is not advanced enough for this to be cost/time effective and it is currently better suited for collecting and processing data needed to understand more about such physical environments before assessing how realistic, practical or culturally significant it might be to send folk into space (or into volcanoes.) 


*NOTE: Its our responsibility to take care of our memory and the parts of our brain that carry out linear tasks that a computer is more easily capable of processing. Its exists to be used and it makes sense not to let this perish at the expense of practicality- our processing capabilities on the whole (i.e. biologically) are far more advanced than those of any machine.


3) GLOBAL CONNECTION: We are potentially all able to be connected to each through the digital environment and all able to access information for free. This can only be a catalyst in our development and understanding of one another and problem solving.


4) TECHNOLOGY/ CAD/ MEDIA/ ART: There are things we can do with computers that we can not do alone. I mentioned Mars earlier as an example but consider things like laser scanning, satellite imaging, interpreting and/or detecting Infrared signals are a few things amongst many that require computer/digital assistance. 
Computers can also assist in design. CAD (Computer Aided Design) has revolutionized the world of art, design and commerce- with the emergence of digital arts. We can make interactive projected or online animations or games that depend on some kind of network or human action. We use layers, selecting  and mapping tools to assist design using programs such a those made by Adobe. Digital printing has opened up an immense variety of possibilities: Choice of printing methods, printable on many surfaces with many different finishes, production and prototyping is made easier, vector images can be lazer-cut into a variety of surfaces as well as 3D scanning, printing (rapid prototyping) aided by 3D modeling softwares.

The film industry is changing: Not only with the development of technologies in HD (High Definition) and more sophisticated but digital equipment is becoming more accessible, affordable and editing softwares are becoming increasingly user friendly. Digital environments appear to be democratising many creative processes. However many big movies and documentaries are still recorded on film, their is a certain currently irreplaceable aesthetic in the physical imprint of moving images on film that is vital to many creative film makers and directors. Some photographers would agree- but an excellent digital camera to a professional photographer or photo-journalist is indispensable. 

NONETHELESS! 
As a human, it is clear that there will always be an aesthetic and pleasure in all things human made and human done: i.e. communicating with people, walking through a park early in the morning on a sunny day, going to the pub etc. For most people these things are more satisfying in person, possible because sitting in front of a computer screen all day (no matter how interesting its content) is not what we have physically evolved to be able to deal with (yet?). 


There are things a human can do that remain impossible to computers/robots/programs, although through logic it may be possible to imitate these things. Will it ever be possible for computers to be capable of independent abstract thought or ideas that are inconclusive and/or contradictory? In a computer, a contradiction would perhaps result in a crash or a never ending loop, which made physically impossible to do even on an infinite time scale because the physical capacity of a processor. (Which is finite and will 'use itself up'). Computers work by translating numerical calculations that are in a sense like the 'arguments' of logic or PROOF.

Deductive logic can be proven incomplete. This proof was published in 1931 by Gödel; a good reference is Hofstader's Gödel, Escher, Bach. The key being ingrained in 'self-reference'. He proved that all mathematics (unless they are trivially limited) contain statements that are both true and false or neither true nor false. They are infact simply unprovable.

Take for example this 'self referencing' argument: "This statement is false."

"Note that if this statement is true, then it must be false. If the statement if false, then it must be true. So we have a chain of True » False » True » False ...."

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html)

The discussion we had during our meeting on Friday was very interesting, everyone has something to say about WHAT DIGITAL IS. Probably because in London and at Camberwell College of Arts, digital communication networks are very important to how we contact our tutors and each other. For many other people across the world this is the same.

Who or WHAT is Rupert Murdoch?

Here is an extract from http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/09/murdoch-google

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

"I think we will, but that's when we start charging," he said. "We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form."

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under "fair use" rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.

"There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly."

Rupert Murdoch's ideas on how he wants to deal with the internet are regressive. This is not just an opinion but an observable fact  that can be deduced after reading this article (but I will look for some others relating to this story because I dont want to be biased). This clarifys that the news is not just news but an enterprise. Ol' Rupert already has A LOT of money. He is old and successful enough to not need any more I'm sure, not that this can ever be a realistic or rational reason (let alone an excuse) for ANYONE alive to stop  working/making or trying at what they do best HOWEVER it is perhaps one of many reasons for some one like him to continue allowing people to access information for free. (Is this an observable fact too? Am I wrong? Is it true to state that his idea is too greedy and backwards?)  I like to repeat myself so I will now, diversity=success, this is well known and obvious.
Ideas that focus on improving only ONE aspect of our modern culture/society (e.g: Money- as important as it may be) will neglect and dilute other aspects of culture. No one should have that kind of power over something as diverse as the internet. THE sense of necessity that is integral to design and innovation in art, technology and science  funnily enough is more often pure endeavour and not  financial gain. The best and most useful creations/inventions/discoveries etc were found by accident or through a purposeful and/or industrious undertaking (especially ones that require effort and/or boldness). And always as part of an earnest and conscientious activity intended to do or accomplish something, attempting so by employing effort and interest in the project/subject at hand.

Please watch the following presentations, I think the first one demonstrates and explains some of the dangers of draconian control over the internet and its content to our future, while the second describes other views and dangers of the internet and how it can be used to manipulate (but then again so can T.V and Newspapers etc...Which coincidentally are some of the things that Rupert owns).

Generally there are 2 sides to every coin

In response to Manovich's essay and what was earlier discussed in class: The internet is definitely a marvel, and so are newspaper and both radio and televised broadcasts etc. Needless to say, all of the said forms of media and beyond are subject to manipulation. People are also partial to formulating opinions and in (many parts of the world) some way obliged- socially perhaps? (although not forced) to contribute towards the grand, plentiful data pool that is... The internet.







There are certain benefits of this invention, mainly being related to its democratic 'all may contribute' nature, because every one can and does have a voice in some way shape or form, and the internet is one place where your voice can be publicly expressed.



This is a powerful principle, perhaps frightening to some. I think we can all agree that there IS an abundance of digital noise out there and that a lot of internet content is trivial but what the input represents in terms of technology, communication and censorship is much more important.







Its important that there is a means that encourages freedom of expression. No matter how trivial, else censorship would become far too severe and depends on the opinion of perhaps very few individuals.



Of course, the immense mass of data dilutes some a sense of intelligence, necessity, creativity and/or ingenuity just like how the sounds of a busy road or noisy environment may drown out parts conversation you are trying to engage in. Lots of people enjoy talking about nonsense, which is not necessarily an insult because its an observable fact. The process and experience of the internet is by nature a selective one. In most countries you may select the content you view as much as you select the content that you contribute.







My sister forwarded me an email containing a public message from her friend. This blog entry is a comment on what he has said despite his request at the end "PS Please don’t comment on this. I don’t want to hear what you think and it will only encourage me to post more useless shite." I agree with the content and think its funny. At the same time its relevant to this part of my course. Its all an important part of the information development process. I presume there is a use for the reflections people produce in response to what other people say when given unlimited opportunity to express themselves, never mind how blandly they decide to do so.











Keep your trivia to yourself... by Jack Sharp



I don’t want to know what you had for lunch, what hat you’re wearing










or what type of dog you just saw. Stop spewing mindless content into










the great expanse of the internet in the vain hope that someone will










read it and give you a virtual pat on the bum for the cute little life



you lead.







True, the human mind has been a festering hive of trivial sewage for



thousands of years, but the sluice gates tended to stay shut or at



least only open on street corners or in public houses where the stink



could disappear harmlessly into the atmosphere. Now the stench of



mindless drivel is trapped and displayed for the entire world on the



internet. Constantly being replaced and updated with more totally



pointless shit.







The absolute worst thing about it is that when I inevitably stumble



across these shit-nuggets I feel compelled to read them and further



dull my over-stimulated brain when I would much rather be reading a



novel or playing my guitar or ….actually anything… jamming cocktail



sticks into my tear ducts.







But I’m unable to turn away and just end up making myself feel wretched.







-‘Happy 1st Birthday Winston (the dog)!!’







-‘I’m drinking tea and all happy about watching episode 7x21 of Buffy’







-‘Now that the new Lotus Tesco Market has just opened on my street, I



have it plus three 7-Elevens to shop at. All within a half km. Cool!’







-‘Now I have to wait ten minutes in the cold’







-‘Fun start to the day. Coffee while doing laundry’











See, you just read all those and what did it contribute to your life. NOTHING!







And yet, here I am, committing my worthless opinion to virtual print



for someone to like/comment/blog or twitter on about. I feel sick.







My only hope is that on reading this a few people may be compelled to



ignore the vast ocean of trivial musings on the web and most



importantly refrain from contributing their own mind-scat to the



intellectual sewage pipe.







PS Please don’t comment on this. I don’t want to hear what you think



and it will only encourage me to post more useless shite.                                                                                                                  
















WHAA HAA HAAAA! I feel like I have completed the cycle some how. If this is referring to facebook, Jack should adjust the settings so that that he receive NO NEWS from any one. Its an option.  On media: It's useful to be skeptical, patient and informed. And to question all things presented to you without irrational assumptions that you know everything. Question things with out feeling obliged to follow unreasonable and extreme theories or conspiracies.



No one has all the answers and no one ever will.

Interactive internet stuff: FOLDIT and Richard's Loops

I found this performance on youtube using an MPC 1000 and recorded samples of Mozart's 'Ronda Alla Turca': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN4H1vRsw7Y

Its shows some more extent to which the digital environment can expand our creative capacities. I though this was an excellent example because you can clearly see and hear exactly how and how well this MCP has exploited a digitised performance of Mozart's piece, a basic drum loop and some good timing. It introduces potential in a really clear way. (Listen to Ronda Alla Turca if you do not already know it).

I found Richard Houghton's youtube channel and then his website. An interesting feature of his website is that it allows you to mix loops he has made. Making it whoely interactive and dependent on the internet for its success. It allows many different combinations through use of his website on the internet, perhaps an infinitely large number of combinations (in theory) of 9 simple looped sounds.

http://www.richardhoughten.com/secretmix.html

A very large volume of combinations is only possible through using the internet. Have a look at his website: http://www.richardhoughten.com/

FOLDIT (Online problem solving game)
Similarly: http://fold.it/portal/

and blog: http://fold.it/portal/blog
and wiki page: http://foldit.wikia.com/wiki/FoldIt_Wiki


This experiment depends on internet interaction to for fill its intentions. 'FoldIt' is an online game in which humans try to solve one of the hardest computational problems in biophysics: protein folding. Almost like trial and improvement the success of its interactive nature is due to the fact that the more people try/build/make/fold/etc different varieties the more likely the program is able to find a solution to a protein folding problem testing the limits of the game with existing problems with known solutions.

FROM PHYSICS WORLD Volume 22 Number 7 July 2009: "FOLDIT draws on the idle hours of several thousand data-crunchers for help in solving scientific puzzles. FOLDIT is all about biophysics. The project's goal is to understand how proteins- the chains of amino acids that drive processes inside living cells- fold themselves into a myriad of different shapes. But the most striking difference is that FOLDIT's protein folding operators are actual human beings, and the datasets they are sifting are disguised as an amazingly addictive computer game." 


Its educational, user friendly, Tetris-like by nature and takes advantage of the human penchant for pattern spotting. It outsources these problems to any one with a computer and spare time, seeing what the game is capable of telling us about interactive problem solving in the hope that human players can one day tackle protein-folding problems that have no current solution. 

Switching and some history

Before solid state digital electronic devices became available circuit swithed network technology used analogue electronics operating with variables represented by continuously measuring voltages and other quantities.

How a microphone works:

Microphones are an example of a device that changes information from one form to another. Sound information exists as patterns of air pressure; a microphone changes the information that makes the patterns what they are into patterns of electric current.

In 1960

Many companies started to use computers to manage and organize their business. Thus a network was needed for these different computer terminals to communicate with each other and transmit data.

Data was first encoded in the same way that the voice networks encoded sounds. The data was sent over conversional telephone circuits. The devises used to convert data from digital to analogue signals appropriate for telephone circuits are called modems. The 1st modems operated at rates of 110 bits per second. With in 5 years they had reached speeds of 300 to 1120 bits per second. Today, bandwidth of a typical copper line reaches 56kbps (56000 bits per second).

Processor and memory technologies developed throughout the 60's becoming faster and more capable to deal with more signals. Circuit-switched communication was not able to catch up. The US DOD became aware of the potentials of strategy planning through this technology. The circuit switched technology prevented them from using hight speed computers and so ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) worked on developing better communications technologies. Resulting in a simple solution of allowing many computers to share the circuit so each individual one receives a part of the total capacity, making packet switching switching automatic and fair. In this solution data had to be divided into packets. The network accepts packets from multiple senders each with its own destination in a header. Then routes them to their respective destinations. The need for better communication networks stimulated much of the research, Bell Labs being a pioneer.

In 1991

Packet switching data network ARPANET celebrated its 20th anniversary, faster high speed communications became more popular and the original ARPANET with its network address 10.0.0.0 was discontinued.

Intrigue: The work of Field and TRAUM

(OLD POST FROM 'LE POMP' BLOG- Interesting use of digital environments to create art)

On the evening of the opening reception of the exhibit at the Pebbledash Gallery (EXHIBIT X), were two very wonderful instillation/performances.

INTERIM CAMP: By FIELD

A wondrous due from Germany who through the power or their patience programed and animated this wonderful place (click for HD)

Poor visibility; weather again unsettled today. Surreal rocks and riven lowlands, valleys fog-shrouded. Frightening depths, and emptiness. Rarity of air is noticeable. What are you looking for in this hostile stretch?

www.field.io/projects/interim-camp

TRAUM: By Martin Hampton

'Traum' enters the derelict landscape of the Lee Valley, London, UK, the site of the 2012 Olympics. Cut to a complex score by Isambard Khroustaliov the film proposes a way of looking through the surface of banal things to find new and surprising territories.

Music by Isambard Khroustaliov, film by Martin Hampton.

Made as part as part of the Not-Applicable project. 2008.

http://www.not-applicable.org/

http://www.differance.org/

I found both FIELD and DIFFERANCE very inspirational. I was very glad to be associated with them.

Graphics programming and animations imitating them before they existed

"Early Abstractions" (1946-57), Pt. 4





Yantra - James Whitney (1957)





L-SYSTEMS



DND

Robot dialog

Here is a dialogue between a robot and someone (another robot maybe?) giving it instructions. I found it rather amusing, confusing and endearing. (Please read the associated text, refferenced from a book called Robots from the Library who’s author and publisher I cant remember at the moment.) This is not partiucularily relevant right now but an interesting representation of 'intelligence' through what I can only assume are pre-programmed responses to predicted (or likely) changes in data input from environment, that are subject to annalysis and argument through formal logic.

Please stack up the yellow and purple blocks, and either a blue cube or a pyramid.
Ok.
Which cube is sitting on the table?
The large blue one that supports the green pyramid.
Put a small cube onto the blue cube that supports a pyramid.
Ok.
Put the littlest pyramid on top of it.
Ok.
How many things are on top of the blue cubes?
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘on top of’ in the phrase ‘on top of the blue cubes.’
Do you mean:
1 - Directly on the surface?
2 - Anywhere on top of?
2.
Three of them.
Had you touched any pyramid before you put the red one the little cube?
Yes, the red one.
When did you pick it up?
While I was stacking up the purple cube, a large yellow block, and a large blue cube.
Why?
To get rid of it.
Why did you do that?
To clear off the purple cube.
Why did you clear off that cube?
To put it on the large blue cube.
Why did you do that?
To stack up the purple cube, a yellow block and a large blue cube.
Why did you do that?
Because you asked me to.
Very well. Now please stack both the blue cubes and the smallest pyramid.
Ok.

(Photo courtesy of Rosanne Eveleigh here is her blog DOUBLE RAINBOWS http://howthewaterfeelstothefishes.blogspot.com/)

WEEK 1

WEEK 1's introduction to the Digital Environment elective drew my attention to the different between the things we learn about the world that are objective, real and in clear existence just waiting to be understood against the aesthetics humans so infamously create and construct. That we can all say (when speaking of a certain bird that can fly e.g. pigeon) 'That bird can fly' but we will not all say 'that bird is beautiful'- Aesthetics are constructed, and subjective. They depend on your preferences and ideas, which develop depending on upbringing, culture, environment, personal choice and many other derivatives of the nurture and nature of individuals.

Here are four videos from you-tube:
1) Demonstration early digital music technology  

The Fairlight CMI (Computer Musical Instrument) was the first polyphonic digital sampling synthesizer. It was designed in 1979 by the founders of Fairlight, Peter Vogel and Kim Ryrie, and based on a dual-6800 microprocessor computer designed by Tony Furse in Sydney, Australia.^[1][2] It rose to prominence in the early 1980s and competed in the market with the Synclavier from New England Digital. Both instruments would be put through their paces by famed producer Trevor Horn, much to the chagrin of rival Martin Hannett (who left Factory Records after the company refused to subsidize his purchase of a Series IIx model mere months before Horn's production of "Relax" hit the airwaves).

2 ) This is an example of the improvements of the applications of the digital in more recent times (Wii Hacking http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/) by taking advantage of infrared technology using infrared camera in a Wii remote.

3) Johnny Harcastel's video to his 1981 composition 'King Tut'.

4) This is a video from "bionicTechnophobe's" you-tube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bionicTechnophobe#p/u/0/nRNkJnxUa4o  

Using the 8x8 LED matrix of the Meggy Jr as a low resolution video display. The video is captured with the built-in iSight camera of a MacBook Pro using Processing. The image is formatted specially for the Meggy then sent via serial. The refresh rate is certainly acceptable, although there needs to be more error checking with the video sync.

FUTURE SHOCK is documentary from 1972 reaches into some interesting topics. Its based on the book written by the sociologist and futurologist Alvin Toffler in 1970 and contemplates ways in which technology might change the future. It is suggestive of disposable, temporary life styles and distant relationships through computers. These examples are now quite real e.g. fast food, Primark, Ikea, face-book etc. Some people live in knowledge that fast food is bad for you and still eat it. That physical encounters with our environment are currently unrivaled health wise and in terms of experience by anything networking sites can offer and still spend hours on end on them. Some also speculate that primark clothes are inexpensive because they are made in sweatshops and still shop there. Needless to say encouraging wasteful/spoilt behavior through the fact that things are so easily replaced and produced reduces reasons for purchase to something very decadent and pointless. This particular episode seems try expose potential dangers of technology. I cant take it seriously but Id like to read the book.

I have added this video predominantly for aesthetics. I think technology is overwhelming- predominantly a good and wonderful thing. Concerning disposable lifestyle and the current state of the environment this era of wastefulness will inevitably have to end, our environment does after all contains us so we must keep it livable in one way or another.

DIGRESSION: Newton's laws of motion.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Here is a link to and interactive learning website which includes some Java applets on Physics so you can play around with that. Java is a digital environment. http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/index.html