“…madness is revolutionary freedom confined to the self.”
“Probably it is a mistake to talk of the ?Art of Cubism?, as applied to the paintings produced in those seven years, for these paintings made a statement which transformed the function of painting and modified the meaning of Art to a degree which is still confusing us. It is for this reason that I prefer to think of the moment of Cubism, and of the paintings as evidence of what was understood and imagined in that moment.”
“It is extremely hard to reconstruct ideological attitudes of the past. In the light of more recent developments and the questions raised by them, we tend to iron out the ambiguities which may have existed before the questions were formed.”
“Painting became a schematic art. The painter?s task was no longer to represent or imitate what existed: it was to summarize experience. Nature is now what man has to redeem himself from. The artist be- comes responsible not simply for the means of conveying a truth, but also for the truth itself. Painting ceases to be a branch of natural science and becomes a branch of the moral sciences.
In the theatre the spectator faces events from whose consequences he is immune: he may be affected emotionally and morally but he is physic- ally removed, protected, separate, from what is happening before his eyes. What is happening is artificial. It is he who now represents nature ?not the work of art. And if, at the same time, it is from himself that he must redeem himself?this represents the contradiction of the Cartesian division which prophetically or actually so dominated these two centuries.”
“To appreciate this we must abandon a habit of centuries: the habit of looking at every object or body as though it were complete in itself, its completeness making it separate. The Cubists were concerned with the interaction between objects.”
“The real break with tradition, or the real reformation of that tradition, occurred with Cubism itself. The modern tradition, based on a quali- tatively different relationship being established between man and nature, began, not in despair, but in affirmation.”
“technics develops faster than culture… man and technics are indissociable (inseparable).”
>Hominization:
1. Also called anthropogenesis, refers to the process of becoming human, and is used in somewhat different contexts in the fields of paleontology and paleoanthropology, archeology, philosophy, and theology.
“The phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of the living.” Put differently, the process of becoming human is the technicisation of the living… to become human is to chase the dragon of culture through technology?
>> …is there some pure supreme culture all cultures are feverishly and blindly lusting after? And the only way to achieve that super-ness is through technics i.e. technology? How far does technology then need to advance then to allow us the possibility of reaching that win-state?
“Man is nothing other than technical life.”
> What relationship does this statement have to the one above?
>> Man as in person — not animal.
“…man did not sense this technical dimension…”
> The idea of sensing some technical dimension is interesting to think about in terms of the other 5 (or 6) senses…
>> Are there specific senses unique to people that animals do not possess?
>>> ex. technical sense
The idea of technics evolving in harmony with people -> the person -> the individual person -> ?
“technological rupture” -> people living in technological milieu, which is transformed from time to time (transformed as in evolved? or just different?)
> Fire first is first rupture?
>> technological rupture frequency increasing
> Industrial revolution, explicit example given by Stiegler
>> two things happen in the industrial revolution
>>> 1. the duration of technical systems become shorter to the detriment of their stability. (science – function vs appearance – tool) –WHO’S STABILIY?
>>>> technical systems as in, systems of advancements – technical research-search? or systems of production – pollution, eco-instability? (“humanity sawing the branch it is sitting on”).
>>> 2. degrees of separation between science and technics is greatly reduced, new relations form, increased communication between the two.
>>>> so then if technics isn’t advances in science, is technics then the manifestations of science in the every day (public services, consumer products, etc, bla bla bla)
>>>>> or maybe technics IS now indistinguishable from sciences?
*> this new {relation} (singular?) between the two “completely upsets the philosophical order.
*>> Greeks say technics has no “ontological depth, no ontological meaning”, that is, technics isn’t intellectually lusted after.
“Technics is nothing other than artifactuality.”
Artifactual:
1. any object made by human beings, especially with a *view to subsequent use*. 2. a handmade object, as a *tool*, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage, especially such an object found at an archaeological excavation.
Tool vs Being, why is this necessary to distinguish? (from one another)
>”Becoming must be isolated from being”
>>Becoming (Tool) vs Being (interrupting Tool?)
> Appearance vs essence
>> What is the appearance of a tool, and what is its essence?
>> Appearance (technics?) vs Essence (science?)
>>> Oh, the void, thing that shapes the void stuff (function vs appearance).
The word being – catch all? Is this one of those words everybody has a slightly different definition for?– ‘BEING’ WITH A CAPITAL’B’
> Sort of like trying to think about not existing, where the brain cannot comprehend its own non-existence.
>> Think about being vs non-being
off-topic, can AI be thought of as a medium? If digital is too broad a medium, then concepts are mediums? Painting as concept, ohhhh ok, so pre-modernism but still kinda modernism sort of stuff.
Wrapping back around, why was it the Industrial Revolution that made this possible? Why did these two things necessarily happen then, as a result of, in terms of the “harmonious” evolution between technics and culture (humanness vis-a-vis godliness)? — IS ‘GODLINESS’TECHNICHS?
Industrial Revolution -> what was a relation of opposition between science and technics becomes a relation of composition.
> Composition implies a specific or preferred configuration of entities involved.
> “new dynamism in technics”
“Permanent Innovation” -> technics tends to transform itself continually…
> competition in industrial area arise between enterprises, which will in turn lead to globalization, and with globalization (transportation) open up new markets, creating an “economic war” = “techno-scientific war”
“through dynamism of electronics & the internet” —> flattened, exploded, blurred the many different boundaries between disciplines, modes of thought, and in-place social structures.
> This process began with the industrial revolution, with the economic need for production and profit (industry) created innovations (harmful and good) “always new”.
>> This is a new mode of progressing, one that challenges the stability of peoples relationship with their sense of global consistency…
>>> “world has been this way since I was around, it will always remain the same, and again stay the same after I am gone.”
…”they didn’t understand they lived in historic time…” <— now its almost impossible to be ignorant to the idea that we are always living in historic time (change is happening all the time)
> We mirror each others facial expressions (slightly) without realizing it, as a feedback loop into our understanding of those around us (that we are looking at)
> Complex interconnected processes occur beneath the surface ~ “social brain”.
“Pain Matrix” ~ no single spot in the brain where pain is processed, instead perception of pain arises from several different areas networking together ~ at the heart of how we connect with others (empathy)
> Basis of empathy – same neural machinery for seeing pain and feeling pain.
>> Film, narratives, etc employ empathy – allowing the other to project onto you.
>>> “Neurons can’t tell the difference>” – neat.
Mac Users: Join a public WIFI, open Terminal, type ‘netstat’ and press enter, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsrwgd7rnR0, start playing from 5:00minute mark, fullscreen Terminal.
Introduction. Digital artist, VISA & CPSC double major. Videogames as artworks.
Examples?
https://visual-investigation.herokuapp.com/
“…madness is revolutionary freedom confined to the self.”
“Probably it is a mistake to talk of the ?Art of Cubism?, as applied to the paintings produced in those seven years, for these paintings made a statement which transformed the function of painting and modified the meaning of Art to a degree which is still confusing us. It is for this reason that I prefer to think of the moment of Cubism, and of the paintings as evidence of what was understood and imagined in that moment.”
“It is extremely hard to reconstruct ideological attitudes of the past. In the light of more recent developments and the questions raised by them, we tend to iron out the ambiguities which may have existed before the questions were formed.”
“Painting became a schematic art. The painter?s task was no longer to represent or imitate what existed: it was to summarize experience. Nature is now what man has to redeem himself from. The artist be- comes responsible not simply for the means of conveying a truth, but also for the truth itself. Painting ceases to be a branch of natural science and becomes a branch of the moral sciences.
In the theatre the spectator faces events from whose consequences he is immune: he may be affected emotionally and morally but he is physic- ally removed, protected, separate, from what is happening before his eyes. What is happening is artificial. It is he who now represents nature ?not the work of art. And if, at the same time, it is from himself that he must redeem himself?this represents the contradiction of the Cartesian division which prophetically or actually so dominated these two centuries.”
“To appreciate this we must abandon a habit of centuries: the habit of looking at every object or body as though it were complete in itself, its completeness making it separate. The Cubists were concerned with the interaction between objects.”
“The real break with tradition, or the real reformation of that tradition, occurred with Cubism itself. The modern tradition, based on a quali- tatively different relationship being established between man and nature, began, not in despair, but in affirmation.”
https://drive.google.com/open?id=14eoMqkQjikY7yVkTYCHPNQO9zw3e0jKK
Man & Techics Notes:
“technics develops faster than culture… man and technics are indissociable (inseparable).”
>Hominization:
1. Also called anthropogenesis, refers to the process of becoming human, and is used in somewhat different contexts in the fields of paleontology and paleoanthropology, archeology, philosophy, and theology.
“The phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of the living.” Put differently, the process of becoming human is the technicisation of the living… to become human is to chase the dragon of culture through technology?
>> …is there some pure supreme culture all cultures are feverishly and blindly lusting after? And the only way to achieve that super-ness is through technics i.e. technology? How far does technology then need to advance then to allow us the possibility of reaching that win-state?
“Man is nothing other than technical life.”
> What relationship does this statement have to the one above?
>> Man as in person — not animal.
“…man did not sense this technical dimension…”
> The idea of sensing some technical dimension is interesting to think about in terms of the other 5 (or 6) senses…
>> Are there specific senses unique to people that animals do not possess?
>>> ex. technical sense
The idea of technics evolving in harmony with people -> the person -> the individual person -> ?
“technological rupture” -> people living in technological milieu, which is transformed from time to time (transformed as in evolved? or just different?)
> Fire first is first rupture?
>> technological rupture frequency increasing
> Industrial revolution, explicit example given by Stiegler
>> two things happen in the industrial revolution
>>> 1. the duration of technical systems become shorter to the detriment of their stability. (science – function vs appearance – tool) –WHO’S STABILIY?
>>>> technical systems as in, systems of advancements – technical research-search? or systems of production – pollution, eco-instability? (“humanity sawing the branch it is sitting on”).
>>> 2. degrees of separation between science and technics is greatly reduced, new relations form, increased communication between the two.
>>>> so then if technics isn’t advances in science, is technics then the manifestations of science in the every day (public services, consumer products, etc, bla bla bla)
>>>>> or maybe technics IS now indistinguishable from sciences?
*> this new {relation} (singular?) between the two “completely upsets the philosophical order.
*>> Greeks say technics has no “ontological depth, no ontological meaning”, that is, technics isn’t intellectually lusted after.
“Technics is nothing other than artifactuality.”
Artifactual:
1. any object made by human beings, especially with a *view to subsequent use*. 2. a handmade object, as a *tool*, or the remains of one, as a shard of pottery, characteristic of an earlier time or cultural stage, especially such an object found at an archaeological excavation.
Tool vs Being, why is this necessary to distinguish? (from one another)
>”Becoming must be isolated from being”
>>Becoming (Tool) vs Being (interrupting Tool?)
> Appearance vs essence
>> What is the appearance of a tool, and what is its essence?
>> Appearance (technics?) vs Essence (science?)
>>> Oh, the void, thing that shapes the void stuff (function vs appearance).
The word being – catch all? Is this one of those words everybody has a slightly different definition for?– ‘BEING’ WITH A CAPITAL’B’
> Sort of like trying to think about not existing, where the brain cannot comprehend its own non-existence.
>> Think about being vs non-being
off-topic, can AI be thought of as a medium? If digital is too broad a medium, then concepts are mediums? Painting as concept, ohhhh ok, so pre-modernism but still kinda modernism sort of stuff.
Wrapping back around, why was it the Industrial Revolution that made this possible? Why did these two things necessarily happen then, as a result of, in terms of the “harmonious” evolution between technics and culture (humanness vis-a-vis godliness)? — IS ‘GODLINESS’TECHNICHS?
Industrial Revolution -> what was a relation of opposition between science and technics becomes a relation of composition.
> Composition implies a specific or preferred configuration of entities involved.
> “new dynamism in technics”
“Permanent Innovation” -> technics tends to transform itself continually…
> competition in industrial area arise between enterprises, which will in turn lead to globalization, and with globalization (transportation) open up new markets, creating an “economic war” = “techno-scientific war”
“through dynamism of electronics & the internet” —> flattened, exploded, blurred the many different boundaries between disciplines, modes of thought, and in-place social structures.
> This process began with the industrial revolution, with the economic need for production and profit (industry) created innovations (harmful and good) “always new”.
>> This is a new mode of progressing, one that challenges the stability of peoples relationship with their sense of global consistency…
>>> “world has been this way since I was around, it will always remain the same, and again stay the same after I am gone.”
…”they didn’t understand they lived in historic time…” <— now its almost impossible to be ignorant to the idea that we are always living in historic time (change is happening all the time)
The Brain Notes:
> We mirror each others facial expressions (slightly) without realizing it, as a feedback loop into our understanding of those around us (that we are looking at)
> Complex interconnected processes occur beneath the surface ~ “social brain”.
“Pain Matrix” ~ no single spot in the brain where pain is processed, instead perception of pain arises from several different areas networking together ~ at the heart of how we connect with others (empathy)
> Basis of empathy – same neural machinery for seeing pain and feeling pain.
>> Film, narratives, etc employ empathy – allowing the other to project onto you.
>>> “Neurons can’t tell the difference>” – neat.
digitalscum_01: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SnrZaRojGjVt0CRD18Ca8XAUhVCUGqcM/view?usp=sharing
MNOOOOOOOOODM~ ,MNDDNNNM=
.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM? .MOOOOOOOOOOOM
7DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD=
8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON
.NOOOOOOOOOOO8MMMMMNNOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO8Z
MOOOOOOOOODMOOOOOOOOOOOOOMNOOOODMMMMMNOOO8?
MOOOOOOOO8MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMOOOOOOOOOOODMM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOONM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMNMMMNDDDNMMD8ODMMOMOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM
$8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOONMMMMMMMMOOODMOOOMMOOOOOOOONMMMMMMNOM8
,DOOOOOOOOOOOOONDOMMOOOOOOOOOOOONMOO8NOOOMOOOOMNOODMMMMDOOOMM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMOM8OOMOONODMOOOOOOOOMOM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMNMMMZ,. MMMMMMMMM…..MOMOMOOOMMMMMMMMMMOOMM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMM MMMMMMN..MM .MOMNOOMMM MMMMM$..NMM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM.MM:.=MM ?OODOO.MMMMM. MM .NM.
78OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOONMMMMMMM .MOOM..MMMMMMMM…MOM
.NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONMOOOOOONMMMMMMM8OOMOOOO8NNMMMMMNOOOM
.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMNDOOOOOOOMMOOOMMOOOOOOOOD8MM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODNOOOOOOOOMO8OOOOO8MOM
.DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOONDOOOOOOOOOM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOONM.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO8MMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOMOONMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOM
.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO88OOMOOOO8MMMNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO8NO87
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODMOOOMMDOOOOOOO8MMMMDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO8MOOM
8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM8OOOO8MMOOOOOOOOOOOOOO88DNMMMMMMMMMMM8OOOM,
.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOONMMMMMMNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOM
.MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO8M8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODMMMNMMMMMMDD8OOON?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM
7OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMD8OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONMM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO8DDDD8OOOOOOOOOOOM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONMMOOO8=
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODMOOOOOMM
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOM..
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOOOMM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONMOOMMOOMOOOOMMMMOOOOOOM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOONOOOMOOMOOM.MOMOOOOO8M
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOODMMMMOON$ MMOOOOOOOOOM
.NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOMOOM MMOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOMM.,NOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOM.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOOOOM.NOOOOOOMOOOOOOOOOOM
DNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOODMOOOOOMOOOOOOMOOOOOM
OMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOOOMMOOMOOOOOMOOOOMOOOM.
NMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO88MOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOMOOOOMOOOOM.
..NMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONMD MOOOOOOOOOOOO8OMOOM8OOOOON.
. =NMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??????+ .MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONM
.IMMDOOOOOOOOOOOMMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtqDXrwwi0c
Mac Users: Join a public WIFI, open Terminal, type ‘netstat’ and press enter, go to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsrwgd7rnR0, start playing from 5:00minute mark, fullscreen Terminal.
http://www.templeos.org/
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14eoMqkQjikY7yVkTYCHPNQO9zw3e0jKK