RHIZOME_RAW: Too Much Information!!! j/k, LOL

Well if I survive my doctor's appointment, he says sounding
as ominous as possible, I will try to make up a set of explicated
links to various scientific visualization tools. It is interesting
because the same things are happening there. People oh and ah over
the "VISIT" technology which is great when one has a big group
right there to talk to, but doesn't work as well with real distance
learning. It is interesting that the old "Slides with a lot of
explanation" technique has its probelms. This improvement seems
to leave a little to be desired, its pretty obvious to me that
it was used in situations where topics like "cyclogensis" were
often discussed and knowing all the steps were second nature.
It doesn't do as well with "distance learning" where people perhaps
haven't thought about the details of the process until knowing it
is second nature. So lots of animations and some overlayed maps
don't help as much unless you have an instructor pointing out the
"easy to see" and "obvious" features.

In the case of actually teaching something that people have to know
well I don't think one can be quite as dismissive as "let's leave that
to the undergrads and go onto something I think of as neat and
interesting" but I am indeed mixing at least Lemons and Oranges
and all their levels of meaning. I guess I should ask "praytell what
are these more interesting topics." Anyway let's see if I call rustle
up some links for people to look into, and then maybe those of mystical
bent will start about what they see in the clouds.;)

The VISIT homepage:

http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/visithome.asp

The Cyclogenisis Talk (requires a bit of memory;)
has nice "clouds in the coffee" water vapor imagery.
One of the "baroclinic leaves" on water vapor looks
like some little homonuceulus(spelling?) to me!;)

http://www.cira.colostate.edu/ramm/visit/cyclo/title.asp

This page has various imaging related to current weather:

http://www.cira.colostate.edu/RAMM/Rmsdsol/main.html

NEXSAT Pretty Pictures (that alas are seldom current, you can
look at the map for Monterey and know why I am in a bad mood
as of late.;)

http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/nexsat_pages/nexsat_home.html

Note night mode is partucularly pretty and makes a good
desktop. The images/pictures here are apt to not be up
to date, so all the old imaging stuff is still useful.


Anyway…Have Fun,
Sends Steve




>
> On Oct 6, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> From where I'm standing, it looks like there's *a lot* going on both
>> in the fields of practice and theory.
>
> I agree, and certainly more is happening in Europe, but I still see a
> gap in criticality. Works which leverage the latest technology receive
> the most discussion, and ideas often take a back seat to the
> enthusiastic rush to be the first to make the widget do X.
>
>> When work is based on data that is converted to an abstract
>> representation, that *is* quite a radical commentary on the state of
>> our world right now…. It's akin to the famous photo of a hippy
>> putting a flower into the barrel of a soldiers rifle, converting the
>> ominous killing machine into an ornamental vase.
>
> Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I remain
> unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but
> often a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random
> numbers, whereas "hippies" putting flowers in random locations would
> have a very different effect; those flowers were guided missiles. The
> question becomes, why bother feeding it real data if you need to be
> told what the work is [assimilating/reprocessing]? Just use random
> numbers! The conceptual statement about data overload remains the same.
> In fact, everything remains the same except the stale non-novelty that
> the work is drawing from live data. Just something to think about.
>
> Further, who is actually interested in the amount of data flowing
> around us constantly? I mean really interested. Is "too much
> information!" a viable platform for artistic activity, or is it a
> stalling tactic while one thinks of something more substantive to say?
> At a certain point, to comment on the sea of data is like commenting on
> the weather. Backbone traffic is high today, with a 30% chance of rain.
> Personally, I would hope we could leave this topic to the first-year
> New Media undergraduates and move on to something – anything – more
> intriguing.
>
> with optimism,
> - ben
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

> Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I remain
> unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but often
> a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random numbers,

I beg to differ. Different types of data have very different
"characteristics" and give very different results. I agree that from
your first-year undergrads you're going to get quite a bit of work that
focuses a bit too much on the technical aspect and is lacking in concept
but that really has nothing to do with what we're talking about. There's
a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver intruiging
concepts related to the data being used.

> All "important" work is about ideas;

Using fancy tricks is nothing new to art. It's been there from day one
and there's a lot of "important" work that is "important" because of the
methods applied by the artist. I'll bet the first cave-painters said
something along the lines of, "Watch this guys, I'm going to make the
image of a horse magically appear on this wall!" The renaissance and
perspective. Which is regarded as more important today? The subject
matter or the technical aspect? Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all
about the method. The "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting,
there's something about it, but according to the books that wasn't
Seurat's priority. Method does involve ideas and a couple of centuries
down the road there's going to be "important" work from today where the
"method" has become an "idea".
–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
_______________________________

Hi Ben,

cf: http://www.file.org.br/file2004/filescript/english/textos/lev.htm
particularly the final section, "Meaningful Beauty: Data Mapping as Anti-sublime"

Manovich's proposed solution is *not* to make artistic visualizations more accurately/sceintifically representative of their data sources. Instead, he seems to recommend the injection of personal subjectivity into the mapping process – not an abandonment of abstraction altogether, but the pursuit of a more intentional/resonant/subjective abstraction.

peace,
curt

_

Ben wrote:

Thank you Pall, for providing a model for viewing these works. I remain
unswayed though; not to bank everything on your final analogy, but
often a data-fed work would look the same if it were fed random
numbers, whereas "hippies" putting flowers in random locations would
have a very different effect; those flowers were guided missiles. The
question becomes, why bother feeding it real data if you need to be
told what the work is [assimilating/reprocessing]? Just use random
numbers! The conceptual statement about data overload remains the same.
In fact, everything remains the same except the stale non-novelty that
the work is drawing from live data. Just something to think about.

Further, who is actually interested in the amount of data flowing
around us constantly? I mean really interested. Is "too much
information!" a viable platform for artistic activity, or is it a
stalling tactic while one thinks of something more substantive to say?
At a certain point, to comment on the sea of data is like commenting on
the weather. Backbone traffic is high today, with a 30% chance of rain.
Personally, I would hope we could leave this topic to the first-year
New Media undergraduates and move on to something – anything – more
intriguing.

with optimism,
- ben

On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> There's a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver
> intruiging concepts related to the data being used.

EXACTLY. There must be a [challenging/intriguing/upsetting] conceptual
element for anyone to take interest.


> Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all about the method. The
> "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting, there's something about
> it, but according to the books that wasn't Seurat's priority. Method
> does involve ideas and a couple of centuries down the road there's
> going to be "important" work from today where the "method" has become
> an "idea".

I totally agree – Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially
radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and
Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower"
class. It's also a good example to bring up, because Seurat developed
his own idiosyncratic [process/methodology] – I can guarantee that if
Seurat were alive today, he wouldn't be working in FlashMX. Flash makes
you far to complicit to make a statement as radical as Seurat's;
Macromedia loves when people create pretty pictures in Flash.

So the point is that abstraction fueled by data is not automatically
interesting; there need to be, as you say "intriguing concepts related
to the data being used," and a method that "involve ideas."

Ideas: 1
FlashFormalism: 0

BUSTED.

- ben

On Oct 6, 2004, at 2:29 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> Manovich's proposed solution is *not* to make artistic visualizations
> more accurately/sceintifically representative of their data sources.
> Instead, he seems to recommend the injection of personal subjectivity
> into the mapping process – not an abandonment of abstraction
> altogether, but the pursuit of a more intentional/resonant/subjective
> abstraction.

mosDef. I would never argue that art needs to have any
[representational/scientific/scrutable/"accurate"] aspects, but if you
are going to deal with abstraction, you must do it with an
understanding of the hystorical threads of abstraction (so that you are
aware of the references you will make) and the hystorical threads of
newMedia (for the same reasons). Then, if the work doesn't speak for
itself, you have to be prepared to discuss the connexions you made.

To this viewer, it's not enough to say "it's abstract, you know, its
all graphic designy and shit. You like graphic design, right?"
Especially when this is accompanied with the implication that
graphicDsign is somehow apolitical and purely formal.

This particular [viewer/listener] is not likely to be profoundly moved
by abstraction ever in his lifetime, and whatever your excuses for
making art are, the goal of every artist is to make a powerful
statement. So if there are ideas to back up this FlashFormalism,
they're going to have to be way more convincing that "TMI"

- ben

ben wrote:
>whatever your excuses for
>making art are, the goal of every artist is to make a powerful
>statement.

Oh the hyperbole! Play, hobbyism, a desire to create alternate worlds, a desire to bring things into being, a desire to communicate, personal therapy, intelleectual exploration, worship – all valid reasons to make art, none having anything to do with making a powerful statement. Perhaps the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful statement, but this too shall pass.

On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:43 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> Perhaps the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful
> statement, but this too shall pass.

Okay, but if the goal of FlashFormalism is not to be provocative and
engage with ideas, then lets stop talking about them that way. Until
someone gives me a reason not to, I'll refer to the purveyors of
FlashFormalism as FlashArtisans, and consider their intellectual weight
to be on a par with painted pottery.

- ben

On 7 Oct 2004, at 22:29, bensyverson wrote:

> On Oct 7, 2004, at 3:43 PM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the goal of every B/MFA student is to make a powerful
>> statement, but this too shall pass.
>
> Okay, but if the goal of FlashFormalism is not to be provocative and
> engage with ideas, then lets stop talking about them that way. Until
> someone gives me a reason not to, I'll refer to the purveyors of
> FlashFormalism as FlashArtisans, and consider their intellectual
> weight to be on a par with painted pottery.

Leave the Turner Prize out of this. ;-)

- Rob.

> I totally agree – Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially
> radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and
> Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower"
> class.

I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation
appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time said
about his art? We seem to all agree that Impressionism was an extremely
important and good movement in various aspects. Did their contemporaries
think so? Didn't their critics say things equivalent to, "…and
consider their intellectual weight to be on a par with painted pottery."
Anyway, you missed my point entirely (perhaps on purpose?). Do you truly
think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts, addressing Science and
Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work important today?

> Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point.

It was? Hmm… I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just
like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image. Hey! Wait a
second. You're right! Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea,
just like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image! (my point
being that your interpretation of what constitutes a method and what
constitutes an idea seems to change when it's convenient to your argument)

Back to the bit about Seurat and Impressionists. Your criticism of new
media sounds a lot like the criticism given to the Impressionists during
their time. I get the feeling that you haven't actually *examined* the
work you're criticising. You may have glanced at a few projects but I
don't think you get it, in the same way that the critics of the
mid-nineteenth century didn't bother to *examine* the work of the
Impressionists and therefore, didn't get it.

ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a long
time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes, this
is a huge success but your arguments are falling all over themselves:
> And someone with herpes isn't always contagious.
What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh… all graphic design education
*is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious?

Pall

bensyverson wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2004, at 1:52 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> There's a lot of work being done by seasoned artists that deliver
>> intruiging concepts related to the data being used.
>
>
> EXACTLY. There must be a [challenging/intriguing/upsetting] conceptual
> element for anyone to take interest.
>
>
>> Sunday at the Grande Jatte, it's all about the method. The
>> "technology". OK, it's a wonderfull painting, there's something about
>> it, but according to the books that wasn't Seurat's priority. Method
>> does involve ideas and a couple of centuries down the road there's
>> going to be "important" work from today where the "method" has become
>> an "idea".
>
>
> I totally agree – Seurat's method was a vehicle for his socially
> radical concepts, addressing (as many Impressionists did) Science and
> Progress as oppressive, particularly as weapons against the "lower"
> class. It's also a good example to bring up, because Seurat developed
> his own idiosyncratic [process/methodology] – I can guarantee that if
> Seurat were alive today, he wouldn't be working in FlashMX. Flash makes
> you far to complicit to make a statement as radical as Seurat's;
> Macromedia loves when people create pretty pictures in Flash.
>
> So the point is that abstraction fueled by data is not automatically
> interesting; there need to be, as you say "intriguing concepts related
> to the data being used," and a method that "involve ideas."
>
> Ideas: 1
> FlashFormalism: 0
>
> BUSTED.
>
> - ben
>
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

–
_______________________________
Pall Thayer
artist/teacher
http://www.this.is/pallit
http://pallit.lhi.is/panse
_______________________________

On Oct 7, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation
> appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time
> said about his art?

Who cares what the contemporary art world circa Seurat said about his
work? I think it's pretty clear that he himself had these ideas in
mind, and it's very difficult to look at his work today and not see
this sociallyRadical perspective.

> Do you truly think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts,
> addressing Science and Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work
> important today?

I'm sure if you look at Seurat's contemporaries, they understood his
work as addressing science, and clearly his work became important
because it was both pretty and very different. Maybe the audiences of
the day didn't connect the visual style to the politics of the work
(and maybe Seurat didn't, at least consciously – I'm not Seurat
scholar), but there is an obvious connexion…

Today is another issue. I'm confident that audiences today like
Impressionism because it's "pretty." I can guarantee that audiences in
the early impressionist era thought the work was anything but pretty.

>> Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point.
>>
> It was? Hmm… I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just
> like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image.

It was a technical trick that sent shock waves through the art world
and utterly astonished viewers. If you can say the same thing for
FlashFormalism with a straight face, then we'll begin a debate about
the relative impact they had. I'm not saying method can't be powerful
– I'm saying that the method in FlashFormalism isn't.

> You may have glanced at a few projects but I don't think you get it,
> in the same way that the critics of the mid-nineteenth century didn't
> bother to *examine* the work of the Impressionists and therefore,
> didn't get it.

Maybe you're right! Maybe between the 11 years I've been browsing the
web, the 10 years that I've been creating on it and the years I spent
studying newMedia at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I just
haven't managed to see enough newMedia projects to even talk about it!
Man, I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. This whole "looking at work
before critiquing it" thing is new to me.

I've seen gigs of this bullShizer! I was bored with FlashFormalism in
1999, and I'm bored with it now – in five years, it has not progressed
in any discernible way. There's the smell of death wafting over it, and
the inability for its community to accept criticism is the rigor
mortis.


> ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a
> long time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes,
> this is a huge success

Hooray!

>> And someone with herpes isn't always contagious.
> What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh… all graphic design education
> *is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious?

I'm trying to say that terrible pedagogy and methodology has infected
graphicDsign much like Herpes Simplex Virus. It is possible to have
intercourse with the field of graphicDsign and not become infected, but
your risk is much greater without criticalProtection, particularly
during a formalistOutbreak. And much like Herpes, the corruption of
graphicDsign is spreading at epidemical rates.

What, that analogy wasn't clear? :)

- ben