Re: RHIZOME_RARE: Publishing opportunity - YLEM journal

science-art collaborative's are intersting and many
have done great work through such endeavors, but, more
and more, it starts to sound like art being used as PR
or R+D for tech industry problems. there are of
course, plenty of ways that artists are working with
data sets in a critical relationship to the
science-tec industry, but the framing of the activity
says a lot. just some thoughts…
best,
ryan

> Of particular interest are papers relating to
projects that demonstrate the strategies, traditions,
and practices common to or employed within the
practice of art (and art/science collaboration), that
might inform productive and innovative approaches to
"The problem of Large Data"

> We all know Moore's law, the famous and prescient
> prediction that the
> speed of CPUs doubles approximately every 18 months.
> What is less well
> understood is the exponential growth of scientific
> data, and the
> relationship between its collection and our ability
> to process and
> understand it. Genomic data is not the only large
> data set that is
> presenting both processing and conceptual challenges
> to science and
> information technology; we can also point to
> astrophysics, geography,
> geology, fusion energy, climatology, nanotechnology
> and many branches of
> materials science as areas of study that are
> producing quantities of data
> that challenge the technical limits of super
> computers, distributed
> computing, grid computing, and superscalar
> simulation techniques. Even
> given Moore's law, semiconductor advances, fast
> networks, and cheap mass
> storage, "The Problem of Large Data" is nevertheless
> looming larger as our
> ability to collect data begins to outpace our
> ability to process and
> digest it.
>
> If you are an artist who is working with extremely
> large data sets,
> particularly those relating to scientific endeavor,
> we invite you to
> submit abstracts for papers to be considered for
> publication in an
> upcoming issue of the YLEM journal. Of particular
> interest are papers
> relating to projects that demonstrate the
> strategies, traditions, and
> practices common to or employed within the practice
> of art (and
> art/science collaboration), that might inform
> productive and innovative
> approaches to "The problem of Large Data".


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Comments

, marc garrett

Hi Ryan,

I agree with your statement below. It is a problem that needs to be
approached…

marc


> science-art collaborative's are intersting and many
> have done great work through such endeavors, but, more
> and more, it starts to sound like art being used as PR
> or R+D for tech industry problems. there are of
> course, plenty of ways that artists are working with
> data sets in a critical relationship to the
> science-tec industry, but the framing of the activity
> says a lot. just some thoughts…
> best,
> ryan
>
> > Of particular interest are papers relating to
> projects that demonstrate the strategies, traditions,
> and practices common to or employed within the
> practice of art (and art/science collaboration), that
> might inform productive and innovative approaches to
> "The problem of Large Data"
>
> > We all know Moore's law, the famous and prescient
> > prediction that the
> > speed of CPUs doubles approximately every 18 months.
> > What is less well
> > understood is the exponential growth of scientific
> > data, and the
> > relationship between its collection and our ability
> > to process and
> > understand it. Genomic data is not the only large
> > data set that is
> > presenting both processing and conceptual challenges
> > to science and
> > information technology; we can also point to
> > astrophysics, geography,
> > geology, fusion energy, climatology, nanotechnology
> > and many branches of
> > materials science as areas of study that are
> > producing quantities of data
> > that challenge the technical limits of super
> > computers, distributed
> > computing, grid computing, and superscalar
> > simulation techniques. Even
> > given Moore's law, semiconductor advances, fast
> > networks, and cheap mass
> > storage, "The Problem of Large Data" is nevertheless
> > looming larger as our
> > ability to collect data begins to outpace our
> > ability to process and
> > digest it.
> >
> > If you are an artist who is working with extremely
> > large data sets,
> > particularly those relating to scientific endeavor,
> > we invite you to
> > submit abstracts for papers to be considered for
> > publication in an
> > upcoming issue of the YLEM journal. Of particular
> > interest are papers
> > relating to projects that demonstrate the
> > strategies, traditions, and
> > practices common to or employed within the practice
> > of art (and
> > art/science collaboration), that might inform
> > productive and innovative
> > approaches to "The problem of Large Data".
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

, ryan griffis

>
has anyone (marc?) else been keeping up with the nettime debates on the Rifkin/Thacker Bio-art articles?
some interesting statements and problems… how to engage the issue(s) without becoming the PR tools that Fusco and Jackie Stevens rightly criticize.
i organized a small exhibit on genetics last year, which will be restaged later this year, called YOUgenics http://www.artofficial-online.com/yougenics - which didn't have any of the connections to industry (or any funding at all for that matter) that shows like Gene(sis) or Paradise Now had, and i was involved with anti-GE groups at the time, so they were involved quite a bit… but negotiating the issue into areas other than the dualism of "pro" or "anti" GE is difficult at best. i found, through the public events staged along with the show, that most people tended to stick to those binary oppositions that they came in with.
anyway, all of this seems just as applicable to "New Media," and technological art in general, even if it doesn't seem as urgent.

, Micheál

For many years working in various fields of computer simulation and modelling for scientific and engineering purposes as well as artistic reasons I was mostly disappointed by the lack of data available. Now I find projects crashing around me because of an inability to cope with the large quantities and the variable quality of data provided. “Be careful what you wish for: it might come true” a good rule to apply perhaps.

Too many artists seem in awe of randomness, chance, uncertainty. In my opinion, whether you’re an artist or a scientist: to glorify randomness is to give up on being human.

, Plasma Studii

> In my opinion, whether you'Aore an artist or a
>scientist: to glorify randomness is to give up
>on being human.


ha ha.

well, that depends on your definition of "being
human"? the biggest difference in this species
seems to be that we have an absurdly dominant
consciousness/cortex that convinces us of the
benefit of itself. there is no purely objective
way a human brain can be assessed without
essentially judging itself. we just can't know,
because knowing is the thing in question.


but more to the point, it could very sensibly be
that randomness is the language of the
environment, the voice of the universe. that we,
as humans, with our swollen
consciousness/cortexes, rarely tune in to that
channel that defies reason. some exercise their
ability to listen for the voice of "fate"., while
in many it has pretty much atrophied. just
because we cannot predict the outcome of a coin
toss, does not at all imply the resulting events
are not guided.


humans learn to see, to literally use our eyes,
as babies. our eyes deliver a chaos of stimuli
to the brain. same with hearing. it takes
babies a few weeks, in rare cases folks between 6
and 30 go through it and takes about a year, much
older and the brain loses the ability to learn in
that respect. of course everyone's brain goes
through a lifetime of use or disuse, so the
numbers vary, but the idea is that everything
begins as chaos to us. in the transformation to
something comprehensible, it doesn't change,
rather we learn.

if you, sat in front of a tv and switched between
2 channels of hash for 5 minutes, at first they'd
both look like pure chaos, but you'd soon be able
to distinguish between them. if you did that all
day for 2 years, the hash would not appear random
at all. you would find some hash was more
entertaining than others, some would incite a
more emotional response. you would develop/learn
the linguistics of hash.


so, we can ONLY assign the label "random" to
events we do not (mentally) understand. just
because we do not recognize the reason, does not
at all make an event a priori reason-less. fate
is the world's only way to express itself.
randomness may be one of several un-beaten paths
to reality, though reality itself may be a very
distant thing from what the human mind conceives.
our 5 senses may well be a one way street away
from it.

the fact that anyone focuses on the code itself,
is missing the action. eno's oblique strategy
deck comes to mind. i have used a few software
versions in various programming/scripting
languages and each version seems to vary
extremely in the significance of the result.
basically, it randomly picks a card with vague
advice. with some decks/programs the advise is
eerily apros pos, with others seems arbitrary.
in coding, there is a huge range to how you allow
"fate" to influence the result. some randomness
works better than others, but it's a science like
riding a bicycle. reason just doesn't help.

, Rob Myers

On 15 Nov 2004, at 18:47, Plasma Studii - uospn

, Micheál

"if you, sat in front of a tv and switched between
2 channels of hash for 5 minutes, at first they'd
both look like pure chaos, but you'd soon be able
to distinguish between them. if you did that all
day for 2 years, the hash would not appear random
at all"

I'm not convinced you would find the pattern, even in two years, but I appreciate that not trying might lead to madness: we would all try.

Much more satisfying to allow one’s subconscious and consciousness (and whatever else lies between), right brain, left brain and body experiment with more familiar ‘natural’ phenomenon where very quickly we enjoy breaking down apparent randomness. I once heard novelist Jeanette Winterson say that meaning wasn’t necessarily as important to her in writing as rhythm: “we are rhythmic creatures”.

I can see too that an interest in pure data fits in with contemporary artistic themes around the subject of “Nothing” because for the most part nothing is what you will find.

, Francis Hwang

Apologies in advance for a ridiculously digressive post …

On Nov 15, 2004, at 1:47 PM, Plasma Studii - uospn

, Plasma Studii

>"if you, sat in front of a tv and switched between 2 channels of
>hash for 5 minutes, at first they'd both look like pure chaos, but
>you'd soon be able to distinguish between them. if you did that all
>day for 2 years, the hash would not appear random at all"
>
>I'm not convinced you would find the pattern, even in two years

i have a personal example (which i'll get to eventually). there are
seldom cases when comparable situations would come up. there are
texts sighting examples of blind since birth people who had their
vision "repaired", but couldn't stand the result. those people are
usually pretty old. they probably do not have the same capacity to
relearn the non-sense as they did as babies. the pathways that are
the brains flexibility deteriorate with disuse, and this is certainly
a skill rarely exercised.


the primary most essential idea here is that no sensory information
is coherent outside of our heads. we assemble something we think of
as sound using ears, sensitive devices for detecting changes in air
pressure. a "tree falling in the forest" argument. technically, i
am saying that until someone sorts the chaos of stimuli into what we
think of as sound, the waves that exists, are a junk pile of moving
air molecules. they are not sound, but contain trace amounts of the
raw material.


i have an Artificial Brainstem Implant. the premise these employ to
work is the brain's ability to re-configure in this way. my brain
already learned to hear as a baby (we aren't born with the ability),
now it has new stimuli, to work with. the idea of these is that the
brain was handed chaos and learned to give it meaning.

the ABI is an electronic device imbedded in my head, wired up to my
brain. really. they are still very rare, i bet still less than 500
exist. a microphone sends signals to this ABI and onto my brain.
For about a year, i "heard " (or had an identical sensation as
hearing) what essentially seemed like static. then i noticed "ss"
sounded very different than "ee". years later, i have a new map,
what sounds equal what syllables, what sounds equal running water,
what sounds equal applause, etc. for me, noise (literally and
figuratively) is now far more comprehensible.

furthermore, last weekend i went to a piano recital. 3 hours long.
at the beginning, it sounded to me like a continuous rumble of
static. by the last half hour, i could discern changes in ranges.
the longer i sat there, the clearer a picture i got. same happens
when i listen to a CD on repeat all day. If I had an infants brain,
i could have done that much sooner. it is not REALLY gaining a
clearer picture though. that is my mirage. it is constructing the
meaning and the function for selecting from the noise, what pieces
will fit that meaning.


in two years in front of the tv, you would read enough hash language.
we should all try it!

, Plasma Studii

>Anyway, the point I'm obliquely trying to make is that just because
>something can be controlled or manipulated is not at all the same
>thing as saying it's open to reason. If I change the Rhizome website
>using methods so advanced you can't understand them, how much good
>does it do you if I tell you I reasoned my way through the problem?

what we label "random", is misleading. the event may not be
fundamentally an un-selected outcome. i was saying that randomness,
while clearly is a subjective description, may actually serve another
function altogether.

it could be a channel, a frequency, to broadcast some outcome (for
which we do not see the cause). if you were an alien, for example,
how could you tell which is language between a roll of dice, a car
crash, the design of the radiator? at first glance, it would appear
to you, at least the roll of dice was neither accidental nor
symptomatic of some other goal. if you had to ask "is there
intelligent life here?", this would be a viable way to ask.

now imagine a world saturated with these aliens, none of whom are at
all carbon-based, all of them trying desperately to ask this question
by doing things like speaking in the language of die rolls. none of
them may even be aware of each other, much less could tell us from a
traffic light, or where we stop and something else begins (is the air
inside our digestive system part of us?)


>>if you, sat in front of a tv and switched between 2 channels of
>>hash for 5 minutes, at first they'd both look like pure chaos, but
>>you'd soon be able to distinguish between them. if you did that
>>all day for 2 years, the hash would not appear random at all. you
>>would find some hash was more entertaining than others, some would
>>incite a more emotional response. you would develop/learn the
>>linguistics of hash.
>
>I think this is a pretty major statement about the malleability of
>the human spirit. Just because you can be taught to learn about
>distinctions doesn't necessarily mean you mean enjoy paying
>attention. I mean, if you forced me at gunpoint to work at a
>modeling agency, after maybe 10 years I might be okay at telling you
>which girl was about to be the next supermodel. But there's no way
>you could force me to actually enjoy my work.


sorry. i meant nothing to do with aesthetics or getting used to anything.

We aren't seeing a clearer picture of what exists so much as we
improve at sorting out chaos. the pictures never have much to with
the subject, but our ability to construct something is what makes
comprehension possible for us. the image is a result of the
construction process (which we have made extremely complex and
effective, over our lives). The static remains static. We watch
hash on tv, no matter what show we call it. the fact that we can
name the show is simply that we have successfully trained our
eyes/heads to cull the meaning from the chaos.

, Micheál

help.in
ismissingthereasoneno'sobliquestrategysoftware
ridingcomestomind.iusedafew
versionseachvariousdeck
randomnessandprogramming/scriptingversionseemstovary
extremelyinthesignificanceoftheresult.
influencein coding, there is a huge range to how you allow
advice.sometheadviseishave
eerily apros pos, with others seems arbitrary.
basically, it randomly picks a card with vague decks/programs
fatetotheresult.some
works better than others, but it's a science like
action.abicycle.languagesjustdoesn'twith
the fact that anyone focuses on the code itself,

, Micheál

help.in
ismissingthereasoneno'sobliquestrategysoftware
ridingcomestomind.iusedafew
versionseachvariousdeck
randomnessandprogramming/scriptingversionseemstovary
extremelyinthesignificanceoftheresult.
influencein coding, there is a huge range to how you allow
advice.sometheadviseishave
eerily apros pos, with others seems arbitrary.
basically, it randomly picks a card with vaguedecks/programs
fatetotheresult.some
works better than others, but it's a science like
action.abicycle.languagesjustdoesn'twith the fact that anyone focuses on the code itself,