NOVEMBER 13, 1997Channel operator: Nell Tenhaaf
Log file opened at: 11/13/97 11:59:25 AM
*** nell has set the topic on channel #fear to fear at the end of technology
michael: nell i can see the building and three shadows
nell: yeah I can see shadows. text looks like yesterday's though.
michael: yes, you're right
nell: shall we speculate that this is relevant to the end of technology?
michael: if we speculate then we know technology has not ended
nell: how so?
michael: well, i'm thinking about a speculum and i'm thinking about thinking and i'm thinking that if we speculate we are diagnosing something wich is existant
nell: all right. but do fear its end? the end may be just that we don't see it and thus diagnose anymore.
michael: the big thing about computer related technology is that it is never over always progressing, the ultimate modernism, and the ultimate sham
nell: oh I can't type today either. it's cold in my room. progressing, yes it moves.
michael: not only moves but improves, it is it's major aesthetic philosophical principle
nell: michael are you with someone, or do you have one of those intensively bicameral minds? sounds just like you're having a discussion there.
michael: technology is an expanding universe
nell: anyway, one cannot argue that it grows and changes. you know of course that there's lots of critique of "progressing" and "improving"
michael: i don't know about the bicameral mind, critique or complaining
nell: or reluctance or fear.
michael: there is fear of technology but is there fear of its end? well, i'm sure in specific cases there are, sorry don't mean to sound socratic, like if your in medicine or sick for instance you might worry about some machine keeping you or some alive disappearing
nell: the problem of the vast generalization about all technology, yes.
nell: technologies are more and more specific i think.
michael: i think that if technology ends so does human life, because technology is an integral part of human social activity and development, but techn is just a thing, so it's all about how that thing is managed, that's what is scary
michael: fear at the end of tech is like fear at the end of economy in this sense
nell: there is a sense that we want it to manage itself, much of the thrust of expert, intelligent, autonomous systems
michael: i think this because it would mean the demise of an industry, i think there is a desire for it to be management itself, that is to enforce and regulate management, i'm thinking about surveilance
nell: would you agree that we, humans in technologized cultures, feel that we are no longer able to manage our own complex systems?
michael: at the full corporate extensive level, government monitoring of spending habits even, yes and no, on the no side, i would say, that management is what it is all about, this decade has intensely devoted itself to management and corporate structures as an aesthetic, technology has served in many ways to implement and inculcate this these priciples
nell: yes i agree
michael: the current politic and social cultural structure is to be found in the prevailing organizing aesthetic around technology, it is about growth speed and power, just like always but it's more pervasive and seemingly organic, technology makes you work, technology makes you want to work, work yourself to death
nell: nicely put michael. fear of the end.
michael: computers are killing time
nell: fear and death again, our recurring theme of yesterday.
michael: yeah, death and taxes
michael: technology has no tail
Server Crash
Log file opened at: 11/13/97 12:58:43 PM
rafael: you are writing with invisible ink
michael: i wish
rafael: fear at the end of technology is about invisibility, and about
monumentality?
michael: fear at the end of techn is about not having to wait anymore
rafael: No, not that I know of
rafael: michael, what to do if not wait?
michael: hang out
rafael: hahaha
rafael: or fear
michael: well if fear is a thing in itself
nell: fear of disconnection, i've got that
Log file opened at: 11/13/97 1:14:37 PM
rafael: hmm fear at the end of technology is not about waiting is about the empty space left by crashes
michael: but that empty space is very zen
nel: yes it's a big empty yawning void, interesting
michael: so it could be good? or peaceful
nel: well I don't think it's peaceful because it's a desire being frustrated
michael: everything will always be imbued with qualities then it is waiting again
nel: I guess if one suspends the desire it can become a very zen exercise
michael: or a very zen moment, the end of course is very christian
rafael: one thing is fearing the end of technology, the shutdown, the outtagem, another thing is that iot will actually happen
nel: iot?
michael: what is outtagem?
rafael: "spelling is killing literature" (Marquez)
nel: rafa, you have some xplaining to do
nel: fingers are an outmoded technology
michael: or reviving it
nell: the body is an outmoded technology
michael: there you are you see, "outmoded", techn is about mode, fashion going forward always, expanding
local1: i m reading you... fear of the end of technology, maybe the fear of themselves without technology. THIS IS VERY ZEN
michael: this instead of that
nell: the nineties are a too fashion-conscious era. it's paradigmatic of postmodernism to be in fashion. hey what was the postnoia answer?
michael: yes and what is a self but another techn, postnoia - don't remember
nell: memory is an outmoded technology
michael: postnoia is nirvana
nell: post fear then
michael: i think so, happy end of the world, will you be dining at the end of technology? memory is very inexpensive now
nell: max, do you think technology is a mask for us? hides us from our selves, so we fear to see ourselves. just a thought upon your thought.
michael: in this respect is outmoded like selling like it's going out of fashion, memory now really is spatial, it physically become a question of volume, rafa can you imagine the chemistry of volume for memory
local1: to nell: technology is our shadow; to Michael : to be in fashion is to be beyond fashion
nell: michael are you a chemist?
michael: it's all about big harddrives and expansive ram
nell: not in the brain it's not
michael: moving about in a vast space as quickly as possible
nell: it's more about chemicals
nell: when will we have those liquid computers do you think? vats of chemicals instead of ugly hard boxes.
michael: local1: i like that techn is our shadow
michael: no but i am chemistry
nell: i like that too. would like to pursue that.
michael: i think the vernacular of hard techn is moving into the domain of soft techn
michael: and redefining it, and thus altering it, so in this regard chemistry becomes about volume
nell: what do you mean by soft techn? the human body, or organic systems in general
michael: both, hard and soft as a conceptual vernacular are merging culturally and thus really, that is, manifesting in physical reality as such
nell: the shadow is a soft idea, it has no form, but it's also hard in that it's not organic in itself but a perception of physical phenomena
nell: so perhaps we could say that it merges the hard and soft, as you suggest
michael: sure, but i do think it has form
nell: how so?
michael: the shadow, shadow is a tracing of light, well it is seen when light is thrown against an object
nell: what I meant was it doesn't have organic form in itself
michael: the shadow on the outside rim is the tracing of light
nell: it has no "inner life" shall we say, except in fantasy, and that can be powerful of course
michael: some speak of the shadow as "innner life", that is, as a psychological entity, the object is not just an object it is a cultural entity, in this way it is always organic, but i take your point nevertheless, i was speaking of form as drawn shape
nell: but we can't say that every cultural entity has life, that simply by saying so we endow it with such. that's the fallacy of alife.
michael: yes we can we can say whatever we like :)
nell: mmm, not a very strong position though, a bit naive ;)
michael: but i do believe this, that when you speak of something a living
nell: I mean, I think of that as magical thinking which is like a child's way of thinking, that if one wishes it it happens
michael: then it "effectively" lives, that is, it has very real consequences and effects/affects in the world
nell: no, for me it lives if we can in some way perceive its own inner life, not what we ascribe to it. although yes, it has consequeces.
nell: but they are consequences that belong to "it" -- I'm not sure anymore what our "it" is
nell: the shadow?
michael: that is the way so many things work in this culture, nell, technology as a conceptual thing the investment in that and in just about anything which is part of a belief system is magical thinking only if we can perceive its inner life?
michael: and in what form of perception, imagination is perception, it is technology or any "thing", any "thing" we can treat as "organic" or not - these are all concepts (fancies)
michael: i think that this is related to our general conceptually orientation to techn, because when we want techn to behave in a certain way, then we are in relationship with it, and being in relationship with it is like treating it as if it were a living thing, and if we treat it as if it's a living thing then it might as well be a living thing, because most of our dealings with one another and the world is one big hallucination, but with very real consequences
michael: i would say that there is no fear at the end of technology because the end of technology is the end of self and the end of self is the end of fear and so on but it is all just imagined so there is no end and there can only be fear of an imagined end
michael: of course there is the issue of ghosts, but if you don't have a self what do you have to fear?
michael: nell?
rafael: michael
nell: michael I'm here
nell: from shadows to ghosts?
nell: ghosts of course are no end at all but a troublesome continuing
michael: rafa is there a chemical understanding of volume?
rafael: sure there is
rafael: but I want togo back to shadows
michael: go for it
rafael: I am sure you said some great things, but I am concerned mostly, with tele-absence, with all the hoopla about amplification, it is time to celebrate the time and the place where one is *not*
michael: that is a great idea
rafael: in this irc chat you will see people that come from Biafra, and from Serbia, and from Montreal and they all know what is like
michael: hello
michael: nell you didn't finish your thought and rafa i'm waiting for yours to continue
michael: to tele-absence, or tele-abstinence
michael: celebrating where you are *not*
rafael: I am back, sorry, I had problems with the real world
rafael: so I am wondering if you consider shadows avatars aliases or extensions, cause I sure don't
michael: sure and more and less, shadows are to be considered always
rafael: a shadow is projected darkness, although this must have been covered, but what is interesting, is that they are like a vacuum, a no space, the abscence of presence, so, like Irigaray asks, can a vacuum be a site of immense activity?
michael: it depends weather you look at the inside or the frame, it's like those drawings with a vase and a face
rafael: hmm I like what you say about the vase
michael: sure a vacuum can be used for sex too, or for abortion, it is creative and destructive potentially, that is, it has potential
rafael: the shadow however is NOT a cutout
michael: a tracing
rafael: because it acts on the geometry that it is projected on, anamorphosis
michael: well it acts as a result of light being projected on an object
rafael: it is a collaboration between the building, the body and light
michael: an eclipse, yes to the collaboration
rafael: the collaboration between these three elements cannot take place without the perception and pov taken into account
michael: i like that because it gives it intent
rafael: yes to the eclipse
nell: perception is always the complicating factor in the "alive" or even active question, whose perception
rafael: yes, in this piece we try to endow buildings with perception
rafael: but we fail
rafael: always
nell: it always mirrors back to our perception
michael: do not be so sure rafa, buildings take a very long time to reply to questions
michael: does anyone think about where and when they are not?
nell: what are not?
rafael: hmm. Lacan said I think where I am not and I am where I dont think"
rafael: many buildings are vampires
nell: Lacan the master of the negative
nell: actually, derrida is the master of the negative...
michael: but perhaps it is the endowment that is the issue
nell: you see these words like ghosts and vampires are so loaded, do we even mean anything like the same thing when each of uses them?
michael: actually the dark room is the master/mistress of the negative
michael: nell: sometimes
nell: well there you go, the photo is the ultimate absence.
michael: fear at the end of semantics
rafael: hold it
michael: i like this idea of ultimate absence
rafael: why ultimate
michael: because the ultimate
nell: rafa, absence represented, but of course the shadow is also absence represented
rafael: but the shadow relies on the external geometry, whereas the photo is on silvergel
michael: does the shadow rely on anything? is the shadow waiting?
rafael: yes! we covered that ;)
nell: the photo is fixed, developed and fixed
michael: indeed that which is covered throws a shadow
rafael: except it ages
nell: yes it ages, then it has a greater absence, no? there's another idea from the great theory era we just passed through ;) that I like, I don't remember where it's from exactly, but it's the "standing reserve" -- wait, that sounds like Heidegger, there's an absence that's a plenitude
rafael: and it folds, a lot of people talking thinking about folding, the shadow folds in real time
rafael: sorry for the commercial break, but are you all seeing the arsenal?
nell: what a lovely image, rafa
michael: absence makes the heart grow fonder
rafael: in high energy physics it has been proven that a vacumm is a site of immense activity, matter and anti matter can spontaneously be created and destroyed is that similar to standing reserve?
nell: Simon was in vacuum activity, simon was a standing reserve. he's not here for me to tell him.
*** nell has set the topic on channel #fear to fear at the end of
architecture
nell: rafa, does the shadow become a white shape when noone is there?
Server crash
rafael: hello everyone I am back and ready for the demise of architecture
rafael: nell and robert, would you agree with the assertion that software is the architecture of the 90s, is it true that architecture has unfolded from the realm of materials?
rafael: nell, having dealt with body extensively, and intensively
local1: hmm, what does the body have to do with it?
rafael: well the body is the ultimate site-specific installation
rerlich: Software in the "90's" is the [European] architecture of the 1700's
rafael: why european? Are you referring to any kind of renaissance...
rerlich: With little exception, monolithic, overdone and impractical. Lost sight of reality.
rafael: are you a software programmer?
rerlich: I am a charlatan.
rafael: hmmm, does that mean you are an artist?
rerlich: You may derive your own meaning. The statement stands. I am a charlatan.
nell: as long as you're not a poseur...yet one always *tries*for the technology that will transmit self
rafael: charlatan or not, would you consider we are witnessing fear at the end of architecture?
rerlich: Persian architecture achieved the state of 1700's Europe much earlier.
local1: in the chat yesterday we discussed tele-absence, what is the definition?
rafael: I defined teleabsence as the technological acknowledgement of the impossibility of self-transmission, it is pretentious and long but it sounds like I have *an* answer for a definition, which I of course do not have
nell: I will put forward that software architecture does not reference the body, as architecture should if I dare use such a loaded word
rafael: but there are software programs designed for the body
rerlich: Not a human body, in most cases.
nell: design for a simulated human body. an idea of the body as a certain kind of architecture itself.
rafael: VR, endoscopic techniques, etc
rerlich: We must take into accout the body, as most software is intended as CNS enhancement.
rafael: electronic artists are perhaps the programmers that think about the body and its relation to software the most
rafael: but cns is the body, oder?
rerlich: Software for the sake of software is another matter. That does reference an, inorganic, although very living, ecosystem.
rafael: but I agree with nell, architecture should reference the body, but whose body? because space is gendered...
rafael: or so they say and I believe
rerlich: Space is not gendered, people engender it. Does the body engender the mind?
rafael: ok space may not be, but architecture sure is
rafael: I will advance that the end of architecture is the begining of tele-absence, there needs to be a building constructed that allows you to be nowhere
rerlich: Is software (or hardware) architecture gendered?
rafael: sw/hw gendered? I dunno, nell?
rerlich: If the walls are the delimiters, being 'nowhere' would be 'outside'
rafael: yes but the notion of the outside would disappear, it has already, like in Jodorowskis incal, where there is a space that is an external interior, did you read that comic?
rafael: it is wonderful, the protagonist enters a round globe only to find himself outside of it
rerlich: No, but I have contemplated the Klien (sp?) bottle.
local1: who is jodorowski?
rafael: jodorowski is a chilean filmmaker who lives in Paris, he invented panic theatre in the 50s and he is the director of the cult movie el topo
rerlich: Body -- an architecture dictated by environment. We attempt to create environment in architecture, but in fact we are dictated the architecture by nature. Hardware and software included.
rafael: how are we dictated by nature, I thought architecture has been trying to overcome it (unfortunately)
nell: I'll remember the question about gendered hw and sw...
nell: am going to leave and come back
Log file closed at: 11/13/97 3:53:12 PM
Log file opened at: 11/13/97 3:55:21 PM
rafael: so we were talking about site specificity, I was saying it was impossible
nel: certainly in the context of teleabsence it's impossible
rafael: a lot of architecture of the 80 s and artwork tried to achieve it, unsuccessfully? particularly because it overlooks the specificity of point of view
nel: I think the very first stuff achieved it, but it had to do with being to able to read it as a new idea and *outside* the gallery system, i.e. its institutional walls
nel: so it does have to do with point of view, totally
rafael: true, going outside was a priority, but the art was thus defined where they did NOT want to be, not where they wanted to
nel: indeed, yes, defined by outside
rafael: it seems to me making something site specific is very pretentious
garnetHer: is this live?
nel: live and alive
rerlich: Nature is free of frames, why isn't what some people term 'Art'?
rafael: nature seems like too broad a term
rerlich: nature -- The processes of the Cosomos.
nel: nature is usually filtered through something, some method by which we read it.
rerlich: Strong nuclear force to space expantion.
nel: robert, pardon?
Log file closed at: 11/13/97 4:09:15 PM
main | scourges | repository | participants | relational architecture | bios