Gene Youngblood assorted passages

There are some issues with Gene Youngblood’s interpretation of the computer as a medium. While it’s true that to some extent, computers can be a creative collaborator when it comes to art, computers are NOT free from error, as we’ve seen exploited with glitch art. Glitch art embraces the unpredictable and the unconventional, but definitely in a different way than Youngblood intended for – neither the computer nor the artist can predict what will always happen, and how, and this lack of control makes the computer less a collaborator and more a generative tool. It is NOT an active participant, because it has no control over its own mechanical failures, and the artist selects from its glitching what he wants and what he does not want.

I think in a lot of ways, for Gene Youngblood, the concept of the sensorium is a utopian one. The language he uses, primitive and complex, base and vulgar, to describe what is new and what is populist or general (like Disneyland) is in a lot of ways a sort of patronizing sneer at anyone who thinks dressing up like it was the Age of Aquarius and putting shit on your face is probably not the most constructive use of your time. Personally, I think his ideas about intermedia and stimulating the human senses in a deliberate way are cogent, but I wish, as with a lot of this written work in this selection, that it would see farther than it did. It’s a bit of a letdown, really.

More Projectz

The Black and the White Gods from Ben Russell on Vimeo.

Live Cinema Summit presentation - jonCates (2010) from jonCates on Vimeo.

http://mattpyke.com/exhibitions/super-computer-romantics

Tekken Torture???

W3FI from Chris Coleman on Vimeo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFFN1nu5MYk

expanded cinema performances

NoiseFold - from a distance from David Stout on Vimeo.

Response to "as we may think"

"Knowledge evolves and endures for the life of a race but not an individual" goes along with the author's thoughts about research analysis. Scientists spend so much time writing and book-keeping with their cures and thoughts, that during the same time they could have actually been helping someone. Because of the fixation with recording everything, the ill person is never helped. The society as a whole is helped, eventually reading these recordings and learning from them, but that is long after the people who were being written about are gone. The author mentions that this is to be expected when we live in a world of "cheap complex devices that are reliable," so it seems like he is almost against technology in a way? Maybe I misinterpreted his words. Like when he references the stenotype and how words are recorded in short little phrases and then afterwards turned into actual speech/story, but why not make a language to begin with, that easily follows such a recording device (or vice versa) ?

I like when he says "for mature thought there is no mechanical substitute," which always makes me think he has a problem with our dependence on  technology. Scientists can always make machines and devices to make things easier, that may even be able to get a lot of work done without the aid of a human being; but you need that human being, with mature thought and intellect, if you really want to accomplish something.

RESPONSE TO MEDIA HOT COLD

Maybe it's because I read both of these within the same hour, but this just hurt my brain and I didn't have much patience to keep re-reading to finally get it. I understand the main point, and it's definitely interesting to break down media into "hot" or "cold." Hot medium, like the radio, heavily focuses on one sense, while cold is includes a few more, like TV. What I dont get is how a movie is hot, but TV is cold. Or radio is hot, but telephone is cold. The telephone only relies one sense as well as the radio..your hearing. I personally don't see the difference. Or a movie and TV? Both require both visual and oral. I can't decide whether I consider speech to be "low" definition or not, either. I mean a friend can tell you a story about their weekend and you can follow every little bit without the aid of anything but your eyes and ears. But I guess hearing something and seeing the person speaking wouldn't stick in your head as much as having those senses, along with, say, writing it down. Is that why he thinks it's low definition then? Because an un-recorded speech isn't as long lasting or informative?  Either way though I appreciate the unique way of describing media...

Response to Media Hot and Cold

I do agree with the Hot medium and Cold medium. It is saying that a Hot medium is a high definition while Cold is a low definition. Also, the examples like the telephone or a speech would give less information while the radio and a movie would give more information. I also agree that th Hot media would give low participation while Cold media would give high participation. An examle would be a radio to a telephone.

rubby tubby