[Frameworks] unsettling possibilities

Mon Oct 31 05:18:49 CDT 2011

I'm not any sort of Christian, but C.S. Lewis is really worth reading, the
Narnia books are good fun (if a bit over the top in the allegory
department) and his theological writings are quite wonderfully written and
(I believe) quite under appreciated as philosophical texts (though I don't
really agree with him). However, this isn't a literature, philosophy, or
theology list-serve so it's probably not appropriate to go into it in any
depth.

I'm also not convinced by a Kurzeilian view of a technological singularity.
Every technology has exciting (and frightening) possibilities and can't
really be predicted as being entirely negative or positive and has never
caused us as a species to reach any sort of teleological end (be it
apocalypse or transcendence).

For example, the invention of cinema, mechanical reproduction, and digital
media were viewed simultaneously as allowing for new utopic modes of shared
experience and as being imminent dangers to the structure of western
civilization (I don't think either has come to pass yet, and certainly not
at the hands of whatever aesthetic tools we have available).

Best,
Tessa

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Aaron F. Ross
<aaron at digitalartsguild.com>wrote:

> I haven't read C.S. Lewis, I could never tolerate the heavy-handed
> Christian apologism. Tolkien was the better writer because he
> abhorred allegory. Anyway, I think it's worth questioning whether
> "The Abolition of Man" might not be such a bad thing after all. Or,
> to quote Nietzche, man is something to be overcome. The utter
> virtualization of all experience may liberate consciousness in ways
> we puny humans cannot comprehend. Intellect and vision are emergent
> properties of consciousness; we should be doing everything in our
> power to extend those capabilities or risk obsolescence. The
> singularity is coming whether we like it or not. Shall we light a
> candle, or curse the darkness?
>
> Aaron
>
> -----------------
>
>
> At 10/30/2011, you wrote:
> >Yes -- and there will always be constraints of one kind or
> >another.   New tools will still be tools.  . . . My "unsettling"
> >reference was in  regard to the inevitable misuse of the tools.  But
> >the various roles  of artists will likely include, as always,
> >creating new and  alternative visions as informed by whatever
> >technologies exist, as  well as ongoing social/cultural criticism
> >and provocation. But to Aaron's comment:  while "the most
> >imaginative visionaries" and  "pure intellect" (whatever that may
> >be) seem somehow  contradictory . . . i,e. from where do these
> >visions and intellect  arise?  . . . it is certainly believable that
> >the scope possibilities  will be widened.  It's just that the notion
> >of the end of artisanal  craftsmanship does sound a bit like "That
> >Hideous Strength." Marilyn On 29-Oct-11, at 1:21 PM, Brook Hinton
> >wrote: > And before I get labeled as a luddite or film fetishist,
> >which anyone > who knows me knows I am not at all - I love the
> >things digital > technology has opened up for making and
> >experiencing art. My work has > been completely digital for years
> >(though I also love, and loved > working with, film for its own
> >unique capabilities). And I can > certainly see "brain recordings"
> >as great ingredients in a piece of > art made with constrained
> >tools. But raw vision dump? I want to see > the amazing collision of
> >the artist's vision with the tools and > materials - digital,
> >analog, virtual, I don't care - not the one > unmasked
> >ingredient. > > Brook > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brook
> >Hinton <bhinton at gmail.com>  > wrote: >> I am interested in tools
> >because they can jolt my mind into finding / >> expressing / using
> >things it couldn't otherwise envision. The >> "constraint" of tools
> >is the key to aesthetic transformation, which >> then helps me see /
> >live better the rest of the time. >> >>  I'm not interested in
> >unfiltered manifestation of something direct >> from my, or
> >anyone's, brain. I already live there. Same even with the >> "dream"
> >of 3D 360degree cinema -  I already live in a 3D immersive >> world.
> >I need things like cinema to enlighten, inform, enhance being >>
> >alive, not duplicate it - goes for the life outside as well as
> >inner >> life. >> >> Making art is a way to surpass the limitations
> >of the brain. The >> constraints of the tools are catalysts in this
> >process. >> >> >> Brook >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:38
> >AM, Aaron F. Ross >> <aaron at digitalartsguild.com> wrote: >>> This is
> >not unsettling to me, I've been waiting for it to happen >>> since I
> >first read science fiction stories as a young boy. >>> >>> With
> >brain-machine interfaces, the opportunities for self-expression >>>
> >will be blown wide open. At that point, I'm hoping that the most >>>
> >imaginative visionaries should be able to rise to the forefront
> >of >>> public awareness. No longer will we be constrained by
> >tools. >>> Artisanal craftsmanship will no longer exist, to be
> >replaced by pure >>> intellect. And that's a good thing. >>> >>> I
> >gave a talk this year that touched upon this topic, mainly in
> >the >>> context of how 3D graphics has widened the scope of
> >possibilities  >>> for >>> art and communication. I know that
> >computer art is very unpopular >>> among this crowd, I've been
> >attacked again and again for mentioning >>> it, so let the flames
> >begin. I'm wearing my flame-retardant vest. >>> >>>
> >http://www.dr-yo.com/video_dorkbot_2011.html >>> >>>
> >Aaron >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At 10/28/2011, you wrote: >>>>
> >Interesting article with complex social, biological, as well >>>>
> >as  aesthetic implications into the future.  . . . Obviously, >>>>
> >capturing  imagery is a far cry from understanding the
> >complexities >>>> of 'thought,'  and it's still very futuristic, but
> >as we  >>>> conceivably >>>> 'think' to each  other, or project our
> >thought/images, there would >>>> have to be resultant  changes in
> >consciousness, and the role of the >>>> artist would necessarily  be
> >re-defined along with >>>> everything/everyone else.  "Direct"
> >visual  art?  Ultimate loss of >>>> the artisanal? And/or a
> >revitalizing of same?   I realize this has >>>> little or no
> >immediate relevance to anyone here  (probably), but it >>>> showed
> >up in my email and I just thought some  frameworkers would >>>>
> >possibly find it interesting as well: >>>>
> >
> http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity
> > >>>> Marilyn Brakhage
> >_______________________________________________ >>>> FrameWorks
> >mailing list FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com >>>>
> >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> >>>
> >------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Aaron F.
> >Ross >>> Digital Arts Guild >>> >>>
> >_______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks
> >mailing list >>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com >>>
> >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >>> >> >> >>
> >  >> -- >> ____________________________ >> Brook Hinton >> Moving
> >Image and Sound Maker >> www.brookhinton.com >> >> Associate
> >Professor / Assistant Chair >> Film Program at CCA >> California
> >College of the Arts >> www.cca.edu/film >> > > > > -- >
> >____________________________ > Brook Hinton > Moving Image and Sound
> >Maker > www.brookhinton.com > > Associate Professor / Assistant
> >Chair > Film Program at CCA > California College of the Arts >
> >www.cca.edu/film > _______________________________________________ >
> >FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com >
> >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing
> >list FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> >https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Aaron F. Ross
> Digital Arts Guild
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20111031/608cee81/attachment-0001.html 