Milieus, associations, sieves and other matters…
30 April-2 September 2018 / Brussels
Milieus, associations, sieves and other matters
A ensemble of problematisations composing a processual environment. A metastable milieu in crisis, which evolves by shifting to new dimensions out of a series of confrontations with and temporary resolutions of problems.
The proposal is structured by
“There is a difference between naming and being named, and the profoundly different forms of political agency that each of these actions represent.” (Kester, 2004) Regardless of whether one agrees with Kester’s separation between coherent and incoherent communities (and the pragmatist politics it implies), the question in relation to artistic production as a mode of address remains whether any similar distinction can be made between naming and being named; What is representation, after all, if not the double bind between naming and being named, a constant oscillation between activation and pacification?
(…) If technique does not allow us to get out of our environment to find ourselves face to face with the world, it is because it is our environment. So much so that today, to the question ‘what is technoscience?’ the answer is: it is the medium of knowledge. Just as technology is not the instrument of science but its epistemological framework, so it is not the instrument of our communication, but our medium of meaning. Everyone seems to admit today that we are inhabited by our habitat, built by our niche, processed by our technical environment, which is neither external nor peripheral, but inherent to our being and to all meaning. Now it seems obvious that it is one and the same milieu that surrounds and separates us (surrounding environment), and that which crosses and connects us (mi-lieu or medium) but this environment has become technical. The co-birth of man and technology means that the latter is both our medium (the midpoint through which individuals maintain each other) and our environment (our space-time). The technical environment perfectly illustrates the idea that our environment or what surrounds us is actually in our midst (au milieu de nous). That technique is both our exteriority and our interiority, our cage and what takes us away from it.
Instrument of Vision / Dispositive for vision
Collective Research Interface
[…] we apperceive through our sieves as much as we sieve through our apperception. We appersieve, if you will. Or, if you go back to Kant who defined the ego as the transcendental unity of apperception (whatever that means), we are our sieves.
Indeed, crucially, sieves have to take on (and not just take in ) features of the substances they sieve, if only as “inverses” of them. A hole in the ground, for example, constitutes a simple sieve: anything with a diameter less than the hole will fall through; anything with a diameter larger than the hole will stay on top. In this way, to sieve a substance, the sieve must often have an (elective) affinity with the substance to be sieved and, in particular, the qualities sieved for—in this case size. In some sense, all sieves are inverses or even shadows of the substances they sort. By necessity, they exhibit a radical kind of intimacy
Note, then, that sieves — such as spam filters—have desires built into them (insofar as they selectively permit certain things and prohibit others); and they have beliefs built into them (insofar as they exhibit ontological assumptions). And not only do sieves have beliefs and desires built into them (and thus, in some sense, embody values that are relatively derivative of their makers and users); they may also be said to have emergent beliefs and desires (and thus embody their own relatively originary values, however unconscious they and their makers and users are of them). In particular, the values of the variables are usually steps ahead of the consciousness of the programmers (and certainly of users)—and thus constitute a kind of prosthetic unconsciousness with incredibly rich and wily temporal dynamics. Note, then, that when we make algorithms and then set those algorithms loose, there is often no way to know what’s going to happen next.
First person plural self interview
Self-education / Learning / Teaching
Technologies, poetics, critical making
Epistemologies of artistic research
Topological Filters : skew, nest, ramp
Co-digestion as instrument of vision
When you go to bed thinking you are an activist and then wake up realising you are a minion
Problems / Problematisations / Diagrams
Savoir is not Connaissance (a translation problem)