[NetBehaviour] a new Microcode: Vito Acconci's 'Seedbed'
Pall Thayer
pallthay at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 16:23:45 CEST 2009
I think we are slowly converging on the same point.
The workshop looks interesting. I've only skimmed through some of the
documentation on the web but there were a couple of things that jumped
out at me. First of all, I really like this comment attributed to you:
"Unlike programming, in the creative work I do, there are no errors."
This is a decision that artists working with programming code have to
make. Does it matter whether or not the code can run? In some cases it
doesn't. The work is created solely for the code to exist as code.
Therefore, just as you mentioned, there are no errors. I made the
conscious decision that Microcodes have to be runnable. They are about
the duality of the code and the running process, therefore there can
be errors. It feels very strange to talk about a work of art that can
actually be "incorrect".
Another thing that caught my eye is actually closely related to the
above. It's the subtitle of the workshop: "Exploring relations between
creating writing practices and software engineering". I really have a
problem with that because art is not engineered and really has nothing
in common with things that are engineered. To me, "software
engineering" is something that is more or less incompatible with art.
It's like the two are the opposite ends of a long stick. One is based
on clear aims with distinct goals and timelines in mind whereas the
other is based on a more or less chaotic flow of open ended ideas
throughout the creative process. In art, engineering and execution
become one. Software engineering is about creating a striated order
within which to execute development. When we're looking at
correlations between art creation and software creation, we don't need
to look to "software engineering". We need to look more at software
that is developed in a similar fashion. Open ended and chaotic.
Pall
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:53 AM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't think we're far apart at all here; we're both talking about
> response. Clearly there's a relationship between your code and haiku, which
> appears both transparent and 'askew,' as if something elsewhere's going on.
>
> I agree to an extent about AI; if an I comes along, it won't be artifical,
> but different altogether; our own minding is intimately tied to the body, a
> body, and bodily experience.
>
> Do you know Andy Oram's Beautiful Code? (Beautiful Code: Leading Program-
> mers Explain How They Think (Theory in Practice (O'Reilly)) (Paperback) by
> Andy Oram (Editor), Greg Wilson (Editor) - from amazon) - you might be
> interested in it. We had a Codework workshop last year at West Virginia
> University and it was a key text for me - there was also Aesthetic Computing
> (Leonardo Books) by Paul A. Fishwick. Both of these went into
> representation/code in a number of ways I found useful - on the other hand,
> neither dealt with the body, psychology, or psychoanalytics of the
> programmer/user.
>
> Some of the stuff from the workshop ended up at the WVU site -
> clc.as.wvu.edu:8080/clc and
> http://clc.as.wvu.edu:8080/clc/search?SearchableText=Codework+Workshop
> - It would have been good if you could have come.
>
> - Alan, hope this is of interest
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
>
>> OK, I think I'm beginning to understand you're take on this. I would
>> say that my primary concern is with a sort of aesthetic of the code
>> but it's a much more a conceptual aesthetic than anything else. To me,
>> the main thing to be considered aesthetically is the concept that has
>> been embedded in the code. However, others have pointed out to me that
>> the code has a certain visual aesthetic of its own and I agree, in
>> some cases. I have exhibited some of these and presented framed prints
>> of the code, with colorful syntax highlighting and they were quite
>> pleasing to look at. Below each framed code was a computer running
>> that code. The idea was to highlight the fact that there was much more
>> to be gained from an attempted interpretation of the code rather than
>> only viewing the screen. One of the pieces I exhibited was
>> "Monochrome" which displays nothing but an empty terminal window.
>> People kept trying to point out to me that there was something wrong
>> with one of the computers.
>>
>> Now that I get where you're going, I would agree with a previous
>> statement of yours that code is clean. If it is to be runnable code,
>> it has to be clean (in a sense anyway). I think that for me, "dirty
>> code" would be code that doesn't run. Something that looks right at
>> first glance but produces something like this:
>>
>> syntax error at code.pl line 4, at EOF
>> Execution of code.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
>>
>> We could have messy code but as long as it runs, it's still clean.
>> It's orderly enough for a dumb machine to interpret it successfully.
>> Therefore it can't be that "dirty".
>>
>> I think both Douglas and Kristeva are so involved with "humanity" that
>> it becomes a little difficult for me to really connect them. This is
>> just a personal thing because my work over the years has made me so
>> aware of the "unhuman-ness" of our machines and their incapability of
>> emulating human behavior. I've mentioned in other discussion on this
>> list that I have no faith at all in "artificial intelligence" in the
>> sense that it has something to do with machines emulating human
>> intelligence. To me that's drastically underrating human intelligence.
>>
>> That being said, I think the point about within/without is
>> interesting. As I said in my last post, we have this tendency to
>> attempt to apply things to ourselves or others as a way of
>> understanding them and this may cause some people to feel
>> uncomfortable when they read the "Seedbed" code. The way I've been
>> explaining it is probably not the way that most people will understand
>> it. That is, that the program is touching itself because people
>> unfamiliar with the "touch" command probably can't imagine that that
>> line of code could mean anything other than what they understand it to
>> mean. I can imagine that a lot of people will apply this to me, as the
>> creator of the program and assume that it refers to me touching myself
>> which actually brings the work even closer to the original "Seedbed".
>> Damn, now I'm starting to feel embarrassed.
>>
>> Regarding what you say about "assault", take a look at some of the
>> other Microcodes. Especially the ones that come with a warning stating
>> that you shouldn't actually run them. However, the Microcodes are
>> presented as something that should be run. I've even included an
>> easy-to-follow how-to. In the case of the "Seedbed" code and people
>> who might interpret it as mentioned above, I can also imagine a
>> certain fear of running them. A fear of what the portions of the code
>> that they don't understand might produce. Who knows, they might also
>> be "erotically" curious which would inevitably bring about
>> disappointment.
>>
>> As far as what sort of response I want goes, for the Microcodes in
>> general, all I want really is to arouse curiosity. I want people to be
>> curious about what the code means and what the code does. And that's
>> part of the reason for keeping them short. People are less likely to
>> consider it an overwhelming task to research what the code actually
>> does regardless of what it produces on the screen.
>>
>> best r.
>> Pall
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> What you call the absurdity is there even in the original; one doesn't
>>> see
>>> Acconci doing anything (there's documentation of course) - it's all
>>> within
>>> the register of the imaginary. It could even be considered a black box -
>>> but
>>> a piece which also implies the box's abject.
>>>
>>> I don't think I'm 'simply' pointing out anything; as we both agreed,
>>> we're
>>> interested in different things - I'm following, say, Mary Douglas and
>>> Kristeva here in terms of issues of purity, danger, abjection,
>>> within-and-
>>> without the body, and you're concerned, I think, with the aesthetics of
>>> micro-codes, which may well imply a different form of reading. You're
>>> coding
>>> what was originally 'dirty' and I'm curious about the dirtiness of code.
>>> And
>>> that can go in all sorts of directions - towards the physical labor that
>>> went into code production and/or production of the technologies that
>>> allow
>>> the code to 'do something,' the potential abject within the code - that
>>> example of the fan or I think of nn's (Antiorp) protection of Nato 55 -
>>> or
>>> her style for that matter - not to mention the problems of potential
>>> wells,
>>> quantum tunneling, etc.
>>>
>>> You say "But the interesting thing is that
>>>>
>>>> whereas we usually see programming code as something to be interpreted
>>>> by a computer and then we interpret that interpretation, in this case
>>>> (and in fact this is the underlying concept of the Microcodes in
>>>> general) our interpretation of the code elicits a much stronger, more
>>>> meaningful response than an interpretation of the computer's
>>>> interpretation of the code."
>>>
>>> and I'm curious what sort of response the code elicits, what sort of
>>> response you want? (As far as I can tell, not programming) the code is
>>> beautiful, it has its own aesthetics and playfulness. Seedbed on the
>>> other
>>> hand was an odd sort of simultaneous assault and deflection that perhaps
>>> (any) code can't touch# at all?
>>>
>>> - Alan
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>> I'm probably just being overly stubborn to make a point. Of course the
>>>> idea of the "Seedbed" code is to play around with the dual meaning in
>>>> the line "touch $myself". And if I understand you correctly you're
>>>> simply pointing out the ways in which words and images evoke emotional
>>>> responses even though whatever mediates the words and/or images is
>>>> itself incapable of such emotional responses. This is just our way of
>>>> understanding things. We attempt, maybe even at a subconscious level,
>>>> to apply whatever is being mediated to our own selves (or someone
>>>> else's) to see how that affects us. But the interesting thing is that
>>>> whereas we usually see programming code as something to be interpreted
>>>> by a computer and then we interpret that interpretation, in this case
>>>> (and in fact this is the underlying concept of the Microcodes in
>>>> general) our interpretation of the code elicits a much stronger, more
>>>> meaningful response than an interpretation of the computer's
>>>> interpretation of the code. This is something I want people to
>>>> consider and be aware of, that's why I'm being so stubborn. I'm sure
>>>> there are people out there who experience some discomfort in reading
>>>> the "Seedbed" code. Some might even feel embarrassed, turned on,
>>>> ashamed or all of the above. If I didn't want people to feel this way
>>>> I wouldn't have associated it with "Seedbed". But I hope that they
>>>> will take the time to discover what the words as computer code really
>>>> mean and see the absurdity of it all.
>>>>
>>>> best r.
>>>> Pall
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (Sorry to go on at length here.) This is really interesting to me, with
>>>>> its
>>>>> sense of barriers at both ends, almost pure playing-fields, and then
>>>>> the
>>>>> burst of (abject) 'content' following the includes - of course it's all
>>>>> content, the extrusion is extrusion to the extent we're reading it that
>>>>> way.
>>>>> In any case, this is what I was thinking about, and the central
>>>>> char* appears to almost ooze out across the clarity of the rest. So
>>>>> it's
>>>>> uncomfortable itself, as if empathetic to the seedbed piece. - Alan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, james morris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i don't know perl, so this is c code...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> please find a ramp ramping up the cpu usage until it's hot and
>>>>>> sweaty...
>>>>>> please find a ramp ramping up and then down and then up and then
>>>>>> down...
>>>>>> until the cpu is hot and sweaty....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> my usual dumbass shit. a numerical ramp, the step value is random and
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> chosen when the ramp has reached either end of it's limit. as you
>>>>>> know,
>>>>>> there are no true random number generators... srand(time()) SEEDs the
>>>>>> 'random' number generator with the time since epochs of seconds 1970.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there's a terribly rude piece of text. pointer variables are used to
>>>>>> step through the text one word at a time. i would have used strpos
>>>>>> but could not find a man page for it. maybe it is a PHP function
>>>>>> and i'm getting confused.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this demonstrates how code can easily begin to get complex without
>>>>>> adding actually doing very much at all. but then c is a low level
>>>>>> language, and probably the wrong choice but i felt like using it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> james.
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>>> #include <string.h>
>>>>>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> char* strorig=
>>>>>> "I am laying here masturbating fantasizing about you and \
>>>>>> I am going to come on your face and \
>>>>>> I am rubbing my sweaty dirty self on you and \
>>>>>> I am so turned on by it and \
>>>>>> I am masturbating furiously with your image \
>>>>>> fixed in my mind and am i so so hot now and \
>>>>>> am blistering my genitals but i love the pain of it and \
>>>>>> i am going to come all over you uhh ohhh uhhh ohhh.";
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> srand(time());
>>>>>> float ramp=0;
>>>>>> float stz=(rand()%10+10)/100.0f;
>>>>>> int w=0;
>>>>>> char* str=malloc((strlen(strorig)+1)*sizeof(char));
>>>>>> strcpy(str,strorig);
>>>>>> char* ptr;
>>>>>> char* end=0;
>>>>>> int i=5000;
>>>>>> int next=0;
>>>>>> while(1){
>>>>>> ramp+=stz;
>>>>>> if(!end){
>>>>>> ptr=str;
>>>>>> end=strstr(ptr," ");
>>>>>> next=1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> if(stz>0){
>>>>>> if(ramp>60000.0f){
>>>>>> stz=-(rand()%10+10)/1000.0f;
>>>>>> next=1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> else if (stz<0){
>>>>>> if(ramp<0){
>>>>>> stz=(rand()%10+10)/1000.0f;
>>>>>> next=1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> if(next){
>>>>>> *end=0;
>>>>>> printf("%s\n",ptr);
>>>>>> *end=' ';
>>>>>> ptr=end+1;
>>>>>> end=strstr(ptr," ");
>>>>>> next=0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/7/2009, "Alan Sondheim" <sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The essence it seemed to me wasn't self-referentiality or touch (good
>>>>>>> unix
>>>>>>> command too), so much as it was about targeting the ab/use/er, as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> dirtiness. And code's always clean; even dirty code's clean, so
>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>> that barrier which is interesting and the question is - which for me
>>>>>>> parallels the clean/dirty avatar phenomenology - how can that be
>>>>>>> broken
>>>>>>> down psychologically - how can that sort of dis/comfort be recreated,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> can't it? With avatar, it's useful to create a kind of iconicity
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> also functions on an indexical plain - texturing a human face or
>>>>>>> sexual
>>>>>>> body for example. But code/ascii (pre-compiling which brings up,
>>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>>> it's in the binaries that this stuff lies) has a different kind of
>>>>>>> clarity
>>>>>>> and it's hard to see how dis/embodiment might function, even
>>>>>>> comfortably,
>>>>>>> this way. The difference between code as medium (strict code) might
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> clearer than ways of smudging it. Obviously I don't code, or code
>>>>>>> poorly,
>>>>>>> so in a way I don't know what I'm talking about, and I admire what
>>>>>>> you're
>>>>>>> doing - I'm just wondering about things like the body of code, the
>>>>>>> coded
>>>>>>> body, the decoded body...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Alan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Pall Thayer wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One of the primary reasons that I've "redone" a number of known
>>>>>>>> pieces
>>>>>>>> by other artists in these Microcodes is more to point out the
>>>>>>>> difference between code as a medium and other media. So the point
>>>>>>>> isn't necessarily to emulate the work as closely as possible but
>>>>>>>> rather to capture a single "essence" of it in very compact code. I
>>>>>>>> think that trying to work the incline and fantasies into this
>>>>>>>> "version" of the work would result in considerably more code which
>>>>>>>> would in turn make the work overly complex.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Alan Sondheim<sondheim at panix.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I knew Vito well back then and visited Seedbed many times - you're
>>>>>>>>> missing
>>>>>>>>> the grittiness & the compression of the incline - hope you can
>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> in! The work was obviously uncomfortable, and anyone on the slope
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> target of his fantasizing, not to mention the reverse as well -
>>>>>>>>> Alan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, james morris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ahh! I deleted them! But they're archived on the net.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> a less clear version of seedbed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>>>>>>>>> $myself = `id -un`;
>>>>>>>>>> $mybody = "/home/$myself";
>>>>>>>>>> while(1){
>>>>>>>>>> `touch $mybody`;
>>>>>>>>>> print `ls -ld $mybody`;
>>>>>>>>>> print `finger $myself at localhost`;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> james
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2009, "Pall Thayer" <pallthay at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ....revisited electronically. Those who follow the list closely
>>>>>>>>>>> may
>>>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>>>> immediately that this was inspired in part by James Morris'
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Microcrudities' a while back. Trying to emulate such human
>>>>>>>>>>> activities
>>>>>>>>>>> in short code is really interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://pallit.lhi.is/microcodes/index.php?code_id=29
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> *****************************
>>>>>>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>>>>>>> artist
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>>>>>> *****************************
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>>>>>>>>> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
>>>>>>>>> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
>>>>>>>>> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> *****************************
>>>>>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>>>>>> artist
>>>>>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>>>>>> *****************************
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>>>>>>> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
>>>>>>> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
>>>>>>> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>>>>> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
>>>>> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
>>>>> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *****************************
>>>> Pall Thayer
>>>> artist
>>>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>>>> *****************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
>>> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
>>> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
>>> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *****************************
>> Pall Thayer
>> artist
>> http://www.this.is/pallit
>> *****************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NetBehaviour mailing list
>> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
>> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>>
>>
>
>
>
> | Alan Sondheim Mail archive: http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
> | Webpage (directory) at http://www.alansondheim.org
> | sondheim at panix.com, sondheim at gmail.org, tel US 718-813-3285
> ! http://www.facebook.com/alan.sondheim
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetBehaviour mailing list
> NetBehaviour at netbehaviour.org
> http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
>
--
*****************************
Pall Thayer
artist
http://www.this.is/pallit
*****************************
More information about the NetBehaviour
mailing list