rob at robmyers.org
Fri May 11 14:02:22 CEST 2012
On Fri, 11 May 2012 08:12:05 +0100, ruth catlow wrote:
> Thanks Rob,
> I agree. Well worth the read. An illuminating article after all the
> "clopping" ; )
> Though even in this account the machines are imbued with agency and
> autonomy - strangely disconnected from natural and (human) political
> economic forces that drive technological developments.
Manuel de Landa aside, Charlesworth describes:
"...this fantasy of machine agency that seems to lurk in the New
the machines do move, he writes:
"...but only because humans have deployed them to do so..."
"The New Aesthetics is a demand-side aesthetics. It doesn’t matter who
transmits, only what is received. Say Sterling:
‘Valorizing machine-generated imagery is like valorizing the
unconscious mind. Like Surrealist imagery, it is cool, weird,
provocative, suggestive, otherworldly, but it is also impoverished.’
It may seem impoverished, but without a more robust concept of the
creative, initiating human subject, it is also an accurate reflection of
the current condition."
This is politically and philosophically damning, but not for TNA: for
its chosen subjects.
The TNA tumblr was *visual rhetoric*. It very successfully demonstrated
the quantitatively distinct current historical moment of pervasive
digital distortion of the real. To ask it to do something else is to ask
it to be less successful at what it did. And if it had been less
successful at what it did, we wouldn't all be arguing about it. We
cannot exhaustively replace new pictures with old texts.
The messenger is now so filled with lead that we could use him as a
pencil. So let's write.
More information about the NetBehaviour