About the project Basic Questions...

Author: Borut Savski

The project is a paraphrase of the title of the painting by Paul Gauguin (Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?, 1897/98), that (seemingly, at least to me) wanted to move the pivot of art from aesthetics to ethics. After more than a hundred years it looks like art has managed to get rid of the beautiful and is now dealing with questions of human existance.

Although it may seem that the technology of art has changed immensely from not so long ago (with today's talk about the art of new media), it's use is not in the least different. It is a simple (or less simple) prolongation of human body - with it's mind and spirit (and the heart) - a prosthetics for an artist to present his/her thought/story. It is still about the sending of a message - in the form of an artistic artefact (or concept). If we presume that artists?s message is important enough for him to send it to public, it could be that it is important enought also for a fellow human.

In our case we approached the three questions, that we seem to have become accustomed with the thought that they will always remain without a definiten answer - therefore useless, trivial...

But in the past the search for these answers was extensive. Almost up to this age the it was a quest of the various religious and mistical groups (the alchemists, the jewish kabbalists, the sholastics, philosophers). The search for basic questions has in the last two centuries moved to scientific research with it?s strong emphasis on experiment, so the more abstract spiritual approach (with various meditation and other cognitive techniques) has been put very much aside.

The answers so-far however have always been different (according to the cognition techniques, and the differing evaluation systems) - and among the different there is hardly any agreement. Our answers will be presented without much relation to standard dogms but also seriously - with the help of representations of life - with relatively simple dynamic - algoritmic kinetic (moving), (potential?), photo-dynamic (light, color) and dynamic sound structures/systems/creatures.

We will approach the human (and life) as a complete being. The question of life will be the most important. The definition so-far are not helpful. Is the Earth a living system (the Gaia theory)? If yes, is it therefore also a living creature? What is the difference between a creature and a system?

And on the self-defining human level: What is the result of the urge (wish) for survival and the lack of it? The meaning, the motivation = the inner motor, motivator. It is quite certain that without the meaning a human becomes a shell - a machine. And with only the urge a human is just an animal. Here I sense a lot of layers (and questions) of animal primary (lower) motivations (instincts,urges) and of the derivations (from lower to higher: sexual instinct becomes far more complex sexuality; love, but also responsability, and it could also be that it moves far away from seeking pleasure - becoming possesivity, hate). Or: the derivations of basic instinct of self-preservation - the fear - become highly regarded entities: heroism, (predanost,...), again responsability,...

It is also very interesting how the derivations of fear seem to have been established (in our societies) as more noble human (humaine) attributes than the derivations of a sexual instinct. But the derivations seem to be a combination of both of the basic instincts. Of course, it is quite clear that these derivations represent the roots of human civilization. And the two basic instincts probably represent the individual and the collective.

As the materialization of the project we will try to create some models of motivated entities (models of motivations?), that will have to recreate the self-reproduction (production of self?; self-creation, autopoesis) of the system/object. Here we will focus on creating an algoritm, that will produce an effect (an image; a representation) that will in some way reveal the attributes/parameters of the chosen motive/meaning.

The second question (Who are we?) also deals with self-cognition, self-identification. Since some of us are artists, we have to define what does that mean. What is art? This question is closely linked with Joseph Beuys (Was ist Kunst) and with the Slovene artistic group Irwin (Neue slowenische kunst; NSK). Beuys answers with an equation Kunst=Kapital (and introduces the social theory of Karl Marx), while Neue slowenische kunst answer it with Kunst=Politik.

In mathematics an equation is valuable, when it presents an answer to the unknown (in this case Art or Kunst). The presupposition is that we know what is Kapital and/or what is Politik. It then also tells us that Kapital=Politik. But if both sides of equation are unknowns, than we have to pose more questions (What is Politik?; What is Kapital?). However if we already know all the meanings then the equation becomes something that is in math called identity. This kind of result then has no value (Array=Array). It just tells us that we lost the variable (the unknown) somewhere. The answer to question is not possible. We made a mistake.

In humanistic sciences (especially in philosophy) the equation presents a paradox (in most extreme case we can even make an equation of two oppositions: all=nothing) and it is a rich source of new interpretations. In our case we (probably) don?t deal with two oppositions, but with comparison of tweo different (evaluation) systems/entities, therefore we really deal with re-evaluation (of one or the other). In the case of What is Art? we would like to find the answer in the form of Art=Ethics.

How and why we construct an image of self. What is mind (what is soul, what is spirit, what is body...).

first look at the texts describing the concept of a project called Oracle / Orakelj

Dictionaries say:

Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.ArrayArray :
Oracle Ora*cle, n. [F., fr. L. oraculum, fr. orare to speak, utter, pray, fr. os, oris, mouth]
[ArrayArrayArrayArray Webster]
Array. The answer of a god, or some person reputed to be a god, to an inquiry respecting some affair or future event.

WordNet (r) Array.0 (August Array00Array) :
oracle
Array: an authoritative person who divines the future
Array: a prophecy (usually obscure or allegorical) revealed by a priest or priestess; believed to be infallible.

Project ORACLE therefore touches quite a few meanings. The first is the projection of a father - of somebody (or something) that we relate to (with questions; as a referential field of knowledge and definitions of meanings), of somebody that we look at (because his image is referential; a structure, symbolic field of power) and somebody that looks uppon us, from up above downwards - a supervisor; his look creates/ represents the symbolic field - the firm structure, the clear division between good and evil). On his (its) side is the knowing, the rule over past and present - the absolute.

On the other hand this archetypal symbol already incorporates the inability of interpretation of oracle (what was said), but which does not degrade it - it even constitutes it. Contrary to that - it degrades our (numerous) interpretations (-> our Self), but which we "eventually/ inevitably/ in the end/ fatally" find out to be the truth. What was said becomes the truth. What was missing before was the right understanding (the right interpretation). The word becomes the "meat".

An interesting question: Myth = meat?

The Oracle stories are classical archetypal dramaturgies, because the actors (the meanings)are maximally separated/ confronted, therefore a clash between them is inevitable.The winner is (classically) - the truth. This of course means that the winner is the bearer/ symbol of truth and power - the oracle (Oracle). If I go one level below that symbol - the time. And of course, this is the question of the transcendence.

I borrowed the described dramaturgyvery profanely, since thje Oracle takes the image of a face from a B-movie. Before there is knowing, there is sensing (the aestetic). aestetics lives on the top/ visual layer, so I combined it with (in my opinion) similar quality - the superficial humour. Below the "looks " there is structure and structuring: the engineering work with mechanism, the structure of moving face, the structuring of interactive and autonomous interpretation of what is "seen and heard ". This is the basic level of a wholly responsive cybernetic system. Of course I had to use computer algorytmic structures/ mechanisms - somewhere between the material and abstract world.

The basic of identification are eyes. Here they are just two symetrical computer monitors with moving images of eyeballs. Tracking is performed by a small webcam, acting also as a kind of third eye (itself a very strong symbol - the symbol of wisdom: as such it is the introspective quality - therefore it should be turned inwards, but this would ruin the functionality - and it is already another story...). Oracle listenes (microphones) and speaks. All programming was done using Pure Data software (PDP, GEM).

What is spoken (the truth) are relatively simple modulated sounds, lined up sequentially, and it does not resemble speech. At the same time they are not yet music. My definition of music is that it is functionally organized sound. Oracle's spoken truth also exists only in the aestetic domain. Therefore as music? Here is a point for reflection: I can agree that aestetics does not bring knowing (they are, I think, contradictory values). So, how to project (from any part of Oracle) to a visitor a notion of Oracle knowing? Big problem.

The visitor however stands in front of Oracle and hopefully communicates (if it finds in Oracle a worthwhile partner) but on the both sides of Oracle there are big mirrors that reflect the visitors image back to him/ her.

Since I believe that the emergence of god can be attributed to the notion of the absolute/ perfect within the human itself and than externalized/ objectivized as God (again: good = god), I can in the above confrontation (and the mythological story) see the human individual's struggle for some clear answers about himself. Since human know that human is not good, therefore god must be good. This is the reason for externalization.

But the God's (Oracle's) ambigious/ cryptic answer may be a symbol of a useless answer - empty words, until the individual interpretes it in "his/ her own image ". Here is the point of each individual's search for truth and again a confrontation with himself. Religions, beliefs, theories, genres, stereotypes,... are just shortcuts to meanings/ truths. They are just some of the answers put forward by the symbolic father/ Other, ... the Oracle.

Next question: "About the truth, free will and decision"

Spectrum Ecology

Looking from below - Seeing from above

Abstract

It looks like the main point of these text is methodology of finding (on or more of) the complementary "views/ images" of the same topic. The new point of view has no absolute value. It however widens the horizon (-> looking/ seeing from above...). The complementary principle seems to be close to the holistic approach (-> much like: energy doesn't disappear - it just changes states). I find a parallel to this system (-> Physics) in substitution and sublimation processes (-> Psychoanalysis).

Main points:

The very effective commodification (and codification = restriction) of uses of handheld wireless devices.

The "gap between consumer and production uses" with the most popular mobile devices "widens"

The consumer market is centered on providing "services" (services for the masses - also for the "niche groups"). It tries to locate and impose themself as "necessary services" or "identity creators".

These identities correspond to (virtual) realities, that are »hardcoded« / »hardwired«.

The Capital(ist)/ Provider becomes owner/ provider/ distributer of ideas, identities, realities - hidden behind the expression »services«.

The consumer/ buyer is king. Of course - it is the supermarket identity that we know from before.

Spectrum Eology on the individual level becomes Mental Hygiene.

Where lies the intelligence? One can easily agree with the statement that the intelligence (as the most cherished human parameter) lies within the individual. What we share in common is cluture - the abstract values constructing the world of humans into multilayered matrix of ever flowing/ changing meanings. Without is chaos, within is culture. The culture relies on conventional reality - the more this reality is firm - the stronger the culture. The culture is another word for the system of values that we share. Primarily it is the language - the communicative element. It is the stuff that bonds us together (it may be called humanity or history or ideology or nation or poetry or family or art or football or look or voice or sound or ether or electromagnetic spectrum...). Every communication channel is a subsystem of values that provides us with a new (sub)identity - if we happen to be immersed in it. All channels can be regarded as layers of abstract identities. They define (parallel) worlds of realities. These are what we share. From here on we are part of something bigger (than life) - the culture. Where and what is the basic individual identity/ reality? Something that is both without and within? When looking from below and seeing from above? Clearly it must be the smallest structural element and the broadest synthetic/synthesizing system at the same time. Macrocosmos and microcosmos? Of course - it is the mind/ observation point of an individual. This is what I / eye stands for.

Mimicking the services

The starting point of my approach to Spectrum Ecology is the realization of the large steps that were made by the industry/ providers/ technology into commodifying the use of wireless devices (mimicking the role of »a service«). It happened in just a couple of years of wireless telephony boom (but not yet in the internet age...). The widespread use clearly means that there are at the same time psychologic reasons (on/ in one hand) and marketing reasons (on/ in the other hand) for it - a well balanced situation of »demand and supply« relation. Here is appropriate time/ place to write my association when seeing the title Spectrum Ecology. Since it is a derivation of a (more conventional) term: (environmental) ecology, it brought to my mind another (a more conventional) derivation (for now/ here use): Mental Hygiene, derived from the term (body) hygiene. I will use it from now on as parameter (a concept) that is complementary to Spectrum Ecology (one can easily understand that it is linked with the duo »personal« and »collective«). This basically means that I make an equation: Ecology = Hygiene (which is understood) and I also link the constructs Spectrum Ecology = Mental Hygiene. As I tried to point above, the confrontation is between the ("virtual") identities/ realities and the notion of the individual - as the one providing the »real« reality. Of course this two oppositions are pure abstraction.

Possesion of the "other"

I remember being very surprised how quickly the wireless telephone set became a young girls beloved pet. As if it naturally replaced the Barbie doll in their hands. While boys liked the simple arcade games, the girls rushed into »collecting« people. The »other« was finally at hand - easily reachable everywhere and at every time. The system of values seems to be: you are worth more - the more people call you and the more people you (can) call. One is not alone. As it often happens, the externalization (materialization/ objectivization) of some sort had happened. But if we think in terms like action/ reaction or substitution/ sublimation or the complementarity of actions - something was swapped/ replaced in the original equation. The notion/ representation of power (in the eyes of the beholder) moved to »possesion of the other« (this power became the »I«) and the (capital/ big) »Other« as the possesor of power was effectively hidden. One does not see the huge and well organized networks that »serve« us and fullfill our needs (-> "provide" for our "needs"). "Providing for our needs" is the definition of a parental relationship, though the "love" (as ether, medium, communication channel,...) - or some other "parental" reason - was replaced by "(love of) money". Love, however, remains in the equation - it just appears on the other side of equation - as a negative value.

Swapping (of the immaterial bodies) of meanings

When something is externalized, something else gets internalized (-> fills in the blanks). Because it is a swap - it is normal (-> logical) that the external replaces the internal (and the opposite way - matters of State, Nation,... become very personal affairs). Such swapping is not a new thing - it is the way the abstract bodies get their real/ material bodies (gradually, but more and more so, when they lose their symbolic meanings - a modern kind of idolatry). From mother to Mother Nature to Mother Earth, to Mother Mary to Motherland (in some national contexts)... Every abstraction is a complexly (associatively -> it means that the constituting elements are already complex bodies of meaning...) structured entity - therefore already an abstract (mind) body which is »felt« but not understood (-> it is impossible to deconstruct a mind body (-> a myth) back to basic meanings/ reasons - it is all just interpretations - stories). Our ability to make (imaginary) visualizations forces us to make it visible (to others; to communicate; to see us »in the eyes of the beholder« - to get identity). This is how the process of constructing »the self« works. A viewer from below (-> he/ she), who is at the same time a viewer from above is conforms to the concept of "subject". It (-> he/ she) can synthesize/ juggle with meanings / tell (new) stories. This seems to brings us closer to the notion of juggler/ creator of new (stories?) - an artist?

Ethics and Aesthetics...

But can one really see from below while looking from above/ while synthesizing the realities/ identities? Probably not - when your are »without« you are not »within«. I use the term »see« as related to the term »understand« and the term »look« as a simple act of sensing/ registering (-> aesthetics). Again, like above, we can now equate the complemetary terms "looking/ sensing" = "aesthetics" and "seeing/ understanding" = "ethics". Ethics meaning "a stand/ a position".

Killing is bad, but...

So, to continue: by exchanging (-> swapping) the external notion of Spectrum Ecology with the internal/ individualized notion of Mental Hygiene, we get two complementary systems that we can compare. By inputting the same question to each of the systems we get comparison system that is broader and as such more valid. At the least it gives us the possibility of getting two different answers. Whenever they output wildly different (-> contradictory) results, it means, that the two abstract systems are not conforming (they are not mirror images viewed from two opposing observation points - the within and without, the external and internal, the collective and individual...) - though (because they are complementary) they should be. Different results (for example: A question "Should we prohibit the use of cell phones because they burn our brain cells" gets answers: 1.) Yes, they are damaging - it's a serious ecological problem, 2.) No, cell phones improve my communication with other people - they make me happy;) show, that the two (complementary) concepts are well separated entities. The absolute answer (-> one answer) is lost, however.

/the example above could be understood more easily if we took some other example, for instance: Is killing good? 1.) No, one should not kill; 2.) Killing some people (the terrorists) is good; /

Here maybe a theses: Absolute power is more successful - the more such relativisations take place. It is related to the concept of fragmentation/ atomization

This is again a paradox - if we make some reduction of equation (absolute power = number of relative truths). Absolute is linked with relative (one enables the other), power with truth (...). These iterations are points of hidden meanings.

Atomization/ Fragmentation of Meaning, Production of abstractions

The democracy and consumerism have this law: if ruler/ provider succeeds to mimick his/ its role/ identity as a service (as does the modern democratic state), then the relation of the factual ruler /servant is turned around - the servant starts feeling as a ruler. Even more so, when the ruler (seemingly) provides service for servants basic needs (-> a parental relation). The money in the role of a mediator (medium) is an abstraction of exchange value.

The (mind) abstractions (that lead to motivations) can be divided into two groups: the emotional abstractions (are in close contact with the body) - this is the world of the subconscious. These structures (of mind) are not easily deconstructed and remain as basic abstractions - though they appeare very complex, since they are impenetrable for (logical) analysis. The other group are logical abstractions - they are constructed through associative linking of other abstractions (of meaning). They are part of the culture and they can be deconstructed. The inertia that makes it appear as a firm and rigid structure is in the collective nature (mind?) that they inhabit.

Now we can imagine the hierarchy of these abstract bodies. The least abstract (-> the most basic) abstractions are: our (physical) life, food and shelter. The higher level abstractions are: friendship, relations, love, belonging, looks, spiritual values, good times. The least abstract entities must be put out of equation (as in the social states they are), so that the more abstract »needs« fill in the blanks. These are easily commodified/ modified by the services providers, and have become ever changing products/ goods for the leisure market. The fact however remains: colonization of (abstract) territories (of motivations/ interests) took place - somebody owns the net, somebody produces our motives/ interests and provides for the exchange of abstract goods (illusions for money).

Marketing ideology of the post-industrial world

While internet proved quite a hard place to provide this exchange, the mobile phone (wireless) market never had this problem. It was incorporated into the system from the very start. But while the the computer-on-the-net can be the producing machine, the mobile phone set is just the reproducing machine. This puts the provider of content on the same side as the provider of the net. On the other side is the consumer. Same as it ever was.

So, to compare with the (historic) social organizations:

Slavery -> ownership of humans

Feudalism -> ownership of land

Capitalism -> ownership of production facilities

Post-Capitalism -> ownership of information

Post-Capitalism can be characterized as ownership of information (ideas, and interests, and concepts, and meanings, and motives, and lifestyles, and identities/ (virtual) realities/localities). Owning = providing? Seeing = Understanding.

And appropriation in the Age of Post-Capitalism? When there was no land left it turned to ethereal (Spectrum) and is now happily grabbing the abstract worlds of our identities... ourselves. Hm, could it then be a feedback loop? Another aspect of Slavery?

I like feedback loops. Especially those that are not simple (linear) amplifications, but rather those that are processors/ transformers of meanings. These are generators - something new happens - relations get mixed and new forms grow. Paradoxes are the best jokes.

Borut Savski

Beware of the creativity of the powerful

Once I wrote an article "a complaint on the lies and double talk of representatives of the local government" and ended it with the following line: "Beware of the creativity of the powerful". It was a response to the repetitive answers of the public officials - that "they have different plans". What plans can an official have? It's just a job!

Creation as Self-creation

My notion of creativity as it enters various fields is based upon thoughts that I repeatedly had after hearing a lecture by Slovene art and media theorist Janez Strehovec, in which he looked into reasons for the new creative (artistic?) field - the area of genetics and creativity as a concept that had entered the field of biology since the start of cloning experiments. The area was described as "new (mass) media" a couple of years before by artist/activist Heath Bunting. One can understand that genetics will help humans to get a couple of years closer to "immortality" and medicine will help us to be just a couple of operations away from the beautiful. So, it is about self-creation.

The changing paradigms (in this postmodern, postindustrial,... posthistoric time) were pointed out as a dynamic "modus operandi" that redefines the relationships in the discursive fields and therefore also our understanding. Since these fields are "local" systems of evaluation they are not necessarily in conformity with broader, more basic evaluation matrices (humanistic, religious, scientific). In the ideal case, this conformity would exist at least to some extent. The broader evaluation systems are based on the ethical dimension - linked to notions such as civilization, collective, social aspects and humanity as a species. And it is these fields that are the only fixed points of reference and therefore "the critique" for the technologically advancing areas. If new areas are not viewed as parts of the broader picture, the perspective gets twisted - the humanism suddenly becomes old and conservative and all relationships from here on get transformed. Not in an illogical manner, however - it is therefore a truly credible system of evaluation.

Since I am interested in seeing creativity as the basic concept, some questions would be: why is art associated with creativity and should it necessarily be so? And: what becomes of generally positive aspects of creativity when subjected to different discursive fields - why is art good for creativity and why are science, biology, politics, business not so good? Is it always the ethical dimension that poses problems? When I speak about artificial life, I am actually speaking about understanding Life, but on a model of lesser life. If I forget that the model is just an "image" (a representation, etc.) - I will start to speak also about self-creation of the model - and quickly about the Life of the model. The basic mystification (be it religious, scientific or humanistic) is lost and the world becomes arbitrary - a designer's playground.

What is Creativity? (from Wikipedia)

For ancient Greeks "poiein" meant simply "to make". Poetry was the high art of creation, other artistic fields were imitating rather than creating. Ancient Romans introduced the word "creatio" - and used two words for "to make" - "facere" and "creare" ("creatus" - to have grown). The word "creation" was used to describe artistic work. In the Christian period "creation" was reserved for God's "creation from nothing". It was not until the Renaissance (ArrayArrayth century) and especially the Enlightenment (ArrayArrayth century) that the word creativity was again used to describe human work. In the ArrayArrayth century it was only art that was regarded as creative. At the turn of the ArrayArray00s, the discussion of creativity in the sciences and in nature began. Today we talk about creativity in all fields of human activities - Industry, Business and Economy - describing the creation (the growth) of anything.

Creativity and Politics

We like to say that we know that Politics goes hand in hand with the capital - the profit. How and when does Politics become creative and what are the reasons and the consequences? Here I point to the fact that we mainly live in a "western style democracy", governed by elected members of government, the parliament, an independent legal system, independent media control, religion systems separate from the state, etc. What we have to perform the governing role are public officials - the public servants, as they used to be called. Individuals don't count much in the long run - the "institutions of democracy" are the foundations that keep societies stable.

There is no need for a public official to become creative, since his/her job is mainly about the system that must be continuously repetitive and only slowly transformable. No abrupt revolutions are needed in the contemporary notion of democracy. For such a stable, almost fixed situation there would be no need for "people with vision".

But for any kind of situation demanding fast reaction time - like crisis endangering the system - there comes a need for a faster - "a reduced" democratic system. "Creativity" has now entered politics and quick changes can be made. The usual situation in war: democratic/civic institutions are put aside. What happens if no war is declared or no democratic/civic structures are disbanded - they are "just not functioning very well" - or the other way around? In the case of the USA (and the western world ...) the War on Terrorism was declared, but the civic institutions continued to function - just "not very well".

Externalizing the Economic Problems

The same "not-very-well-functioning" of civic/democratic institutions is going on even without the direct threat of terrorism. In the case of Europe the economic systems in the past two decades are not growing enough to sustain societies in the long run. The fall of the Eastern bloc didn't bring as much gold as expected. The War on Terrorism also didn't bring as much as it did for the USA.

While the US economy managed to successfully "externalize" problems of the local economy to the global level, Europe has been yet unable to do something similar. I would say that all these actions can be defined as creative, since they have provided growth (of certain segments of economy, certain profits - especially in the case of the US), or the reduction of costs of production (the cost of social security) in the EU.

The main reason that the economy in the EU has not "grown" is said to be the well-developed social system, which is very costly. It threatens to become even worse in the next decades. Without economic growth (which is not possible), or radical changes to the social system (that would include lowering of the social rights of the citizens) the crash of the EU economies is expected. And this means that an open call is out to the politicians for a "creative approach".

Crisis & Creativity

So, the creativity of the mighty clearly describes the crisis of the system. The system needs to be changed from within - it must go through the process of "poesis" (creation). So, the prime ministers become "people with vision" (or people with vision become prime ministers ...) and a lot of changes are proposed to the not-very-well-functioning democratic institutions. These changes are usually on the brink of legitimacy, some openly fascistic, like the ban on smoking - which is actually a ban "on people smoking" - successfully enforced all over Europe, debate on actions against paedophiles, who should be publicly marked as such, etc. It all becomes more and more an image from the near past.

I remember not long ago quite a lot of people were boldly saying: "I am a Stalinist". They came from the part of the "ultra left" at the end of seventies, but they have kept repeating it up to this date. What does it mean? Being a Stalinist means that this person has a stand that the aim justifies the means. Soviet Russia leader Josef V. Stalin ordered the elimination (killing) of millions of citizens in the ArrayArrayArray0s. In order for him to be able to act creatively, he had to eliminate this option for the others. So, the creativity of the mighty eliminates/negates this option for anybody else.

The saying "I am a Stalinist" actually means that the speaker does not believe in the technology of democracy. The other option is the absolute ruler, the enlightened ruler. The leader of the State becomes the creator - the artist. When politicians become creative they are moving away from democracy.

Creativity of Institutions = Conservatism of Citizens?

What happens to the citizens when the politicians become creative? The systems going through the process of creation are not stable systems - everything is changing - there are no fixed grounds, truths, institutions. The system seems to be a self-balancing one. So, is it out of denial of the right for creativity that the common people feel the need to provide firm grounds? The common people move ideologically to the more stable - conservative/traditional values. Is it a natural approach (some mystified self-balancing rule?) to keep the system in a balanced situation?

The institutions are supposed to be the pillars of culture in any society. By definition the institutions should be traditional, conservative. But when they turn creative, it is the people that in turn become conservative.

From Art to Design - the Creative Industry

When art is a just form - it is only about Aesthetics - it is mimesis (it "looks"). When it is an act of creation it is also about Ethics - the poesis (it "becomes"). As in the difference between some thing and its representation. As in the basic difference between "art is the most beautiful lie" and "art is the search for truth".

What is missing with transplantations of "creativity" to other areas is Ethics (the firm stand). You have Design as the high peak of creativity, the Market as the basic field of discourse (the Economy as it's ideologic - evaluation system) and the Profit (the creation of more and more exchange value - the money) as the basic creative force. On the market the value of objects is always translated into money (which is just a representation of value, the symbol of value). The money however is not being treated as a representation anymore - but as the object of desire itself - the main motive. Lately the Market is becoming more and more just the exchange of the simplest form of imaginary symbols - the numbers. It is a very dubious belief system - very light and easily disintegrated ("from the material the dreams are made ...").

One segment of work is constantly on the rise in the last decades, having emerged from the artistic field and is denoted as the creative industry. In the US there are about ten to twenty million workers in this segment. Their playground is the production of abstract values - the added value for the products. These are abstract goods for the leisure time market. People from the creative industry are designers. These are the people that use, misuse and redefine (redesign) evaluation systems, so that they get the most out of fictive (but totally tangible) "added value" systems.

From Social Democracy to Showbiz Democracy

As with any system that relies on imagination/fiction - the added value system is a belief system - a religion of some sort. Designers are the high priests of today. People from the creative industry are well paid and seemingly out of the traditional worker/owner division. They represent a big part of the so-called precarious class. They are not organized in workers' unions, they even do not have any means of civic pressure at their hands - they act as if they are just temporary employees (workers) - working their way up to become employers (owners). In this way they have no social identity and are just mixing up the well-known class division of industrial times. People from the creative industry do not have their own social body.

The creative industry is the entertainment industry, show business - a lot are called but only a few are chosen. Show business is an effective mechanism for rejuvenating the ruling class in the post-industrial time. It is one of the rare possibilities for a member from the lower class to jump higher. It is a bypass, allowing for a few jumps of a couple of designers, but conserving the basic social structure. Today's new members of the ruling class are Paul McCartney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs ...

Borut Savski

Introduction to contemporary art...

There is an old saying in most of the languages: "actions speak louder than words", and also: "picture tells more than a thousand words"...

Of course, this is wrong, since it is with words that we speak - not with pictures or actions. With picture (images) we can see and imagine, and with actions we can act - do things. But here I am simplifying on purpose: communication and other interactions between humans are largely metaphoric: and the language is always symbolic. It is not exactly what we say that we want to say, but the way we say it - that is at the core of communication. We think with images and this is already a representation on it's own. The language is the best, but only approximate communication interface. A medium. A sacred goal that we need to achieve with any kind of communication is: synchronization of thoughts - of mind images - between the individual members of the (human) species, to form a culture of some kind - civilization, a social entity.

So, language is medium - an information channel. Language is also known to be similar to virus. Virus is a system that does not have a purpose (they say: not even life) on it's own - but is only a vehicle for information. The virus can replicate it's information in a living cell and then that cell becomes a virus itself. The living property of the attacked cell is disintegrated. Language as medium does the same for the human beings. Language is a cultural viral interface. It replicates culture. It kills individuality. Replication = synchronization. Civilization is the art of synchronization of human beings.

Does this sound bad? Well, yes, but not all was told. The human language is not something static, it is even said that it is alive. It changes constantly - so it is far from just replicating itself. The language as the holder of information changes in the way that the information it replicates is not a constant, but a variable.

Contemporary art is media art. It uses interfaces - technological and/or cultural. It uses systems, also as objects. It tells a story (or stories) based on the inner relationships / parameters that exist within a system. The system can then be installation or performance. Interfaces, systems and objects can all be metaphors. The extent of using interfaces as metaphors is the measure of how "organic" is the system. But like in a movie: no character should appear without relation to the storyline. A kind of simplified construction of relationships that has the potential to create stories (interpretations).

The successful installation or performance can create interpretations that are not random or arbitrary, but very precise. This is the part that we earlier called synchronization. Still, art is sometimes said to be a search for truth. It can present views on some topic from very different angles. It can deal with any topic that the artist sees as untruth.

The culture is now, and the art is the search for a better culture. The synchronization in art is not about replicating the culture, but about the creating a culture. Creating = changing or making new. The contemporary artist is creating the future icons, based on the critique of nowadays icons. The link with ever newer technologies is therefore simple - but not without problems. The artists are just advanced users of technology - not creators.

Pieces of technology have the culture of today inscribed in them. They are meant to be used in a conventional way: not to force the users to change habits too much, not to allow the users to break laws with them. An artist must become a hacker. This opens up the area of "open source-code" - as metaphor again: artist must be able to crack the conventional code in any piece of technology (the culture, the civilization) and be able to pack it back in a functional way. This is about artist being creative.

The fluidity of space

A light / video image is projected on the dynamic (motorized) reflective object ("the reflector") hanging from the ceiling. The reflected light is scattered all over the place. The reflector is changing its shape according to the sound in the space (the computer generated sound). The sound changes the computer generated video image.

The relatively simple projected image is changed - made more complex by the intervention of the reflecting object and scattered all around the space. This creates a kind of all-enveloping medium. In the history of technology notions of such non-tangible materiality were called ether (as in electromagnetic waves - the "radio ether"). It is linked to understanding that there must be some material for the information (or energy) to travel onto.

Fluidity of Space is a poetic title for the holistic approach in building up an interactive installation. The key is in translations between the various physical entities - sound, vision (light, color), electronics and mechanics - and in creating a system that acts as a whole and is able to envelope the visitor (the observer) as an immanent part of installation. The system is responsive on the level of it's sensory equipment - the microphone for sound, the camera for vision.

A system such as this can be called a balanced complex system: the elements are interconnected and act as translation objects for the outputs from other elements.

A number of such interdependent subsystems produces a number of feedback loops that make up the system into one - and extremely complex. I call it a body.

The observer is observed, the listener is listened to. There is a high level of autonomy applied on the level of the system itself, so that it can survive (live) without the human observer. As we know, it is the human observer that brings in the reflection, but here we made a joke along the lines of literal understanding of the word - here we have a machine that actually works with reflection.

I use the computer physical inputs as sensors. A microphone as the Ear, the video camera as the Eye. Computer audio output is the Mouth speaking, and the video projector output is the ... Hm? What kind of output do we have that the light could correspond to? Softer than metal, lighter than wood, lighter than sound? The material the dreams are made of? The Mind, the Soul...

Light is a pointed / projected physical property. It is directive - it is coming from a precise energetic point in space, bumps into materials and changes direction by the so-called reflection on the materials. In this sequential way it fills up the space in a much different way then sound.

Contrary to the light, the sound is the property of material - it spreads in the materials. Materials are physical entities - usually hard, but they can be lighter or heavier, harder or softer - the iron, the wood, the water, the air. The materials get permeated with sound. They are soaked with sound. Therefore I talk about fluidity.

Sound in a closed space reflects and makes resonating patterns - standing waves. The structure of space defines the structure of sound.

Light (and color) is not exclusively the property of materials - it is rather the energy that spreads as a spectrum of electromagnetic waves. It gets filtered easily, these are then the colors. Light can touch the materials in different ways. On some surfaces it enters almost fully - warming the material. This is then black color. On some materials it reflects almost immediately - this can then be white color. In some materials the light is quickly transformed into heat. However, it can enter some materials (the air, the water, the transparent, ...) and only slowly decays.

But the light is twofold: as representation known as photons it can move the materials - it presents us with a symbolic notion of mass. Also the light can be moved by large masses - the planets. I would say that the light is softer material than sound.

The computer is the heart of the system. It produces sound and light (coded as video). I use the internal (software) machine to create dynamic algorithms for sound and light generation / transformation.

The computer data has no mass, but the computer still needs time to make the translations ready. Therefore it has inertia. Inertia is the impossibility of a system to make a change from one value to another in infinitely short time. The idea of inertia is for me the link between the analogue and digital. The digital is the representation on the level of numbers that can easily jump from 00000000 to 111111111 in one step. Analogue is the representation that has to do all the steps between 00000000 and 111111111 sequentially. A lot of steps.

The analogue is the property of mechanical world (the world of "harder" materials) and can be implemented on the level of computers. But digital computers are used to handle discrete logic - as in associative thinking - therefore modeling the relationships of the "softer" materials - ideas and thoughts. Or as in objects bounding them together with the sequential / analogue / material logic into new objects, systems.

Fluidity as metaphor for soft material. Maybe I could swim in such a space? Or move in slow motion, as in outer space? But it should also be responsive and soft and warm. What kind of sounds are soft and warm. The round ones? The return of psychedelia? The return of mysticism?

Is Art the keeper of the Mystical?

What am I trying to produce? A Golem with the Word in mouth? A representation of ourselves in the mirror reflecting the truth? A Globus and the Sun - the model of Space? Microcosm and macrocosm - the effort of alchemists renewed?

I seem to explore the hardness of materials - especially the lighter materials. Dreamlike materials. They have no value - they usually just take time. To make such images of mind touchable, I use sound and vision. These images are projection of ideas but they protrude into physical space. They can be touched and they can touch you. Maybe. Sound and vision are like water and air - the fluid space.