I was going to post this on my other blog but since this directly relates to the work for Multipoint I thought I'd post it here. Let me know what you think about this as blog dialog.
I've been thinking about making work that somehow measures or quantifies my interactions. I think that is what the printed video captures piece was about that I brought to the last group meeting.
I saw this online today. It got me excited. It seems to be in some way related.
This guy Tim Knowles sends mechanisms through the mail to make drawings or puts them in cars or attaches them to trees and uses their movement to make drawings.
http://www.timknowles.co.uk
I like this conceptual direction.
I like the quality of measurement.
I like the way the intangible becomes form.
I've been thinking about making work that somehow measures or quantifies my interactions. I think that is what the printed video captures piece was about that I brought to the last group meeting.
I saw this online today. It got me excited. It seems to be in some way related.
This guy Tim Knowles sends mechanisms through the mail to make drawings or puts them in cars or attaches them to trees and uses their movement to make drawings.
http://www.timknowles.co.uk
I like this conceptual direction.
I like the quality of measurement.
I like the way the intangible becomes form.
8 comments:
I think that there's a connection.
Jackson Pollock referred to his work in much the same way. There is a distance from the initial act/cause which places a Cagian sense of chance in the consequence/effect. The space between cause and effect is an interesting subject. (time, motion, light, energy)
Cause and effect. I really like that. For the piece I showed at our last meeting I was thinking about how and why. But causality is a much much richer area. It makes me think about the failure of determinism. Even that phrase that always comes to mind is interesting. Failure of determinism. Long ago I read quite a bit about what it is and why it failed but I've never done any reading on the theory that has replaced it. Maybe that is what I need to investigate. What is it that's replaced determinism? Chaos theory?
I have a hard time with over- simplification of long-standing philosophical movements/ discussions. Determinism is counterbalanced by the principle of emergence, which talks about novel and unpredictable events occurring out of the forces of nature. Chaos theory relates to this loosely, but it is more about mathematics and finding regularity in irregularity; it's not about disorder the way we commonly think of chaos. Certainly a discussion of cause and effect would be a discussion of determinism. There are complex and lengthy treatises on determinism and they relate closely to similar discussion about Chaos Theory and I am therefore quite hesitant to sweep any of it away with a simple replacement policy: out with the fateful and in with the random.
It seems to me that Juliet is interested in accumulating data in a very deliberate manner but about something that seems random and uncontrollable (emotions) and then seeing what the analysis that follows a scientific model might reveal and what you might begin to interpret and expand upon from there. So in some ways I guess its investigating the time, motion, light, energy, space that appears chaotic by organizing it in a very deliberate way and not at all by chance, but then seeing what the analysis reveals. It's sort of accessing something that is hidden to you and therefore seems random but that you may find as you accumulate the information, that it is well known and it is being revealed to be richer, more complex than before known. I guess the relationship I see from the drawings you present and the point Sharon makes is that you are starting with the seeming unknown but knowable, and placing the apparatus of your organizing scheme, which necessarily makes choices (determines) what will happen in the end with the data. Other choices in the building of the organizing scheme would potentially result in a different end.
I'm afraid that I wasn't referring to the act or the residual of a composition. I was placing the emphasis on the moment/second after the act occurs through to, the second before the effect is realized. (the space between cause and effect) The elements between are the key in determining the outcome. That's why, my reference to Pollock. Juliet's drawing, similarly, remind me of our discussions about the space between particals, objects, and thoughts. If one tiny thing changes in that space between the end result would be altered.
I'm reading a book on 'chaos' right now ('Nature's Chaos', Eliot Porter), and I liken it to the intricate structures of the space between forms. Berger refers to it(this unseen visual space, but ultimately very real dimension) as 'the space between frames (of time). That is what I found to be similar to the images Juliet posted.
sure like those two drawings you posted of knowles work. rather beautiful. how will you translate that into photographs? yes, the concept, the measuring and the way the intangible becomes form is quite interesting to me too.
i don't think chaos theory replaced determininsm however. chaos theory INFORMS determinism. but i don't know enough about this to talk about it intelligently.
I love that we are able to have this discussion. How fabulous. It's like we're all together but not. We're all in our different spaces and writing at different times and yet the format keeps it a conversation. Sometimes technology is so lovely.
I'm hoping we can continue this discussion of chaos and determinism. Juliet, you said you were reading some things. Can you share with us your research or is it premature?
Juliet, have you been exploring this mechanism for cause and effect more in your work? I am interested to know more about your discoveries.
Post a Comment