Technoetic Arts - Volume 6, Issue 2, 2008

Traditional art history equates the production of the memes of visual art exclusively with individual consciousness. An evolutionary art history looks also at the patterns into which art-memes flow patterns that display striking synchronicities of cultural motivation, both within the arts themselves and between the arts and sciences parallel patterns of collective memetic behaviour. We are all familiar with short-wave collective behaviour: football fans, evangelist meetings, political demonstrations, rioting crowds and panicking troops all display it. This paper is concerned with long-wave collective behaviour, as evidenced in the migration of Western elite culture from the open to the closed meme in the arts and sciences of the Renaissance period, or again in the reciprocal cultural migration from closed to open memes going on in the arts and sciences at the present time. How do we explain this swarming of the memes, such that artistic and scientific communication, despite their explicitly different forms, seem invisibly joined at the hip? Why do our memes rock'n'roll topologically between open and closed states? The paper suggests that memetic swarming the synchronization of our memes in alternating open and closed states may be an expression of the sensitivity of our consciousness to the changing dynamics of our own relationship with the planetary biosphere through ecological evolution. If so, the ultimate driver of memetic swarming may be an algorithm as commonplace and as universal as the figureground opposition: linking our evolution with our memes by way of a simple principle of reciprocity, such that consciousness will tend to output closed memes in periods of open evolution, and, reciprocally, closed memes in periods of open evolution.

Research in science studies supports a vision of the world as an endlessly lively and emergent place. This essay briefly notes a range of philosophical and scientific positions that elaborate cognate ontologies, but I dwell at greater length on a variety of objects and practices that, in contrast to the modern sciences, thematise, foreground and stage emergence for us. Drawn from the history of cybernetics these span the fields of robotics, organisations and management, the arts and architecture. Noting the eruption of cybernetics into many different fields, I suggest that its history offers a model for an antidisciplinary synthesis that dissolves conventional boundaries within and beyond the academic sphere. I characterise the political valence of this synthetic assemblage in terms of Martin Heidegger's contrast between projects of enframing and revealing.

In 1969 Jasia Reichardt curated an exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Art in London called Play Orbit. Although it has not achieved the landmark status of Reichardt's Cybernetic Serendipity, which was presented in London a year earlier, it caught the intellectual and artistic mood of a newly emergent constituency of (largely British) artists who had benefited from a post-war revision of art education and a de-centring of intellectual energy away from the economic capitals.

It may be that Play Orbit will eventually be regarded in much the same way as Cybernetic Serendipity that is, as a significant footnote in the history of contemporary art. By turning artists' attention to toys through this project, the categories of painting and sculpture dissolved and the Modernist imperative of the enduring observation that had informed the arts and letters in a centred intellectual regime was seen for what it was: a colonial anachronism. The unapologetic relativism of play and the provisional truths of games coalesced in Play Orbit as confrontations to the essentialist materialism of the prevailing orthodoxy. In this sense Play Orbit, and its extensive catalogue of images and essays, foreshadowed not only the critical style that followed the influence of Continental Theory in the mid 1970s but also anticipated the agenda of virtually all that has been written about games in the last decade. For all its apparent whimsy and reification of idiosyncrasy, Play Orbit can now be seen as, above all, a constructively political intervention levered through the arts. For example, one of the more enduring and least contested impacts of the intellectual revisions of the last thirty years that Play Orbit foreshadowed is evident in the practice of history not least the practice of history as a game to be played. This paper elaborates on these assertions and asks how games and games theory might be connected with their own political and intellectual history, and how contemporary artists who choose to benefit from the licence that play endows might situate their work within what might be called Art Ludistory: a political play on the history of play.

This paper focuses on philosophical toy objects and neo-pataphysicist disciplines, everyday resistance by futility and play. Contemporary electromagnetic toys, smart objects and the Internet of Things will be compared to the seventeenth-century Wunderkammer objects. Historic naturalia, objects and actual toy gadgetry will all be unveiled as alternate W.A.S.T.E. (Pynchon 1964) communications devices, among Habsburg peers. A proof of evidence for the functions of futile toys as resistance objects is given through the presentation of electronic circuit board designs as new bachelor machines, chindogus (useless objects), subcutaneous Radio Frequency Bijoux (RFID-implants) and game fashion, as introduced by the author. But what are the consequences of the use of futile toys on the streets of everyday life? Do they entail a sustainable nascent practice in arts? Who is allowed to play with the electromagnetic parallel worlds? Do electronic toys offer a parallel communications system in their futility? What is the actual role of electronic toys in an inverse trajectory backwards to their harbingers, which are philosophical toys, jeux bijoux (blingblings to play with), Wunderkammer-toys (for peers to establish links with Potlatch-like gifts to tighten social relations) and the Ludic Spielzeug (a toy which empowers the player to recognize the futile toy as tool of resistance and backtalk to given economic and discourse order)?

Drawing on Vilm Flusser's view of the relationship between humans and the computer (machines), I explore a new ontological framework for our beingin-the-world. I begin by raising critical questions regarding our endeavours and efforts to create endlessly expanding semiotic knowledge spaces based on technological innovation (e.g. Wikipedia or the Universal Electronic Library) in order to reflect on this development from a Flusserian perspective, i.e. as an anthropological challenge to designing interhuman relations. By searching for new ontological conditions for humans, technology and knowledge, I want to probe into responses and new perspectives/models of knowledge sharing. How would we have to rethink the relation between semiotic telematic knowledge spaces and their structure/architecture, and the concrete given (our relationships, intersubjectivity, etc.)? What are the consequences of these findings for the macrosocial structures of encounter where knowledge exchange is a key element? Which are the epistemic models most suited to articulating a productive interdisciplinary knowledge exchange? My approach intends to weave knowledge and space, memory, technology and lived experience into an ontological fabric, and, in so doing, place humans and their communicative needs at the centre of my considerations.

Are the ideas of democracy and isonomy an absolute achievement of civilization, or just a tuning moment in a complex system of metamorphosis? Is this something universal or an aesthetic approach? Could our concept of art, in its deepest sense, be responsible for democracy? Or, could our concept of democracy exist because of art? This paper is a reflection on these questions. Normally, a scientific text should give answers but would this principle be universal? Inside our planetary metamorphosis all values are changing as always but now at high speed. High speed gives us both the sensation of confusion, which was typical in other historical moments, as when Carmina Burana was elaborated in the Middle Ages, and the possibility to take a step back and have, in the eye of the cyclone, dynamic elements showing us change in process. In this paper, democracy and isonomy are taken as the content of a path towards civilization, in a new environment.

The paper describes a thread that binds past beliefs and practices with current technology and how that might be used to interpret current artistic progress. This requires an examination of Gnostic ideas, and an account of scientific and metaphysic research into the idea of networked systems and connectivity. The implementations and development of different codes as tools for sound composing is discussed. Two apparently contradictory contemporary trends are identified: (a) the growing homogenization of consumer culture that can be seen as digital reincarnation of the common elements of ancient folk music and (b) the distribution and fragmentation of musical sources and outlets from which new structures and perceptions can emerge. I will present these trends and their foundations and tie them with current artistic development.

In most cultures, the Future is something we would not be expected to see we would either guess or imagine it. In the pre-Columbian cosmogony, as we move into multidimensional space, Future is behind and not ahead of our path, as it would be in almost all symbolic depictions, all over the world. No concept about or for the Future can be drafted without a rich understanding of the idea of an Origin.

Playfulness is a vague and ambiguous term. While it is easy to realize that a specific situation is playful, the concept itself is hard to grasp. Situations shift in and out of playfulness, leaving the term with hazy borders. This essay attempts to contribute to analysing playfulness in a rather unusual form. Instead of directly approaching the target, we take a stroll into the borderland that surrounds it, embarking on a quest to mark the borders of playfulness.