5 Mayıs 2009 Salı

the semi-living author: post-human creative agency

bir makale geçti elime (sevgi binyaşa). “the semi-living author: post-human creative agency”, rolf hughes*. ilginç yanları var. benim doktora konumun da bu “authorship” meselesiyle ilgisi yok değil. tasarım otomasyonu, benim konum. ve düşüncem de tasarım süreci akışında insan aktörlerin makineden aktörlere prensipte bir üstünlüğü olmadığı yönünde. bu yüzden bir “tasarım oyunları modeli” kurgulayabilir miyiz diye düşünüyorduk. bildiğimiz anlamda oyun değil de wittgenstein’in “dil oyunları”ndan ilham alan bir kavramlaştırma. tasarım sürecini, bir seri aktörün yürüttüğü (ve bir noktada tamamladığı) bir seri sözde-atomik oyun/iş üzerinden yeniden tanımlarsak, bu sadeleştirme insan-makine, insan-insan ve makine-makine ilişkisini birbirine eşdeğer biçimde içine alan kısmen-otomatik bir tasarım sistemine/yaklaşımına bizi yaklaştırabilir mi? [ve tabi bunun iki boyutu daha var: 1. tasarım oyunları üzerinden karmaşık bir tasarım modeli ile tasarımı 'anlamak' 2. ve bu kavrayış üzerinden bir mimari tasarım eğitimini yönlendirmek]
bu makalede fikri ilginç bir yönde genişletebilecek örnekler var. ilginç gelen yerleri kendi eklemelerimle aktarıyorum:

p132. “...is authorship inseparable from notions of chronology and historical sequence?” [halihazırda bulunan bir maddeyi halihazırda bulunan biçimlere koyan bir dönüştürücü demiurge ile islamdakine benzer bir yoktan vareden yaratıcı tanrıyı karşıtlık içine koyuyor. (timaeus_platon vs. itiraflar_augustinus.)] “as late arrivals they [architects, artists and authors] can play the role neither of pagan prime mover nor of christian innovator ... but must rather begin with what has already been created and thereby accept historical traditions...” [her tasarım aktörü akagelmekte olan tikel ama dağınık bir tasarım sürecinin farklı aşamalarına eklenegelir, bu aktörlerin makine ya da insan olmasının prensipte bir önemi yoktur.]
“agency is a central concern in recent creative practices that exhibit a turn from analysing nature to its synthesis. these include algorithmic, generative or ‘evolutionary’ design, bioart and metacreation...” [bunlar benim doktora çalışma alanlarım] “at one extreme, an ‘author’ would appear to have no role as such in work designed to make itself, thereby exhibiting the principle of autopoiesis or “self-making”. an autopoetic system produces not only self-sustaining patterns, but also, more significantly, its own components, the components that produce in turn the system’s organisation.” [bizim evirip çevirdiğimiz sistem daha büyük bir kurgunun bir bileşeni. bütünlüğünde kimin ‘müellif’ olduğunu önemsizleştiren bir aktörler dağılımı var. ama kafamdaki öykücü de tam böyle bir aktör. insanı öykücü olarak, tasarımcıyı öykücü olarak kurgulamak zaten bir öykülenme sürecine katılmak kavrayışına hakkını veriyor. müelliflik zaten, bugün, büyük ölçüde altıboşalmış bir kurum?: hem güncel felsefi yaklaşımlar (benim yaklaşımım için de), hem ticari süreçler (büyük şirketler dünyası ve akademide yoğun işbirliği ve işbölümü, dağıtım alanında korsan, internet üzerinden paylaşım...), hem sanat-edebiyat alanında 20.yydan devralınan kopyalama, kolajlama, çalıntılama gelenekleri, ayrılmış bir uzman olarak sanatçıya karşı çıkışın alman romantiklerden beri süregelen ve ‘meta-üretimi olarak sanat pratiğine karşı çıkmak’ ve ‘deneyim olarak sanat’ı ön plana çıkarmaklara varan geçmişi...]
p133. “...by examining these two poles of contemporary authorship –[1] autopoietic authorial erasure on the one side, and [2] technoscience’s seemingly unbounded pursuit of mastery over living matter, on the other- i will explore the continuing centrality of authorship...”
julie thompson klein’den naklediyor: “today’s many disciplinary convergences have contributed ... toreversing “the differentiating, classificatory dynamic of modernity” and creating instead an “increasing hybridisation of cultural categories, identities, and previous certainties”. this means that there exists agrowing number of professional issues that cannot be tackled with the tools avaliable within existing forms of discilinary practice. “many of the problems professionals face are neither predictable nor simple” ... “they are unique and complex ... as a result, the art of being a professional is becoming the art of managing complexity” [şimdi bunları julie t. k. diye bir hanımdan, ya da lawson diye bir beyden nakletsem muteber olacağım, kendim söylediğimde muteber olmuyor, bu kenarda kalmış ülke akademik dünyası ruh-durumu ne fena] [neyse sonra da gerektiği şekilde farklı disiplinleri, neuro-science araştırmalarını sanat, performans ve yapay hayat araştırmalarıyla biraraya getiren ilk örneğinden bahsetmeye geçiyor:]
MEART: “the semi-living artist”: a geographically detached, wetware/software/hardeware hybrid, which comprises both living and artificial components. (Philip Gamblen ve Guy Ben-Ary of SymbioticA art and science collaborative research lab at the university of western australia)
p134. “the artist’s ‘brain’ (neurons from mouse cortex grown over a “multi electrode array”) is nurtured in dr steve potter’s neuro-engineering lab at georgia institute of technology, atlanta; it’s ‘body’ (a robotic drawing arm capable of executing two dimensional drawings) is set up at the location of each exhibition (... linz, perth, new york, bilbao, moscow, melbourne, atlanta, shangai). the geographical remoteness of the ‘wetware’ and ‘hardware’ is surmounted by two software modules: one in atlanta and one at the location of each exhibition with the internet operating as a form of ‘nervous system’ to interface between brain and body. as the MEART has developed, it has begun to explore the cognitive dimensions of ‘seeing’ and converting what it ‘sees’ into representation. thus the robotic arm can send an image from a digital camera, which is converted as it arrives at the brain into a thumbnail of 60 pixels, each correlating to 60 electrodes that then stimulate the neurons grown on an electronic chip. this image is then compared with what the robotic arm has already drawn on the paper (spaces that are dark in the photo and blank on the paper are identified as areas to correct, for example); the neurons process this information, the electric signals on the electrodes are measured again and this measurement becomes the basis for guiding the robotic arm. the digital camera records what the arm ‘draws’ and sends a signal back to the neurons, which is evaluated as before and further modifications are sent back to the arm. thus the optical element (the digital camera) monitors the progress of the drawing. the result of this activity is then converted into a stimulation map that is sent to the neurons. these stimulations inform the neurons about the state of the drawing. ...”
[insan fackdıri’yi hatırlıyor, aslında yukarıdan beri öykülenegelenlerin eğlenceli bir parodiler serisi ile üretime dönmesi olabilirdi. ]
“MEART is an example of how an interdisciplinary team, exploring the conceptual space where scientific and cultural experiments converge, can generate compelling subject-specific research questions alongside resonant metaphors of broader philosophical significance.” [ve insan umut doluyor tabi, benim de bir yerim olabilir, diyelim ki yapay zeka araştırmalarında, hı?]
p135. “... (characteristic of a-life artists more generally) equate creativity with unpredictability; what is valued is the artefact’s escape from authorial intention (and robotic predictability) towards emergent excess and autonomy.” [bağlamından koparıp aldım bunu, ilginç bir konu ve benim çalışmam kapsamında uğraşmam gereken bir mesele]
p136. “like other information artists, MEART’s artistic emphasis is on process, practice and skill, an emphasis shared by practice-based research [bu tabirin hastasıyım, doktoramla ilgili her yere yazmak istiyorum]. Yet whereas practice-based research in art and design privileges experiential knowledge (including its epistemic siblings ‘embodied’, ‘situtated’, ‘practical’, or ‘tacit’ knowledge), the work of information artists is frequently characterised by a concern with disembodiment, which we may define as “the technologically driven unmooring of human cognition”. [burada sorun görmek için olagelmekten başka türlü bir değişmez/kalıcı varlık hayal ediyor olmak lazım. beden de olagelmektedir, zihinsel süreçler de. bir tür/töz farkından ziyade deleuzecül bir tekseslilikten(?) hareket edersek disembodiment ve embodied arasında bir ayrım görmeyiz. practice-based dendiğinde benim aklıma bir maddi bedene gömülmüş/katılmış bir bilgiden ziyade bir görece kontollü deneyim artırma süreci geliyor... ?? ne acayip pasaj oldu...] “to mimic living matter, however, is not the same as creating a compelling parallel for human experience in creative practices. design-based experience (and, importantly, its communication) is arguably what nourishes the processes and outcomes of the creative disciplines – it is surely what distinguishes creative processes from those that are merely mechanical.” [bana bu da önemli bir noktayı hatırlatıyor, şimdilik terminolojiyi oturtamadımsa/öğrenemedimse de ben burada bir doubling-emulation ayrımın gitmeye çalışıyorum. otomasyon araştırmasının hedefi birebir insan tasarımcının yaşadığı süreci yeniden üretmek değil, tasarım sürecinin çeşitli aşamaları için kabul edilebilir ürünler üretmek. burada insan tasarımcının çalışma tarzından ilham alınması üretilecek sistemin baştan aşağı onun gibi çalışacağı anlamına gelmiyor]
p137 “... software needs to be designed for which all the possibilities cannot be considered in advance by the designer. . w. ross ashby has termed this “descartes’ dictum” and noted that for a device to achieve better performance than its initial specification it would need to be informationally open and capable of interacting with the world independently of its designer- in other words, it must display characteristics of both epistemic and structural autonomy. hence perhaps the current turn from code to ‘wetware’ – a shift that may be characterised historically as a displacement of modernism’s use of technology to control nature by postmodernism’s use of living matter (‘nature’) to ‘enliven’ technology, to escape its monotonous and repetitive logic and pursue instead the unpredictable, ‘emergent’ and creative capacities of a meeting between organic, mechanical, and electronic impulses.” [bunu şimdilik süreçlere “tesadüfilik” enjekte ederek karşılamak niyetindeyim]
[ve ikinci örnek:]
p138. “dendroid, a collaboration between pablo miranda and artist arijana kajfes as part of the occular witness project, comprises an electrochemical bath, a microcontroller circuit and software running on a standard computer. in this electrochemical hardware the system does the typical transformations involved in projective geometry and characteristic of CAD programs, such as rotation, scaling, and all the different types of parallel and perspective projections. in dendroid geometric data in the form of three dimensional vectors (x,y,z) is translated into electric signals which pass through the dendrites in the electrolytic bath, are then read, and subsequently translated again into geometric information. signal transformations are equated to geometrical transformations. as with an apprentice architect, the device can be trained (if given a set of geometric transformations such as those corresponding to architectural drawings, it can be ‘indoctrinated’ to produce the standard, average architectural projective transformation) or –again like its human counterpart- it can be left to grow arbitrarily, without learning. in the latter case, after a period of formation and growth, the device is capable of geometrical transformations and becomes effectively “a serendipitous machine, suggesting different 3-D transformations according to the growth patterns of the dendritic machine.”
p140. “... whitelaw observes, a-life art becomes a “metacreative” endeavour –“it wants to create creation, variation, otherness. if a-life science is about knowing and understanding, a-life art is very basically about making and becoming, becoming-other, and becoming-unknown.” ”
[yine klein diyor ki:]
“the complexity of knowledge is suggested by the current rhetoric of description. once described as a foundation or linear structure, knowledge today is depicted as a network or a web with multiple nodes of connection, and a dynamic system. the metaphor of unity, with its accompanying values of universality and certainty, has been replaced by metaphors of plurality relationality in a complex world. images of boundary crossing and cross-fertilisation are superseding imagesof disciplinary depth and compartmentalization. isolated modes of work are being supplanted by affiliations, coalitions and alliances. and older values of control, mastery, and expertise are being reformulated as dialogue, interaction and negotiation. changes in the spatial and temporal structures of knowledge also call into question traditional images of knowledge as a cognitive map with distinct territories and borders or a tree with different branches. they are too linear. in their place, images of fractals, a kaleidoscope, or a wildly growing rhizome without a central root have been proposed.”
[ve film yönetmenliği pratiğini hatırlattıktan sonra:]
p141. “within such a collaborative mode of cultural production, the specific creative, expressive and artistic input of the various agencies working together on a project (and their individual contributions to the project’s ‘style’) can thereby be analysed, alongside “the socio-cultural practices of contemporary media culture which constructs the auteur as a commodity, a logo so to speak, which stands not behind the text as in romantic notions of authorship, but rather in front of it precisely to explicate, expand and legitimise the marks of individuality, expression and style in a film.” ” [paul watson’dan] [ mimarlık alanında paralel güncel süreçlerle ilgili bir ahkam için bkz. sabahları niye mimarlığın bu kadar güzel yıldız haritalarını yapıyoruz]
* Hughes, Rolf; The Semi-Living Author: Post-Human Creative Agency; in Architecture and Authorship; Anstey, T., Grillner, K., Hughes, R.; black dog publishing, 2007, pp132-141
ayrıca kaynakçada ilginç duran metinleri not ediyorum:
_hayles, n. katherine; how we became posthuman; university of chicago, london, 1999
_klein, julie thompson; interdisciplinarity and complexity: an evolving relationship; in E:CO special double issue, vol.6, nos. 1-2, 2004
_rosenberg, martin e.; constructing autopoiesis: the architectural body in light of contemporary cognitive science, in interfaces 21/22, 2003

Hiç yorum yok: