February 18, 2010 at 11:07 pm · Filed under Uncategorized, art, boundary objects, community interaction design, complex systems, cybernetics, design ecology, heterarchy, interaction, relational aesthetics, symbolic systems
This find (thanks Dharmang) describes a history and accounting of the Transactional Arts–which is art, where a transaction is explicitly part of the work.
Daniela Plewe’s discussion brings me back to some thoughts and notes I made about Marcel Duchamp’s Coefficient d’Art. Duchamp described it as:
“An arithmetical relation between the unexpressed but intended and the unintentionally expressed.”
It is intended to describe the difference between what artists intend and what the spectator perceives. For Duchamp, this difference is in the act of communication or transaction, where certain differences and attributions of value are made out of the interaction among individuals. It this coefficient that structures the viewers engagement with artifacts and allows them opportunities to appropriate objects to their own needs and ends.
For Duchamp, the coefficient of art could be good (+), bad (-) or indifferent (=), but the sign of the coefficient had no bearing on the effectiveness of the work itself–only the difference between the agency of the artists to produce a desired effect in the minds of the spectators. The effect itself is up for further negotiation between them.
Mutual information is a similar concept to the coefficient of art, but it comes from information theory and describes the amount of information one thing tells about another thing. In other words, it is the reduction in uncertainty of one thing due to knowledge of another. If we ask how information (and consequently, meaning) is shared between different sources of uncertainty (like an object and a spectator or an object and its artist), we may be able to get a sense of how they are connected and how they might respond to each other.
Mutual information is helpful as a concept because we want to understand how interactions vary with one another–i.e. how interaction values may/may not change as a result of signals, actions, and assumptions.
A component of mutual information is information entropy. Entropy is a measure of uncertainty associated with a variable and quantifies the information contained in a message. It is similar to the coefficient of art; it may describe the uncertainty associated with an artwork as judged by the spectator. Conversely, it could describe the absence of meaning when one does not know the value of the work. Likewise the spectator may themselves exhibit high entropy (high uncertainty) relative to the artist if the artist knows little about the spectator and how they will perceive the artwork….at least that’s how I think it would go.
The coefficient of art is a compelling concept. It suggests that that art has an effect, and if an effect–value in context. Describing that value is very close to the describing what difference the work of art makes, either to the spectator or some chain extending through them.
Borrowing from evolutionary and network theory, one could pull in a set of relationships between interacting agents that describe how networks evolve and persist. Relationships endure over time from the benefits of interaction. In network reciprocity, entities pay a cost, c, while their number of neighbors, k, receive a benefit, b. If b/c > k, where the ratio of benefits to costs is greater than the sum of neighbors, the network persists because its members are gaining as a result of their interactions.
Duchamp’s coefficient of art (hereafter described using the greek letter psi, ϕ; see also: epistasis), approximates the number of neighbors, but as indicated by it separation from the actual effect of the work itself, says nothing about costs and benefits. ϕ approximates k, or rather the reciprocal of k, because as the number of neighbors (or spectators of the work) increases, the likely ability of the artwork to communicate intent, decreases. This is because of variation among the spectators who may either not be well-understood by the artist or who are perceiving differently or because the artist. Interestingly, ϕ always assumes artistic intent. If ϕ is low, it may be the ‘fault’ of the spectator, the inability of the artist to realize that intent, or of some other intervening factor.
But what about art that is created beyond intent such as generative, algorithmic, or emergent artworks?
ϕ may also be a bound on the ability of artifacts to bridge social groups, as in the case of boundary objects that have multiple uses. The intent of the maker of that object is only partially achieved, but may clearly be appropriated to serve other purposes. Here we might similarly invoke a coefficient of use–or a measure of intent in use that transforms the intent of the artist.
Far from achieving certainty, at least the idea of ϕ, of a coefficient of art, starts to unlock more questions about translation and meaning between objects and people–and of the directionality of interactions between people.
June 5, 2009 at 11:03 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
I’ve been taking a bit of a break from this blog and posting somewhat more frequently over at Rising Wisely, the official blog of the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP). I’ve been posting about my attendance at the Games for Change Festival in NYC as well as other issues related to the social embedding of science and technology in India and elsewhere. Soon, I’ll be sharing a series of articles on Design Ecology as a more formal description is starting to resolve. cheers!
April 6, 2009 at 8:13 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
At the end of 2008 the travel networking site Dopplr sent a well-done report summarizing the year’s travels. Good design and some nice information bits, including my favorite–a duck-like comparison.
personalvelocity
I’ve started using Dopplr to track my travel and to communicate where I’ll be. I like coincidences so it’s nice to find I’ll be in the same city as someone else I know. I don’t have enough contacts that travel to Bangalore..nor do I travel all that much to make it super effective…but whatever, I’m a duck.
August 14, 2008 at 10:39 am · Filed under Uncategorized, boundary objects, community interaction design, interdisciplinary, making it public, proposals, teaching and learning
So here is something neat: I was recently appointed a Senior Researcher at the UCLA Art |Sci Center. I’m currently working on a community website for the Leonardo Education Forum, and organization focused on promoting the intersections of art, science and technology– particularly in educational contexts.
Here is a brief for the project:
How do individual perspectives and group identities impact the development of diverse collaborative networks such as those exemplified by the Leonardo Education Forum? The Leonardo Education Forum is composed of educators, artists, scientists, designers, historians and students from many regions of the world and of diverse ages, backgrounds and perspectives. The main objective of the research is to create an online portal for individuals and groups to find common ground through which they can develop interactions and perspectives that will allow them to establish long-term and robust collaborative and interdisciplinary relationships. Diversity refers not only to the disciplinary affiliations that characterize, for example, artists, scientists, historians, sociologists and designers, but also to different age distributions, regional, and language-based perspectives in addition to the opportunities afforded by differences in socio-technical networks.
We endeavor to create a space that shares events and opportunities for individuals to identify and take part in–i.e. to model behavior across time and space. There is a social networking aspect that seeks to make visible that spaces and regions in which these people, events and opportunities are available so as to extend an existing global network of interactions and perspectives on the relationships of art and science. In particular, we are interested in making best-practices in projects and pedagogy visible and available for students and educators that seek to establish methodology for cross-fertilization among disciplines. Of particular concern are areas of technology whose relationship with individuals is complex and where solutions tend to be controversial (e.g. nanotechnology, climate change, genetic engineering, analysis of human behavior, etc). These tend to be spaces where the interactions among diverse domains are both most necessary and less clearly articulated. They are also areas in which the Leonardo Education Forum can provide creative models for these interactions.
June 25, 2008 at 9:55 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
The common space at the Center for Complex Networks Research allows for group interaction, impromptu exchanges, and reception of visitors. Lunch, printing, library, and coffee all converge near conference rooms and shared offices.
June 25, 2008 at 9:53 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
See-through walls at the Center for Complex Networks Research allow behavior to be observed while keeping conversations in common areas from interrupting focus. Shared offices help maintain an additional level of cohesion among labmates.
April 26, 2008 at 8:23 pm · Filed under Uncategorized, bioinformatics, biology, boundary objects, genes, genomics, making it public, maps, visualization
Here is a sketch I made showing the locations and extent of intellectual property claims on 22 chromosomes and the X and Y. These data are from 2005. The extent is larger today.
Click on the image to visit the full-size sketch.
April 20, 2008 at 3:12 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
!! new layout and scheme for spring/summer or until I get bored of it…enjoy!!
March 16, 2008 at 6:17 pm · Filed under Uncategorized
Well, I’m trying wordpress now instead of blogger, my previous platform. Hang tight; Many changes coming.
