ISEA2011 Presentation Overview

[Overview] [Venues] [Presentations] [Workshops] [Art Events]

  • Keynotes:

    Paper Presentations:

    Panel Presentations:

    • 6×6/36 : An Artists Book/Exhibition project


    • The French-based Col­lec­tif NUNC is happy to launch the first el­e­ment of the 6×6/36 artists book/ex­hi­bi­tion pro­ject from the I Wish You Were Here! se­ries, a cre­atively dri­ven pro­ject aimed at re-think­ing a new way to ex­hibit media art. 6×6/36 con­sists of six note­books and six sets of stick­ers by 36 artists, and in­cludes a total of 144 art­works in a pur­posely de­signed box. The first issue deals with the theme of mo­bil­ity and will be pub­lished by Subjec­tile.

      I Wish You Were Here! is a se­ries of the­matic pro­jects put for­ward by the French-based Col­lec­tif NUNC (Clarisse Bar­diot, An­nick Bu­reaud, Jean-Luc Soret and Cyril Thomas) in an at­tempt to re-ex­am­ine the re­la­tion­ship be­tween print and on­line pub­lish­ing and new ways of ex­hibit­ing art.

      6 X 6 / 36 is the first issue in the I Wish You Were Here! se­ries. It con­sists of 6 note­books and 6 sets of stick­ers de­signed by 36 artists, and in­cludes a total of 144 art­works.

      Both an ex­hi­bi­tion and a pub­li­ca­tion that takes the form of 6 note­books and sets of stick­ers con­tained in a pur­posely de­signed box, 6 X 6 / 36 ex­plores an in­no­v­a­tive and no­madic ap­proach to con­tem­po­rary art. Each note­book is dis­play­ing the cre­ations of 6 artists who share a com­mon theme. Each work is printed on a sticker as a data ma­trix. Thus, the reader can ac­cess the art­work – or in­for­ma­tion about it– on a web­site via his/her smart­phone or a spe­cific ap­pli­ca­tion. 6 X 6 / 36 blurs the bound­ary be­tween print and on­line pub­li­ca­tion and ex­hi­bi­tion for­mats. The stick­ers can be peeled off and placed in a home or pub­lic place, al­low­ing the user to de­sign his/her own ex­hi­bi­tion.

      6 X 6 / 36 moves away from the tra­di­tional for­mat of the gallery or mu­seum ex­hi­bi­tion to ap­pro­pri­ate urban and pub­lic space, as poster de­sign­ers and graf­fiti artists have long done. It fol­lows the flow of data on the in­ter­net, spread­ing all over the city and reach­ing the most in­con­gru­ous lo­ca­tions. The artist’s sig­na­ture and the motif no longer have any ex­is­ten­tial value; they take sec­ond place to the on­line art­work.

      At ISEA2011 in Is­tan­bul, we are launch­ing the first note­book in the 6 X 6 / 36 se­ries on the theme of mo­bil­ity. The six artists are : Annie Abra­hams, Beat­riz da Costa, Nico­las Fre­spech, Antti Laiti­nen, Al­ber­tine Me­u­nier, Ser­vo­valve. The pro­ject is pub­lished by Sub­jec­tile.

      Col­lec­tif NUNC: Cyril Thomas, Jean-Luc Soret, Clarisse Bar­diot, An­nick Bu­reaud. More in­for­ma­tion is avail­able at

      (he)artbreaking to the core: zombie data and the arts of re/de/transcoding


    • Dig­i­tal corpses all abound, zom­bie data that is still there, but can­not be per­formed any­more. Change is in­evitable, if the art­work should sur­vive. Be­sides the archivists’ ef­forts to re­vive the work in its orig­i­nal state, artists have de­vel­oped their own strate­gies of em­brac­ing the er­rors and glitches of re/de/transcod­ing processes.

      Codecs, pro­grams, pro­to­cols and for­mats that are not sup­ported any­more have be­come cre­ative chal­lenges and often ini­ti­ate sub­ver­sive prac­tices. Not THAT, but HOW a work is changed and dis­torted be­comes the choice of the artist. In this process, the orig­i­nal and its res­ur­rec­tion enter a di­a­logue and open up ques­tions that go be­yond the sur­face, a di­alec­tics of orig­i­nal and copy, same­ness and change, ob­so­les­cence and progress, mem­ory and for­get­ting, sur­vival and death. And as the orig­i­nal (file) is dead, the orig­i­nal (as a con­cept) is re­born at the same time.

      Artis­tic strate­gies of re/de/transcod­ing and serendipi­dous er­rors are po­si­tioned as an an­tithe­sis to an elit­ist or naive eu­pho­ria of con­stant tech­no­log­i­cal progress i.e. per­fec­tion. Nev­er­the­less, they are not nos­tal­gic but cel­e­brate a handson ap­proach where the code be­comes tan­gi­ble and ma­te­r­ial, lit­er­ally.

    • @China, Virtually Speaking: A Virtual Roundtable Discussion on Emergent Practices in China


    • “@China, Vir­tu­ally Speak­ing” lever­ages on­line and vir­tual plat­forms to bring to­gether a group of ge­o­graph­i­cally dis­persed art and de­sign col­lec­tives and in­di­vid­u­als through­out China to re­flect on the topic of “open source”. In this vir­tual round table dis­cus­sion, pan­elists will ad­dress how no­tions of “open source” are being trans­lated and ap­plied cross-cul­tur­ally to gen­er­ate new mod­els of cul­tural pro­duc­tion and so­cial prac­tice within the po­lit­i­cal and eco­nomic bound­aries of China. For par­tic­i­pants not phys­i­cally pre­sent at the con­fer­ence, the di­a­logue will be en­abled through a live stream of Skype video and the vir­tual en­vi­ron­ment of Sec­ond Life.

      The art and de­sign col­lec­tives in­vited to par­tic­i­pate on this panel are all chal­leng­ing the lim­i­ta­tions of what has be­come a highly com­mer­cial­ized art mar­ket and cor­po­ra­tized cre­ative in­dus­try in China through their cul­ti­va­tion of col­lab­o­ra­tive al­ter­na­tive spaces and un­con­ven­tional ex­hi­bi­tion and dis­cur­sive plat­forms. Pan­elists will dis­cuss how new tech­nolo­gies are being uti­lized and the ways in which par­tic­i­pa­tory and sit­u­a­tional modes of art and de­sign pro­duc­tion are being en­gaged mak­ing way for more emer­gent forms of prac­tice in both rural and urban lo­ca­tions.

      Ques­tions the panel will ad­dress in­clude: What strate­gies are cul­tural pro­duc­ers em­ploy­ing to move be­yond the red door of on­line media cen­sor­ship? What is the re­la­tion­ship and in­ter­fac­ing of al­ter­na­tive spaces to local and in­dige­nous com­mu­ni­ties? What is the im­pact of these al­ter­na­tive spaces and pro­duc­tion mod­els on the Chi­nese art world and cre­ative in­dus­tries?

      Part of the dis­cus­sion will also in­clude a re­port back from the 2011 Con­ti­nen­tal Drift in China that sev­eral of the pan­elists and the Chair will have par­tic­i­pated in over the sum­mer. This ex­per­i­men­tal re­search-based trip across China co-fa­cil­i­tated by Brian Holmes and Claire Pen­te­cost ex­am­ines the geopo­lit­i­cal trans­for­ma­tions of the coun­try through the lens of ur­ban­ism/ru­ral­ism.

    • An Alembic of Transformation: Virtual Reality as Agent of Change


    • We have come to rec­og­nize the vast po­ten­tial of Vir­tual Re­al­ity en­vi­ron­ments as pow­er­ful agents of change, both on a per­sonal as well as on a so­cially in­ter­ac­tive level. Thus, this panel will dis­cuss the im­ple­men­ta­tion of Vir­tu­al­ity Re­al­ity tech­nolo­gies in the fields of heal­ing and of per­sonal growth, learn­ing, as well as an all im­por­tant re-cap­tur­ing of po­ten­tially lost adult play­ful­ness through three di­men­sional vir­tual pres­ence and im­mer­sion.
      In this panel we pro­pose to look at Vir­tual Re­alites in their on­line as well as stand­alone man­i­fes­ta­tions with a spe­cial con­sid­er­a­tion for its ca­pa­bil­i­ties in pro­duc­ing emo­tional, per­cep­tual, be­hav­ioral changes in their users. That these changes ex­tend be­yond the ac­tual im­mer­sion and con­tinue into the every­day ex­is­tence of par­tic­i­pa­tors has been pre­vi­ously es­tab­lished by Yee and Bailen­son (2007). Be­yond their con­sid­er­able per­sua­sive ca­pa­bilites as we know them today, look­ing into the fu­ture, Biocca (1997) dis­cusses the pos­si­bil­ity of de­vel­op­ing a medium that al­lows greater ac­cess to the in­tel­li­gence, in­ten­tions and sen­sory im­pres­sions of an­other per­son through the usage of Vir­tual Re­al­ity en­vi­ron­ments and the em­bod­ied agent therin, a state which he calles Hy­per­p­res­ence: Propos­ing sen­sor based tech­nolo­gies, used in con­junc­tion with im­mer­sive three di­men­sional Vir­tual Re­al­ity Biocca points at the pos­si­bil­ity of a novel com­mu­ni­ca­tion codes which may en­hance/am­plify and even ex­tend be­yond spo­ken lan­guage and non-ver­bal codes such as fa­cial ex­pres­sion, pos­ture, touch, and mo­tion, that “these can aug­ment the in­ten­tional and un­in­ten­tional cues used in in­ter­per­sonal com­mu­ni­ca­tion to as­sess the emo­tional states and in­ten­tions of oth­ers” (Biocca, 1997).
      In light of and an aware­ness of such of­fer­ings, both cur­rent and fu­ture, we have come to rec­og­nize the vast po­ten­tial of Vir­tual Re­al­ity en­vi­ron­ments as pow­er­ful agents of change, both on a per­sonal as well as on a so­cially in­ter­ac­tive level. What will thus be under scrutiny is how Vir­tual Re­al­ity based art­work can be ac­tu­al­ized within such a process: The im­plemeta­tion of Vir­tu­al­ity Re­al­ity tech­nolo­gies in the fields of heal­ing and of per­sonal growth, learn­ing, as well as an all im­por­tant re-cap­tur­ing of po­ten­tially lost adult play­ful­ness through three di­men­sional vir­tual pres­ence and im­mer­sion will be some of the sub­jects under dis­cus­sion.

    • Arabesque, Mandala, Algorithm: A Long History of Generative Art


    • This panel will in­ves­ti­gate the his­tory of ab­stract mov­ing image work from early com­puter films, to the first video syn­the­sizer im­ages, to cur­rent work in gen­er­a­tive, al­go­rith­mic art. Un­like typ­i­cal im­ages de­rived from film and video, which cap­ture in­dex­i­cal traces of the scenes and ob­jects in front of their lenses, these works gen­er­ate im­agery with­out ref­er­ents and often with­out cam­eras. Early com­puter an­i­ma­tions ex­per­i­mented with the trans­la­tion of code into graph­ics, video syn­the­siz­ers mapped elec­tric im­pulses di­rectly onto the scrolling field of the cath­ode ray tube, where as gen­er­a­tive art uses com­pu­ta­tional al­go­rithms to de­fine a set of rules which au­to­mat­i­cally set into mo­tion and ever chang­ing vi­sual land­scape. The pa­pers on this panel chal­lenge the par­tic­u­lar model of vi­su­al­ity pro­posed by a tra­di­tional un­der­stand­ing of film. They trace out a long his­tory of gen­er­a­tive art, root­ing new media prac­tices in ex­per­i­men­tal work of the 1940s, 50s and 60s. The work of John and James Whit­ney, Stephen Beck, and Casey Reas model an al­ter­na­tive his­tory of mov­ing im­ages that priv­i­leges ab­strac­tion over rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and pro­ce­dure over mimetic cap­ture of the nat­ural world. In an ef­fort to make some­thing rad­i­cally new, these artists refer to older his­to­ries of knowl­edge and make ex­plicit ref­er­ence out­side of the lex­i­con of West­ern vi­su­al­ity to the East­ern fig­ures of arabesques and man­dalas. Like these spir­i­tual mo­tifs, the artists aim to cre­ate types of im­agery that ex­ceed the vis­i­ble ma­te­r­ial world by mak­ing works of pure light. In doing so, they not only au­thor an al­ter­na­tive his­tory of film, but also hy­poth­e­size a meta­physics of the screen. The pa­pers on this panel chal­lenge the par­tic­u­lar model of vi­su­al­ity pro­posed by a tra­di­tional un­der­stand­ing of film.

    • Art as Media as Display: Biennials as Platform for Social Change


    • Oc­cur­ring within the scope of the 12th Is­tan­bul Bi­en­nial Par­al­lel Events and ISEA2011

      A dis­cus­sion in two ses­sions on the oc­ca­sion of the 12th Is­tan­bul Bi­en­nial and ISEA2011 at the Con­sulate Gen­eral of The King­dom of The Nether­lands, Istanbul.

      Today the trend in art and crit­i­cal the­ory often pre­sents a pro­gram fo­cus­ing on so­cial is­sues and con­cerns rather than aes­thet­ics. The con­tem­po­rary bi­en­nial, one of the hy­per­tro­phied ex­hi­bi­tion plat­forms of our global pre­sent, serves as the locus op­ti­mus for this focus. This type of ex­hi­bi­tion has be­come a stage for artists, cu­ra­tors and spec­ta­tors to re­flect and spec­u­late on our cur­rent con­di­tion. But has art be­come solely a ve­hi­cle for so­cial com­men­tary? And what is the role of the media in art prac­tice and ex­hi­bi­tion are­nas? How does media – in­clud­ing in­ter­net, twit­ter and so­cial net­works – serve as a tool for the art to con­vey larger is­sues? Does media de­moc­ra­tize our so­ci­ety, or is the de­moc­ra­ti­za­tion of media in fact a false­hood? The re-me­di­a­tion of our so­ci­ety is re-me­di­at­ing both its epis­te­mo­log­i­cal and on­to­log­i­cal sta­tus, with un­ex­pected ef­fects. Artists, cu­ra­tors and media spe­cial­ists are in­vited to con­verse about these top­ics and to elab­o­rate on their pro­fes­sional prac­tice and point of view within the field of bi­en­nial-mak­ing and con­tem­po­rary art.

      Or­ga­nised by:

      Bi­en­nial Foun­da­tion is a non-profit or­ga­ni­za­tion founded in 2009 to fa­cil­i­tate links be­tween or­ga­ni­za­tions and prac­ti­tion­ers op­er­at­ing within the global bi­en­nial com­mu­nity by pro­vid­ing re­sources for re­search and an open plat­form for ex­change and col­lab­o­ra­tion.

      School of Media De­sign & New Media Art – NABA – di­rected by Francesco Mon­ico – pro­vides a the­o­ret­i­cal pro­gram on the crit­i­cal de­bate on new media phe­nom­ena and ap­pli­ances, on art and on the in­ter­ac­tion be­tween tech­nol­ogy and so­ci­ety.

      Beyond Locative: Media Arts after the Spatial Turn


    • In 2006 Var­nelis and Tuters pub­lished “Be­yond Loca­tive Media”, which dis­cussed the emer­gence of loca­tive media as “the next big thing”. Five years on, with the ubiq­uity of iphones, loca­tive media has be­come banal. Loca­tive media had been much an­tic­i­pated within the media art world, no­tably at the ISEA symposia in 2004 & 2006 after which it en­tered pop­u­lar cul­ture as a trope in William Gib­son’s last two nov­els. Yet while it may have faded from the avant-garde, there is a thriv­ing loca­tive dis­course in aca­d­e­mic jour­nals, as­so­ci­ated with the “spa­tial turn” in media stud­ies. This panel con­sid­ers the role of loca­tive media in the arts and hu­man­i­ties dis­course. The afore­men­tioned text framed loca­tive media in terms of neo-Sit­u­a­tion­ist tac­tics which sought to ac­tively imag­ine an al­ter­nate city. While loca­tive prac­ti­cioners did not share the op­po­si­tional pol­i­tics of their net art pre­cur­sors, one can not help but won­der if some greater po­ten­tial for the medium has not per­haps been fore­closed by a par­tic­i­pa­tory cul­ture that sug­gests lit­tle more than re­con­fig­ur­ing ideas from past.

      William Gib­son no longer writes about cy­ber­space in the fu­ture, but in­stead about loca­tive art in the atem­po­ral pre­sent. Hav­ing emerged in the mid-’00’s from media arts, loca­tive media are now part of the con­sumer tech­nol­ogy and pop­u­lar cul­ture. This panel dis­cusses the value of this con­cept in re­la­tion to de­bates at the in­ter­sec­tion of ur­ban­ism and media stud­ies, and con­sid­ers the (non)ex­is­tence of a loca­tive avant-garde.

    • BioARTCAMP: Laboratory Ecologies in the Wild West


    • Biotech­nol­ogy forces a restag­ing of the ecol­ogy of our re­la­tions with other species: with biotech­nol­ogy we are now able to breed, to birth, gen­er­a­tional life forms that serve as tools, sub­jects and em­bod­ied tech­nolo­gies that in turn in­ter­act with and alter our bod­ies, and the planet’s ecol­ogy. This panel will pro­pose al­ter­na­tive mod­els (artis­tic and the­o­ret­i­cal) to the pro­lif­er­a­tion of dig­i­tal metaphors in de­scrib­ing biotech­no­log­i­cal pro­to­cols. Draw­ing upon the trans­for­ma­tive power of bioart in cre­at­ing new con­cep­tual and prac­ti­cal tools found in bi­o­log­i­cal ma­te­ri­al­ity, our dis­cus­sion will re­volve around a large col­lab­o­ra­tive pro­ject called BioART­CAMP. BioART­CAMP is best de­scribed as a bioart camp­ing ex­pe­di­tion in the Cana­dian Rocky Moun­tains where the Rock­ies will serve as a dra­matic in­car­na­tion of an ex­ter­nal ecol­ogy for six artists, two sci­en­tists and two the­o­rists to build a work­ing biotech lab­o­ra­tory as part of a du­ra­tional per­for­mance.

      Bioart in­trin­si­cally in­vites us to en­gage the com­plex­i­ties of the ma­nip­u­la­tion of life to­wards human ends by forc­ing us to con­sider the moral and eth­i­cal im­pli­ca­tions that the artist (and viewer) must as­cribe to the ma­te­ri­al­ity of the work. In the form of a de­brief­ing after a bioart camp­ing trip, our dis­cus­sion will focus on the per­for­ma­tive re­la­tion­ships bi­o­log­i­cal lab­o­ra­to­ries pos­sess with ex­ter­nal ecolo­gies. These per­for­ma­tive re­la­tions, we will show, amount to the con­sid­er­a­tion of biotech­no­log­i­cally shaped en­vi­ron­ments in terms of con­nec­tions be­tween mi­lieus of in­te­ri­or­ity and mi­lieus of ex­te­ri­or­ity, in terms of topo­log­i­cal con­nec­tions; biotopolo­gies. We will in­ves­ti­gate (1) how biotopo­log­i­cal prac­tices af­fects liv­ing’s spa­tial con­di­tions; (2) how the pro­duc­tion and ma­nip­u­la­tion of liv­ing or­gan­isms (Biodegrad­able In­cu­ba­tor, An­i­mal En­rich­ment, Deep Woods PCR (Poly­merase Chain Re­ac­tion)) in open ecolo­gies af­fect the evo­lu­tion of biotech­nolo­gies and their di­rect links with larger eco­log­i­cal con­cerns and; (3) how these in­ter­ven­tions re­con­fig­ure our modes of un­der­stand­ing bi­o­log­i­cal ma­te­ri­al­ity. In brief, our panel will draw upon a sci­ence/art col­lab­o­ra­tion in order to dis­cuss biotech­nolo­gies’ spa­tial, eco­log­i­cal, ma­te­r­ial and eth­i­cal im­pli­ca­tions.

      Our panel will draw upon a sci­ence/art col­lab­o­ra­tion in order to dis­cuss biotech­nolo­gies’ spa­tial, eco­log­i­cal, ma­te­r­ial and eth­i­cal im­pli­ca­tions.

    • Body Image to/from Media: Rethinking Japanese Avant-Garde Art


    • What was the crit­i­cal point of Japan­ese post­war avant-garde art when re-look­ing today’s art scene? How have they in­flu­enced con­tem­po­rary art, cul­ture, and so­ci­ety until pre­sent?

      Through these pre­sen­ta­tions, the im­por­tance of Japan­ese post­war avant-garde art will be clar­i­fied and how they af­fected the cur­rent art will be dis­cussed in de­tail. Three top­ics will be pre­sented to re­con­sider the body image in con­tem­po­rary arts, es­pe­cially from the view of media and the art as a per­for­mance. The work of At­suko Tanaka from GUTAI, Kat­suhiro Ya­m­aguchi and the work of Kenji Yanobe will be ex­am­ined.

      The first pre­sen­ta­tion will mainly focus on the work of At­suko Tanaka (1932-2005), one of the main artists of GUTAI move­ment that oc­curred in west­ern re­gion of Japan in 1950’s. By an­a­lyz­ing her works from cul­tural and so­ci­o­log­i­cal con­text, flu­id­ity and am­bi­gu­ity in gen­der and the body within the con­text of cur­rent media art will be ex­am­ined. Re-think­ing early emer­gence of Japan­ese post­war art and fo­cus­ing on the ge­neal­ogy of con­tem­po­rary avant-garde art will bring a new mean­ing in a pre­sent new media art. More­over, Japan­ese mul­ti­me­dia art per­for­mance group called “Dumb Type” will be dis­cussed from the cur­rent media con­text to clar­ify the am­bigu­ous body image in Japan­ese con­tem­po­rary art.

      The sec­ond pre­sen­ta­tion will focus on Japan­ese artist Kenji Yanobe (1965) and his work. Great East Japan Earth­quake in 2011, 03, 11 caused se­ri­ous dam­age and shocked all over the world. Be­sides ra­di­a­tion leak from nu­clear power plant re­minds us the in­ci­dent of Cher­nobyl in 1986, and also the ra­dioac­tive con­t­a­m­i­na­tion to neigh­bor­ing area is ter­ri­bly se­ri­ous in Japan. More­over from atomic bomb in 1945 and ther­monu­clear test of Bikini Atoll in 1954, to nu­clear-power dis­as­ter in this time, it is dif­fi­cult to talk about Japan­ese coun­try and cul­ture with­out prob­lem of nu­clear power. In this pre­sen­ta­tion, Kenji Yanobe, who con­sid­ers sur­viv­ing in the world con­t­a­m­i­nated by ra­di­a­tion and tries to ex­press his idea in his work, will be in­tro­duced. Many artists made ac­tion to ex­press anti-atomic power after 1950s in Japan. Re­fer­ring to the his­tory of them, this pre­sen­ta­tion dis­cusses body image in his per­for­mance and in­stal­la­tion.

      The third pre­sen­ta­tion will focus on Kat­suhiro Ya­m­aguchi, who is in­ter­na­tion­ally known as a video artist, has played a major role in Japan­ese media art his­tory. Al­ready in 1950s he was a cen­tral fig­ure in Jikken Kobo (Ex­per­i­men­tal Work­shop) along with Toru Takemitsu and oth­ers ex­per­i­ment­ing the lat­est tech­nol­ogy of the time in their own per­for­mances and ex­hi­bi­tions as well as for ex­per­i­men­tal bal­let the­aters. After de­sign­ing a most in­no­v­a­tive pavil­ion at the 1970 Osaka World Ex­po­si­tion he co-founded Video Hi­roba that in­vited peo­ple to use video to ex­press their own voices. This pre­sen­ta­tion dis­cusses in­ten­tional ab­sence of his own body in Ya­m­aguchi’s works in con­trast to the demon­stra­tion of body-ness among his con­tem­po­rary avant-garde artists such as buto dancers. Cre­at­ing an en­vi­ron­ment (a “gar­den”) for the view­ers/par­tic­i­pants to be ex­plored using their own bod­ies was his con­cept, which led to the emer­gence of in­ter­ac­tive art in Japan.

      Borders and interfaces: the challenges of the wearable computer’s design in the near future


    • The wear­able com­put­ing is a knowl­edge area in con­stant de­vel­op­ment, evok­ing sig­nif­i­cant trans­for­ma­tions on human/ma­chine com­mu­ni­ca­tion to con­fig­ure an ef­fec­tive and af­fec­tive in­ter­face. Those tech­no­log­i­cal arte­facts have aug­mented the per­sonal bound­aries re­design­ing the cor­po­real schema and lived ex­pe­ri­ences of bod­ily spa­tial­ity. So, the user’s body is be­yond act­ing the sup­port for those com­put­ers un­der­stood as a phys­i­cal re­al­ity tech­no­log­i­cally me­di­ated elab­o­rat­ing be­hav­iours and sen­sory-mo­tor skills, which works as es­sen­tial data for recog­ni­tion of own pref­er­ences. Those in­for­ma­tion ex­changes be­tween bi­o­log­i­cal and tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tems have con­structed pos­si­ble di­a­logues evok­ing ques­tions and point­ing out chal­lenges. The panel with a con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous per­spec­tive about the cre­ation and the de­vel­op­ment of wear­able com­put­ers con­cerns with the main as­pects of those processes: the de­sign, cre­ation, in­no­va­tion, mo­bil­ity, us­abil­ity and er­gonomic per­spec­tives; the fash­ion, about the body-tech­nol­ogy-con­sume re­la­tion; the tex­tile tech­nol­ogy, about smart tex­tiles; the sus­tain­abil­ity, about re­cy­cle ma­te­ri­als, use of nat­ural en­ergy as the charger of the me­chan­i­cal and elec­tronic sys­tems and the de­vel­op­ment of sys­tems with low en­ergy cost; the net­works and tech­nolo­gies, con­sid­er­ing the aug­men­ta­tion of the body and mind of human sub­jects in net­works of in­ter­ac­tions pow­ered by com­mu­ni­ca­tion tech­nolo­gies.

    • Chasing Ghosts: Reactive Notation and Extreme Sight Reading


    • Over the last decade, a grow­ing num­ber of com­posers have begun to use what is known as real-time no­ta­tion in their work and many have de­vel­oped di­verse sys­tems to fa­cil­i­tate its use in all types of per­for­ma­tive sit­u­a­tions. Real-time music no­ta­tion in­cludes any no­ta­tion, ei­ther tra­di­tional or graphic, which is formed or cre­ated dur­ing the ac­tual per­for­mance. Other terms such as dy­namic music no­ta­tion, live scor­ing, vir­tual scor­ing, and re­ac­tive no­ta­tion have also been used to de­scribe the same process. This panel event seeks to con­vey the ex­cite­ment of cur­rent real-time no­ta­tion prac­tice to the pub­lic by pre­sent­ing work done in the area by promi­nent com­posers, mu­si­cians, and re­searchers. The pre­sen­ters will ex­plore key is­sues be­hind vir­tual scor­ing and real-time no­ta­tion from tech­ni­cal, mu­si­cal and de­sign per­spec­tives and pro­vide an overview of the var­i­ous ap­proaches, their sys­tems, and the styles of music that have emerged from them. Rel­e­vant works from the past and the pre­sent will be dis­cussed to show how real-time no­ta­tion re­lates to ear­lier ex­per­i­men­tal meth­ods in open-form and mal­leable mu­si­cal scores and in com­puter-as­sisted com­po­si­tion, in order to fa­cil­i­tate un­der­stand­ing through show­cas­ing the ex­plo­ration of the con­nec­tions and bound­aries among com­posers, per­form­ers and the au­di­ence. Par­tic­i­pants from the planned ac­com­pa­ny­ing work­shop In­ter­ac­tive Music Ba­sics & Re­al­Time Scor­ing will join the panel and dis­cuss their ex­pe­ri­ences while using soft­ware and hard­ware tools to cre­ate real-time no­ta­tion sys­tems or deal­ing with the chal­lenges as in­ter­preters of ex­treme sight read­ing. Above all, the or­ga­niz­ers of the panel hope that the events will spark in­ter­est and dis­cus­sion that will fur­ther the de­vel­op­ment of a com­mu­nity of prac­tice around vir­tual scor­ing and real-time play­ing and raise aware­ness of this new area within the con­tem­po­rary music cir­cles to aid in at­tract­ing new peo­ple to this ex­cit­ing field.

    • Code: Intellectual Property, Fair Use and Plagiarism – Open Discussion


    • In her book “My Mother was a Com­puter,” the­o­rist N. Kather­ine Hayles has writ­ten about the crit­i­cal dif­fer­ences be­tween nat­ural lan­guages and com­puter lan­guages. She writes, “…?code dif­fers from speech and writ­ing in that it ex­ists in clearly dif­fer­en­ti­ated ver­sions that are ex­e­cutable in a process that in­cludes hard­ware and soft­ware…” (Hayles 52). The rise of dig­i­tal arts within aca­d­e­mic pro­grams has meant that many more peo­ple are now learn­ing how to pro­gram and write code. Within the dig­i­tal arts, pro­gram­ming is most often taught through code sam­ples, tu­to­ri­als, mod­i­fi­ca­tion and adap­ta­tion. But this prac­tice can be­come prob­lem­atic as we try to lo­cate in­tel­lec­tual prop­erty through reg­u­la­tory prac­tices de­signed for nat­ural lan­guage, like pla­gia­rism, onto com­puter lan­guages. Pla­gia­rism is taken ex­tremely se­ri­ously within higher ed­u­ca­tion, but rules gov­ern­ing these prac­tices ex­hibit cer­tain fail­ings when ap­plied to non-nat­ural lan­guages. Within the hu­man­i­ties, there are nu­mer­ous and highly de­tailed meth­ods for ci­ta­tion (MLA, Chicago, etc.). Yet within pro­gram­ming, there is a lack of stan­dard­ized ci­ta­tion prac­tices. Be­yond the prac­ti­cal level of ci­ta­tion, how should orig­i­nal­ity and in­tel­lec­tual prop­erty be lo­cated within com­puter code? Ad­di­tion­ally, there has been ample di­a­logue sur­round­ing ap­pro­pri­a­tion and Fair Use of im­agery, but again, code stands in con­trast to the logic of the image. For code, what is orig­i­nal, how should au­thor­ship be lo­cated and de­marked, and what con­cepts fall under the aus­pices of Fair Use?

      Through an open dis­cus­sion, this panel seeks to ad­dress these the­o­ret­i­cal com­plex­i­ties, and ex­plore ped­a­gog­i­cal per­spec­tives and prac­ti­cal so­lu­tions. The scope of this panel will in­clude the­o­ret­i­cal per­spec­tives on the dif­fer­ences be­tween nat­ural lan­guage and code, legal per­spec­tives on Fair Use and In­tel­lec­tual Prop­erty, and ped­a­gog­i­cal per­spec­tives on teach­ing com­puter pro­gram­ming.

      Compumorphic Art – The Computer as Muse


    • In this panel the term com­pumor­phic art will be used to de­scribe an emer­gent col­lec­tion of art­works, artists and pro­jects that repo­si­tion the dig­i­tal com­puter as a form of cre­ative in­spi­ra­tion, cul­tural com­men­tary or aes­thetic ref­er­ence.

      Through the pre­sen­ta­tion of their own re­search/prac­tice the panel will re­veal how com­pumor­phic art­works not only ref­er­ence the vi­sual aes­thetic of com­put­ing tech­nolo­gies but often uti­lize or ques­tion the cul­tural val­ues and on­to­log­i­cal qual­i­ties we com­monly as­cribe to the com­puter-dig­i­tal.

      How­ever, this term is by no means fully re­solved and it is hoped that a lively de­bate around the no­tion of com­pumor­phic art – what this might mean and what it might en­com­pass – will take place in the forum.

    • Creativity as a Social Ontology


    • Whilst cre­ativ­ity is often per­ceived as the prod­uct of the in­di­vid­ual artist, or cre­ative en­sem­ble, it can also be con­sid­ered an emer­gent phe­nom­e­non of com­mu­ni­ties, dri­ving change and fa­cil­i­tat­ing in­di­vid­ual or en­sem­ble cre­ativ­ity. Cre­ativ­ity can be a per­for­ma­tive ac­tiv­ity re­leased when en­gaged through and by a com­mu­nity and un­der­stood as a process of in­ter­ac­tion. The model of the soli­tary artist, pro­duc­ing arte­facts that em­body cre­ativ­ity, can be con­tested as the ideal method to achieve cre­ative out­comes. The propo­si­tion is that cre­ativ­ity is an ac­tiv­ity of ex­change that en­ables peo­ple and com­mu­ni­ties. We do not pro­pose cre­ativ­ity as in­stru­men­tal, aris­ing from a per­ceived need and seek­ing to de­liver a so­lu­tion or prod­uct, nor as a sup­ply-side “blue skies” ideal, but as an emer­gent prop­erty of com­mu­ni­ties. John Searle de­fines so­cial on­tol­ogy as “both cre­ated by human ac­tions and at­ti­tudes but at the same time (hav­ing) an epis­tem­i­cally ob­jec­tive ex­is­tence and … part of the nat­ural world”. Our propo­si­tion is that so­cial on­tol­ogy, the space of in­ter­ac­tions where in­di­vid­u­als and col­lec­tives shape one an­other, ex­ists as an au­topoiesis, an emer­gent cre­ative space. The In­ter­net has been an agent of change in the way we com­mu­ni­cate and share in­for­ma­tion and it has sub­se­quently af­fected the man­ner in which com­mu­ni­ties form. The ad­vent of Web 2.0 has fa­cil­i­tated a ma­te­ri­al­i­sa­tion of the in­ter­net as a so­cial space. As both an aug­ment­ing and rep­re­sen­ta­tional tech­nol­ogy, the in­ter­net al­lows in­sight into how these processes un­fold. In­di­vid­u­als and col­lec­tives can now emerge, shift and shape them­selves within the dy­namic com­mu­ni­ca­tions spaces (pro­to­cols) that de­fine what we now un­der­stand the in­ter­net to be, each pos­sess­ing a dis­tinc­tive dis­cur­sive and on­to­log­i­cal char­ac­ter. Elec­tronic lit­er­a­ture and the dig­i­tal arts are ex­em­plary of cre­ative prac­tices that cross media and cul­tural di­vides. The media em­ployed by prac­ti­tion­ers in these do­mains are in­trin­si­cally con­ver­gent, tech­ni­cally and cul­tur­ally. These prac­ti­tion­ers are often highly tech­ni­cally lit­er­ate and, in some in­stances, have con­tributed to the de­vel­op­ment of the tech­nolo­gies that they, and oth­ers, em­ploy. Prac­ti­tion­ers work­ing in these fields have often de­vel­oped their aims and meth­ods through in­ter­act­ing with one an­other within on­line cre­ative com­mu­ni­ties.

    • Crisis Narrative of Landscape: Future Inherent


    • This panel ex­plores multi-di­men­sional works that in­ter­act and ex­plore the nar­ra­tives of dam­aged land­scapes -ur­ban and out­back scars found on and within the struc­tures of land and ar­chi­tec­ture and scars re­lated to the move­ment of peo­ples. The speak­ers will pre­sent their art­works de­vel­oped from the ev­i­dence of weather shifts that are woven through var­i­ous forms, in­clud­ing per­sonal doc­u­men­tary-style im­ages, GPS data and satel­lite im­agery.  These art­works use im­ages of the earth’s sur­face to ex­plore nar­ra­tives of po­ten­tial fu­tures. Within past and pre­sent ac­tions can be found a fu­ture that rev­els within the sense of be­long­ing. The fu­ture could be based within a con­tin­u­ing par­a­digm or shift into greater un­der­stand­ings of new and an­cient tech­nolo­gies that shift our po­ten­tial for cre­at­ing and in­vest­ing in a fu­ture vis­i­ble world. The pro­jected im­ages and con­text ex­pand the premise that tap­ping into the nar­ra­tive of place re­veals an un­der­stand­ing of a fu­ture plan. This el­e­ment be­gins to ques­tion and push the sci­ence of weather, the land and the move­ment of peo­ples to a fris­son, wherein may lie a new ap­proach. Dr. Lisa An­der­son, Josephine Starrs and Leon Cmielewski have all worked with Lake Mungo in the re­mote Aus­tralian out­back and have drawn to­gether some of these quests to look more closely at the im­pli­ca­tions of story in place. Dr. An­der­son and Joni Tay­lor have both ex­plored the el­e­ments of col­li­sion of the urban land­scape against a wilder life,  that takes the city back at any op­por­tu­nity. Dr. An­der­son cre­ated Night Snow which ex­plores the shifts of an­i­mals into the vil­lages within the High Arc­tic and com­pares these sto­ries to those of drought af­fected cities in Aus­tralia. Joni Tay­lor con­sid­ers a shift in our ar­chi­tec­tural re­la­tion­ship to the wild to de­velop an aca­d­e­mic un­der­stand­ing and smart world ap­proach to the con­cept of ar­chi­tec­ture, to cre­ate an ar­chi­tec­ture that en­com­passes the changes in weather and move­ments of pop­u­la­tions, in order to es­tab­lish aware city sur­faces and en­clo­sures.  The panel will ex­plore a range of fac­tors to feed into an un­der­stand­ing of a fu­ture that is a brave new world ar­chi­tec­ture, that pro­tects from the void, that in­serts into this a pos­si­bil­ity for a gen­uine story of place to guide/in­form pro­jects. The spec­ta­tor­ship un­der­stand­ing of past en­gage­ments in­cludes the no­tions of na­tional parks and wild life as out­sider events and a pi­o­neer­ing ap­proach to ar­chi­tec­ture.  The speak­ers seek to in­te­grate nar­ra­tives of land, ar­chi­tec­ture and urban move­ments to focus on the prob­lems posed by the cul­ture/na­ture di­vide. The fu­ture is in­her­ent within this form of vi­sual un­der­stand­ing and draws on the very dif­fer­ent el­e­ments that con­cern these artists. They ex­plore the so­cial agenda of dif­fer­ence, imbed­ded within the ques­tion asked by the land­scape works of the Qing Dy­nasty – Am I in Na­ture or is Na­ture in Me?

    • Data Disinformation


    • The panel seeks to in­ves­ti­gate and re­visit the po­lit­i­cal role that art can play in sub­vert­ing stan­dard­ised vi­sual form and lan­guage. Data ma­nip­u­la­tion and vi­su­al­i­sa­tion con­tributes to a large part of con­tem­po­rary dig­i­tal arts prac­tice. A ten­dency to sep­a­rate out frame­work/plat­form and con­tent has meant that analy­sis of the ma­te­r­ial of vi­sual forms that arise from artis­tic processes can be over­looked. This panel ex­am­ines di­verse ap­proaches to the ma­nip­u­la­tion and vi­su­al­i­sa­tion of data ap­pro­pri­ated by vi­sual artists. While the works pre­sented by the pan­el­lists are not overtly po­lit­i­cal, there is a strong pres­ence of chal­lenge to the vi­sual tropes used by those en­gaged in pro­duc­tion in an in­dus­try con­text such as film, gam­ing, jour­nal­ism and mar­ket­ing.  The panel seeks to in­ves­ti­gate and re­visit the po­lit­i­cal role that art can play in sub­vert­ing stan­dard­ised vi­sual form and lan­guage.  Pan­el­lists will be drawn from artists in the con­cur­rent Bro­ken Still­ness ex­hi­bi­tion at ISEA, who are in­ter­ro­gat­ing the re­la­tion­ship be­tween his­tor­i­cally em­bed­ded forms of image mak­ing, es­pe­cially paint­ing and pho­tog­ra­phy, with those dig­i­tal prac­tices that are still in de­vel­op­ment or rel­a­tively un­ex­plored such as com­puter an­i­ma­tion, mo­tion cap­ture/track­ing, mod­el­ling soft­ware and high de­f­i­n­i­tion.  The work pre­sented and the pan­elists will ex­plore the new forms that are emerg­ing from an in depth ex­plo­ration of dig­i­tal tools com­bined with an un­der­stand­ing of more es­tab­lished forms of im­age­mak­ing in the vi­sual arts. Be­yond the con­cen­tra­tion of the dig­i­tal on speed, col­lec­tivism and band­width in much dig­i­tal work, the panel will call for a sub­tle ap­proach to mak­ing work.

    • Don’t Anthropomorpise Me: Electronic Performance Tools, Automatons and The Vanity Apocalypse


    • This panel ex­am­ines bots & au­tomata as sub­jects of cul­ture, with the par­tic­u­lar em­pha­sis on how we ex­pe­ri­ence and per­son­alise our in­ter­ac­tions with them. So­cia­ble robot de­vel­op­ment raises many ques­tions with re­gards to cul­tures of spir­i­tu­al­ity and ex­pres­sion.  The choice of en­cod­ing tool and in­ter­face are in­trin­sic to any com­mu­ni­ca­tion plat­form, which al­ways gives rise to new sit­u­a­tions that must be tack­led. Cre­ative re­flec­tion and crit­i­cal in­tel­li­gent play has al­lowed for the nu­mer­ous syn­er­gies be­tween man and ma­chine and in­flu­ences how we are nat­u­rally in­clined to in­ter­act and use these new tech­nolo­gies, and how these in­ter­ac­tions im­pact on so­ci­ety.  Such di­verse views to­ward tech­nol­ogy are shaped by re­spec­tive so­cial his­to­ries, cul­tures and ex­pe­ri­ences.  Ro­bots have be­come cult ob­jects of con­tem­pla­tion, giv­ing us a sense of con­nect­ed­ness with the world around us.  Con­cep­tion of the other is formed by re­flec­tion of our pro­jected per­cep­tions and these per­sonal ex­pe­ri­ences in turn cre­ate new cul­tural iden­tity aes­thet­ics or pre­sent chal­lenges to rep­re­sen­ta­tion as we know it.  There is con­tin­u­ing dis­course on how our ro­bots should look and what role they should take in so­ci­ety. We wish to offer com­men­tary on these de­bates and raise is­sues about our his­tor­i­cal and so­cial re­la­tion­ship with ma­chines and hope to ex­tend a unique way of see­ing ro­bots: as a cul­tural phe­nom­e­non, as com­pan­ions, as ob­jects of star­tling beauty and as an im­por­tant con­tem­po­rary art form.  Ever cu­ri­ous how the field of ro­bot­ics and com­pu­ta­tional media can yield new po­ten­tial un­der­stand­ings for the­o­ries of em­bod­i­ment. Over the years there have been many spec­u­la­tions around the para­dox of com­put­ing, the­atre ma­chines and play.  We have this strong de­sire to in­vest ma­chines with in­tel­li­gence. We col­lec­tively buy into this mythol­ogy, want­ing to be­lieve in­tel­li­gence ex­ists in these so­phis­ti­cated cal­cu­la­tors. An­thro­po­mor­phism con­tin­u­ally haunts us, and our ma­chines –  have we al­ways been and will we fun­da­men­tally re­main idol­aters?

    • Don't Hate the Business, Become the Business!


    • The panel in­ves­ti­gates some of the in­ter­con­nec­tions be­tween art, ac­tivism and busi­ness. “Don’t hate the media, be­come the media”, was one of the slo­gans of In­dy­media. We are ap­ply­ing this crit­i­cal hands-on per­spec­tive to the busi­ness frame­work. Pre­sen­ters ex­am­ine how artists, rather than re­fus­ing the mar­ket, are pro­duc­ing crit­i­cal in­ter­ven­tions from within. As the dis­tinc­tion be­tween pro­duc­tion and con­sump­tion ap­pears to have col­lapsed, every in­ter­ac­tion in the info-sphere seems to have be­come a busi­ness op­por­tu­nity. There­fore, the cre­ative in­ter­sec­tions be­tween busi­ness and art be­come a cru­cial ter­ri­tory for re-in­ven­tion and the rewrit­ing of sym­bolic and cul­tural codes, gen­er­at­ing po­lit­i­cal ac­tions or so­cial hacks that use a deep level of irony, but also un­ex­pected con­se­quences. The tac­tics demon­strate the per­me­abil­ity of sys­tems — that these can be re­worked — and more so, that rad­i­cal in­no­va­tion re­quires mod­i­fi­ca­tion of the pre­vail­ing busi­ness logic.  The back­drop of the Is­tan­bul Bi­en­nale makes a use­ful ref­er­ence point here as one of the mark­ers along with art fairs in gen­eral for the com­mod­ity ex­change of artis­tic pro­duc­tion. We are not sug­gest­ing these are new is­sues — as there are many ex­am­ples of artists mak­ing in­ter­ven­tions into the art mar­ket and al­ter­na­tives to com­mod­ity ex­change — but we aim to dis­cuss some of the re­cent strate­gies that have emerged from a deep un­der­stand­ing of the net econ­omy and its mar­kets.  The panel ex­plores some of these con­tra­dic­tions: that on the one hand, there are al­ter­na­tive or dis­rup­tive busi­ness mod­els that de­rive from the art scene, often as crit­i­cal or ac­tivist in­ter­ven­tions, but on the other how these prac­tices can be eas­ily co-opted by pro­pri­etary busi­ness logic. This is per­haps ex­em­pli­fied by the busi­ness idea of ‘dis­rup­tion-in­no­va­tion’, where dis­rup­tion is con­sid­ered to be a cre­ative act that shifts the way a par­tic­u­lar logic op­er­ates and thus pre­sents new­found op­por­tu­ni­ties. Does this mean that well-mean­ing crit­i­cal strate­gies of artists and ac­tivists are self-de­feat­ing? How do we de­velop dis­rup­tive busi­ness mod­els that do not sim­ply be­come new mod­els for busi­ness that ul­ti­mately fol­low cap­i­tal­ist logic?  We main­tain there is noth­ing wrong with doing busi­ness as such.

    • Emotion Studies in a Contemporary Art Debate


    • With­out doubt emo­tions are evolv­ing as they are in­flu­enced by cul­ture, con­text and be­hav­iour. David Mat­sumoto (2007) elu­ci­dates these three in­flu­ences on human emo­tion. West­ern and East­ern so­ci­eties have wit­nessed change with the use of new tech­nolo­gies. Will our abil­ity to read emo­tional ex­pres­sions slowly change with the new com­mu­ni­ca­tion sys­tems? Might peo­ple soon no longer be able to read fa­cial ex­pres­sions? With the loss of the abil­ity to read an emo­tion might come too the loss of the ex­pe­ri­ence it­self?  Steven Pinker (2002, p.40) stresses that emo­tions and be­hav­iour al­ways rep­re­sent an “in­ter­nal strug­gle”. It is not merely cul­ture and so­ci­ety that di­rects human be­hav­iour, but the mind has an in­nate sys­tem that gen­er­ates end­less pos­si­bil­i­ties to choose from.  Emo­tions and feel­ings have been stud­ied by some im­por­tant re­searchers in the field, in­clud­ing Dar­win, Dama­sio, LeDoux, and Ekman. The dis­cus­sion can now be ex­panded to in­clude emo­tion re­search and emo­tional re­sponses in Ar­ti­fi­cial In­tel­li­gence, Ar­ti­fi­cial Life, gam­ing in­dus­tries, vir­tual en­vi­ron­ment stud­ies and aug­mented re­al­ity sys­tems.  This re­search forum brings to­gether lead­ing artists and re­searchers in the field of emo­tion stud­ies. Re­searchers/ sci­en­tists/artists and cu­ra­tors will de­bate dig­i­tal art­works that pri­mar­ily ad­dress emo­tions and autism.  I have cho­sen the for­mat of the forum over the panel to allow more de­bate be­tween the speak­ers and the au­di­ence. A 2-3 hour time slot would be per­fect. Ques­tions raised by the panel will cen­tre around how tech­nolo­gies in­flu­ence emo­tional well­be­ing. Pan­elists will be asked to pre­sent a brief 15-minute po­si­tion sum­mary that will then be fol­lowed by dis­cus­sion with fel­low pan­elists, mod­er­a­tors, and the au­di­ence.  The focus of this panel will be more on dis­cus­sion and idea shar­ing and less on paper read­ing.

      New Environmental Art Practices on Landscapes of the Polar Regions; Politics, Emotion and Culture (FARFIELD 1)


    • Ques­tions of sub­jec­tiv­ity re­lated to gen­der, race, emo­tion, and per­cep­tion usu­ally do not fac­tor into think­ing about polar cli­mate sci­ence. This panel ex­plores cli­mate change and the en­vi­ron­ment as well as the land­scapes of the polar re­gions and geopol­i­tics in terms of shifts in aware­ness that in­form how we think about, act about, and set pol­icy for deal­ing with these global re­gions. Pol­i­tics, emo­tion and cul­ture are sig­nif­i­cant in­di­ca­tors for un­der­stand­ing the his­tory and pre­sent uses of the Arc­tic and the Antarc­tic, how sci­ence and data gath­ered in these re­gions is per­ceived today, and the re­sult­ing im­pact on prac­ti­cal pol­icy mat­ters re­lated to cli­mate change. This panel is a com­pan­ion panel to Far Field 2 and takes up some of the same is­sues but em­pha­sizes the con­nec­tion to the colo­nial his­to­ries of these re­gions, the tech­no­log­i­cal in­cor­po­ra­tions of tra­di­tional knowl­edge into data, as well as con­tem­po­rary ap­proaches to art about land­scapes that deal with is­sues of pol­i­tics, emo­tion, and cul­ture. The pa­pers dis­cuss con­tem­po­rary art that chal­lenges nor­ma­tive as­sump­tions about art mak­ing-what form it might take, what ef­fects it might have, and how it might in­cor­po­rate as well as be read as data-in ad­di­tion to how it might change our per­cep­tions of the land­scapes of the polar re­gions. Much of the art­work dis­cussed em­bod­ies a re­la­tion­ship to na­ture not as some­thing to be con­quered, trans­formed, or turned to our ad­van­tage, but as a re­la­tional space that makes us think dif­fer­ently about the en­vi­ron­ment, the fos­sil fuel in­dus­try, cap­i­tal­ism and no­tions of ter­ri­tory.

      The Data Landscapes of Climate Change (FARFIELD 2)


    • In re­cent years the sci­ence and data of cli­mate sci­ence has come under un­prece­dented pub­lic scrutiny. This politi­ciza­tion of cli­mate data, whilst po­ten­tially dan­ger­ous, of­fers op­por­tu­ni­ties for us to re-think our re­la­tion­ships to sci­ence and de­velop dis­cus­sion around in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary art/sci­ence ap­proaches to our chang­ing en­vi­ron­ment. In this spirit the panel will ex­plore how cli­mate data op­er­ates as a so­cial and cul­tural phe­nom­e­non with cre­ative af­for­dances be­yond nor­ma­tive sci­en­tific and in­sti­tu­tional frames and prac­tices. Panel mem­bers from artis­tic and sci­en­tific com­mu­ni­ties will pre­sent col­lab­o­ra­tive pro­jects, the­o­ret­i­cal elab­o­ra­tions and vi­sual and sonic ex­per­i­men­ta­tions that ex­plore the fol­low­ing ques­tions: What data dri­ven ap­proaches to rep­re­sent­ing cli­mate change in the arts exist; what are the fu­ture pos­si­bil­i­ties?

      1. What method­olog­i­cal and con­cep­tual chal­lenges do art/sci­ence col­lab­o­ra­tors using cli­mate data con­front?
      2. Are ex­ist­ing mod­els of col­lab­o­ra­tion use­ful?
      3. How might artists nav­i­gate the op­por­tu­ni­ties and dan­gers faced by the use of cli­mate data?
      4. What is the proper role of such work in the pub­lic dis­courses of cli­mate change?

      From New Media to Old Utopias: ‘Red’ Art in Late Capitalism?


    • From the early stages of its de­vel­op­ment, New Media Art read­ily adopted a va­ri­ety of means of artis­tic en­gage­ment and ex­pres­sion that aim at serv­ing modes of utopian so­cial being: from multi-modal col­lab­o­ra­tion to mass par­tic­i­pa­tion and from open soft­ware to hack­tivism, the germs of left­ist utopian thought seem to abound in the art of the Dig­i­tal Age. It ap­pears that New Media Art in­creas­ingly em­ploys new tech­nolo­gies in order to pen­e­trate all as­pects of global so­cial liv­ing and prop­a­gate such prac­tices as cat­a­lysts for change. It has grad­u­ally be­come part of an ide­ol­ogy whose ob­jec­tives al­lude to utopian the­o­ries of so­cial or­ga­ni­za­tion lying closer to cer­tain vi­sions of com­mu­nism, than to the re­al­i­ties of late cap­i­tal­ism within which new media op­er­ate.

      This panel ses­sion in­tends to in­ves­ti­gate the rel­e­vance of com­mu­nist utopi­anism to New Media Art’s ide­o­log­i­cal dis­po­si­tions, as a start­ing point from which wider po­lit­i­cal, so­cial and cul­tural im­pli­ca­tions of New Media Art could be ex­plored. In this con­text, areas of in­ter­est ad­dressed by the panel’s con­trib­u­tors will, amongst oth­ers, in­clude: Marx­ist the­ory and the dig­i­tal art ob­ject, de­moc­ra­ti­za­tion of art through au­di­ence par­tic­i­pa­tion, lit­eral and metaphor­i­cal rev­o­lu­tion in the realm of new media, eco­nomic ac­tors and net­works shap­ing the char­ac­ter of New Media Art, in­sti­tu­tion­al­iza­tion of New Media Art and re­lated cul­tural poli­cies. Through the syn­the­sis of such di­verse points of view, the ses­sion will at­tempt to de­mys­tify whether and to what ex­tent the art of the Dig­i­tal Age is, or could be, the re­sult of the seem­ingly para­dox com­bi­na­tion of cap­i­tal­ism’s prod­ucts and com­mu­nism’s vi­sions.

      Games Betwixt and Between


    • This panel fo­cuses on some of the most in­ter­est­ing de­vel­op­ments in games and playable media. More specif­i­cally it will look at the re­cent surge in mak­ing in­de­pen­dent games or game-like media art and ar­ti­facts. How does the indie mo­ment in the games in­dus­try in­ter­sect with the rise of in­ter­est in playable media out­side the in­dus­try (art games, game art, games as re­search, em­bod­ied play, new ar­cade games, lo-fi and retro games, diy….)?  Pan­elists will pro­vide a broad overview of cur­rent “gami­ness” but will also be draw­ing on ex­am­ples of their own art/de­sign work. Pa­pers will ad­dress the fol­low­ing types of ques­tions:

      1. The re­la­tion be­tween goal-based and free play mod­els of games/playable media, as well ex­am­ples of de­sign­ing for ap­pro­pri­a­tion. What is the re­la­tion be­tween ex­pres­siv­ity and rules? Whose ex­pres­siv­ity? What does/could it mean to au­thor playable media for ap­pro­pri­a­tion? (Lynn Hughes)
      2. The rise of lo-fi games in the light of V.W Turner’s no­tions of the lim­i­nal & lim­i­noid. Con­tem­po­rary indie prac­tice in the spaces be­tween diy & artgames. (Emma West­e­cott)
      3. How new ar­cade pro­jects draw the play ex­pe­ri­ence out into the ex­hi­bi­tion en­vi­ron­ment. What are artists doing to re-imag­ine games for al­ter­na­tive so­cial con­texts? How can cu­ra­tors en­gage with the de­sign of play -par­tic­u­larly in non-gallery spaces? (Cindy Poremba).
      4. What kind of soft and hard ware con­tributes to a plea­sure ex­pe­ri­ence.? How can we make sure game goals and sen­sual “goals” are mu­tu­ally re­in­forc­ing? How might sex games be a fore­run­ner of other “gam­i­fi­ca­tion” ef­forts where the goal is more than self-ref­er­en­tial en­ter­tain­ment? (Heather Kel­ley)

      How dare you? Acts of Deviance and Strategies of Discreditation


    • A vi­o­la­tion of the norm whether in­tended or by chance en­tails the dan­ger of fac­ing pun­ish­ment ei­ther through law en­force­ment, vi­o­lent re­sponse, stigma­ti­za­tion as ‘de­viant’ or ab­hor­rence by so­ci­ety. Gen­er­ally acts of de­viance mark in­fringe­ments of es­tab­lished pat­terns. How­ever linked to the no­tion of in­tended de­viancy being in fact an al­leged de­viance as an at­tempt to at­tract au­di­ences or con­sumers. De­viancy ap­pears to pos­sess the po­ten­tial be used as a method to gen­er­ate an image, such as giv­ing a brand a dash of re­bel­lious­ness by at­tribut­ing de­viance to it. De­viancy can be em­ployed by oth­ers as a de­scrip­tion, as well as it can be used as a self-de­scrip­tion (for eco­nom­i­cal rea­sons for in­stance). In con­trast to de­viancy that can be used ex­ter­nally and in­ter­nally, dis­cred­i­ta­tion is a per­for­ma­tive act of as­crip­tion by oth­ers. A key in­ten­tion of dis­cred­i­ta­tion seems to be the in­tended dam­age of the ‘good’ rep­u­ta­tion of some­one or some­thing. Dis­cred­i­ta­tion hap­pens on pur­pose. This panel ex­plores dif­fer­ent so­cial for­ma­tions, events, artis­tic en­deav­ours, sites, per­for­ma­tive be­hav­iours and fields of in­quiry that em­ploy strate­gies of dis­cred­i­ti­a­tion. There­fore a wide focus is used to map an un­der­rep­re­sented and di­verse field.

      Hybrid Cultures


    • Hy­brid cul­tures are phe­nom­ena of es­sen­tial con­nec­tions in the pre­sent. They emerge from di­verse and com­plex in­flu­ences. Hy­brid cul­tures are merg­ers that com­bine past and pre­sent, local and translo­cal, space and place and technoscape. Hy­brid­ity is ex­pressed in var­i­ous cul­tural con­texts and in the in-be­tween spaces of arts, media, sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy. Under the sign of the dig­i­tal and the global, hy­brid­ity con­notes a cul­tural man­i­fes­ta­tion of mul­ti­ple ap­pear­ances, as in cy­ber­space and mul­ti­ple selves. We apply the term hy­brid cul­tures to the con­tem­po­rary in­ter-con­nect­ed­ness that de­rives from the tech­no­log­i­cal pos­si­bil­i­ties of merg­ing vir­tual worlds and real life ex­pe­ri­ence and to art prac­tices that in­sti­gate cre­ative in(ter)ven­tion into our global media pre­sent, as well as to sci­en­tific re­search that aims to blur the bound­aries be­tween human and ma­chine,  sci­ence and sci­ence fic­tion. In ap­ply­ing the term hy­brid cul­tures, we pro­pose to dis­cuss a crit­i­cal con­cept of hy­brid­ity that in­ter-re­lates the de­bates and prac­tices of the in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary do­mains of media, cul­tural and aes­thetic the­o­ries.  The scrutiny of dig­i­tal cul­tures as fields of hy­brid in­ter­ac­tion al­lows us to more closely ex­am­ine the cul­tur­ally mixed ex­per­tises that com­bine dif­fer­ent as­pects of the­ory and prac­tice at work, in lo­cally pro­duced and glob­ally dis­trib­uted media forms, and in the con­ver­gence of net­work-based sci­ence and knowl­edge tech­nolo­gies, with cre­ative art prac­tices.  As a start­ing point, we wish to scru­ti­nise the crit­i­cal stance of hy­brid cul­tures: what are the cul­tural ef­fects of hy­brid prac­tices in arts and media, sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy? What kind of fu­sion can pro­mote in­ter-me­dial and in­ter-cul­tural un­der­stand­ing? How can hy­brid cul­tures re­sist cor­po­rate com­mer­cial­i­sa­tion? How can they ben­e­fit from transna­tional, tran­scul­tural, and translo­cal pos­si­bil­i­ties of dig­i­tal com­mu­ni­ca­tion? With re­gard to the plu­ral­ity of media and cul­tures that are promi­nently dis­cussed as hy­brid, the panel en­cour­ages crit­i­cal in­ves­ti­ga­tion of:

      1. the place of the artist, the cul­tural critic, the com­mu­ni­ca­tor and me­di­a­tor of tech­no­log­i­cal change
      2. new forms of col­lab­o­ra­tion be­tween dis­ci­plines and cul­tures
      3. the ex­ten­sion of the con­cept of hy­brid­ity across bor­ders with­out los­ing its iden­tity of cre­ative in­ter­ven­tion into the here and now

      Ques­tions the panel will raise: How much mul­ti­plic­ity and plu­ral­ity do we want and need in glob­ally net­worked com­mu­ni­ca­tion? And what kind of speci­ficity and dif­fer­ence in the midst of blur­ring is nec­es­sary for the iden­tity for­ma­tion of our cul­tures, arts, and sci­ences? How are com­plex re­la­tion­ships be­tween arts and sci­ences and tech­nolo­gies cre­at­ing a new vi­sion of hy­brid cul­tures?

      Hybrid Spatial Experiences


    • Key Areas to be ad­dressed:
      1) Artists use of lo­ca­tion-aware mo­bile com­mu­ni­ca­tion in pub­lic space linked with so­cial media.
      Q How can we as artists ad­e­quately un­der­stand the chang­ing na­ture of  per­va­sive and  mo­bile media?
      2) Artists recre­at­ing a sense of ‘place’ with emer­gent per­va­sive tech­nolo­gies.

      Per­va­sive media is suc­cess­fully en­rich­ing place with in­for­ma­tion and so­cial net­works, but these mes­sages don’t nec­es­sar­ily add artis­tic or so­cial mean­ing to those spaces, thereby cre­at­ing place out of space. We live in a world of lost his­to­ries-artists can re­frame these in new ways for the pub­lic, the prob­lem­atic is how this dif­fers from any tra­di­tional pub­lic art prac­tice.

      Q: If per­va­sive media al­lows the in­for­ma­tional en­rich­ment of space, can we also en­able the pub­lic to do this for them­selves through processes which are not de­ter­mined in a top-down, but in a bot­tom-up man­ner?
      Q: Can the use of per­va­sive media, through such processes, re­veal new as­pects of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion, new pat­terns and dy­nam­ics of ac­tiv­ity within urban space?
      3) A hy­brid spa­tial ex­pe­ri­ence is the re­sult of the use of loca­tive media or aug­mented re­al­ity mo­bile ICTs which af­ford the merg­ing of ma­te­r­ial (space de­ter­mined by ma­te­r­ial el­e­ments) and im­ma­te­r­ial space (de­ter­mined by dig­i­tally pro­duced rep­re­sen­ta­tions).
      Q: In what sense can we ex­am­ine and de­fine the artis­tic af­for­dances of this emer­gent medium?

      If You See Something Say Something: Art, War, Surveillance and the Sustainability of Urgency in the Post 9/11 Era


    • This panel will pro­vide an op­por­tu­nity for the ex­am­i­na­tion of po­lit­i­cally mo­ti­vated, media based prac­tices as we move into the sec­ond decade after the 9/11 at­tacks and the re­sult­ing War on Ter­ror. The in­di­vid­u­als in­volved in this panel have been in­stru­men­tal in defin­ing the use and dis­sem­i­na­tion of tac­ti­cal media prac­tices that have res­onated widely in the cul­tural sphere by con­fronting is­sues of war, mem­ory, ter­ror­ism and sur­veil­lance. The panel pro­vides a cru­cial and timely con­text for these cre­ative prac­ti­tion­ers and noted schol­ars to dis­cuss the ef­fi­cacy of such on­go­ing ef­forts of en­gage­ment in works that seek to in­ter­vene in our con­tem­po­rary po­lit­i­cal con­text. This will be an op­por­tu­nity for crit­i­cal dis­course by these pan­elists and the panel at­ten­dees to con­sider the evo­lu­tion and adap­ta­tion of these ideas in light of the chal­lenges to sus­tain­ing a level of ur­gency in such po­lit­i­cally ac­tivist cre­ative prac­tice – as con­flict, ter­ror and fear have come to typ­ify the sta­tus quo.

      Interart / Intersensorium. On the Interrelation of Media and the Senses


    • In­ter­art Stud­ies has es­tab­lished it­self as a field wherein schol­ars from a va­ri­ety of dis­ci­plines an­a­lyze the in­ter­re­la­tion be­tween dif­fer­ent art forms based on his­tor­i­cally di­ver­gent con­cepts of mono- and in­ter­me­di­al­ity. In­ter­me­di­al­ity, in turn, de­notes in­ter­re­lated strate­gies of dif­fer­ent media de­signs that gen­er­ate new forms of pre­sen­ta­tion and re­cep­tion modes – modes that amount to more than just an ac­cu­mu­la­tion of the media in­volved. To cite one ex­am­ple: the in­te­gra­tion of film/video in some the­atre per­for­mances today merges 3-D-(the stage) and 2-D-(the screen) tech­nolo­gies. This in­ter­re­la­tion not only changes the stage de­sign, but also af­fects the ac­tors’ per­for­mances as they in­ter­act with each other while main­tain­ing vis­i­bil­ity in front of the screen. This si­mul­tane­ity de­mands in­creased at­ten­tion to both nat­ural (the co-ac­tors) and tech­ni­cal media (film/video) – and, by de­fault, the same ap­plies to the re­cep­tion modes of the au­di­ence. Con­se­quently, the no­tion of in­ter­me­di­al­ity com­prises media pre­sen­ta­tion strate­gies and in­ter­sen­so­r­ial per­cep­tion modes.  This new phe­nom­e­non or trend is, as of yet, barely ac­counted for in In­ter­art Stud­ies, ex­cept­ing a few no­table mod­els such as Car­o­line A. Jones’s con­cept of “sen­so­rium” that re­lates sen­so­r­ial per­cep­tion to cul­tural me­di­al­iza­tion. In­ter­sen­so­r­ial per­cep­tion, nonethe­less, is cur­rently emerg­ing as a promi­nent area in var­i­ous dis­ci­plines, show­cas­ing new phe­nom­e­no­log­i­cal ap­proaches. This panel, then, seeks to push this area fur­ther, par­tic­u­larly em­pha­siz­ing the role of media and me­di­al­iza­tion: Brian Mas­sumi’s and Mark Hansen’s work, for ex­am­ple, de­spite its sig­nif­i­cance, con­tin­ues to em­ploy an un­dif­fer­en­ti­ated no­tion of “em­bod­i­ment“ to de­scribe in­ter­sen­so­r­ial per­cep­tion. As a re­sult, they ig­nore the dif­fer­ences of sen­so­r­ial data, which an­chor sense per­cep­tions in di­verse cul­tural con­texts. Ad­di­tion­ally, the me­di­ated and hence cul­tur­ally pre-formed char­ac­ter of sen­sual per­cep­tion is mostly dis­re­garded in favour of a con­cept that em­braces a dif­fuse, im­me­di­ate sens­ing process that seems to be ‘pre-me­dial’ or ‘ex­tra-me­dial’. At its core, and to high­light the cul­tural dif­fer­ences of sen­so­r­ial data, this panel seeks to ad­dress cur­rent re­search un­der­taken by the cog­ni­tive sci­ences to em­pha­size the in­ter­sec­tions of in­ter­art and in­ter­sen­so­rium as processes of per­cep­tion that are in­ter­locked with cul­tural for­ma­tions – a tri­an­gu­lar con­t­a­m­i­na­tion or rec­i­p­ro­cal process much in need of fur­ther ques­tion­ing and ex­am­i­na­tion.

      Interface Play: Media Environments for Ludic Cyborgs


    • This panel of the Ludic In­ter­faces Re­search Group (L.I.R.G.) re­volves around the cur­rent state of re­search into ludic in­ter­faces, i.e. play­ful in­ter­ac­tion spaces, a term that was coined at ISEA2007 and ISEA2008. It will give a work­ing de­f­i­n­i­tion of this core con­cept that is the ker­nel of a new re­search field, map out its de­vel­op­ment and pre­sent state of the art hy­pothe­ses.  The premise of L.I.R.G. is that in­ter­face in­no­va­tions and their prop­a­ga­tion – one only needs to re­mem­ber the ge­neal­ogy of graph­i­cal user in­ter­faces – have their roots in play­ful­ness. Ludic in­ter­faces are con­crete, sit­u­ated in­ter­faces in which the play­ful po­ten­tial in­her­ent in all in­ter­faces man­i­fests it­self. This po­ten­tial stems from the fact that all in­ter­faces are by de­f­i­n­i­tion in­ter­me­di­ary zones that exist be­tween het­ero­ge­neous di­men­sions. This is es­pe­cially true with re­gards to com­puter-based in­ter­faces. Play po­tency is an es­sen­tial qual­ity of the dig­i­tal medium. Not only can it, given the nec­es­sary in­ter­face pro­to­col, con­nect any­thing to any­thing else;  every­thing also be­comes highly mal­leable once it is trans­lated into bi­nary code. Ludic in­ter­faces un­leash the pro­tean pos­si­bil­ity space in­her­ent in pro­gram­ma­ble media. They stand in con­trast to straight in­ter­faces: in­ter­face so­lu­tions that are solely used for a clearly de­fined, util­i­tar­ian pur­pose and tele­o­log­i­cal goal; de­signed from the be­gin­ning to di­rectly en­able the ful­fill­ment of  pro­posed aims, with­out de­vi­a­tions. Ludic in­ter­faces, in con­trast, have a patch­work of mo­ti­va­tional vec­tors that opens up a pos­si­bil­ity space  filled with myr­iad paths lead­ing to­ward goals that don’t have to be clearly de­fined. In short: The panel is in­ter­ested in the mo­ment of in­ven­tion, the mo­ment when the in­ter­ac­tion be­comes play­ful and the in­ter­face a game, and how it can be mo­bi­lized for cre­ative strate­gies.

      Intimate TV: Webcamming & Social Life-logging In the Surveillant-Sousveillant Space


    • For this panel we pro­pose to re­flect upon the prac­tice of dig­i­tal per­for­mance with the use of we­b­cams, ad­dress­ing is­sues of in­ti­macy in the net­work. We­b­cam­ming refers to the use of we­b­cams to stream live from per­sonal en­vi­ron­ments to the in­ter­net, and de­velop life-logs that archive such prac­tices as on­line doc­u­men­ta­tions of the every­day. We­b­cam­ming prac­tices have been the­o­rised with dif­fer­ent re­sults from within the areas of dig­i­tal per­for­mance /cy­ber­for­mance. On the one hand, an his­tor­i­cal ac­count of dig­i­tal per­for­mance equates the use of we­b­cams in the hands of artists with the “sub­ver­sion of sur­veil­lance,” and an ironic ques­tion­ing of we­b­cam’s myths of au­then­tic­ity and im­me­di­acy. The field of cy­ber­for­mance, on the other hand, the­o­rises we­b­cam­ming in the con­text of in­creas­ing on­line par­tic­i­pa­tion, and the types of col­lab­o­ra­tions it fa­cil­i­tates within web 2.0 en­vi­ron­ments. How­ever, none of these analy­ses ad­dresses the in­creas­ing in­ti­macy fa­cil­i­tated by the main­stream use of sur­veil­lance/com­mu­ni­ca­tional  tech­nolo­gies for per­sonal video stream­ing and archiv­ing, or the par­tic­u­lar aes­thetic  and sub­ver­sive spec­ta­to­r­ial  po­si­tions that in­form such in­ti­mate video prac­tices.  Our pro­posal for this panel at­tempts to fill in such gap by look­ing at the ge­neal­ogy of per­sonal video-stream­ing and its place within art re­search on we­b­cam­ming and the sur­veil­lant-sousveil­lant space.

      1. What are the char­ac­ter­is­tics of cy­ber­for­mance in the con­text of net­works of in­ti­macy? What de­fines  its par­tic­u­lar aes­thet­ics and the spec­ta­to­r­ial po­si­tions that in­form such in­ti­mate video prac­tices?
      2. Now that peo­ple’s lives are per­formed for the In­ter­net and dis­trib­uted across mul­ti­ple so­cial net­works as chunks of self-au­thored con­tent, is it still pos­si­ble to sep­a­rate or dis­tin­guish per­for­mance art from the per­for­ma­tive stream of every­one else’s lives?
      3. How is on­line per­for­mance con­cep­tu­alised from a con­tem­po­rary art and media sur­veil­lance-sousveil­lance per­spec­tive?

      La Plissure du Texte


    • Roy As­cott’s ground­break­ing new media art work La Plis­sure du Texte (“The Pleat­ing of the Text”) was cre­ated in 1983 and shown in Paris at the Musée de l’Art mod­erne de la Ville de Paris dur­ing that same year. The title of the pro­ject, “La Plis­sure du Texte: A Plan­e­tary Fairy Tale,” al­ludes to Roland Barthes’s book “Le Plaisir du Texte”, a fa­mous dis­course on au­thor­ship, se­man­tic lay­er­ing, and the cre­ative role of the reader as the writer of the text. In 2010, La Plis­sure du Texte re-in­car­nated as a three di­men­sional, in­ter­ac­tive ar­chi­tec­ture cre­ated in the meta­verse and was pro­jected into Real Life in Seoul, Korea dur­ing the INDAF new media art fes­ti­val held at To­mor­row City, Songdo, In­cheon, through­out Sep­tem­ber 2010. Fol­low­ing As­cott’s orig­i­nal premise of dis­trib­uted au­thor­ship, the fairy tale is now being told by a text dri­ven ar­chi­tec­ture within which a pop­u­la­tion of ro­botic avatars tells the tale through end­lessly gen­er­ated con­ver­sa­tions which are har­vested from the On­line Guten­berg Pro­ject. Ad­di­tion­ally, vis­i­tors to the ex­hibit in the phys­i­cal realm may also con­tribute to the gen­er­ated text flow through SMS mes­sages or via Twit­ter. Thus all pleated text – the gen­er­ated, the con­tributed, and the stored – is si­mul­ta­ne­ously vis­i­ble as a mas­sive, ever evolv­ing lit­er­ary con­glom­er­a­tion. This panel will un­der­take a close scrutiny of La Plis­sure du Texte, tak­ing into ac­count both its cre­ation in 1983 and its re-cre­ation in 2010, dis­cussing the work in its role as a land­mark of New Media Art His­tory as well as an art work which has shown the ca­pa­bil­ity of re­gen­er­at­ing it­self as an en­tirely novel man­i­fes­ta­tion based upon the con­cepts of dis­trib­uted au­thor­ship, tex­tual mo­bil­ity, emer­gent semi­o­sis, mul­ti­ple iden­tity, and par­tic­i­pa­tory poe­sis.

      Mind the Gap


    • MIND THE GAP play­fully al­ludes to trans­porta­tion, but ref­er­ences bor­ders and gaps of all kinds: ge­o­graphic, so­cial, and eco­nomic. This panel dis­cus­sion is aimed at in­ves­ti­gat­ing the var­i­ous ways con­tem­po­rary art is ad­dress­ing is­sues of eco­nomic and cul­tural glob­al­iza­tion, and urban mi­gra­tion within the artis­tic and so­cio-po­lit­i­cal tra­di­tions of Is­tan­bul and Turkey. MIND THE GAP pre­sent pa­pers and dis­cus­sions from in­ter­na­tional artists and schol­ars in re­ac­tion to the con­cepts of cap­i­tal­ism, con­sumerism and cul­tural im­pe­ri­al­ism, and the ways that we ne­go­ti­ate in­di­vid­ual and col­lec­tive iden­tity. MIND THE GAP draws from Nicholas Bour­ri­aud’s no­tion of the al­ter­mod­ern, which of­fers a new vi­sion of the mod­ern in which ideas of iden­tity are fluid rather than rooted in our ori­gins. With this spirit, MIND THE GAP asks the fol­low­ing ques­tions:

      1. In the face of global eco­nomic and en­vi­ron­men­tal crises, what op­tions do we have for a new vi­sion?
      2. What does na­tion­al­ity mean in a ho­mog­e­nized world in which multi­na­tional chain cor­po­ra­tions are on every street cor­ner in every cor­ner of the globe?
      3. How have our de­f­i­n­i­tions of place been al­tered by the tech­nolo­gies we use every day?
        “MIND THE GAP” in­ves­ti­gates the pos­si­bil­i­ties of con­tem­po­rary art prac­tices to shed light on and af­fect the po­lit­i­cal and so­cio-eco­nomic forces at work on local and global lev­els.

      Motion Capture and Dance: what it can do, what it can’t do, and what it should never attempt


    • Mo­tion cap­ture analy­sis of­fers dance new pos­si­bil­i­ties for re-con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing move­ment in ways that are not in­tu­itive, and not based on the tra­di­tions and in­grained move­ment gram­mars of spe­cific dance gen­res and styles. Look­ing at dance as mo­tion cap­ture data can pro­voke a more rad­i­cal de­con­struc­tion of ex­ist­ing move­ment dis­courses than is oth­er­wise pos­si­ble given the deep cor­po­real in­scrip­tions em­bed­ded in dancers’ and chore­o­g­ra­phers’ bod­ies. The flip side is that the vast vol­ume and de­tail of data mo­tion cap­ture gen­er­ates means that the pos­si­ble map­pings and or­ga­ni­za­tional par­a­digms mul­ti­ply ex­po­nen­tially.  De­cid­ing what to high­light and what to value, and what to con­sider ‘noise’ and ig­nore, is a crit­i­cal part of mo­tion cap­ture analy­sis. This in­escapable re­duc­tion­ism is also, how­ever, the an­tithe­sis of artis­tic method, which val­ues the whole, the ac­ci­den­tal, the in­clu­sive. Analy­sis forces choices based on value judg­ments, which have the po­ten­tial to dis­tort and close down, as much as open up and ex­plore, dance re­search.  The panel will use a round-table for­mat to ad­dress:

      1. What aes­thetic and cul­tural choices are em­bed­ded in mo­tion cap­ture analy­sis?
      2. What are the ben­e­fits and pit­falls of using mo­tion cap­ture to analyse and cre­ate dance?
      3. What ex­am­ples are there of trans­lat­ing mo­tion cap­ture analy­sis into new chore­o­graphic works?
      4. How can mo­tion cap­ture analy­sis in­form live in­ter­ac­tive per­for­mance?



    • Rather than con­sid­er­ing the aes­thet­ics of art and music as a way of ap­proach­ing an un­der­stand­ing of per­cep­tion and brain func­tion, Neu­roArts em­pha­sizes the di­rect use of Neu­ro­sci­en­tific mod­els and ma­te­ri­als in artis­tic prac­tice. In Neu­roArts, neu­rons and neu­ronal mod­els are ex­am­ined out­side of the body/brain em­pha­siz­ing an artis­tic-en­gi­neer­ing ap­proach with ei­ther the phys­i­cal ma­te­r­ial of brain, or the adap­ta­tion of bi­o­log­i­cal mod­els of spik­ing neu­rons. In using mod­els of spik­ing neu­rons within art, sound and music, the in­ter­nal struc­ture of the brain be­comes ex­ter­nal, its plas­tic­ity ex­posed, its path­ways and net­works mal­leable. This gives us a stand­point from which to crit­i­cally en­gage and ques­tion multi-scale con­cepts such as the im­por­tance of the cell, net­work topol­ogy and plas­tic­ity, self-hood, mem­ory and con­scious­ness. The first In­ter­na­tional Neu­roArts con­fer­ence out­lin­ing the new sub­ject area which took place in Feb­ru­ary 2011 at Uni­ver­sity of Ply­mouth. Neu­roArts at ISEA de­vel­ops key themes from the first In­ter­na­tional Neu­roArts Con­fer­ence, and will con­sider two main themes:

      1. Philoso­phies of scale within Neu­roArts: from the scale of the sin­gle cell to the meso­scopic scale of brain em­u­la­tions through to emer­gent large-scale phe­nom­ena in­clud­ing self-hood and con­scious­ness.
      2. What are the re­la­tion­ships be­tween plas­tic­ity, stim­u­la­tion and fir­ing pat­terns in small brain cir­cuits? And, how can their adap­ta­tion in artis­tic pro­jects along­side synap­tic plas­tic­ity, and cel­lu­lar topolo­gies be ex­ploited to make adap­tive art?

      We hope that the ex­plo­rations of these themes will help to de­fine the bound­aries of this new sub­ject within an in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary en­vi­ron­ment.

      New Media Archives- New Intelligent Ambiances


    • This panel pre­sents a dig­i­tal art archives in­ves­ti­ga­tion high­light­ing the use of in­tel­li­gent sys­tems ap­pli­ca­tions in con­ser­va­tion, re­trieval, in­dex­ing or ac­cess forms re­lated to the artis­tic ob­ject ma­nip­u­la­tion. The main goal of the dis­cus­sion is to de­fine pa­ra­me­ters for non lin­ear sys­tems on the new media art in­for­ma­tion treat­ment. The prin­ci­ples for an in­tel­li­gent ma­chine and friendly in­ter­face to archives am­biance is still a the­ory. How­ever, the ap­pli­ca­tion of this con­cept on cur­rent plat­forms is a healthy mech­a­nism of tran­si­tion from lin­ear and se­man­tic struc­tures to a sym­bolic, non lin­ear and fuzzy logic sys­tem. Ma­chines do not have the cog­ni­tive de­vel­op­ment of hu­mans. They do not de­velop con­scious­ness or in­ten­tion­al­ity pred­i­cates yet. Nowa­days, the in­tel­li­gent ma­chine ap­pli­ca­tions aren’t sep­a­rated from human acts. These non lin­ear sys­tems and re­la­tions work as a frac­tal com­ple­ment for re­search and knowl­edge. Mem­ory is con­sid­ered not only by the pre­vi­ous con­tent in­dexed on the archive, but also by the in­ter­locu­tor’s ac­tions and per­cep­tions. To dis­cuss muse­ol­ogy, data­base sys­tems, data vi­su­al­iza­tion, artis­tic process and other themes by the lens of the mem­ory, this panel fo­cuses on doc­u­men­ta­tion tools and con­cepts to un­der­stand the ar­ti­fi­cial in­tel­li­gence ap­plic­a­bil­ity in elec­tronic and dig­i­tal art con­ser­va­tion. The panel pro­po­nent FILE elec­tronic lan­guage in­ter­na­tional fes­ti­val is a non­profit cul­tural or­ga­ni­za­tion that pro­motes a re­flec­tion on the main is­sues in the con­tem­po­rary elec­tronic-dig­i­tal global con­text, al­ways keep­ing a trans­dis­ci­pli­nary vi­sion in the cul­tural man­i­fes­ta­tions com­plex­ity of our time. The FILE ini­tia­tive of doc­u­men­ta­tion oc­curs since its first edi­tion, in 2000. Al­ter­na­tive tac­tics are used to keep the archive up­dated with dif­fer­ent plat­forms to cover all its con­tents. Mech­a­nisms of tran­si­tion to in­tel­li­gent sys­tems arise as a so­lu­tion to FILE Archive doc­u­men­ta­tion and ac­cess. Cre­at­ing op­por­tu­ni­ties for dis­cus­sions in this area and share with other ini­tia­tives such as ISEA event will con­tribute to en­large the dig­i­tal con­ser­va­tion knowl­edge.

      New Media Art Education in Central and Eastern Europe in the Last Two Decades: experiments and transition


    • The panel will dis­cuss how the changes in East­ern and Cen­tral Eu­rope have in­flu­enced the art ed­u­ca­tional sys­tem there dur­ing the last twenty years, with par­tic­u­lar ref­er­ence to ed­u­ca­tion in the new media field. The rea­son for choos­ing such a seem­ingly broad timescale is to in­clude the ‘fi­nal­i­sa­tion’ of the po­lit­i­cal and eco­nom­i­cal in­te­gra­tion of some post-So­viet coun­tries (like Es­to­nia) into the Eu­ro­pean Union whilst con­trast­ing this with ex­am­ples like Be­larus, which have be­come (or re­mained) more au­to­cratic and closed. One par­tic­u­lar point of in­ter­est is the change in the un­der­stand­ing and in­ter­pre­ta­tion of ‘new media art’ dur­ing the last two decades, partly due to the dif­fer­ent tech­nolo­gies and spe­cial­i­ties that this field of prac­tice en­com­passes.

      1. Twenty years of change: in the po­lit­i­cal sys­tem, art par­a­digms, tech­nolo­gies and ways of think­ing
      2. Travel and tran­si­tion: ex­ported artists and im­ported ideas
      3. The tran­si­tion from arte­fact-based artis­tic prac­tice to process-based and non-ma­te­r­ial art
      4. The sim­i­lar­i­ties and dif­fer­ences be­tween ‘West’ and ‘East’ men­tal­i­ties
      5. Ini­tia­tives, cen­tres, de­part­ments and in­sti­tu­tions of new media and ed­u­ca­tion
      6. Re­sources, fund­ing, fi­nan­cial prac­tices, gov­ern­men­tal sup­port, busi­ness schemes for pro­duc­ing and ex­hibit­ing new media
      7. Changes in the art ed­u­ca­tion sys­tem: from tra­di­tional and man­ual fine arts prac­tices to me­di­ated and tech­no­log­i­cal ed­u­ca­tion
      8. Dif­fer­ent net­works fo­cused on the or­gan­i­sa­tion, the­ory, and prac­tice of tech­no­log­i­cal art

      On the Persistence of Hardware


    • The sur­face of elec­tronic utopia is al­ways ma­te­r­ial.  Should a utopian no­tion ap­pear here for you to read, it would ap­pear on a hard sup­port which has had to be built, con­structed or oth­er­wise fab­ri­cated.  There­fore utopia is not just ‘con­tent’, imag­i­na­tion, ideas. Utopia al­ways has its ma­te­r­ial coun­ter­part which is today al­ways pred­i­cated on global in­dus­trial processes.  Any ap­pre­ci­a­tion of the eman­ci­pa­tory promise of elec­tronic media must in­te­grate a sober reck­on­ing of the in­tractable dif­fi­cul­ties on the ma­te­r­ial level of the tech­nol­ogy which should gen­er­ate this. This panel will take Kit­tler’s “There is no soft­ware” (Kit­tler 1995) to its eth­i­cal ex­treme, delv­ing the shad­ow­lands be­hind the bril­liance of elec­tronic cre­ativ­ity, to­wards an­other, par­al­lel and sym­bi­otic  cre­ativ­ity rooted in the sub­stances. The per­sis­tence of the ma­te­ri­al­ity of our world, and of the media we use to un­der­stand it, may be taken for granted, but mer­its more at­ten­tion.  De­spite the enor­mous power un­leashed by our imag­i­na­tions through tech­ni­cal, sci­en­tific in­stru­ments, we, as human be­ings still exist es­sen­tially on a local and so­cial level.  There is an every-grow­ing dis­crep­ancy of scale be­tween that of our em­pir­i­cal ex­pe­ri­ence and that of the ori­gin of the tech­ni­cal in­stru­ments we use to un­der­stand and gain pur­chase over it. Our em­pir­i­cal ex­pe­ri­ence of the world is in­creas­ingly being sub­sti­tuted or un­der­mined by tech­no­log­i­cally-in­formed ideas, sup­ported by tech­no­log­i­cally-gen­er­ated man­i­fes­ta­tions, which offer us mul­ti­ple si­mul­ta­ne­ous lev­els of fac­tu­al­ity.  When we forego the in­stan­ta­neous­ness and sub­tlety of using our own senses to ap­pre­hend the world,  we are re­warded with a more in­for­ma­tional and dis­crete ex­pe­ri­ence, which promises us ac­cess and agency in hereto­fore se­cret and un­know­able realms of so­cia­bil­ity.  The sat­is­fac­tion of this com­pro­mise is al­ways pred­i­cated on the promise that the tech­nol­ogy will im­prove.  In other words, though fun­da­men­tal ques­tions re­main un­re­solved even in today’s light-speed knowl­edge econ­omy, the dis­quiet these have his­tor­i­cally pro­duced is as­suaged by the trust that the sup­ple­men­tary tech­niques are being im­proved.  Mean­while there emerge com­fort­ing al­le­gories of na­ture it­self being a kind of com­puter, with an (even­tu­ally) in­ter­pretable co­her­ent sys­tem based on codes (Roof 2007).  There is an ex­pected ex­po­nen­tial curve of the ‘im­prove­ment’ of the tech­nolo­gies we use to un­der­stand our world. How­ever, as we know, such curves never reach the as­ymp­tote, the truth. We will al­ways be ap­prox­i­mat­ing for noise and in­ac­cu­racy, we will al­ways need other knowl­edge sys­tems to com­pen­sate for the in­suf­fi­cien­cies of techno-truth.  Ad­di­tion­ally, the ma­te­ri­al­ity of the com­put­ing tech­nol­ogy on which all our fluc­tu­at­ing self-per­cep­tion is pred­i­cated is not, it­self, so im­per­cep­ti­ble and vague. The phys­i­cal tech­nol­ogy of the com­puter or the sen­sor or the  net­work orig­i­nates in the stuff of the earth, it must be mined or gath­ered or oth­er­wise ac­quired, not by ma­chines alone, but by or­ga­ni­za­tions of peo­ple.  There are peo­ple all the way down the chains of pro­duc­tion of the com­puter from the fin­ished prod­uct pro­vid­ing us with truth through the var­i­ous fac­to­ries and labs back to the earth.   All along this com­plex pro­duc­tion process we have a ‘paper trail’ of human facts, a new re­source of truth-data, that of the human con­di­tions of the pro­duc­tion of tech­no­log­i­cal truth.  In this panel we will dis­cuss  is­sues that arise on the hori­zon of an in­fi­nite pur­chase on uni­ver­sal ma­te­ri­al­ity promised by sci­en­tific in­no­va­tion.  We will in­ves­ti­gate the del­i­cate tax­onomies and con­ven­tions which at­tempt to ar­tic­u­late and evoke these is­sues (Gal­i­son & Das­ton 2007),  (Roof 2007) , Nan­otech­nol­ogy promises a made-to-or­der syn­thetic re­al­ity (Feyn­man 1959) Data-vi­su­al­iza­tion com­press human cul­ture into pat­terned maps (Manovich, 2010), the fine arts and the “hu­man­i­ties” strug­gle to mea­sure up to the mean­ing pro­duc­tion of the sci­en­tific arts, re­sult­ing in politi­ciza­tion (Ly­otard 1985, La­tour & Weibel 2005, Gillick 2009, etc.)  and sur­ren­der (Nigten 2011, etc.). Our love in­ter­est  in the ma­te­r­ial of the earth has been re­vealed by sci­ence to be rather child­ish. As a species, we seem to ad­vance at a snail’s pace com­pared to the ma­chines we have brought forth.  Our cur­rent epoch may fea­ture some of our species’ first hints of its ma­tu­rity, with its ex­i­gen­cies and re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and the first fore­tastes of its de­cline.  Human art, cre­ativ­ity and imag­i­na­tion has tra­di­tion­ally been lo­cated in a no­tion of eter­nal child­hood.  Our hard­ware com­pels us to imag­ine a new, more ma­ture cre­ativ­ity.

      1.    Feyn­man, Richard, There’s Plenty of Room at the Bot­tom, Cal­tech En­gi­neer­ing and Sci­ence, Vol­ume 23:5, Feb­ru­ary 1960, pp 22-36.
      2.    Gal­i­son, Peter & Das­ton, Lor­raine, Ob­jec­tiv­ity, Zone Books, Brook­lyn, 2008
      3.    Gillick, Liam, Maybe it would be bet­ter if we worked in Groups of Three?, Eflux Jour­nal, Vol. 3, 2009,
      4.    Kit­tler, Friedrich, There is No Soft­ware, Cthe­ory Ar­ti­cle: a032, Date Pub­lished: 10/18/1995 Arthur and Mar­ilouise Kro­ker, Ed­i­tors
      5.    La­tour, Bruno & Weibel, Peter, Mak­ing Things Pub­lic, MIT Press,  Cam­bridge, 2005
      6.    Ly­otard, François, Les Immatériaux, Cen­tre de Création In­dus­trielle Cen­tre Georges Pom­pi­dou, Paris, 1985
      7., 2011
      8.    Nigten, Anne, et al, Process Patch­ing,
      9.    Roof, Ju­dith, the Po­et­ics of DNA, Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota Press, Min­nesota, 2007

      Open Culture + Wearables


    • This panel will in­ves­ti­gate the in­flu­ence and im­por­tance of open cul­ture on wear­ables pro­duc­tion, dis­sem­i­na­tion and tech­no­log­i­cal craft­ing. Unit­ing prac­ti­tion­ers in the field of wear­ables who have worked on and with on­line plat­forms, open work­shop events, pub­li­ca­tions, hack spaces, uni­ver­sity class­rooms and media labs to ad­vance the pro­lif­er­a­tion of the craft of wear­ables, the panel will pre­sent case stud­ies for the spe­cific in­te­gra­tion of open cul­ture in the pro­duc­tion and dis­sem­i­na­tion of wear­ables. The im­por­tance of DIY, open plat­forms, col­lab­o­ra­tive de­sign prac­tices and hack­ing in the ad­vance­ment of com­pu­ta­tional cou­ture has been key in prop­a­gat­ing the prac­tice and re­search into main­stream media, aca­d­e­mic cur­ricu­lums, arts and new media fes­ti­vals and pub­li­ca­tions. The hy­brid prac­tice of wear­ables – com­bin­ing techno-sci­en­tific knowhow with the skill of cou­ture fab­ri­ca­tion – pre­sents ex­cit­ing chal­lenges to both unique fields, en­cour­ag­ing the cross-pol­li­na­tion of artis­tic and sci­en­tific do­mains. There are good ar­gu­ments as to why wear­ables are closely aligned with the grow­ing move­ment of open de­sign prac­tices. To being with, Jo­hanna Blak­ley has ar­gued that fash­ion is pred­i­cated on “free cul­ture”, i.e. that the his­tory of fash­ion points to bor­row­ing, remix­ing, and re-in­vent­ing known pat­terns and meth­ods. Other de­sign­ers, such as Otto von Busch in his book Fash­ion-able, have looked at hack­ing cul­ture as a way of cre­at­ing an en­try-point into the often closed com­mer­cial sys­tem of the world of fash­ion. Open de­sign con­cepts stem from two main im­pe­tuses – a) the de­sire to make things “open” and com­mer­cially free and b) the need for mul­ti­ple in­puts from many par­tic­i­pants to de­velop com­plex sys­tems (i.e. a soft­ware). It could be ar­gued that open de­sign will be­come a facet of all tech­no­log­i­cal pro­duc­tion and dis­sem­i­na­tion as the added value of mul­ti­ple par­tic­i­pants be­comes un­de­ni­able. Open Cul­ture + Wear­ables asks: How can open cul­ture be use­ful to the field of wear­ables?

      Patchwork Panel: Conceptualising Seams that Separate and Stitch Together


    • The panel will ex­plore how mean­ing is cre­ated through the process of ar­rang­ing and re-ar­rang­ing frag­ments; how mean­ing is cre­ated through patches and quilt­ing. Our pro­posed for­mat is a patch­work panel, i.e. a con­ver­sa­tion be­tween knowl­edge­able peo­ple through story patch­work quilt­ing. The pan­elists, and other in­vited guests, pre­pare ”text-patches” as notes or re­minders of what to say. These text-patches – in paper or tex­tile in A4 for­mat – can have im­ages, con­cepts, words writ­ten or stitched on them. The text-patches are put on the floor in front of the au­di­ence. The work­ings of the sem­i­nar is such that none of the pan­elists can as­sume to put down all of the patches in her own pre­ferred order as this patch­work sem­i­nar for­mat pre­sup­poses that any­one could con­tinue on the thread of thoughts put down on the floor, and thus cre­at­ing a new pat­tern. Also, the au­di­ence is in­vited in­ter­act and in­ter­vene by putting down its own text-patches on the floor.

      1. In­tro­duc­tion of the pan­elists.
      2. Lind­ström and Ståhl in­tro­duce the idea of the patch­work sem­i­nar and hand out A4-pa­pers to the au­di­ence.
      3. Lind­ström and Ståhl put down the first patch: to tell sto­ries of an SMS-em­broi­dery feuil­leton writ­ten in gallery Krets in 2009. SMS-em­broi­dery feuil­leton is a way of telling sto­ries to­gether in what we call an ed­i­to­r­ial sewing cir­cle.
      4. Melin sit­u­ates text-mes­sage em­broi­dery in the con­text of ed­i­to­r­ial boards, and refers media pro­duc­tion stud­ies.
      5. Rosen­qvist sit­u­ates the text-mes­sage em­broi­dery in the con­text of tra­di­tional sewing cir­cles with ref­er­ences to art-his­tory.
      6. The ac­tual patch-work sem­i­nar opens up with pan­elists and the au­di­ence putting down patches.
      7. At the end, the bunch of patches on the floor can be stitched/glued to­gether and kept as a doc­u­men­ta­tion of the patch­work sem­i­nar.
      8. The patches could be­come part of a fu­ture quilt.

      Pervasive Media: Practice, Value, Culture


    • Per­va­sive media is a new and de­vel­op­ing field; com­mis­sion­ers, brands, clients, fund­ing bod­ies often have dif­fi­culty grasp­ing its po­ten­tial. Very few media pro­fes­sion­als, let alone mem­bers of the pub­lic, un­der­stand what Per­va­sive Media is, or could be­come. We are at a new fron­tier. New, per­va­sive, ubiq­ui­tous and mo­bile tech­nolo­gies promise us an ever more con­nected world and the pos­si­bil­ity to ac­cess ever more de­tailed in­for­ma­tion about con­text. Al­though these promises con­tain dras­tic changes to media and tech­nol­ogy, they don’t en­gage with the nec­es­sary changes to the prac­tices of media pro­duc­tion, dis­tri­b­u­tion, tech­nol­ogy cre­ation and the com­mer­cial and prac­ti­cal re­al­i­ties that could make these promises a re­al­ity. These will be dras­ti­cally game chang­ing; cre­at­ing new busi­ness pos­si­bil­i­ties, whilst mak­ing oth­ers ob­so­lete. These promises, and changes, will be crit­i­cally ad­dressed dur­ing this panel. Per­va­sive ex­pe­ri­ences also re­quire a new, and sig­nif­i­cantly more di­verse, set of skills to im­ple­ment. This in­cludes a wide va­ri­ety of media pro­duc­tion, tech­ni­cal skills and busi­ness acu­men. How­ever at this pe­riod of de­vel­op­ment prac­ti­tion­ers from widely vary­ing fields in art, de­sign, and tech­nol­ogy find lit­tle time, or com­mon ground, to re­flect on their prac­tice. This ses­sion will draw on re­sults from work­shops and events where the pan­el­lists have pro­vided space for re­flec­tion and dis­cus­sion amongst prac­ti­tion­ers in this emer­gent field. There are new, and dif­fer­ent, re­la­tion­ships be­tween de­sign­ers, com­mis­sion­ers and those using these new ex­pe­ri­ences. New equa­tions for value are emerg­ing, which are dif­fer­ent from those within more tra­di­tional medi­ums. What is the value, in per­va­sive ex­pe­ri­ences, to all these dif­fer­ent stake­hold­ers? Why is it worth doing, what does every­one get out of it and why do they enjoy it? The dis­cus­sions will be fun­da­men­tally grounded in the ecolo­gies of value that pro­vide per­spec­tive on these is­sues. This panel is as­sem­bled from the net­work of re­searchers and prac­ti­tion­ers who pro­vide prac­ti­cal and the­o­ret­i­cal per­spec­tives to The Per­va­sive Media Stu­dio. The Stu­dio is an or­gan­i­sa­tion that cre­ates space and op­por­tu­ni­ties for this emer­gent field of per­va­sive media, en­cour­ag­ing col­lab­o­ra­tion across bound­aries, ex­per­i­men­ta­tion, re­flec­tion and analy­sis. It draws in a di­verse com­mu­nity of artists, cre­ative com­pa­nies, tech­nol­o­gists and aca­d­e­mics.

      Playing for Keeps: Social Empowerment Through Physically Interactive Artworks


    • This panel will pre­sent and dis­cuss meth­ods for cre­at­ing spon­ta­neous play­ful phys­i­cal and so­cial in­ter­ac­tion. The focus is on deep user in­ter­ac­tion with art­works using phys­i­cal com­put­ing meth­ods with an em­pha­sis on the con­struc­tion of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion within the group of par­tic­i­pants. What are the con­tex­tual and prac­ti­cal de­sign re­lated thresh­olds for will­ing­ness to in­ter­act and how can par­tic­i­pants be stim­u­lated to en­gage with the art­work? Does fa­mil­iar­ity with art, toys, com­puter games or music help to lower thresh­olds to un­der­stand­ing the in­ter­ac­tion? How does age, gen­der or cul­tural back­ground af­fect will­ing­ness to par­tic­i­pate in a dy­namic tem­po­rary com­mu­nity of pres­ence? The cre­ation of deep user in­ter­ac­tion with and through the art­works maybe in­sti­gated via novel ap­proaches to in­ter­face or by fresh ways of pre­sent­ing the art work to the viewer/par­tic­i­pants within the con­text of the art in­sti­tu­tion or in Pub­lic space. As tech­nol­ogy be­comes ubiq­ui­tous in so­ci­ety, artists no longer have to ex­plic­itly pro­claim their use of com­pu­ta­tional tech­niques; rather the so­cial and po­lit­i­cal con­text of the art­work takes cen­tre stage. Strate­gies used in­clude in­ter­ac­tive in­stal­la­tions such as multi-touch screens, bouncy cas­tles, and phys­i­cal in­ter­faces, as well as in­ter­ac­tion through mo­bile net­works and lo­ca­tion based de­vices. For each of our pan­elists the pres­ence and in­ter- re­la­tion­ships of in­di­vid­ual hu­mans is the cen­tral mo­ti­vat­ing fac­tor. Each will ad­dress these ques­tions from dif­fer­ent view­points, of­fer­ing ex­am­ples from their own work for dis­cus­sion.

      Playing the non-playful: On the critical potential of play at the overlap of videogames and electronic art


    • This panel pulls to­gether in­sights from game stud­ies, game de­sign, aes­thet­ics and new media the­ory to ex­am­ine the elu­sive con­cept of “play”. We as­sume com­mon base­line in the dis­tinc­tion be­tween play­ful­ness and playa­bil­ity, and trace the sig­nif­i­cance of these con­cepts to the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the player and the game. We look at the op­por­tu­ni­ties for self-dis­cov­ery, ex­is­ten­tial re­flec­tion and po­lit­i­cal and cul­tural cri­tique within this re­la­tion­ship. This panel, in­volv­ing ex­am­ples from the fringe ter­ri­tory be­tween com­mer­cial en­ter­tain­ment and artis­tic en­deav­ors, con­tributes to a re-po­si­tion­ing of com­puter games in re­la­tion to elec­tronic art, and fur­thers the de­vel­op­ment of crit­i­cal strate­gies for chart­ing the aes­thetic ter­ri­tory be­tween art, tech­nol­ogy and en­ter­tain­ment.

      Public Art of the Sustainable City


    • As we en­deavor to ex­tri­cate civ­i­liza­tion from fos­sil fuel de­pen­dence, the ex­is­ten­tial de­bate over the pur­pose of art de­serves re­newed at­ten­tion in the con­text of nat­ural ecol­ogy and human con­sump­tion. Is it pos­si­ble for works of pub­lic art to con­tribute ac­tively to the so­lu­tion to the prob­lems that con­front us? Can in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary art in­spire, through ex­am­ple, the type of so­cial change re­quired to sig­nif­i­cantly re­duce the neg­a­tive im­pact of human con­sump­tion on the planet? Pa­pers pre­sented will pre­sent ex­am­ples of pro­jects at var­i­ous scales that seek to ad­dress eco­log­i­cal is­sues, be­yond di­dac­tic ex­pres­sion, through the in­cor­po­ra­tion of tech­nol­ogy. This panel dis­cus­sion will ad­dress the con­tin­uum of pub­lic art, clean en­ergy prece­dents, and con­tem­po­rary tech­nolo­gies. Within this frame­work we will out­line and il­lus­trate the po­ten­tial that in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary teams and com­mu­ni­ties around the world have to ex­pand both the di­a­logue and ac­tual change.

      Queer Viralities: Resistant Practices in New Media Art & Philosophy


    • The in­ten­si­fi­ca­tion and pro­lif­er­a­tion of global con­nec­tiv­ity has opened dig­i­tal net­worked cul­ture to uni­ver­sal con­ta­gion. In­deed, it has been ar­gued we now live in a viral ecol­ogy under the sign of viral cap­i­tal­ism. As vi­ral­i­ties spread into var­i­ous realms of cul­ture, new media artists ex­plore the viral as that which has the abil­ity to con­trol and re­strict as well as dis­trib­ute and lib­er­ate. Our cur­rent viral ecol­ogy has opened up new tac­tics of re­sis­tance for var­i­ous artists, ac­tivists, and cul­tural pro­duc­ers. In this panel, we will focus on queer new media art and phi­los­o­phy that uses and in­ter­venes into the viral to form a rad­i­cal pol­i­tics of re­volt and utopia. The viral will be en­gaged with tech­ni­cally, philo­soph­i­cally, ar­tis­ti­cally, bi­o­log­i­cally, and af­fec­tively. Our aim is to show that while viral rhetoric and dis­courses have mar­gin­al­ized and con­trolled queer pop­u­la­tions, the viral re­mains an al­lu­sive, volatile po­ten­tial that can be ex­per­i­mented with to­ward cre­at­ing new queer pol­i­tics and worlds. Blas, Cárde­nas, and Mehrmand will give the­o­ret­i­cal artist talks, and Skanse will fol­low with a philo­soph­i­cal re­sponse to the viral in media the­ory. Cárde­nas and Mehrmand will dis­cuss their cur­rent col­lab­o­ra­tion virus.?cirus, an episodic se­ries of per­for­mances using wear­able elec­tron­ics and live audio to bridge vir­tual and phys­i­cal spaces that ex­plores queer fu­tures of latex sex­u­al­ity amidst a spec­u­la­tive world of virus hys­te­ria and DIY med­i­cine. Blas will speak on new works from his on­go­ing Queer Tech­nolo­gies pro­ject that at­tempt to for­mu­late a viral aes­thet­ics based on a repli­cat­ing dif­fer­ence of never-be­ing-the-same­ness against cap­i­tal’s own mod­u­lat­ing struc­ture. Skanse will ad­dress new di­rec­tions in viral phi­los­o­phy with par­tic­u­lar con­cern for how this per­pet­ual ‘move­ment’ of the virus is tied to no­tions of nov­elty within con­tem­po­rary aes­thetic dis­course.

      Re-rooting Digital Culture: Media Art Ecologies


    • Over the last decade the aware­ness of an­thro­pogenic cli­mate change has emerged in par­al­lel with hy­per-con­nec­tive dig­i­tal net­works. In the con­text of en­vi­ron­men­tal and eco­nomic col­lapse peo­ple around the world are seek­ing al­ter­na­tive vi­sions of pros­per­ity and sus­tain­able ways of liv­ing. While the legacy of the car­bon fu­eled In­dus­trial Rev­o­lu­tion plays it­self out, we find our­selves grap­pling with ques­tions about the fu­ture im­pli­ca­tions of fast-evolv­ing global dig­i­tal in­fra­struc­ture. By their very na­ture the new tools, net­works and be­hav­iours of pro­duc­tiv­ity, ex­change and co­op­er­a­tion be­tween hu­mans and ma­chines grow and de­velop at an ac­cel­er­ated rate. The rhetoric, aes­thet­ics, tech­nics and as­so­ci­ated eth­i­cal ques­tions of dig­i­tal cul­ture are fun­da­men­tally chang­ing so­cial re­la­tions as well as the na­ture of our ma­te­r­ial ex­is­tence. The ideas for this in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary panel have grown out of Fur­ther­field’s Media Art Ecolo­gies pro­gramme and will ex­plore the re­la­tion­ship be­tween dig­i­tal cul­ture and cli­mate change, de­vel­op­ing themes adopted in grass-roots, emerg­ing and es­tab­lished prac­tices in art, de­sign, ac­tivism and sci­ence. Pan­elists are artists and ac­tivists whose prac­tices ad­dress the in­ter­re­la­tion of tech­no­log­i­cal and nat­ural processes: be­ings and things, in­di­vid­u­als and mul­ti­tudes, mat­ter and pat­terns. They take an eco­log­i­cal ap­proach that chal­lenges growth eco­nom­ics and techno-con­sumerism and at­tends to the na­ture of co-evolv­ing, in­ter­de­pen­dent en­ti­ties and con­di­tions; they they ac­ti­vate net­works (dig­i­tal, so­cial, phys­i­cal) to work with eco­log­i­cal themes and Free and Open processes.

      Secure Insecurity


    • The ob­ses­sion of se­cu­rity. What is the basis of se­cu­rity? Its ab­sence. Noth­ing needs to be se­cured, ex­cept the se­cu­rity it­self. Se­cu­rity is a fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of state  and main cri­te­rion of po­lit­i­cal le­git­imiza­tion. Se­cu­rity vs. dis­ci­pline and law as in­stru­ments of gov­er­nance. On one side we have hard power struc­ture based on dis­ci­pline, dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion and block­ade, iso­lat­ing power and clos­ing the ter­ri­to­ries and the sec­ond side: se­cu­rity pol­icy as­so­ci­ated with glob­al­iza­tion, in­ter­ven­ing and con­trol­ling processes as­so­ci­ated with lib­er­al­ism be­cause of se­cu­rity mea­sures may work in the con­text of move­ment of per­sons and goods. The di­vi­sion pro­posed by Fou­cault and Agam­ben on the hard law and the dy­namic ac­tiv­i­ties of the se­cu­rity pol­icy is an ar­ti­fi­cial as­sump­tion. These two areas are closely re­lated, com­ple­men­tary and pro­vide a medium for ex­am­ple laws can be quickly changed by power elite, or processes re­lated to the com­mod­i­fi­ca­tion of human life forc­ing changes in se­cu­rity pol­icy. The in­creas­ing dy­namism and com­plex­ity of so­cial space and vi­o­lent forms of bio-cap­i­tal make this model of think­ing is in­ad­e­quate. Bio-ex­change. The idea of “life” is con­sid­ered to be in­cluded in the do­main of tech­nol­ogy, both for eco­nomic prof­its and for se­cu­rity rea­sons. Meta-cap­i­tal. Every­thing is par­tially in­ter­change­able, as every­thing is con­nected. Life be­comes a cur­rency of the  code. The code pro­vides for trade, works as a so­cial marker, as a new form of cap­i­tal. We are see­ing an in­creas­ing run­way where we can no longer talk about the con­trol of the phe­nom­ena that is so rapidly in­creas­ing com­plex­ity of the prob­lems that be­comes al­most un­com­putable. The ter­ror­ist act is a knot in which a large num­ber of so­cial processes in­ter­sects and ex­plode . It is a kind of crit­i­cal point in which the so­cial com­bi­na­to­r­ial ex­plo­sion emerge. This is not re­cur­sively de­scrib­able phe­nom­e­non. Panic sim­u­la­tion and dis­in­te­grated so­cial spec­ta­cle causes, that ter­ror be­comes the in­ter­est of the mod­ern state. Dis­in­for­ma­tion and se­crecy. The dif­fer­ence be­tween the open and the se­cret im­plies a hi­er­ar­chy, the first rule of power. On this dif­fer­ence, the struc­tures called the state are being built. Se­cu­rity state is an en­gine of vi­o­lence. Acts of ter­ror and dis­as­ter are the lifeblood of po­lit­i­cal ac­tion. That is why they are pro­voked and stim­u­lated by the power elite. Se­cu­rity re­quire con­stant ref­er­ence to the state of emer­gency. The quest for se­cu­rity leads to a global world­wide war. You have to change this state of things: re­ject the con­cept of se­cu­rity as a fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of state pol­icy and test new mod­els / con­stel­la­tions of power. The task of pol­i­tics is un­der­stand of con­di­tions that lead to ter­ror and de­struc­tion, rather than con­trol these phe­nom­ena, as al­ready oc­curred.

      SENSORIUM: Interdisciplinary Practices of Embodiment and Technology


    • For this panel we pro­pose to dis­cuss a range of in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary prac­tices of em­bod­i­ment and tech­nol­ogy.

       “Today [the body] and its vis­ceral sur­round­ings are stud­ded with ear­phones, zoom­ing in psy­chophar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, ex­tended with pros­the­ses, daz­zled by odor­less tastes and taste­less odors, trans­ported by new media, and buzzing with ideas”.
      _C. A. Jones, ed., Sen­so­rium: Em­bod­ied Ex­pe­ri­ence, Tech­nol­ogy, and Con­tem­po­rary Art (Cam­bridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006).

      Fol­low­ing Jones’s dis­cus­sion we will ex­plore the ways in which prac­ti­tion­ers and writ­ers ad­dress the phys­i­cal and af­fec­tive as­pects of our in­creas­ing en­gage­ment with tech­nol­ogy, whether through per­for­mance or through en­gage­ment with ro­bots and avatars. What types of sen­so­r­ial ex­pe­ri­ences and in­ti­ma­cies can be ex­plored in which vir­tual and phys­i­cal spaces are in­creas­ingly blurred? Can play, be a part in re­vi­tal­iz­ing our sen­so­r­ial sys­tem? Can these prac­tices offer a time and a space for re­flec­tion on em­bod­ied tech­no­log­i­cal ex­pe­ri­ences? The panel aims to ex­plore per­for­mance prac­tices and con­tem­po­rary cul­tural dis­courses that study in­ti­mate en­coun­ters, ad­dress­ing is­sues around bod­ies of data and flesh, play in en­counter with ro­bots, avatars and phys­i­cal/vir­tual pres­ences- de­sire as em­bod­ied con­di­tion and dis­em­bod­ied fan­tasy, the human and posthu­man self.

      Serendipity is Dead…. Long Live Serendipity


    • Many sci­en­tific and artis­tic in­no­va­tions have been at­trib­uted to serendip­ity, the fac­ulty of mak­ing and recog­nis­ing for­tu­nate and un­ex­pected dis­cov­er­ies by ac­ci­dent. The phe­nom­e­non is widely re­garded across dis­ci­plines as a valu­able way of spark­ing re­search ideas and trig­ger­ing new con­nec­tions. How­ever, while there is a wide­spread un­der­stand­ing that serendip­ity is a major con­trib­u­tor to in­no­va­tion, there is dis­agree­ment as to whether dig­i­tal tech­nolo­gies pro­mote or sti­fle serendip­ity. The World­wide Web has al­lowed us to make many pos­i­tive changes in our so­ci­ety and en­vi­ron­ment, for ex­am­ple through so­cial net­work­ing and e-pub­lish­ing, but it also pre­sents prob­lems, by its very na­ture. Re­cently serendip­ity, and the role that the world­wide web and so­cial net­works now play in search query for in­for­ma­tion seek­ing, has re­ceived at­ten­tion from li­brary and in­for­ma­tion sci­ence, psy­chol­ogy, and com­puter sci­ence, art and de­sign. This re­newed in­ter­est and di­a­logue across art and sci­ence seeks to un­der­stand, sup­port and fa­cil­i­tate serendip­ity across dig­i­tal and phys­i­cal en­vi­ron­ments. The panel will ex­plore the no­tion of serendip­ity, from the un­der­stand­ing of its role in art and sci­ence in dig­i­tal do­mains. The de­bate will ex­plore of the so­cial and in­tel­lec­tual na­ture of serendip­i­tous in­ter­ac­tion, with peo­ple and com­put­ers; new de­vel­op­ments in prod­ucts, tech­nolo­gies and prac­tices such as those that are re­defin­ing lit­er­acy and re­shap­ing how we dis­cover, record and in­no­vate; the use and en­hance­ment of Se­man­tic Web tech­nol­ogy; and the role of new media and dig­i­tal arts in trans­form­ing and pre­sent­ing in­for­ma­tion and ideas.

      Serious Animation: Beyond Art and Entertainment


    • An­i­ma­tion meth­ods and tech­niques have evolved in re­cent years to be ac­cess­able to a wider range of cre­ative prac­ti­tion­ers than their orig­i­nal de­sign. Cre­ative prac­tice and re­search have taken meth­ods de­vel­oped for sto­ry­telling and en­ter­tain­ment and re­tasked them to solve real world prob­lems. An­i­ma­tion method­olo­gies are adapted to sup­port in­ves­ti­ga­tions into prod­uct vi­su­al­i­sa­tion, ar­chae­o­log­i­cal re­con­struc­tion, ar­chi­tec­tural vi­su­al­i­sa­tion, med­ical vi­su­al­i­sa­tion and many other spe­cialisms. Not re­stricted to vi­su­al­is­ing final de­sign so­lu­tions prior to pro­duc­tion, con­struc­tion and re­pro­duc­tion, but as an in­her­ent part of the de­sign and in­ves­ti­ga­tion process. This panel will ex­plore how a range of cre­ative prac­ti­tion­ers have adopted and adapted an­i­ma­tion to fur­ther their en­quiry. Using case stud­ies to ex­plore their aims and meth­ods, the pan­elists jour­neys will be de­scribed to il­lu­mi­nate their mo­ti­va­tions and in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary ap­proaches. Pre­sen­ters are drawn from the 3D Vi­su­al­i­sa­tion Re­search Lab at Dun­can of Jor­dan­stone Col­lege of Art & De­sign, The cen­tre for Human Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion at Uni­ver­sity of Dundee, Grid­loop and Northum­bria Uni­ver­sity.

      Share Workers: The Techniques and Meanings of Sustainable Digital Networking – Open Discussion


    • The in­for­ma­tion shar­ing abil­i­ties of the in­ter­net has vastly ex­tended a pre-ex­ist­ing ca­pac­ity among artists to com­mu­ni­cate with each other about their work and lifestyles. With the ar­rival of so­cial media and the wave of in­ter­net use known as Web 2.0, the abil­ity to share has grown ex­po­nen­tially, be­com­ing a sub­ject in and of it­self, and gen­er­at­ing ex­perts in the tech­niques and mean­ings of shar­ing. And now, eco­nomic down-turn and dras­tic cuts to fund­ing, these free net­works have be­come in­valu­able for help­ing peo­ple sus­tain their prac­tice. This panel brings to­gether a set of ex­perts in the prac­ti­cal and the­o­ret­i­cal use of dig­i­tal net­works and in­fra­struc­tures for shar­ing. Work­ing across a range of areas from vi­sual art to music, per­for­mance and be­yond, they are united by their use of col­lab­o­ra­tive dig­i­tal tools and dri­ven by their propen­sity for pos­i­tive so­cial change. From con­sol­i­dat­ing con­nec­tions be­tween artists and arts pol­icy-mak­ers to rewiring our ed­u­ca­tional and eco­nomic cir­cuitry, this panel has col­lec­tively de­vel­oped a wealth of skills for reach­ing out to oth­ers through tech­nol­ogy. After an in­tro­duc­tion from the panel chair, par­tic­i­pants will each be given ten min­utes to de­scribe the pro­jects and prac­tices that com­prise their ‘share work’. Fol­low­ing this, the chair will ques­tion them on the in­tri­ca­cies of what they do as well as its im­pact on the wider art world – a field not nor­mally known for its in­clu­sive­ness. As a group they will un­pack suc­cess­ful mod­els (along­side some of the in­evitable ob­sta­cles) to ‘share work­ing’, ad­dress­ing both the very prac­ti­cal – as well as some of the philo­soph­i­cal – im­pli­ca­tions of open­ness in an ad­vanced in­for­ma­tion age.

      Short:Circuit: Cross Border Communications in New Media Between US and Turkey


    • In keep­ing with the site of the ISEA2011 Sym­po­sium, this panel seeks to pre­sent pa­pers that ad­dress new media cross-bor­der dis­courses be­tween Turkey (the site of the sym­po­sium) and North Amer­ica (the birth­place of New Media). This panel seeks to in­ves­ti­gate North Amer­i­can/Turkey con­ver­sa­tions in New Media Art & Cul­ture; is­sues artists are ex­plor­ing, and res­i­dency and cu­ra­to­r­ial pro­jects. Also, we seek to probe the cross-cul­tural ef­fects of net­worked cul­ture and so­cial media upon the de­mo­graph­ics in­volved as well as the greater global mi­lieu. This will be done by ex­plor­ing artists, works, res­i­den­cies, ini­tia­tives work­ing be­tween these spaces and sites of on­line cul­ture that cre­ate frames of en­gage­ment for these is­sues. The ini­tial im­pe­tus of this panel comes from the chair’s in­volve­ment/re­search of Turk­ish artists who have lived in the States, North Amer­i­can artists work­ing in Turkey, and ways their ex­pe­ri­ences are re­flected in the work. In ad­di­tion, in con­ver­sa­tion with Burak Arikan, other is­sues such as the im­pact of Face­book, on­line dis­sem­i­na­tion of in­for­ma­tion, Wik­ileaks, so­cial media and other as­pects of net­worked cul­ture will be ad­dressed.

      Signs of Life: Human-Robot Intersubjectivities


    • This panel in­ves­ti­gates the ‘signs of life’ that are ex­hib­ited by ro­bots in ex­hi­bi­tions and per­for­ma­tive en­vi­ron­ments and the ways that au­di­ences per­ceive and re­spond to life-like qual­i­ties in ro­botic char­ac­ters. As ro­bots and hu­mans come to­gether in gallery in­stal­la­tions and per­for­ma­tive en­vi­ron­ments, dif­fer­ent types of hu­man-ro­bot in­ter­sub­jec­tiv­i­ties come into play. Both hu­mans and ro­bots be­come ‘so­cial ac­tors’ ne­go­ti­at­ing re­la­tion­ships and modes of in­ter­ac­tion. How do au­di­ences per­ceive in­ten­tion­al­ity, per­son­al­ity and emo­tion in ro­bots? This panel ex­plores how the phys­i­cal qual­i­ties and af­for­dances of the robot (for ex­am­ple, its size, shape, form, mo­bil­ity and modes of com­mu­ni­ca­tion) af­fect human in­ter­ac­tion and emo­tional in­vest­ment. How do ro­bots per­ceive and re­spond to their en­vi­ron­ments and to their human in­ter­ac­tors? Be­yond an­thro­po­mor­phism and bio-mime­sis, what other dis­tinc­tively ma­chinic ‘signs of life’ do ro­bots dis­play?

      Site Specifics: Mobile Media Art and the Contexts of Place


    • The pro­posed panel will iden­tify dif­fer­ent cat­e­gories of loca­tive, site-spe­cific media art and ex­plore their im­pact on un­der­stand­ing the con­text of place and on our aware­ness of the en­vi­ron­ment. Mo­bile com­put­ing po­ten­tially en­ables var­i­ous forms of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion and has to be con­sid­ered in re­la­tion to con­cepts of em­bod­i­ment, the cre­ation of mean­ing, as well as in­di­vid­ual au­ton­omy and agency. The lat­ter as­pects of mo­bile com­put­ing and loca­tive media con­sid­er­ably af­fect our per­cep­tion and aware­ness of en­vi­ron­ments. Mo­bile de­vices can func­tion as tech­no­log­i­cal ex­ten­sions of em­bod­i­ment, con­nect­ing us to lo­ca­tion-based in­for­ma­tion and en­hanc­ing aware­ness of our en­vi­ron­ment or ‘so­cial body’. Loca­tive new media art, which uses lo­ca­tions in pub­lic space as a ‘can­vas’ for im­ple­ment­ing art pro­jects, has be­come one of the most ac­tive and fast-grow­ing areas within the larger field of dig­i­tal arts. Cam­era and video phones, smart phones, and mo­bile de­vices with em­bed­ded GPS have be­come new plat­forms for cul­tural pro­duc­tion, pro­vid­ing an in­ter­face through which users can par­tic­i­pate in net­worked pub­lic pro­jects, as well as en­abling the for­ma­tion of ad-hoc com­mu­ni­ties.  The panel will dis­cuss var­i­ous cat­e­gories of loca­tive media art, for ex­am­ple pro­jects that en­hance con­text by al­low­ing par­tic­i­pants to ‘leave a mark’ on their sur­round­ings, sub­mit or re­trieve site-spe­cific in­for­ma­tion, or re­con­fig­ure the map; pro­jects that cre­ate a sys­temic aware­ness of peo­ple’s moods or be­hav­iors by re­flect­ing the pres­ence, move­ments, or ac­tions and re­ac­tions, pro­file, tasks and goals, emo­tions and be­hav­ior of peo­ple in their en­vi­ron­ment. Also dis­cussed will be mo­bile pro­jects that ad­dress sur­veil­lance or en­vi­ron­men­tal is­sues and place em­pha­sis on in­creas­ing peo­ple’s aware­ness of the larger so­cio-po­lit­i­cal con­text of site, often en­cour­ag­ing or en­abling their users to be­come proac­tive and en­gage in local pol­i­tics. The pan­elists will rep­re­sent these dif­fer­ent artis­tic prac­tices within the field of mo­bile media. A major goal of the panel is to dif­fer­en­ti­ate be­tween forms of con­text aware­ness and site-speci­ficity that mo­bile media can pro­duce.

      Slowness: Responding to Acceleration through Electronic Arts


    • Im­mersed in a con­stant stream of in­for­ma­tion, los­ing our abil­ity to mean­ing­fully read any­thing longer than a page, and con­nected through a so­cial net­work that in users rep­re­sents the 3rd largest coun­try in the world, what hap­pens to how we make, view, and par­tic­i­pate in elec­tronic arts?  If our tools are also those which our ac­cel­er­at­ing our lives, how are we able to still make mean­ing­ful art?  Do artists dis­con­nect from the ex­pec­ta­tions of 24/7 and re­treat in their “stu­dios”? This panel fo­cuses on the topic of slow­ing down and elec­tronic arts.  Is slow­ness a use­ful con­cept for artists work­ing with tech­nol­ogy to con­sider?  Are elec­tronic artists using the same tools to com­ment on this ac­cel­er­a­tion?  Have we lost our abil­ity to slow down in the view­ing and ap­pre­ci­a­tion of art?  Fur­ther­more, do elec­tronic artists feel a re­spon­si­bil­ity to com­ment on and demon­strate al­ter­na­tive tech­nolo­gies that may pro­mote slow­ness and con­sid­ered thought? A panel of both artists and aca­d­e­mics will ad­dress these ques­tions, fo­cus­ing on both the­ory and prac­tice, and al­ways grounded in ex­am­ples of elec­tronic art­work. They will speak about aes­thet­ics and pol­i­tics in elec­tronic arts, the “hand wav­ing” phe­nomen in in­ter­ac­tive art, the chal­lenges and suc­cesses of teach­ing de­cel­er­a­tion to stu­dents, and the speed at which in­ter­net art is forced to change, and there­fore be­com­ing ephemeral at a rapid rate. Though di­verse in their ap­proaches and foci, no­tions of slow­ness and du­ra­tion will be the com­mon threads for the pre­sen­ta­tions and the dis­cus­sion to fol­low.

      Sniff, Scrape, Crawl: Part 1


    • We are liv­ing in a time of un­prece­dented sur­veil­lance, but un­like the omi­nous spec­tre of Or­well’s Big Brother, where power is clearly de­fined and al­ways pal­pa­ble, today’s meth­ods of in­for­ma­tion gath­er­ing are much more sub­tle and woven into the fab­ric of our every­day life. Through the use of seem­ingly in­nocu­ous al­go­rithms Ama­zon tells us which books we might like, Google tracks our queries to per­fect more ac­cu­rate re­sults, and Last.?fm con­nects us to peo­ple with sim­i­lar music tastes. Im­mersed in so­cial media, we com­mit to legally bind­ing con­tracts by agree­ing to ‘terms of use’. Hav­ing made the pact, we Twit­ter our sub­jec­tiv­i­ties in less than 140 char­ac­ters, con­tact our long lost friends on face­book and mo­bile-up­load our ge­o­t­agged videos on youtube. Where once sur­veil­lance tech­nolo­gies be­longed to gov­ern­men­tal agen­cies and the mil­i­tary do­main, the web has fos­tered a less op­ti­cally dri­ven and par­tic­i­pa­tory means of both mon­i­tor­ing and mon­e­tiz­ing our in­ti­mately lived ex­pe­ri­ences. Bring­ing to­gether artists, pro­gram­mers and the­o­rists, these in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary pan­els will look at how sur­veil­lance and data-min­ing tech­nolo­gies shape and in­flu­ence our lives and the con­se­quences they have on our civil lib­er­ties.  The aim is to map the com­plex­i­ties of ‘shar­ing’ and ex­am­ine how our fun­da­men­tal un­der­stand­ing of pri­vate life has changed, as pub­lic dis­play has be­come more per­va­sive and nor­mal­ized through so­cial net­works. “Sniff, Scrape, Crawl…”  is an on­go­ing in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary re­search pro­ject. Through a se­ries of work­shops, de­bates, lec­tures and pre­sen­ta­tions, the the­matic pro­ject was ini­tially launched in the be­gin­ning of 2011 at the Piet Zwart In­sti­tute, Mas­ter Media De­sign and Com­mu­ni­ca­tion in the de­part­ment of Net­worked Media.  The for­ma­tion of the pan­els at ISEA is an op­por­tu­nity to show doc­u­men­ta­tion and ex­pand upon ear­lier re­search.

      Sniff, Scrape, Crawl: Part 2


    • We are liv­ing in a time of un­prece­dented sur­veil­lance, but un­like the omi­nous spec­tre of Or­well’s Big Brother, where power is clearly de­fined and al­ways pal­pa­ble, today’s meth­ods of in­for­ma­tion gath­er­ing are much more sub­tle and woven into the fab­ric of our every­day life. Through the use of seem­ingly in­nocu­ous al­go­rithms Ama­zon tells us which books we might like, Google tracks our queries to per­fect more ac­cu­rate re­sults, and Last.?fm con­nects us to peo­ple with sim­i­lar music tastes. Im­mersed in so­cial media, we com­mit to legally bind­ing con­tracts by agree­ing to ‘terms of use’. Hav­ing made the pact, we Twit­ter our sub­jec­tiv­i­ties in less than 140 char­ac­ters, con­tact our long lost friends on face­book and mo­bile-up­load our ge­o­t­agged videos on youtube. Where once sur­veil­lance tech­nolo­gies be­longed to gov­ern­men­tal agen­cies and the mil­i­tary do­main, the web has fos­tered a less op­ti­cally dri­ven and par­tic­i­pa­tory means of both mon­i­tor­ing and mon­e­tiz­ing our in­ti­mately lived ex­pe­ri­ences. Bring­ing to­gether artists, pro­gram­mers and the­o­rists, these in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary pan­els will look at how sur­veil­lance and data-min­ing tech­nolo­gies shape and in­flu­ence our lives and the con­se­quences they have on our civil lib­er­ties.  The aim is to map the com­plex­i­ties of ‘shar­ing’ and ex­am­ine how our fun­da­men­tal un­der­stand­ing of pri­vate life has changed, as pub­lic dis­play has be­come more per­va­sive and nor­mal­ized through so­cial net­works. “Sniff, Scrape, Crawl…”  is an on­go­ing in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary re­search pro­ject. Through a se­ries of work­shops, de­bates, lec­tures and pre­sen­ta­tions, the the­matic pro­ject was ini­tially launched in the be­gin­ning of 2011 at the Piet Zwart In­sti­tute, Mas­ter Media De­sign and Com­mu­ni­ca­tion in the de­part­ment of Net­worked Media.  The for­ma­tion of the pan­els at ISEA, is an op­por­tu­nity to show doc­u­men­ta­tion and ex­pand upon ear­lier re­search.

      Soundwwwalk Performance Panel


    • Com­puter net­works and cities both are so­cial spaces that have emerged as ma­te­r­ial spaces where lives are lead and work gets done. They are su­per­struc­tures for com­mu­ni­ca­tion, net­works of chan­nels where in­for­ma­tion and goods are trans­ferred. Both spaces have their par­tic­u­lar acoustic prop­er­ties and qual­i­ties, and while ex­ten­sive stud­ies of en­vi­ron­men­tal acoustics and the sound­scape of our en­vi­ron­ment have been emerg­ing in the last 40 years, net­work spaces are still con­sid­ered to be spaces with­out sound,  acoustics or any sonic prop­er­ties.

      The panel on Sound­wwwalks will ex­plore this from mul­ti­ple per­spec­tives: In­ves­ti­ga­tions to­wards an Acoustic Ecol­ogy of Net­works, and web browsers and media stored on the web as in­ter­face and ma­te­r­ial for live sound per­for­mance. The in­vited artists and re­searchers pre­pare lec­ture per­for­mances within the stan­dard pre­sen­ta­tion setup of the con­fer­ence.

      Per­for­mances by:

      1. Bern­hard Gar­nic­nig, ex­plor­ing the tran­si­tion of the built and “nat­ural” en­vi­ron­ment to the net­work space as the defin­ing sonic en­vi­ron­ment of our lives.
      2. Ceci Moss, play­ing a “dense, care­fully arranged Sound­wwwalk com­po­si­tion using record­ings of the human voice found on the web. Beat­box­ing in­struc­tional videos, vocal med­i­ta­tion ex­er­cises, on­line singing lessons will all find their way in this eclec­tic cho­rus, one that fore­grounds the warmth and dex­ter­ity of the human voice”.
      3. Jamie Allen will per­form a sound­wwwalk which ref­er­ences and mines the vast func­tional audio archives of the in­ter­net.  A sound walk for hard­ware, through hard­ware, on hard­ware.
      4. As well as im­prov, re­mote and tape per­for­mances Peter Moos­gaard, Con­stant Dul­laart, Ju­lian Palacz, Joel Holm­berg and Will Schrimshaw.

      Surveillant Spaces: From Autonomous Surveillance to Machine Voyeurism


    • Our every­day en­vi­ron­ment has be­come a patch­work of sur­veil­lant spaces; in­ter­lac­ing our so­cial net­works and mo­bile de­vices with CCTV sys­tems, satel­lite and other wire­less sig­nals to pro­duce an end­lessly grow­ing net­work of ‘nodes’ with never-sleep­ing eyes. As ma­chine agency grows more com­plex we in­creas­ingly be­come ac­com­plices of the voyeuris­tic spec­ta­cle. While each sur­veil­lant space may have dif­fer­ent mo­tives and tar­gets, all of them serve as more or less au­tonomous pros­the­ses that ex­tend, en­hance or pro­lif­er­ate the human eye. But what hap­pens if we push the ques­tion of own­er­ship of the gaze to a point where the ma­chine’s agency of see­ing not only aug­ments the human eye but be­comes in­de­pen­dent, gen­er­a­tive and ca­pa­ble of pro­duc­ing its own nar­ra­tives?  This panel ex­plores sur­veil­lant spaces from the point of view of the ma­chine. What does it see? Why does it look? And how does it re­spond? It will both crit­i­cally and play­fully in­ves­ti­gate the per­for­ma­tive po­ten­tial of the ma­chinic gaze and the agen­cies and ma­te­ri­al­i­ties in­volved. To do so, we will en­gage with artis­tic prac­tices that enact the pol­i­tics of sur­veil­lance through per­for­ma­tive in­ter­ven­tions to ex­per­i­ment with and push the con­tested re­al­i­ties they pro­duce. Ex­plor­ing ma­chine vi­sion and com­pu­ta­tional agency, we will dis­cuss the po­ten­tial for the ma­chinic gaze to de­velop a dis­po­si­tion to­wards what it sees. A sur­veil­lant space dri­ven by cu­rios­ity, de­sire and per­haps com­plic­ity both play­fully sub­verts and crit­i­cally ex­tends Vir­ilio’s (1994) dark vi­sion of the ‘au­to­matic-per­cep­tion pros­the­sis’.

      Test_Lab: Summer Sessions 2011


    • Every year, V2_ In­sti­tute for the Un­sta­ble Media in­vites a small group of up-and-com­ing artists to spend their sum­mer in the V2_Lab for an in­tense short-term res­i­dency. Dur­ing these so-called Sum­mer Ses­sions, the se­lected artists are given the op­por­tu­nity to de­velop an art­work in close col­lab­o­ra­tion with V2_’s ex­pert de­vel­op­ers, cu­ra­tor and pro­ject man­agers.  This year’s Sum­mer Ses­sions will wel­come an­other se­lec­tion of up-and-com­ing artists into the V2_Lab to work on pro­jects in the fields of aug­mented re­al­ity, wear­able tech­nol­ogy, and ecol­ogy – the three cen­tral re­search themes of the V2_Lab. By hold­ing these Sum­mer Ses­sions res­i­den­cies in par­al­lel, V2_ aims to pro­mote a cre­ative syn­ergy be­tween these up-and-com­ing artists.
      In this spe­cial edi­tion of V2_’s Test_Lab pro­gram at ISEA2011, the out­come of the Sum­mer Ses­sions 2011 will be pre­sented. As it is cus­tom to V2_’s Test_Lab, the pro­jects will be demon­strated live and the au­di­ence will be in­vited to as­sess the art­works hands-on.

      Testing New Ground: An Interdisciplinary Discussion on Hybrid Habitats


    • The media en­vi­ron­ments we now in­habit are hy­brids: both ma­te­r­ial/vir­tual, ac­tual/imag­i­nary, sci­en­tific and sci­ence-fic­tional, fu­tur­is­tic and yet also fun­da­men­tally grounded in media his­to­ries. This panel will con­sider the is­sues at stake as we shift from think­ing of the screen as a por­tal to other worlds that mir­ror those we cor­po­re­ally in­habit to fig­ur­ing out al­ter­na­tive ways of think­ing about tech­no­log­i­cally me­di­ated forms of in­hab­i­ta­tion. It aims to con­tribute to new ways of think­ing about habi­tats by in­volv­ing artists work­ing with mixed re­al­ity tech­nolo­gies and think­ing through the ram­i­fi­ca­tions of their re­search for is­sues of self and em­bod­i­ment. The is­sues of self and cor­po­re­al­ity that emerge from sites that are ‘vir­tu­ally’ in­hab­ited are con­sid­ered along­side other habi­tats where screen tech­nolo­gies are in­ter­wo­ven with ma­te­r­ial ge­o­gra­phies. The­o­rist-his­to­ri­ans who have re­searched con­tem­po­rary urban en­vi­ron­ments and off-world habi­tats such as space sta­tions offer in­sights into the his­tor­i­cal con­di­tions from which they have emerged as well as what they re­veal of con­tem­po­rary  modes of tech­no­log­i­cally me­di­ated in­hab­i­ta­tion. Oth­er­wise in­vis­i­ble syn­er­gies be­tween prac­tice and the­ory will emerge from an in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary de­bate on hy­brid habi­tats guided by the fol­low­ing ques­tions:

      1. How are new tech­nolo­gies im­pact­ing upon the imag­i­nary and ma­te­r­ial for­ma­tions of ‘habi­tats’ –  as ma­te­r­ial sites, as screen-worlds and hy­bridi­s­a­tions of both.
      2. What eth­i­cal and aes­thetic con­sid­er­a­tions do these habi­tats raise? Are they atopias (non­places), utopias or some­thing else en­tirely?
      3. Who in­hab­its these worlds and how? Are they con­sid­ered view­ers, par­tic­i­pants or do these habi­tats in­vite other modes of en­gage­ment?
      4. How might al­ter­na­tive –  even in­ter­species –  habi­tats re­flect dif­fer­ent un­der­stand­ings of cor­po­re­al­ity, con­scious­ness and iden­tity?
      5. How does nos­tal­gia and the past in­form and in­ter­sect with the con­struc­tion of new, utopian-in­spired habi­tats?
      6. Do these al­ter­na­tive habi­tats have his­to­ries? How might such his­to­ries be re­con­structed?

      The Art of Software Cities


    • The pur­pose of the panel is to in­ves­ti­gate the aes­thetic and cul­tural im­pli­ca­tions of a sit­u­a­tion where new in­ter­faces ap­pear in pub­lic urban space (net­worked, mo­bile, ubiq­ui­tous, etc.). The urban media the­o­rist Scott Mc­Quire ar­gues that with this de­vel­op­ment, ‘the media event’ is in the process of re­turn­ing to the pub­lic urban do­main. The main ques­tion is in what way? Does dig­i­tal media merely pro­vide new forms and new pub­lic spec­ta­cles in the city, or does it also prop­a­gate pub­lic ac­tiv­ity? If so, what kinds of ac­tiv­ity?  In the panel we pro­pose to see this de­vel­op­ment of pub­lic in­ter­faces as an in­tro­duc­tion of not just media but also soft­ware into the city. Today’s media cities are soft­ware cities. A dis­tinct char­ac­ter­is­tic is that the rep­re­sen­ta­tions of media do not just imply new aes­thetic forms and rep­re­sen­ta­tions but are al­ways con­nected to un­der­ly­ing com­pu­ta­tional processes that change the com­plex life forms of the city. With a focus on new forms of cre­ative pro­duc­tion pan­elists will pre­sent their take on how re­la­tions be­tween pub­lic and pri­vate realms are af­fected and how al­ter­na­tive uses and re­la­tions around pub­lic in­ter­faces ap­pear in soft­ware cities. The fol­low­ing state­ments op­er­ate as points of de­par­ture:

      1. Whilst ex­per­i­men­ta­tion and de­vel­op­ments in the cul­ture of free soft­ware re­flects emer­gent and self-or­ga­niz­ing pub­lic ac­tions, how can we ex­tend free soft­ware prin­ci­ples into soft­ware cities?
      2. Does the con­cept of a ‘soft­ware city’ offer a way of fur­ther ex­am­in­ing the cul­tural re­gen­er­a­tion agenda and pub­lic art?
      3. What is the in­ter­re­la­tion­ship be­tween soft­ware and sur­veil­lance in soft­ware cities?
      4. Does the soft­ware city pro­vide new un­der­stand­ings of the re­la­tion­ship be­tween cre­ative pro­duc­tion and the econ­omy?
      5. How does the pos­si­ble dis­so­lu­tion of the pub­lic and pri­vate spheres re­late to bio pol­i­tics and con­tem­po­rary forms of power?

      The panel emerges from on­go­ing re­search around in­ter­face crit­i­cism at Dig­i­tal Aes­thet­ics Re­search Cen­ter and Cen­ter for Dig­i­tal Urban Liv­ing, Aarhus Uni­ver­sity, Den­mark.

      The Big Bang of Electronic Art: Merging Abstraction and Representation in the Age of Digital Imaging


    • One of the most pro­found trans­for­ma­tions of the elec­tronic age is the chang­ing re­la­tion­ship of rep­re­sen­ta­tional im­agery and ab­strac­tion. Once in­ex­orably bound to paint­ing, the ad­vent of pho­tog­ra­phy made it the medium of choice for doc­u­men­ta­tion, a split which in turn freed paint­ing to pri­or­i­tize for­mal el­e­ments over rep­re­sen­ta­tional con­tent, cre­at­ing a vo­cab­u­lary of mean­ing de­rived from color, form, tex­ture, and ges­ture, and set­ting artists down a path that even­tu­ally cul­mi­nated in Ab­stract Ex­pres­sion­ism.  When dig­i­tal imag­ing de­vel­oped, early com­mer­cial de­vel­op­ers of soft­ware en­vi­sioned that this split would con­tinue, but this was hardly the case for the early soft­ware artists, work­ing in the days be­fore easy scan­ning and dig­i­tal pho­tog­ra­phy.  As they “painted” into the com­puter, they found the same unique qual­i­ties of rep­e­ti­tion and it­er­a­tive trans­for­ma­tions that their pro­gram­ming col­leagues found just a few years ear­lier, as well as the abil­ity to add ges­tural ex­pres­sion.  Over the slow decade in which scan­ning and dig­i­tal pho­tog­ra­phy grad­u­ally be­came avail­able to artists, early dig­i­tal artists took the next step of in­te­grat­ing pho­to­graphic con­tent, jump­ing seam­lessly from Pho­toMac to Pix­el­Paint and back again, even if it took years for the soft­ware com­pa­nies to catch on. As dig­i­tal imag­ing be­comes the ul­ti­mate re­com­bi­nant medium, artists are now dig­i­tally paint­ing with pho­tographs as an­other el­e­ment in their work, just as they use color, form, and ges­ture.  Imag­ine the artist in the dig­i­tal stu­dio, being able to can pick up a flat red or­ganic form or an image of a build­ing.  In this con­text, the sym­bol­ism of the color “red” and sym­bol­ism of “the build­ing” be­come sim­i­lar el­e­ments – an artist chooses to use red be­cause it causes spa­tial ten­sion, or be­cause it rep­re­sents anger, or rep­re­sents com­mu­nism, just as the artist may use the build­ing be­cause it is a heavy rec­tan­gu­lar form with pointy tops, or be­cause it has a pat­tern of rep­e­ti­tion, or be­cause it ref­er­ences a known his­toric site or ge­o­graphic lo­ca­tion. Is this merger the gate­way to both a new aes­thetic and a new pub­lic en­gage­ment, as we in­te­grate doc­u­men­ta­tion of ex­pe­ri­ence, cul­tural her­itage, and sci­ence into our work?

      The Institute of Unnecessary Research


    • Ein­stein said:  “If we knew what it was we were doing it would be called re­search, would it?”

      This panel out­lines “The In­sti­tute of Un­nec­es­sary Re­search” and pre­sents a new par­a­digm in the way artists are en­gag­ing with the world through trans­dis­ci­pli­nary prac­tices. It brings to­gether art, sci­ence and phi­los­o­phy by cre­at­ing par­tic­i­pa­tory au­di­ence ex­pe­ri­ences, per­for­mances and in­stal­la­tions. Some­times hu­mor­ous and some­times grotesque, our work pushes bound­aries and crit­i­cally ques­tions the means of knowl­edge pro­duc­tion in the 21st Cen­tury. Artists are in­no­va­tors, if a new piece of tech­nol­ogy or a new medium, be­comes avail­able; artists want to try it, to ex­per­i­ment with it- from mi­cro­bi­ol­ogy to ro­bot­ics; from tis­sue cul­ture to neu­ro­science. Some artists take on the role of a sci­en­tist in al­most a per­for­ma­tive way and some sci­en­tists be­come artists them­selves. Phi­los­o­phy and ethics is al­ways at its core and the work un­packs the in­stru­men­tal­iza­tion of sci­ence and art for com­mer­cial and po­lit­i­cal ends. Forms of “con­nec­tive aes­thet­ics” (Gab­lik) are used to en­gage au­di­ences in par­tic­i­pa­tory ex­pe­ri­ences that ex­tend and gen­er­ate new out­comes through ex­hi­bi­tions and events going be­yond sim­ple in­ter­ac­tiv­ity, throw­ing au­thor­ship into ques­tion, as mem­bers of the au­di­ence are in­spired to be­come Un­nec­es­sary Re­searchers in their own rights. The In­sti­tute of Un­nec­es­sary Re­search is a hub for re­searchers and artists work­ing ex­per­i­men­tally and deeply en­gaged with their spe­cific re­search areas. We pre­sent our re­search through per­for­ma­tive and ex­pe­ri­en­tial meth­ods, en­gag­ing the pub­lic and new au­di­ences in our ideas. The name “The In­sti­tute of Un­nec­es­sary Re­search” is, in many ways, con­fronta­tional. It raises the ques­tion what is nec­es­sary re­search? Un­nec­es­sary does not imply point­less, it often means going be­yond the nor­mal (in the Kuhn­ian sense of ‘nor­mal sci­ence’) and cross­ing bound­aries, ask­ing where do we draw the line with what we study or with what can be stud­ied? Un­nec­es­sary Re­search en­cour­ages ec­cen­tric, ob­ses­sive, cre­ative work­ing prac­tices and is an an­ti­dote to the stran­gle­hold placed on re­search by cen­tral gov­ern­ment and the gate­keep­ers of acad­e­mia.

      The Madness of Methods: Emerging Arts Research Practices


    • Com­mon among the cre­ative fields–the arts, sci­ence, tech­nol­ogy and de­sign–is a com­mit­ment to the pro­duc­tion of new knowl­edge based on orig­i­nal re­search.  Re­search is the praxis of sys­tem­atic crit­i­cal re­flec­tion that fo­cuses on com­pelling do­main-de­fined ques­tions.  The “ques­tion of method” is often used to dis­tin­guish art and de­sign from sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy: where the lat­ter are de­fined by rei­fied method­olog­i­cal par­a­digms, and the for­mer by the re­pu­di­a­tion of such par­a­digms.  In prac­tice we know this to be a false op­po­si­tion: artists and de­sign­ers sys­tem­at­i­cally en­gage the em­pir­i­cal in many ways in their cre­ative work; sci­en­tists and tech­nol­o­gists cre­atively im­pro­vise to form ra­tio­nal ac­counts of their tech­ni­cal pro­jects. The par­tic­i­pants on this panel are each en­gaged in de­vel­op­ing in­no­v­a­tive meth­ods that demon­strates the no­tion of art prac­tice as trans­for­ma­tive re­search.  For some of them this takes the form of per­for­mance and real-time video mix­ing, for oth­ers it is the cre­ation of loca­tive media ex­pe­ri­ences that probe cul­tural dis­po­si­tions and habits. Key areas to be dis­cussed in­clude:  the ten­sions be­tween em­pir­i­cal, in­ter­pre­tive and crit­i­cal re­search tech­niques in the per­for­mance and pro­duc­tion of art prac­tice; the con­tri­bu­tion of psy­cho­analy­sis and cog­ni­tive sci­ence to arts re­search; mul­ti­me­dia tech­niques for the cre­ation of real-time knowl­edge pro­duc­tion; mak­ing re­search vis­i­ble to trans­dis­ci­pli­nary (aca­d­e­mic) au­di­ences; and com­mu­ni­cat­ing arts prac­tice re­search in dy­namic ver­nac­u­lars. This panel will de­scribe, ex­plore, and demon­strate a range of new meth­ods of emerg­ing arts re­search.

      The Matter with Media


    • Along with in­vited pan­elists, the se­lected par­tic­i­pants will be wel­comed to dis­cuss their ideas, art­works, media and other forms of prac­tice-in­fused re­search in re­sponse to the fol­low­ing ideas:

      “The early human artists who tapped into this ex­pres­sive reser­voir for their cave paint­ings, body tat­toos, and rit­ual cer­e­monies, far from in­tro­duc­ing artistry into the world were sim­ply adding one more voice to an on­go­ing ma­te­r­ial cho­rus.” _Manuel De­Landa

      Our dig­i­tal, net­worked age hides from us in plain sight the con­crete, his­tor­i­cal and af­fec­tive cor­re­spon­dences be­tween mat­ter, in­for­ma­tion and per­cep­tion. The prac­tice and cul­ture of art-and-tech­nol­ogy make it easy to for­get the ma­te­r­ial un­der­pin­nings and im­pli­ca­tions of artis­tic ac­tiv­ity and pro­duc­tion. In­for­ma­tion sys­tems, media and the elec­tronic arts in par­tic­u­lar re­quire the sup­port of a be­wil­der­ing nexus of power and in­fra­struc­ture. This fact “alerts us to the at­ten­u­ated in­dex­i­cal trace of an ob­jec­tive real that haunts the ap­par­ently self-ref­er­en­tial world of pure sim­u­lacra.” The ubiq­ui­tous tem­po­ral and spa­tial free­doms promised to us by cy­ber-the­o­rists and rei­fied in ex­am­ple by artists, are a no-show, or as Kit­tler em­phat­i­cally put it, “There is No Soft­ware”.  Ques­tions & topic areas:

      1. What frame­works for con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing “the dig­i­tal” best em­pha­size its tan­gi­ble ap­peal and con­se­quence, as well as its eco­log­i­cal and sys­temic reper­cus­sions?
      2. How do we best chal­lenge the ab­stract rhetorics of cy­ber-the­ory and vir­tu­al­ity of later-day 20th-Cen­tury new media and in­ter­ac­tive art dis­course?
      3. What is the ma­te­r­ial of “raw data,” and what are its canon­i­cal or iconic forms?
      4. How can we work as artists with in­for­ma­tion/ sig­nals as ma­te­r­ial and un­der­stand the in­ter­pre­tive and rep­re­sen­ta­tive ex­trap­o­la­tions nec­es­sar­ily being made?
      5. How does data dif­fer from other ma­te­ri­als which have a more ob­vi­ous phys­i­cal ma­te­r­ial forms?
      6. What pow­ers have we del­e­gated sig­nals and data as things-in-them­selves?
      7. Dis­tinc­tions be­tween the “nat­ural” and “man-made” as we re­gard tech­nolo­gies as com­plex ecolo­gies of mat­ter.
      8. Dis­tinc­tions be­tween what is within and with­out our un­der­stand­ing, con­trol or com­po­si­tion (in­dus­trial or eco­nomic com­plexes, ecolo­gies).
      9. His­tor­i­cal, cul­tural and con­tem­po­rary artis­tic prac­tice re­la­tions be­tween “tech­nol­ogy”, “new media”, “elec­tronic art” and “main­stream con­tem­po­rary art”.
      10. Dis­courses on aes­thet­ics as to the pur­pose and func­tion of art as pre­scient, dec­o­ra­tive, memetic, in­ter­rog­a­tive, chal­leng­ing and de­fi­ant.
      11. Ed­u­ca­tional, epis­te­mo­log­i­cal dif­fer­ences in the hu­man­i­ties, cre­ative arts prac­tices, and en­gi­neer­ing and the sci­ences.

      The Media Space: Evolving Media Architecture and Its Legend


    • Through­out human his­tory, ar­chi­tec­ture played a key role in terms of com­mu­ni­ca­tion in the pub­lic do­main. In ad­di­tion to the es­tab­lished in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized ar­chi­tec­tural com­mu­ni­ca­tion (gov­ern­men­tal build­ings, palaces, banks, schools, etc.), a new field of adap­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion based on pres­ence, in­tent and own­er­ship is emerg­ing. Dis­cov­er­ies in the field of media tech­nol­ogy con­sti­tute the dri­ving force in this evo­lu­tion­ary progress. Media, by all means, is ex­tend­ing its ac­tive fields and is cre­at­ing a con­ver­gence be­tween psy­chi­cal and vir­tual spaces. Cities are in a rapid evo­lu­tion age: façades are chang­ing, ar­chi­tec­ture is de­vel­op­ing more into the dig­i­tal do­main and so­cial in­ter­ac­tion of in­hab­i­tants is be­com­ing much more me­di­ated. How are all of these changes af­fect­ing our daily life? It is seen that media ar­chi­tec­ture has al­ready be­come a key re­search topic at the in­ter­sec­tion of many dif­fer­ent fields such as ur­ban­ism, ar­chi­tec­ture, ma­te­r­ial sci­ences and so­ci­ol­ogy. There is a large spec­trum of in­ter­est­ing top­ics to dis­cuss within this new field rang­ing from con­tent to au­di­ence and from new mod­els of in­ter­ac­tion to ma­te­ri­al­ized media. With the con­tri­bu­tion of prac­ti­cal re­searchers work­ing in di­verse fields and com­ing from dif­fer­ent coun­tries, this panel aims to raise ques­tions such as: What is the im­por­tance of media ar­chi­tec­ture in the evo­lu­tion of land­marks and city de­vel­op­ment? Does media ar­chi­tec­ture cre­ate a new way of so­cial in­ter­ac­tion in the pub­lic space? Are media ar­chi­tec­ture pro­jects­gras­pable and leg­i­ble by the pub­lic with­out a leg­end? With in­def­i­nite bound­aries in ques­tion, how can media ar­chi­tec­ture de­velop into media space?

      About Ars Elec­tron­ica Fu­ture­lab : Media Art and Ar­chi­tec­ture Group

      Today, tech­nol­ogy and media are among major tools used in ar­chi­tec­tural prac­tices in de­vel­op­ing global cities. Ars Elec­tron­ica Fu­ture­lab Media Art and Ar­chi­tec­ture Group con­sists of artists and re­searchers from var­i­ous fields in­clud­ing com­puter sci­ence, so­ci­ol­ogy, de­sign, com­mu­ni­ca­tion and media sci­ences. The re­search group aims to focus on emerg­ing in­ter­faces and com­mu­ni­ca­tion meth­ods among ar­chi­tec­ture, cit­i­zens and en­vi­ron­ment. By ex­am­in­ing the em­ploy­ment of in­ter­ac­tive media as an el­e­ment of art and ar­chi­tec­ture in pub­lic spaces, the group also aims to re­al­ize prac­ti­cal pro­jects in se­man­tic and func­tional con­text. Smart cities, ma­te­ri­al­ized in­for­ma­tion, re­spon­sive/adap­tive ar­chi­tec­ture and in­tel­li­gent en­vi­ron­ments are some of the key re­search top­ics of the group. Like­wise, the group con­cen­trates on the po­si­tion and the role of media ar­chi­tec­ture with re­spect to dis­cus­sions on art and com­mu­ni­ca­tion stud­ies.

      The Volatility and Stability of WorldMaking as Techné


    • The term techné is an an­cient philo­soph­i­cal con­cept that was de­bated by philoso­phers such as Xenophon and Plato, as well as more con­tem­po­rary philoso­phers such as Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger and Félix Guat­tari. In sim­pli­fied terms techné con­cerns the art and craft of mak­ing. In par­tic­u­lar the dis­cus­sion of techné is not only con­cerned with what is made, but how and why it is made. The think­ing of art prac­tices (music, art, and ar­chi­tec­ture) as a kind of World­Mak­ing refers to a techné that is seek­ing to ex­plore art-con­cepts as ex­pres­sive al­ter­na­tive re­al­i­ties through the de­vel­op­ment of self-re­flex­ive and in­ter­nally con­sis­tent art-worlds. The Volatil­ity and Sta­bil­ity of World­Mak­ing as Techné panel dis­cus­sion will focus on the in­volve­ment of the tech­nol­ogy of World­Mak­ing in par­tic­i­pa­tory art prac­tice. Such prac­tice can be found in all areas of art, how­ever, the ones under scrutiny for this par­tic­u­lar panel are: in­ter­ac­tive, gen­er­a­tive, pros­thetic art, ar­chi­tec­ture and music prac­tices that de­pend on the par­tic­i­pa­tion of ob­servers for their vi­tal­ity and de­vel­op­ment. The panel will chal­lenge the level of in­volve­ment and in­te­gra­tion of the ob­server within the gen­er­a­tive praxis in a techno­sci­en­tific agenda.

      Think BETA: Participative Evolution of Smart Cities


    • All think­ing is in BETA – so how should the fu­ture city and ur­ban­ity be de­signed? The panel dis­cusses new processes for the Par­tic­i­pa­tive Evo­lu­tion of Smart Cities, the cul­ture and tech­nol­ogy of the new soft city. The aim is to com­bine ad­vanced new media art with re­search and de­vel­op­ment of in­no­v­a­tive tech­nolo­gies, par­tic­i­pa­tion method­olo­gies and in­no­v­a­tive ser­vices for the de­sign of the new ur­ban­ity. The art ob­jec­tive is to arise new media and urban art sce­nar­ios in areas of re-de­sign and re-con­struc­tion. The tech­ni­cal ob­jec­tive is, to re­search and to de­velop mo­bile-sta­tion­ary en­vi­ron­ment for smart cities as par­tic­i­pa­tory and per­for­ma­tive cul­tural media in­fra­struc­ture for their de­vel­op­ment. It is about the re­quire­ments for fu­ture tech­ni­cal and cul­tural mass player in­fra­struc­ture for the urban de­vel­op­ment of Smart Cities and the op­ti­miza­tion of mu­nic­i­pal ser­vices and dig­i­tal in­fra­struc­tures in form of media art and gam­ing processes. Which tech­ni­cal ap­proaches from media art, urban art, con­cep­tual art, eGov­er­nance, e-ser­vices, e-mo­bil­ity, LBS, to the user-af­fected eCul­ture and eCre­ativ­ity are to be in­cluded to de­velop and to pro­vide im­proved sys­tems for urban de­vel­op­ment, plan­ning and par­tic­i­pa­tion? Cit­i­zen par­tic­i­pa­tion in urban de­vel­op­ment has a long cul­tural tra­di­tion in Eu­rope. The ris­ing com­plex­ity of urban de­vel­op­ment and in­fra­struc­ture is­sues evoke the need of im­proved co­op­er­a­tion of gov­ern­men­tal en­ti­ties, ex­perts and cit­i­zens. De­ci­sion mak­ing processes for fu­ture ac­tiv­i­ties in the field of urban sus­tain­abil­ity re­quire an en­hanced ap­proach to cit­i­zen par­tic­i­pa­tion, ar­tisic ex­pres­sion and user-friendly ex­pert ar­tic­u­la­tion. It is re­quired to ac­cess the full po­ten­tial of the new ca­pa­bil­i­ties of com­mu­ni­ca­tion net­works, the broad avail­abil­ity of mi­cro­com­put­ers, and the new de­sign and e-skills. The de­sign, de­vel­op­ment and im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Be­taville “soft­ware in­fra­struc­ture” meet all de­mands of fu­ture cit­i­zen par­tic­i­pa­tion for a sus­tain­able urban de­vel­op­ment. Pre­vi­ous ap­proaches did not took into ac­count ex­ist­ing ex­per­tise (eg. of media art, civic arts, par­tic­i­pa­tion or gam­ing or set a sin­gle dis­ci­pline per­spec­tives un­bal­anced in the fore­ground. Which is be coun­ter­acted through the in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary con­fig­u­ra­tion of the panel. Sim­i­larly, tech­ni­cal and or­ga­ni­za­tional is­sues of par­tic­i­pa­tory urban plan­ning with dif­fer­ent ap­proaches for dif­fer­ent user groups are to be con­sid­ered. How al­ter­na­tive plan­ning processes by artists, media ac­tivists, de­sign­ers, re­searchers can be in­te­grated should be dis­cussed. Ad­vanced art and en­vi­ron­men­tal and so­cially sus­tain­able de­sign is to be of par­tic­u­lar in­ter­est and will get ex­posed. Dig­i­tal in­fra­struc­ture should be di­rected to their local po­ten­tial for par­tic­i­pa­tory art and de­sign, for de­vel­op­ment, for local knowl­edge processes and for the as­pect of cross-gen­er­a­tional, so­cial and eco­nomic net­work­ing. Think BETA Par­tic­i­pa­tory Evo­lu­tion of Smart Cities is chaired by the two di­rec­tors Mar­tin Ko­plin and Hel­mut Eirund of the “Think BETA Evo­lu­tion of Smart Cities” in­ter­dis­ci­pli­nary think tank. It has part­ners from Asia, Africa, North Amer­ica and all over Eu­rope. The think tank is funded by the BMBF Ger­man Fed­eral Min­istry of Ed­u­ca­tion and Re­search (Bun­desmin­is­terium für Bil­dung und Forschung) and goes back to the co-op­er­a­tion be­tween Mar­tin Ko­plin of the M2C In­sti­tute of Ap­plied Media Tech­nol­ogy and Cul­ture at the Uni­ver­sity of Ap­plied Sci­ences Bre­men and Carl Skel­ton from the BxmC Brook­lyn Ex­per­i­men­tal Media Cen­ter of the Poly­tech­nic In­sti­tute of the New York Uni­ver­sity.

      Through the Roadblocks: Technology and Orality


    • This panel will dis­cuss how oral­ity and tech­nol­ogy in the arts, through so­cial nar­ra­tives and urban de­ter­mi­nants, trans­mute re­sult­ing in lo­calised adopted new forms.  The pro­found changes that have in­flu­enced artis­tic cre­ative processes by dig­i­tal tech­nol­ogy are lead­ing to a re­de­f­i­n­i­tion of both the role of the artist and the re­la­tion­ship be­tween artist and au­di­ence. It has been thor­oughly dis­cussed that dig­i­tal media art forms have a ten­dency to aban­don the clear-cut di­vi­sion be­tween in­di­vid­ual cre­ator and au­di­ence and move to­wards col­lec­tive sit­u­a­tions where au­thor­ship is shared be­tween many. (Alexan­der 2007, Austin 2007, Bakioglu 2007, Pet­titt 2007). This panel dis­cusses how elec­tronic arts and tech­nol­ogy re­late to col­lec­tive and non-writ­ten as­pects of cul­ture. It ex­am­ines both spon­ta­neous processes sup­ported by the na­ture of dig­i­tal media and con­scious strate­gies that build on per­cep­tion and oral­ity in glo­cal cul­ture. The panel will pre­sent and dis­cuss is­sues re­lated to this topic cen­tral to their col­lab­o­ra­tive re­search as par­tic­i­pants in  the NeMe ini­ti­ated pro­ject Through the Road­blocks which was first pre­sented in May 22, 2009 at the e-Mo­bi­LArt con­fer­ence dur­ing the Thes­sa­loniki Bi­en­nial. This pro­ject in­ves­ti­gates how ideas and con­cepts are adopted and as­sim­i­lated re­gard­less of po­lit­i­cal, cul­tural and spa­cial bound­aries. A team of cu­ra­tors, cul­tural man­agers, schol­ars and artists lo­cated in 10 coun­tries span­ning from Aus­tralia to UK and from Turkey to Is­rael and Pales­tine have been in­vited and their pro­pos­als are cur­rently under de­vel­op­ment promis­ing a rich va­ri­ety of in­ter­pre­ta­tions which will de­fine the sec­ond stage of the pro­ject. The third phase is planned to take place in Cyprus in 2012.

      Transmedia Narrative: Modes of Digital Scholarship and Design Across Public Space

      Travels Through Hyper-Liminality: Exploring the space where digital meets the real


    • On the thresh­old of cross­ing over being nei­ther real nor vir­tual, an os­cil­la­tion be­tween two states of ex­is­tence, on­line-of­fline, awake but dream­ing in a sub-con­scious­ness state, the bub­ble be­tween start­ing and ar­riv­ing, the in-be­tween, a dis­ap­pear­ance, the third space … Con­sid­er­ing the di­verse de­ter­mi­na­tions as to what the lim­i­nal means in our dig­i­tally dri­ven cul­ture this panel asks ‘To what ex­tent are artists dig­i­tally fa­cil­i­tat­ing con­vivial spaces where par­tic­i­pants can en­gagewith and co-cre­ate an art work?’. Six dif­fer­ent ap­proaches are dis­played within the panel ex­per­tise to in­ter­ro­gate dig­i­tally fa­cil­i­tated lim­i­nal­ity as ei­ther a trans­for­ma­tive space of cre­ative tran­scen­dence, or a con­vivial and so­cial space where art can hap­pen. Dig­i­tal media and new tech­nol­ogy is re­con­fig­ur­ing our re­la­tion­ship with the world and is also af­fect­ing how artists re­late with their pub­lic. Now tech­nolo­gies can help to po­si­tion art into the every­day of peo­ple’s lives and ac­tiv­i­ties, out­side the gallery space. Dig­i­tally en­abled new spaces have opened up where artists can en­gage with au­di­ences in a par­tic­i­pa­tory ex­pe­ri­ence. Within the cityscapes of our urban en­vi­ron­ments ‘Big brother’ media and cctv sur­veil­lance allow for few in­for­mal, un­governed so­cial meet­ing places so it is the cre­ation of in­ter­stices be­tween the for­mal con­structed and ob­served so­cial spaces that artists are in­ter­ested in, where un­ortho­dox art can hap­pen and en­gage di­rectly with its au­di­ence. Dig­i­tal media pro­vides such re­la­tional op­por­tu­ni­ties but as vir­tual plat­forms where ac­cess­ing them means step­ping from one world to the other, a con­cep­tual mov­ing from one state of being to an­other. Con­tra to hu­man-to-avatar ex­pe­ri­ence, vir­tual ob­jects are trans­formed into a solid ma­te­ri­al­ity by cross­ing this thresh­old. The thresh­old is then a magic al­chem­i­cal space, an in­ter­stice be­tween the real and the vir­tual, a mo­ment of change, of be­com­ing other.  Artists con­tinue to ex­plore the no­tion of the ‘lim­i­nal’ that has arisen with the evo­lu­tion of dig­i­tal tech­nol­ogy. Through this panel we hope to fur­ther in­ter­ro­gate cur­rent con­tem­po­rary un­der­stand­ings of this amor­phous state of pres­ence by gen­er­at­ing dis­cus­sion and ar­gu­ment around its na­ture.
      Ques­tions to be raised:

      1. Does cross­ing the thresh­old from real to vir­tual spaces re­quire a trans­for­ma­tive ob­ject or is this a mat­ter of re­fram­ing our con­scious self-aware­ness?
      2. Can dig­i­tally en­hanced ma­te­r­ial spaces allow a phys­i­cal step through to an ‘other’ ex­pe­ri­ence?
      3. How do we freeze the mo­ment of such pass­ing to ac­knowl­edge our changed state of con­scious being?
      4. Is lim­i­nal­ity a nec­es­sary and pos­i­tive at­tribute to mod­ern life in our tech­no­cratic cul­ture?

      Tyrannies of Participation


    • Work­ing across the arts, music, and pol­i­tics, this panel con­sid­ers the dy­nam­ics of power in me­di­ated par­tic­i­pa­tion. Bor­row­ing its title from the work of Bill Cooke and Uma Kothari, who ques­tioned the le­git­i­macy of par­tic­i­pa­tory de­vel­op­ment pro­jects led by the World Bank and other in­ter-gov­ern­men­tal bod­ies, this panel ad­dresses the un­in­tended con­se­quences of, and the power strug­gles in, col­lab­o­ra­tive music plat­forms, so­cial net­works, wire­less in­fra­struc­tures and open gov­ern­ment ini­tia­tives. The pur­pose is to ex­plore the con­struc­tion and val­u­a­tion of par­tic­i­pa­tory dis­courses, de­signs, or ex­pe­ri­ences and chal­lenge re­ceived wis­dom of par­tic­i­pa­tion’s power. When does the dis­course of par­tic­i­pa­tion mask power? Who has ac­tual ver­sus per­ceived au­thor­ity? How do bot­tom-up, col­lab­o­ra­tive-based, lev­eled so­cial, cul­tural, and po­lit­i­cal ex­per­i­ments cre­ate new in­equal­i­ties?

      Unsitely Aesthetics: the Reconfiguring of Public Space in Electronic Art


    • With the growth of the in­ter­net and mo­bile tele­phony across the globe we are wit­ness­ing new con­fig­u­ra­tions of pub­lic space and pub­lic cul­ture. In his con­clu­sion to the book Net­worked Publics, Kazys Var­nelis de­scribes this new state of af­fairs as net­work cul­ture and pro­poses that net­work cul­ture has re­placed the log­ics of both mod­ernism and post­mod­ernism, be­com­ing the dom­i­nant cul­tural logic of our age. As the con­di­tions of net­work cul­ture ex­pand many artists are forg­ing a new re­la­tion­ship with the in­ter­net, not as a medium, but rather as an­other site of their work. Today it is not the vir­tual as a sep­a­rate space apart that is of in­ter­est, but the fact that the lay­er­ing of the vir­tual sits be­side every­day life through con­nec­tion. For many artists the in­ter­net is now act­ing as one site of the work as well as an­other form of pub­lic space. These artists are leav­ing the stu­dio be­hind, mov­ing and work­ing in pub­lic spaces, in a process that is both mo­bile and no­madic. Un­sitely Aes­thet­ics refers to a par­tic­u­lar aes­thet­ics that has emerged with this mo­bile and no­madic shift in artis­tic prac­tices. Un­sitely plays with the fig­ure of site, a well-re­hearsed fig­ure in con­tem­po­rary art, but sug­gests a cur­rent dis­tur­bance of both sit­ed­ness and sight­li­ness. These un­sitely/un­sightly works utilise a DIY ap­proach un­con­cerned with is­sues of beauty or tra­di­tional no­tions of spec­ta­tor­ship, and they often use laugh­ter and hu­mour to get at some­thing else. While un­sitely up­sets site’s sin­gu­lar lo­ca­tion it sug­gests a space of ten­sion, am­bi­gu­ity and po­ten­tial. This panel ex­plores the mul­ti­ple and di­verse ways artists are work­ing in pub­lic space within the con­text of net­work cul­ture where being in two places at once, or the su­per­im­pos­ti­tion of real and vir­tual space has be­come the com­mon ex­pe­ri­ence. How is net­work cul­ture shift­ing the no­tion of both place and pub­lic art for spa­tial media art prac­tices? In par­tic­u­lar how is the in­ter­net a site/un­site of pub­lic art? How does site work in media art prac­tices that exist across media and in dif­fer­ent places?

      Variable Reality – Inter-formalities in Digital/Analogue Arts


    • This panel will ex­plore the no­tion that con­tem­po­rary cre­ative prac­tice is in­creas­ingly tak­ing place in and be­tween ana­logue and dig­i­tal cul­tures. And that by en­fold­ing the cre­ative processes in­her­ent within these two en­vi­ron­ments we can gen­er­ate richly in­formed cre­ative out­comes that build on the qual­i­ties of both dig­i­tal and ma­te­r­ial cul­ture. This work­ing in and be­tween dig­i­tal and ana­logue en­vi­ron­ments, to­ward the gen­er­a­tion of cre­ative works is the essence of what the panel will dis­cuss as cross or vari­able re­al­ity cre­ative prac­tices. The panel will con­sider the po­ten­tial for mak­ing within and across dig­i­tal/ma­te­r­ial en­vi­ron­ments through the pre­sen­ta­tion of their own re­search/prac­tice.

      VIDA: New Discourses, Tropes and Modes in Art and Artificial Life Research


    • For this panel, we will an­a­lyze new dis­courses and modes in art and ar­ti­fi­cial life re­search. This will be placed in re­la­tion to re­cent out­comes of the com­pu­ta­tional sci­ences to­gether with the most rev­o­lu­tion­ary de­vel­op­ments and dis­courses of the life sci­ences. The focus will be specif­i­cally on: cre­ative modes en­gaged with dy­namic liv­ing processes that have been af­fected by sim­u­la­tion, ex­plo­rations in syn­thetic life sys­tems, en­vi­ron­men­tal vi­su­al­iza­tions, hy­brid spaces, aug­mented and mixed re­al­ity land­scapes and prospec­tive meth­ods and de­vices.

      Virtual Doppelgangers: Embodiment, Morphogenesis, and Transversal Action


    • In 1969 Gilles Deleuze the­o­rized the “BwO” or Body With­out Or­gans (in The Logic of the Sense, after Ar­taud’s orig­i­nal term). It refers to the vir­tual di­men­sion of the body and its po­ten­tials, likened to the egg as site of em­bod­i­ment (in Deleuze and Guat­tari’s Anti-Oedi­pus)—a set of mul­ti­ple po­ten­tial­i­ties as well as dys­func­tional rep­e­ti­tions. In this panel we seek to ex­plore the re­la­tions be­tween fleshly bod­ies and dig­i­tized ones as sites of em­bod­i­ment for our cur­rent, in­for­mat­i­cally en­er­gized ex­is­tences. From Face­book re­la­tion­ships to per­for­mances in Sec­ond Life, many of us ex­pe­ri­ence var­i­ous parts of our lives vir­tu­ally today. But how are these ex­pe­ri­ences ab­sorbed into our so-called “real lives”?  In what ways do our vir­tual and phys­i­cal spaces in­ter­sect—are they ag­glom­er­ated re­al­i­ties (Har­away), or em­bed­ded in some on­to­log­i­cal con­tin­uum? There have been con­tro­ver­sies and sup­port­ing stud­ies (esp. con­cern­ing vir­tual games) sug­gest­ing that ex­cess so­cial me­di­a­tion is harm­ful to­wards our “sense of re­al­ity” and abil­ity to in­ter­act in so­ci­ety. But re­searchers of vir­tual life like Nick Yee (Di­rec­tor of the Daedalus Pro­ject sur­vey of MMO play­ers) have shown that avatar ex­pe­ri­ences pos­i­tively af­fect our phys­i­cal lives and per­son­al­i­ties. Still, new re­search sup­ports old wis­dom that too much vir­tu­al­ity is harm­ful to­ward our “sense of re­al­ity” and abil­ity to in­ter­act in so­ci­ety. How are we to think about our bod­ies and their vir­tual dou­bles? Artists and de­sign­ers know the meta­physics of the BwO. They have cre­ated in­no­v­a­tive ways to ex­plore how vir­tual ex­pe­ri­ences can rad­i­cally trans­form our real-world iden­ti­ties, as with Micha Cárde­nas’s Be­com­ing Dragon (2008); or so­cioe­co­nom­i­cally im­pact the phys­i­cal world, as did Rothen­berg and Crouse’s In­vis­i­ble Threads/Dou­ble­Hap­pi­ness Jeans pro­ject (2007-8). The ses­sion will ad­dress both art­works and the­o­ret­i­cal frame­works that en­gage our repli­cated bod­ies, the af­fec­tive re­la­tions they cre­ate, and trans­ver­sal ef­fects across mul­ti­ple en­vi­ron­ments, plat­forms, and phys­i­cal ap­pear­ances.

      Visual Effects Remixed


    • Vi­sual ef­fects (VFX) are the var­i­ous com­puter gen­er­ated processes by which im­agery is cre­ated and or ma­nip­u­lated out­side the con­text of a live ac­tion film shoot. Tra­di­tion­ally mov­ing image vi­sual medi­ums in a per­for­ma­tive / gallery con­text have been pri­mar­ily ex­pe­ri­enced as “play­back” medi­ums, in which ma­te­r­ial is fixed in time and is played from be­gin­ning to end. Real-time vi­su­als on the other hand re­quire the in­ter­ven­tion of a per­former or a user. In the case of the VJ or live film­maker, he or she chooses the video clips in real-time, se­lects the op­tions for ef­fects and de­ter­mines the com­posit­ing of im­ages and ef­fects. Re­cently a num­ber of (tra­di­tional) Nar­ra­tive film mak­ers have moved away from struc­tural nar­ra­tive and into the realm of ‘live cin­ema’, remix­ing their films for au­di­ences as a per­for­ma­tive ex­pe­ri­ence. This raises in­ter­est­ing pos­si­bil­i­ties to ex­tend the genre with a per­for­ma­tive art based ap­proach. British di­rec­tors Peter Green­away and Mike Fig­gis in­creas­ingly work with this method. The ‘live cin­ema’ ex­pe­ri­ence is gen­er­ally lim­ited to pre shot or cap­tured vi­su­als which are processed or remixed. As yet few have at­tempted to in­cor­po­rate ‘live’ vi­sual ef­fects as part of this cin­e­matic ex­pe­ri­ence. “VFX Remixed” seeks to stim­u­late de­bate and gen­er­ate the­o­ret­i­cal pro­to­types for live cin­ema ex­pe­ri­ences that uti­lize the tech­nolo­gies of VFX and com­bine to cre­ate a more im­mer­sive cin­e­matic per­for­mance ex­pe­ri­ence. Areas of in­ter­est in­clude au­dio-vi­sual per­for­mance VJ(ing), phys­i­cal and se­ri­ous gam­ing, com­puter-based in­stal­la­tions in­cor­po­rat­ing real-time vi­sual pro­cess­ing.

      Voicing Electronic Arts


    • There is an un­canny qual­ity to voice in elec­tronic arts, vis­cer­ally car­ry­ing bod­ily in­ti­ma­cies to the lis­tener through phys­i­cal spaces, yet dis­lo­cated from the speaker’s body through re­pro­duc­tion and trans­mis­sion. The dig­i­tal voice is para­dox­i­cally human and ma­chinic – in­ti­mate and in­tense,  as it con­nects sub­jec­tiv­i­ties on the one hand and the dig­i­tally ab­stract on the other hand,  as it passes through ma­chines on to the other. Whether voices call to us across the in­ter­net, or across the smaller space of an in­stal­la­tion, or from the small screen of ma­chin­ima, media artists have found this para­dox­i­cal and un­canny qual­ity al­lur­ing and have worked with it across a range of media and emo­tional ranges. While voice is often dis­cussed in a po­lit­i­cal and metaphor­i­cal sense (giv­ing peo­ple a voice through media) the aim of this panel is to ad­dress the aes­thet­ics of voice in media art. Voice, with all its para­doxes and am­bi­gu­i­ties, is over-ripe for the the­o­ret­i­cal and art­tis­tic en­gage­ment that Roland Barthes in­vited with his now very fa­mil­iar con­cept of grain of the voice.  And voice with its in­ti­ma­cies, its in­ten­si­ties, its aes­thetic rich­ness, is all the more di­verse and com­plex in the age when grain has be­come gran­u­lar syn­the­sis. Voice moves across and de­fines spaces and re­la­tion­ships, it res­onates and re-sounds. It in­vokes, pro­vokes, con­vokes. The panel will ad­dress such com­plex­i­ties of voice in the cur­rent dig­i­tal and net­worked mo­ment of elec­tronic art by bring­ing to the fore the dy­namic re­la­tion­ship be­tween tech­nique and tech­nol­ogy and cul­ture, by in­clud­ing the­o­rists and artists in the panel dis­cus­sion.

      Without Sin: Taboo and Freedom within Digital Media


    • Framed by a con­text of in­creas­ing media anx­i­ety over the vol­ume of usage and the na­ture of so­cial net­work­ing web­sites (Green­field 2009), this panel will broadly ex­plore the roots of this fear and the role of dig­i­tal media and so­cial de­vel­op­ment, specif­i­cally in­ter­ro­gat­ing prac­tices of so­cial iden­tity and con­tem­po­rary ex­pe­ri­ences of re­al­ity/fic­tion. Fol­low­ing as­so­ci­ated fears there has been an in­creased pres­sure from the Amer­i­can Med­ical As­so­ci­a­tion (AMA) for the Amer­i­can Psy­chi­atric As­so­ci­a­tion (APA) to in­clude video game ad­dic­tion as a sub-type of in­ter­net ad­dic­tion, along with sex­ual pre­oc­cu­pa­tions and e-mail/text mes­sag­ing in the up­com­ing 2012 Di­ag­nos­tic and Sta­tis­ti­cal Man­ual of Men­tal Dis­or­ders (DSM-V), the stan­dard di­ag­nos­tic text used by psy­chi­a­trists world­wide. The re­al­ity of an un-chartable (dark) In­ter­net, the ac­knowl­edged rate of change and the sig­nif­i­cantly prob­lem­atic lack of any so­ci­etal sanc­tion or pro­hi­bi­tion (when surf­ing the In­ter­net) gives ‘us’ more space and op­por­tu­nity to ex­plore taboo and re­pres­sion.
      Panel pa­pers will ex­plore the no­tion of the moral econ­omy of human ac­tiv­ity and how this is re­flected in “moral pan­ics” and the space be­tween sub­jec­tive ex­pe­ri­ence (con­scious­ness) and the con­tem­po­rary en­vi­ron­ment (Hush), styl­is­tics of (sex­ual) dif­fer­ence (Gold­ing), ma­nip­u­la­tion within dig­i­tal iden­tity con­struc­tion (Rit­ter), re-ex­plor­ing The More Knowl­edge­able Other and so­cial de­vel­op­ment (Leish­man), and role of tac­ti­cal anonymity within con­tem­po­rary Net ac­tivism (Ravetto-Bi­a­gi­oli).
      Ques­tions the panel will raise:

      1. When con­sid­er­ing dig­i­tal media and so­cial de­vel­op­ment: what are the un­der­ly­ing causes of this new sense of fear?
      2. How is so­cial iden­tity con­structed today / Has our ex­pe­ri­ence of re­al­ity/ fic­tion changed?
      3. How does the in­trin­sic vari­abil­ity of media usage af­fect our sense of self/ con­scious­ness?
      4. What is au­then­tic and what con­sti­tutes healthy when en­gag­ing with dig­i­tal media and the In­ter­net?

      Zones of Contact and Fields of Consistency in Electronic Literature


    • This panel will ex­plore the re­la­tion­ship be­tween crit­i­cism and cre­ative prac­tice in elec­tronic lit­er­a­ture.  This dis­cus­sion will dis­cuss the po­ten­tials of and lim­its to lit­er­ary crit­i­cism in the realm of dig­i­tal po­et­ics and nar­ra­tive.  Heck­man’s paper dis­cusses the re­la­tion­ship be­tween speed, lit­er­ary crit­i­cism and folk­son­omy.  Ret­tberg will high­light the ELM­CIP Knowl­edge­base and com­mu­nity-based re­search prac­tices in the field of elec­tronic lit­er­a­ture.  Gri­gar will ad­dress the nar­ra­tive in the age of dig­i­tal media.  And Gibbs and Angel will ex­plore hand­writ­ing as an em­bod­ied praxis link­ing thought with cor­po­re­al­ity through the medium of ges­ture, and its trans­for­ma­tions in text-based new media art. Pan­elists will ad­dress the crit­i­cal value of es­tab­lish­ing con­nec­tions with tra­di­tional lit­er­ary vo­cab­u­lary, both as a method for un­der­stand­ing new media art within lit­er­ary con­texts and as a method of ad­vanc­ing the de­vel­op­ment of new crit­i­cal tools, par­tic­u­larly those that aid the de­vel­op­ment of a world lit­er­a­ture of elec­tronic lit­er­a­ture.

    Institutional Presentations:

    • East & West


    • Let’s start from the title of the panel. In Eu­rope the other/cul­tures were tra­di­tion­ally de­fined as east­ern, Ori­en­tal, far out, a way of defin­ing that es­tab­lishes our bor­der­lines and pre­sent in dif­fer­ent ways in all cul­tures, since all cul­tures start from them­selves. So it’s im­por­tant to change the “Ge­o­graphic” de­f­i­n­i­tion that un­der­lines  dis­tance and re-place it with a mov­ing mind ge­og­ra­phy rhi­zome/like & multi/cen­tres, be­yond any post/colo­nial­ist and any self cen­tered cul­tures. The great de­vel­ope­ment of dig­i­tal media in the east and more gen­er­ally in the non/west­ern cul­tures chal­lenges the early asset of the dig­i­tal cul­tures. Not only Sil­i­con Val­ley, Japan and Eu­rope ( the source de­vel­op­ers of the 80’s), but many other cul­tures with a cross over of points of view ( and new uses of dig­i­tal cul­tures) that change the old dig­i­tal ge­og­ra­phy. The panel will try to make a point about what’s hap­pen­ing today, and what’s the “state of the art” of re­la­tion­ships and ex­changes be­tween East & West, and what are the dif­fer­en­cies in the dig­i­tal global so­ci­ety. We start from those points to con­front po­si­tions and in­ter­ro­gate ex­pe­ri­ences of work and col­lab­o­ra­tion be­tween East and  West on is­sues of cre­ativ­ity and shar­ing. The ties have been made on mu­tual in­ter­ests and cul­tural syn­er­gies from Cairo “Medrar for con­tem­po­rary art” and Bar­cel­lona’s “Hangar”, Am­s­ter­dam “Waag” and In­done­sia’s “Honf”, and from “Me­dia­matic” on is­lamic cul­tures in Eu­rope, be­tween “Amber Fes­ti­val” in Is­tan­bul with Eu­rope and dif­fer­ent cul­tures of the east. “East & West” in­ter­ro­gates as well the as­sump­tion that dig­i­tal “par­i­fies” cul­tures and tries to re-as­sume  the data of cul­tural dif­fer­en­cies, and of the change­ments on the early ideas of the “dig­i­tal cul­ture” of the 90’s. Be­yond the myth of un­fail­ing global co­mu­ni­ca­tions, we might find dif­fer­ent lay­ered ways of cre­at­ing co­mu­ni­ca­tion and cre­ativ­ity through dig­i­tal ex­change. “East & West” would like to in­di­cate new so­lu­tions or un­der­lines the so­lu­tions that seem to fit bet­ter with a new cul­tural pat­tern where the ge­o­graphic di­rec­tions are right & left & every­where. Dig­i­tal lan­guages seem to be the “im­ma­te­r­ial” “melt­ing pot” that traces, in the con­texts of con­tem­po­rary co­mu­ni­ca­tions and con­tem­po­rary art, sim­i­lar­i­ties and con­trasts of the dif­fer­ent global cul­tures.  In re­cent hap­pen­ings in Egypt and Tunisia the use of tech­nolo­gies it’s been strong and vis­i­ble.  So­cial net­works like Face­book, Google, Youtube have been used in many ways as well as it was usual to see women using cel­lu­lar phones tak­ing videos dur­ing man­i­fes­ta­tions.  One of the deads dur­ing the clashes in Cairo, Ahmed Ba­siony, was a young artist using dig­i­tal media for in­stal­la­tions. One of them it’s a very  in­ter­est­ing ques­tion­ing of the dig­i­tal lan­guage “Ascii not speak ara­bic”, where the shad­ows of the view­ers make ap­pear ara­bic let­ters on a screen cov­ered by ascii code.  There is a grow­ing num­ber of work­shops, labs, fes­ti­vals going on in­volv­ing con­tem­po­rary art and dig­i­tal all over the “East” of the world.  It will be a charm­ing per­spec­tive to see what will come out of those new en­er­gies and cul­tures in­volved in the field of dig­i­tal lan­guages.  The panel wants to bring peo­ple to­gether to in­ter­ro­gate the ac­tual ac­tiv­i­ties, cre­ate new ideas and col­lab­o­ra­tions, in­cite cre­ativ­ity, new di­a­logues and try to fore­see what’s hap­pen­ing in a new global dig­i­tal cul­ture where ge­o­graphic de­f­i­n­i­tions are chang­ing but cul­tures main­tain their sin­gu­lar­i­ties.

    Educational Forum (Roundtable):