Transart seminar proposal 2007 Geoff Cox - Title: Software as Metaphor - Description: In the 1970s, and in parallel to the increasing visibility of computer technologies in culture, the term software was employed as a cultural metaphor to indicate a shift away from an emphasis on the (hardware) object of art. In a similar way, contemporary software art practice places emphasis on source code (as well as its execution), just as conceptual art's articulation of the 'dematerialisation' of the art object previously threw emphasis on the ideas and process of the artwork. Nowadays, technical, cultural and political processes increasingly utilise software but also can be seen to 'act' like software. The seminar investigates this line of thinking through an engagement with systems theory, software art and culture, creative/machinic labour and action - to emphasise the possibilities of a transformative (art) praxis. - Course goals: To introduce historical concepts and examples that relate to an understanding of contemporary interdisciplinary arts practice (software operates as a case study). To develop strategies to support a critical framework for research and future development of creative production informed by historical and theoretical references. - Detailed day by day contents: 1. radical software In the 1970s, software was used as a metaphor for process-based art: for example, the 'radical software' project and the exhibition 'Software', making reference to conceptual arts practice but also to systems theory and cybernetics - thereby shifting emphasis from issues of representation to transformation. examples cited: _Software, Information Technology: Its Meaning for Art_ exhibition (1970), http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=541 _Radical Software_ journal (1970-74), http://www.radicalsoftware.org/ required reading: Lucy Lippard, ed. (1997) 'Escape Attempts', in _Six Years: the dematerialization of the art object from 1966 to 1972 [...]_, University of California Press, pp. vii-xxii. David A. Ross (2003) 'Radical Software Redux', http://www.radicalsoftware.org/e/ross.html Edward A. Shanken (1998) 'The House That Jack Built: Jack Burnham's Concept of "Software" as a Metaphor for Art', in _Leonardo Electronic Almanac_, 6:10, November, http://www.artexetra.com/House.html further reading: Jack Burnham (1968) 'Systems Esthetics', in _Artforum_, vol. 7 no. 1, September. Jack Burnham (1968) _Beyond Modern Sculpture: the Effects of Science and Technology on the Sculpture of this Century_, New York: George Braziller. Charlie Gere (2005) 'Jack Burnham and the Work of Art in the Age of Real Time Systems', in Morten Sondergaard, ed. _Get Real: Real Time + Art_, The Museum of Contemporary Art in Roskilde: Informations Forlag, pp. 149-163. 2. software art The contemporary practice of software art is compared to the historical influence of 'generative art' and 'computer arts' practices of the 1960s and 70s - arguably one tending towards syntax, the other more towards semantics. Clearly there are many previous examples of artists generating creative work in an algorithmic manner, using instructions and contraints - whether using computers or not - but what are the differences? examples cited: Harold Cohen (1973-) _Aaron_, http://crca.ucsd.edu/~hcohen/ _CODeDOC_ (2002) online exhibition, http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/index.shtml; & _CODeDOC II_ (2003) http://www.aec.at/de/festival2003/programm/codedoc.asp Casey Reas (2004) _{Software}Structures_, http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/softwarestructures/ required reading: Florian Cramer (2002) 'Concepts, Notations, Software Art', in Olga Goriunova & Alexei Shulgin, eds. 'Software Art: Thoughts', _Read_me festival 1.2_, catalogue, Moscow: Rosizo, State Centre for Museums and Exhibitions, pp. 18-24, http://www.runme.org/project/+concepts/ Christiane Paul (2002), CODeDOC statement, http://artport.whitney.org/commissions/codedoc/index.shtml further reading: Nicolas Bourriaud (2002) _Relational Aesthetics_, trans. Simon Pleasance & Fronza Woods, Dijon-Quetigny: Les Presses de RŽel. Jacob Lillemose (2004) 'A Re-Declaration of Dependence - Software Art in a Cultural Context It Can't Get out of', in Olga Goriunova & Alexei Shulgin, eds. _Read_Me: Software Art & Cultures - Edition 2004_, €rhus: Digital Aesthetics Research Centre, University of €rhus, http://www.runme.org/project/+redeclaration/ Christiane Paul (2006) 'Flexible Contexts, Democratic Filtering and Computer-Aided Curating', in Joasia Krysa, ed.Curating Immateriality, New York: Autonomedia, http://www.anti-thesis.net/texts/DB/DB03/Paul.pdf Casey Reas (2004) _{Software}Structures_, in Olga Goriunova & Alexei Shulgin, eds. _Read_Me: Software Art & Cultures_, €rhus: Digital Aesthetics Research Centre, University of €rhus, pp. 276-297. 3. software culture The cultural aspects of software demonstrate the ways in which technical, cultural and political processes increasingly utilise software but also can be seen to 'act' like software. Both an operational understanding and more speculative inquiry are required to open up the possibilities for a critical practice using software to reveal some of the relatively hidden material concerns of code. examples cited: Maurizio Bolognini (1992-) various iterations of sealed computers, http://www.generativeart.com/papersGA2004/b9.htm _Run me_ software art repository, http://www.runme.org/ required reading: Matthew Fuller (2003) 'Behind the Blip', in _Behind the Blip: essays on the Culture of Software_, New York: Autonomedia, http://www.runme.org/project/+blip/ further reading: William Bowles (2005 [1987]) 'The Macintosh Computer: Archetypal Capitalist Machine?', in Geoff Cox & Joasia Krysa, eds. _Engineering Culture_, New York: Autonomedia, pp. 39-61, http://www.anti-thesis.net/texts/DB/DB02/Bowles.pdf Friedrich Kittler (1996) 'There is no Software', http://www.ctheory.net/text_file.asp?pick=74 Karl Marx, 'Fragment on Machines' (1857-8 written), in _Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy_, http://www.anti-thesis.net/texts/references/fragment_on_machines.pdf 4. software work Labour has become more immaterial, collective and communicative - more like software. The discussion of software work is deliberately ambiguous - to indicate both the work involved in making software, as well as the work that software does itself. The relations of production must take account of more complex interactions between people and machines - what Guattari calls 'machinic agency'. examples cited: 0100101110101101.ORG & EpidemiC (2001) _biennale.py_, http://www.0100101110101101.org/home/biennale_py/index.html Christophe Bruno (2006) _Human Browser_, http://www.iterature.com/human-browser/ Leonardo Solaas (2005) _Outsource me!_, http://outsource.solaas.com.ar/ required reading: Gilles Deleuze & FŽlix Guattari (1990 [1972]) 'The Desiring Machines', in _Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia_, [L'Anti-Oedipe] trans. Robert Hurley et al, London: Athlone, pp. 1-50. Marina Vishmidt, interviewed by Marion von Osten (2004) 'on Immaterial Labour', http://www.republicart.net/disc/precariat/vishmidt-osten01_en.htm further reading: Hannah Arendt (2000) 'Labor, Work, Action' [from a Lecture 1964], in _The Portable Hannah Arendt_, New York: Penguin, pp. 167-181, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mharendt&fileName=05/051810/051810page.db&recNum=0 Gilles Deleuze (1990) 'Control and Becoming', conversation with Antonio Negri, in _Futur Anterieur_, trans. Martin Joughin, http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpdeleuze3.htm Nick Dyer-Witheford (2004) Autonomist Marxism and the Information Society, in _Multitudes_, http://multitudes.samizdat.net/Autonomist-Marxism-and-the.html 5. software action/performance Drawing upon Arendt's observation that the performing arts have a strong affinity to politics, Virno further relates this to speech and a product that is indistinguishable from the performance itself - operating in real-time with its own sense of purpose, in parallel to the way that a computer program undermines the distinction between its function as a score and its performance. The suggestion is that software encapsulates these ideas opening up possibilities of transformative action - through metaphor but hopefully also in actuality. examples cited: live coding, http://toplap.org/ JODI [aka Joan Heemskerk & Dirk Paesmans], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jodi required reading: Paulo Virno (2004) 'Labor, Action, Intellect', in _A Grammar of the Multitude: For an Analysis of Contemporary Forms of Life_, trans. Isabella Bertoletti, James Cascaito, Andrea Casson, New York: Semiotext(e), http://www.generation-online.org/c/fcmultitude3.htm#GrammarOfTheMultitude-div1-id2866923 further reading: Hannah Arendt (2000) 'Labor, Work, Action' [from a Lecture 1964], in _The Portable Hannah Arendt_, New York: Penguin, pp. 167-181, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mharendt&fileName=05/051810/051810page.db&recNum=0 Inke Arns (2004) 'Read_Me, Run_Me, Execute_Me: Software and its Discontents, or: it's The Performativity of Code, Stupid', in Olga Goriunova & Alexei Shulgin, eds. _Read_Me: Software Art & Cultures - Edition 2004_, €rhus: Digital Aesthetics Research Centre, University of €rhus, pp. 176-193, http://www.runme.org/project/+executeme/ Matteo Pasquinelli (2004) 'Radical Machines Against the Techno-Empire: From Utopia to Network', trans. Arianna Bove, http://www.rekombinant.org/downloads/radical_machines.pdf [french version, in _Multitudes 21_, http://www.eurozine.com/partner/multitudes/current-issue.html]. - Assignments in studio hours between classes (optional but must be included here) Studio hours should be used to supplement the reading for the seminar and to begin to apply this to the student's practice and proposals for research projects. A number of small tasks related to the examples and reading will be introduced in the seminars. - Suggested and required reading prior to seminar: bibliography including pdfs or weblinks. Note any required reading must be discussed in class. Please see the seminar breakdown for required and suggested further reading. -- RETURNING FACULTY Due December 15 Brief proposals for workshop including working title. Approval of course proposal plans Due January 15 Complete Syllabus Guidelines below NEW FACULTY Due January 15 Brief proposals for workshop including working title. Approval of proposal plans Due Februrary 15 Complete Syllabus Guidelines below GUIDELINES Seminars are 20 units (1 unit = 45 minutes) Courses take place over five days (1 session) Students: plan on 14-18 students Hours for days one through five: 10:00-12:00 seminar class time (include a 30 min break) 12:00-13:00 lunch 13:00-15:00 research time 15:00-17:00 seminar class time (include two 15 minute breaks, one in the middle and one at the end) SEMINARS GOALS Students partake in one elected cultural studies seminar per residency. Seminars which are the cultural studies equivalent of the workshops help students to put their work in context and find ways to inform their art projects through research while also getting practice articulating these new ideas, ways of thinking and making connections through discussions and critiques. Seminars are chosen from current topics in media studies, philosophy, theory and art history. SYLLABI must include: - Title - Description - Course goals - Detailed day by day contents - Assignments in studio hours between classes (optional but must be included here) - Suggested and required reading prior to seminar: bibliography including pdfs or weblinks. Note any required reading must be discussed in class. READING DIARIES: Students will upload their reading diaries to your courses in Moodle two weeks prior to the residency. If a student does not submit a diary which reflects the reading assignments, please remind the student once and then report to admin. You have the option to respond to student diaries in the forum attached to your course, this is especially helpful if you are trying to assess whether students are understanding or interested in aspects of your course you plan to teach and clearing up common misunderstandings. Alternatively you may want to address the diaries the first day of your course or reply to students individually. Student requests from last year's seminars from the collegium and student evaluations: -more discussion time -please don't allow students who have not demonstrated that they have done the reading through their reading diary to attend class or have students who aren't prepared sit on the side so they don't slow down discussion. Rules for students: Doors close five minutes after session begins. Students who aren't prepared should not participate in discussions. No one should be talking but the speaker called on and everyone present should give their full attention to the speaker. If disrespectful or disruptive behavior persists, it is essential that you ask the student to leave.