Please go to the Ecoes forum and post your comments/questions/concerns as part of our ongoing discussion about the collaborators' position statements.
principles and justifications for ecoes editing-note to self (sort of): multi-tasking at conference version
acknowledge mediators define arena of engagement/position of observer get on with stuff
Marsha and Cinzia acknowledged the mediation of the software...this is something i have always been interested in and have actively acknowledged and even sought to establish a direct accounting of the soft/hardware systems agency.
i will edit my vid acknowledging the mediation of the software and computer itself...positioning myself as not entirely 'there' at the initial discussions of ecoes project and not present as an activator but as audience/participant at the market of ideas, even though i did attend.(this makes no sense)
this is a personal account...i will use footage that is closest to my experience of the event (trevor's bit)and mediate it through software. this is not about the market but about the editing process and my relationship to this. my initial apprehensions can be assuaged by allowing personal agency and subjectivity; applying my own particular productional practices and sensibilities. intentionality and technicity become actant mediators. technicity as a mitigating factor-my sensibilities/praxis and relationship to technology as actant/mediator (dicuss!!)
i will, somehow, procedurally process the material-the 'puter becomes actant/mediator; my interventions here are also part of the whole mess in a subtly different way to Cinzia's accoount of mouse traces and Marsgas let shove loads of transitions in because i can..how is this so?
i will not spend too much time on it as i have bloody phd, a conference and an exhibition to deliver.
fuck knows if this is ANT as my initial idea was to setup dogme like guidelines for ANT approaches to documentary account making....this is more about my transgressive relationship to software/hardware mediation and intra sytemic dialogues [my dodgy term]. Back to my own re-interpretation of Bakhtinian dialogism and cybernetics
really like the idea about the vid as a 'trailer' (looks smug)
this is more about my relationship to software...might ram it through a game engine somehow...who knows (thanks Jem)
hmmmm...how to do this? header hacking has been done to death (Paul B Davies). synaesthetics;running video thru an audio processor nah..looks, sorry, sounds shit. shove it on a projector in SL, nah it's just a virtual analog. recapture it playing on a really old and shite computer-intentional jerkovision.
the last possibility appeals the most....how to do this?
i have an old laptop,underclock the processor, run loads of apps-eat up all those CPU cycles, play the vid and re-capture it using Openscreencam(?) or FRAPS (FRAPS might not work unless the vid is presented on an OpenGL or DirectX surface)
the scary one....push the computer to the point of breaking through overheating-disable fans, put it near the cooker, run superpi benchmarking software at the same time
actants...computer/my technicity/creative sensibilities/the overall project/the form of the footage
not the content of the footage itself-apart from my initial interessation(?). it's only affordance is as a software artefact. it's length, it's screensize, codec and filesize-punctualised
mediators....the software/hardware system punctualised as'operator'? me
some other thoughts...
this is a little like Mary Anne's (?) egg game at the South London Gallery. Here's a thing, go off and do something to it. In that particular exmple 'add value'. we have to return it to an account of ANT in action
from another point of view if an outcome of this collaboration is a failure of the artefacts to effectively embody or enact our initial intentions/aims of ANT, then let's consider the produced artefacts as a tool for discourse. It might seem churlish to consider them as mere exercises for fostering dialog..but what the hey!
btw the notion of individuation within collective action springs to mind (must check what it really means before i look like a dick
Well, not when you asked, but I have now ...
I position myself within Ecoes as both an actant and researcher. This is a frequently held position for artists within academia, as we have a tendency to examine our own practices. I approached the editing element of this project with this paradox firmly in mind. I cannot separate within myself these two functions, but I can 'organise' them into different phases. From a practical point of view, I have attempted to 'allow myself to edit'. I did not really focus on applying ANT to the editing process, but I focused on editing from my particular perspective, trying to manifest the complexity, layering and richness I perceive within Ecoes. In order to 'follow the actor', I have to first allow myself to act! I did not want to restrict my actions in advance so that they would be 'more ANT' (???). I feel that Ishall not be able to be rigorous enough in my observations and reflections following the editing, but the collective process of discussion has somehow compensated for this lack. My perception is that this working group we embody is an interesting and fruitful mode of associating. I hope we will continue to explore it well after the conference, because the process of preparing for the panel and editing the video seem to me a worthwhile network-actor to observe.
Well my intentions were to look at the different levels of 'hierarchy' within the system and to view them in relation to each other and to see the details about each 'actor' and it's aims and objectives so that you might be able to see the how the each actor is effected by the aims and objectives of other actors at different levels. I am hoping to try and show that each actor is simply an actor with it's own sphere of influence, and that although some actors have generally much more influence than other's - it is only because other actors let them.
What’s my position on/in Ecoes? My interest in this project began with memes: tracing information flows through the Market of Ideas. Utterances remain key; specifically, how statements move among interlocutors and take on meaning that's relative to their respective points of view. This interest presupposes collaborative art making is tantamount to an ongoing conversation. It’s not a metaphor: collaboration is dialogue. It’s about communing in a curiosity, about occupying a shared time, space and importantly, a matter of concern. Often, however, this discursive aspect gets effaced in the “final” output as “artwork.” The process as practice is eclipsed by the product as something discrete. But it’s my aspiration that Ecoes will proffer a different model; that is: the video output/panel discussion will somehow reify the process of its production and, by extension, the discursive and site-specific making of art more generally.
Inspired by our various readings (study group), I aim to explore this possibility in three (big) ways. I’m interested in (a) how the medium of video (re)presents “reality/realities” by way of mediation (including editing) and (b) how these realities reference one another as various pieces of a constructed “truth.” And (c), I’m interested in creating accounts as self-conscious constructions…and, in the case of accounts as artworks, as constructions where that which is Othered is referenced rather than repressed. I’m not sure Ecoes is about accurately representing the Market of Ideas. Instead, I see it as a reflexive exploration of the ways in which such account creation can produce something other than (re)presentation. In the process of this creation, the original DING is expandand and enriched. (This is where I think the “artness” of the work might come into play, though I know this isn’t a popular discussion topic and so I’ll put it in brackets and say no more—for now.) Underpinning these interests is the (big) phenomenon of mutable perspective: the ways in which experience takes on local significance (embedded knowledge) and how this feeds back into shared understanding. All this relates to the old chestnuts of the group and the individual, the known and the unknown and, of course, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.
There’s more I could and probably should say about this, but instead I’ll close (for the moment) by declaring the main key terms guiding my contribution: matters of concern, assembly of (dis)assemblies, (re)presentation, mediation, spatiality, simultaneity and response.
In a slightly different vein, read about Marsha's hand in Ecoes
return to Ecoes