The following is an excerpt from my artist's diary - General notes on work (part 1) / February 26, 1992:
LEFT: Devil in Disguise, 1991, enamel, ink, and gold leaf on wood construction, 23" x 23" x 3-3/4"
Language, by its very nature, is a growing evolving thing. Similar to living organisms, it can be cultivated, but cannot remain static without perishing. Like any other fundamental social activity, it undergoes changes that older generations will think regrettable, and indeed some changes turn out to be empty fads or fashions. Other enduring changes are usually found to be useful. I attempt to draw parallels between conventional language and my pictorial vision by constructing the image in an analogous method. There is no preconceived plan or specific formula to create a work of art. Each piece is built up over a period of time, constantly transforming according to my also changing viewpoint of what is needed or unnecessary. Each time I approach the work, the interaction is slightly different, since both the content of the work and I have changed relative to new perceptions experienced during the interim. By using "visual alliteration, rhyme and simile" (similar shaped symbols with different meanings or similar meaning symbols with different shapes), I simulate some of the literary artists methods to achieve a "poetry of forms" within a composition. The important difference between using symbols versus words to act upon the participants memory, is that language may actually be a second translation or reorganization of raw visual data that is the primary link in the chain of thought. By side-stepping conventional language in favor of pictorial symbol references, a more direct access to the inner mind and the roots of human psychological memories may be gained.
Some psychologists and philosophers allege that thought does not exist without verbalization. We reflect in words, a silent speech. Before we permit silent speech to emerge as spoken language, we must make choices and arrange words in patterns of sense and form, accessible to other people. Physicists believe that language is inadequate to describe the nature of reality, and that numbers are more accurate. Since they are not dealing with the visible, it is difficult to articulate with a language based on perception. This would indicate that thought indeed exists without words, but a numerical system still communicates concepts in a formal structured way. Perhaps by examining how the mind accesses the world through the senses, we can better understand how the process of thought starts, and ultimately express an intuitive model of common reality free from the methods our mind uses to decode the stored information and communicate.
The choices and patterns our mind makes with words in order to express thoughts are usage. Usage is the judge and ruler of language. Historically, both government and religion justified judgments by appealing not only to history but to reason. They strengthened the concepts of good and evil to become right and wrong by adjusting usage to suit their purposes. Today we inherit a language that initially was created to further administer control of a people by a ruler, to compel citizen subjects to conform to the authorities predetermined social and moral codes, and accept "absolute truths" based on the fashionable linear model of contrasting concepts. This ingrained language continues to promote a logic that accentuates the "positive and negative" concept, but is inadequate in its ability to describe the relative "grey area" between (or around). By avoiding the language phase of the thought process, you begin to destroy the distinctions of polarized reasoning, turning all its elements into the same cosmic dust. Each component of a perceived image then has the same value as any other aspect within a multiplicity of experience events. Vision, hearing, touch experience and imagination all weave together into an infinite tapestry of equally weighted symbolic forms that can then better describe reality without judgmental polarity.
~Wayne Edson Bryan (2/26/92)
Art Diary: Language and Thought
A New Road
As I regularly search for information on the Internet relevant to this blog's subject, I've noticed that there are a lot of people, on every continent, who are equally fascinated with the paradox of perfection. I'm guessing that people in every culture aspire to be perfect, and have been conditioned to see human error as something to be avoided.
Well, the bad news is that advertisers are unfortunately not the only people who are trying to manipulate your actions by appealing to your aspirations. The reality of the situation is that there can be "judges" who take advantage of our desires, and twist our instincts to get what they want. Usually, these are the very same people that we trust the most, that know us intimately, and should have our best interests at heart. When things don't go the way you would like, or the way someone else wants them to, is there a person in your life that is regularly reminding you that you are less than perfect?
When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You
LEFT: I Hate People When They're Not Polite / Paranoias Series, 1990, 16 color serigraph, 10-1/2" x 26," edition 45
Some people overpower us and leave us feeling defeated. Why? How? What can we do about it? These are the central questions Susan Forward asks in her book Emotional Blackmail.
The author says, "Emotional blackmail is a powerful form of manipulation in which people close to us threaten, either directly or indirectly, to punish us if we don't do what they want… Our blackmailers make it nearly impossible to see how they're manipulating us, because they lay down a thick fog that
Seeing Through Fog
Susan Forward uses the acronym FOG to stand for fear, obligation, and guilt. These are the three tools of the blackmailer's trade, and most of us can't figure out how to escape them.
Are you a people pleaser? Are you afraid of disapproval? Are you afraid of another's anger? Do you feel you owe someone a duty, even when it involves something you don't want to do or is bad for you? Do you feel guilty when you don't give in? Does it make you feel you aren't a good person?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, this book is for you. Susan Forward demonstrates how emotional blackmail takes two parties, and she explains the role the innocent party plays and the price they pay. Blackmail is a sequence of demands, pressure, and capitulation, and the author clearly explains how to stop this sequence.
"Empowering" is a much overused word, but this is a wonderfully empowering book. While I don’t typically read self-help books, I cannot recommend this one highly enough. The good news is that not only does this book help us better recognise and end the toxic relationships in our lives, it can help us find a bit more confidence, self-esteem and happiness in the relentless fog that our media-culture generates.
Excerpts from Emotional Blackmail:
"Blackmailers pump an engulfing FOG into their relationships, ensuring that we will feel afraid to cross them, obligated to give them their way and feel terribly guilty if we don't."
"…even as we work to burn off the FOG, the blackmailer is busy pumping in thick new layers."
"Perhaps worst of all, every time we capitulate to emotional blackmail, we lose contact with our integrity, the inner compass that helps us determine what our values and behavior should be."
"If there is one sweeping generalization I can make without fear of contradiction, it is that 'change' is the scariest word in the English language… Nothing will change in our lives until we change our own behavior. Insight won't do it. Understanding why we do the self-defeating things we do won't make us stop doing them. Nagging and pleading with the other person to change won't do it. We have to act. We have to take the first step down a new road."
Turning Negatives into Positives
by Barry Maher
"If you can not get rid of the family skeleton, you might as well make it dance." —George Bernard Shaw
LEFT: I Try To Not Let It Bother Me, 1984, enamel on wood and wire construction, 46" x 46" x 2-3/4"
Crisis or
In 1912, the printer was all set to run three million copies of Teddy Roosevelt's nomination speech, complete with photographs of
The printing plates were made. Changing the photos would be extremely expensive. But no one knew what the photographer might demand for the rights. It was even possible that, heaven forbid, the man was a Democrat. There were a number of them afoot in those days, and they were an unpredictable lot. The photographer might even deny
The chairman sent off a quick telegram: "Planning to issue three million copies of
"Appreciate the opportunity," the photographer replied, "but can only pay $250."
The chairman accepted without dickering. He probably could have held out for $350 or $400.
The Krispie Crisis
Four months after the introduction of Kellogg's Rice Krispies Treats—and the expense of all that new product marketing—the company ran out of stock. Plenty of advertising but very little product. People wanted it but couldn't find it.
So turning crisis into opportunity, (did you know that in Chinese the word for crisis is the same as the word for "no Krispie Treats?") and bragging about the negative, Kellogg ran apologies in major papers across the country asking consumers for patience. The headline read: "OK. Who took the last one?" The ad explained how hard the company was working to keep up with the incredible demand for Rice Krispies Treats.
It would have been hard to plan it any better.
Loud and Proud
Great leaders, great managers and great employees never try to hide potential negatives, and they certainly don't stumble through them. Great leaders, great managers and great employees—like great salespeople—use potential negatives as selling points. They even brag about them.
Are my hourly consultation rates expensive? Absolutely. And why do I charge so much? Because I can. Because my clients are not just willing, they're happy to pay that much for the results I generate.
Can you find someone else to do the job for less? Absolutely. I'll be happy to give you phone numbers. Of course, why do you think they charge less? Do you really think they would charge less if they could charge more. They aren't humanitarians. They charge less because that's what their clients are willing to pay for the results they generate.
Tip: If you can brag about a negative, you've made peace with it. Often the secret to making peace is to find a way that you can honestly brag about it. Having a skeleton in the closet is a lot more fun when you can make it dance.
Barry Maher consults, writes and speaks on professional development, motivation, management and sales. Filling the Glass: The Skeptic's Guide to Positive Thinking in Business was recently cited by Today’s Librarian as “[One of] The Seven Essential Popular Business Books.”
Turning Negatives into Positives © Copyright 2003, 2002, Maher,
You Can't Lick This Error
On January. 12, 2007 in The 1918 24 cent Inverted Jenny stamp (pictured left) is the most popular and desired philatelic error in the world. The striking red and blue stamp depicts an upside-down (inverted) Curtis JN-4 ("Jenny") biplane.
John accepted the Inverted Jenny in shock, and pulled out a speech he had prepared in case he won -- thanking StampWants.com for the once in a lifetime opportunity, as well as Miss New Jersey, who presented him with the stamp. He was excited, and said he felt "shock and awe" over winning the stamp.
The StampWants.com C3a Giveaway began in December of 2006, and entrants were able to enter online up to once per day until
LEFT: Mark Rosenberg (StampWants.com President), John Shedlock (Winner) and Miss For more information about both the stamp and the giveaway, click here for details at stampwants.com. It’s a fascinating read, including news of the helium balloon fiasco at the convention center during final preparations for the big event, and a stunning surprise for Miss New
A 1918 "Inverted Jenny" stamp recently sold for $825,000 in a private sale to an anonymous buyer in
Perfect Imperfections
By Charlie Badenhop
Have you ever caught yourself sitting around thinking that if you were "just" a bit different when it comes to this or that, you would be so much more desirable, wealthy, or good looking? Such conversations can seem so believable while actually being so destructive. What would your life be like if you appreciated your imperfections as the signature of your soul?
LEFT: Rescuing #24, 1998, enamel and varnish on birch plywood, 23" x 46"
On a recent afternoon I went to a pottery shop outside of
After looking around the shop I invited the owner over and we chatted. The first thing she talked about was how a potter never knew what was going to wind up coming out of the kiln. "Each kiln opening," she said, "was somewhat like Christmas morning. Sometimes you got many wonderful gifts, and sometimes you wound up with coal in your stocking. Like when most of the pieces explode in the kiln due to severe changes in atmospheric weather conditions."
"It is the serendipity," she said, "that makes the work so magical. It helps you to stay humble, and you learn to surrender to and accept the unknown," she said.
Next, she talked to me about design and functionality. Topics important to most all potters. "No sense in having a good looking piece that is awkward to use, and no sense having a boring looking piece that is highly functional," she said.
Since I was definitely going to buy something, I picked out six pieces to choose from, set them on the counter, and asked the lady to tell me a bit about each piece.
"Let me share with you how I recognize the hoped for imperfections in my work," she said, "by talking about three of the pieces you have interest in."
"Notice with this first piece how the glaze is not of consistent thickness over the inside surface. I tried the best I could to smooth out the glaze," she said, "but this is a very tough glaze to work with."
"Nonetheless, for me, it is the inconsistency of the glaze that makes this piece so interesting," she said. "It is the inconsistency that makes for the range of color that the glaze exhibits in this piece."
"With this next piece you notice that the bowl is not fully round in shape. I am a small woman, and this is a large piece for me to throw on the wheel. In fact it is the biggest piece I am currently able to throw. I love making some this size, because these bowls really test my limits. There is a certain tension present when the shape goes out of being fully round, and this is what draws me to this piece."
"Finally," she said, "with this third piece you will notice that the price is considerably less than the other pieces."_"It is a good piece of work," she said, "but I feel it is a bit 'too good' and thus looks like it could have been machine made. That is why the price is considerably cheaper."
"The shape is perfectly round, and the glaze flows evenly over the entire pot, and thus the piece does not have a sense of uniqueness. I have stopped making this shape and size because I know how to make them all too well. When they come out this perfect I feel like the soul of the pots get left in the kiln."
She bowed ever so much, and said, "Do you have a moment? I have some locally grown strawberries, and it is always best to eat them at this time of year, with a warm cup of tea."
Perfect Imperfections - To learn more about this author, visit Charlie Badenhop's Website.
There's No Need to Reject Another Defect
LEFT: Black Burros, 1985, enamel and ink on wood construction, 29-1/2" x 29-1/2" x 4"
A self-professed "technology enthusiast and general nerd living in Iceland," Hjalmar Gislason has a blog worth checking out. The following post is appropriated (links and all) from his site, as it so "perfectly" fits the subject matter compiled on A Perfect Defect.
Genetic methods exploit environment’s “flaws”
September 9, 2003 by hjalli
Using genetic methods, people try to “breed” software that best meets the task that is to be solved (the goal), just like nature’s evolution processes breed animals that are best fit to survive in their natural environment. In this process nothing is “forbidden”, the individuals can try whatever means available to them to seek the optimal solution, and in the case of a computer environment that can mean exploiting unknown or at least not-intended-to-use flaws in the environment’s design.
This spring I wrote an essay called “A mind emerges” in a Philosophy class. In the essay I mentioned this phenomenon and used two examples:
- Hardware chip flaw: In an experiment to train a neural network to distinguish between different frequencies of sound, Professor Adrian Thompson of the University of Sussex ran into an interesting problem. When he had trained the network and was satisfied with its accuracy rate (which was almost 100%) he took the network that had evolved and started to deduct the parts of the network that did not contribute to the task of distinguishing the frequencies. Using various methods, he removed parts of the network and simplified it.
But at one point something unexpected happened. Removing a link that did not seem to contribute anything to the real functional circuitry made the program fail. The link wasn’t even a part of the circuit between the network’s input and output! Obviously, this did not make any sense at first, but after doing some further experiments he found the reason. The computer chip he was running the neural network on was flawed. When the network that he had successfully trained on this particular chip was copied on to another chip that was supposed to be identical to the previous one, the network didn’t work at all. When training the system, the network had found a way to use the flaw in the chip to its advantage.
- Software physics model flaw: Another similar story comes from a work by GenArts genius Karl Sims on simulated creatures that were evolved in a simulated environment. Sims used genetic methods to develop means of locomotion for his computer creatures (not unlike the snake). But a few of Sims’ creatures developed a very strange and what would under normal circumstances have been impossible means to move. This turned out to be a result of a flaw in the implementation of the physics in Sims’ simulated environment. The evolving creatures had spotted the flaw and exploited it to their advantage. (Discussion on this exploit can be found in ‘Frontiers of Complexity’ by Peter Coveney and Richard Highfield, see: Spreading the Cause).
Both of the above samples are very interesting and are good examples of this exploiting behavior. Now what I’m wondering about is what this tells us about methods and solutions that have evolved in the “real” nature? The fact that animal organs sometimes evolve to serve a different purpose than before seems to be of similar nature. Exploitation of this sort certainly leads to more complex organisms rather than simpler, as a minor “defect” in an individual could be exploited to serve as an organ with a specific purpose. And what might this mean for as complex systems as the human brain? Without doubt helpful defects on the evolutionary road have been used or as I put it in my aforementioned essay:
“[Exploiting of this sort] shows that a neural network cannot be abstracted from the environment in which it functions. We cannot necessarily simulate the functionality of the brain just by simulating the neuron functionality. Answers might be found in the neural network’s environment, e.g. the glia cells (that are mainly believed to be a support system for the neural structure) or even in how the skull affects the brainwaves or how the blood flowing through the brain carries different chemicals. This might mean that even though the brain’s neural network carries out the main functionality of the brain, nature might have found ways to exploit “defects” in its own design for its benefit in a similar way that Thompson’s neural net exploited the flawed chip or Sims’ creatures exploited the flaw in the physical simulation.”
Links:
Karl Sims’ Evolved Virtual Creatures
Video of Sims’ creatures (don’t miss this one, it is fantastic)
Pitfalls of Perfectionism
Perfectionism may be the ultimate self-defeating behavior. It turns people into slaves of success—but keeps them focused on failure, dooming them to a lifetime of doubt and depression. It also winds up undermining achievement in the modern world.
LEFT: Bricker/Digger, 1987, enamel on wood construction, 23" x 55" x 2-3/4" 
LEFT: The Third Man, 1989, enamel on wood construction, 23" x 55" x 2-3/4" 
LEFT: Werner's Uncertainty, 1989, enamel on wood construction, 23" x 55" x 2-1/4"—Hara Estroff Marano
Top Tattoo Mistakes
The LA Ink posse (Pixie, Corey Miller, Hannah Aitchison, Kim Saigh and Kat Von D) is counting down the top five mistakes people make when getting a tattoo. Get their advice for what not to do the next time you get a tattoo.
Tattoo Mistake #5: Too Small
Kim Says: "Be careful not to get something too small or where it doesn't fit that part of the body well."
Tattoo Mistake #4: Cheap Tattoos
Kat Says: "Good tattoos aren't cheap and cheap tattoos aren't good. Far too many times, people choose an artist based on price. That should be the last priority on your list when it comes to getting a tattoo."
Kim Says: "Don't look for a bargain!"
Tattoo Mistake #3: Ode to a Lover
Hannah Says: "Don't be overly romantic. Sorry, that tattoo is going to out last most relationships - much as I hate to say it."
Pixie Says: "I don't think lover's names are a good thing."
LEFT: The tattoo on this blogger's back; a work in progress.
P.S.: The relationship is flourishing, and will most likely outlast the tattoo.
Tattoo Mistake #2: Being Impulsive
Hannah Says: "Try not to be arbitrary or impulsive - you might regret getting Taz flipping the bird and drinking a beer later."
Tattoo Mistake #1: Being Drunk
Corey Says: "Biggest mistake ... being drunk."
Hannah Says: "Being drunk leads to the other mistakes on the list."
LA Ink can be seen on TLC (The Learning Channel). Please check local listings for exact times and dates when the program is broadcast in your area.
The Risk Averse and the Entrepreneur
The following blog entry, posted by Becky McCray on June 25, 2007, can be seen in its original version at: Small Biz Survival: The small town small business resource. As usual, the text is reproduced with as few changes as possible.
POV - Jeff Pulver and good mistakes
Jeff Pulver, founder of Vonage and now head of Network2.tv, has some Point of View to share.
LEFT: Gambler, 1998, enamel and varnish on birch plywood, 23" x 46"
A friend asked him about coping with a family that does not understand entrepreneurship:
I don't want to talk with my family about my plans. I don't want to explain them that I am not certain where my next project will come from, or my next check... my family comes from a different world, where steady job is the DREAM and Entrepreneurship is just something unheard of.
How does Pulver deal with this?
By believing in myself and when pushed, sharing the passion with others. By knowing that if I don't go out and take risks and try things out that these opportunities won't be looking for me. By waking up every morning and doing everything I can to MAKE a difference. By having fun knowing that the future is unwritten and by knowing that anything is possible. By looking deep inside and realizing that this is what I'm here for and this is what I believe in and it is up to me to figure this all out. And, because I know that if I'm right about this, I will be there to support my family because I will be able to do so. And if I'm wrong about any of this, That I learned something special from the experience that I will be able to apply the next time I try something out.
If you have have a family focused on the paycheck and not on the entrepreneur's dream, it can be tough to bring them along. I come from an entrepreneurial family, so it's tougher for me to offer advice. But I do think basic salesmanship applies; if the person is motivated by stability, find ways to offer it. Budget a certain amount of steady income through stable projects. The risk averse will never "get" why you seek risk, so you may want to balance your risks with some baseline solid foundations.
Pulver also has some thoughts on success and failure, and "good mistakes."
In life we are never always right, nor are we ALWAYS wrong. But as people we need to be able to create an environment which supports "good mistakes." Good mistakes become someone else's special discoveries. Which in turn moves the needle forward.
Embracing Error
Error, the Unforeseen, and the Emergent
The Error and Interactive Media Art
By Tim Barker
The condition that marks the post-digital age may be the condition for error. In the condition where machinic systems seek the unforeseen and the emergent, there is also a possibility for the unforeseen error to slip into existence. This condition can be seen in the emerging tradition of artists using error as a creative tool. In his paper “The Aesthetics of Failure: ‘Post-Digital’ Tendencies in Contemporary Music,” Kim Cascone points to the way in which composers, using digital means, exploit the inadequacies of a particular compositional or performative technology (Cascone 13). Cascone cites composers such as Ryoji Ikeda who create minimalist electronic compositions using media as both their form and theme. In these compositions, the errors, imperfections, and limitations of the particular compositional media are the central constituting elements of the piece. In addition to music, this glitch aesthetic is also exploited in the visual arts. Artists such as Tony Scott set up situations in which errors are able to emerge and be exploited in the art making process. In these types of work the artist’s role is to allow a glitch or an error to arise in a specific system, then to reconfigure and exploit the generative qualities of the unforeseen error.
LEFT: Tony Scott, Glitch No. 13, 2001-2005
The generative capabilities of error can be understood through Lev Manovich’s cultural communication model developed in his paper “Post-Media Aesthetics.” Traditionally, a pre-media cultural communication model represents the transmission of a signal as SENDER—MESSAGE—RECEIVER (Manovich, “Post-Media Aesthetics” 18). In this original model the sender encodes and transmits a message over a communication channel; as Manovich indicates, in the course of transmission the message is affected by any noise that exists along the communication channel. The receiver then decodes the message. Here the message is susceptible to error in two ways. First, the noise that originates from the communication channel may alter the message. Second, there may be discrepancies between the sender and receiver’s code (Manovich, “Post-Media Aesthetics” 18). Manovich, in order to propose a post-digital consideration of transmission, has developed this model by including the sender and receiver’s software. Post-digital cultural communication can now be considered as SENDER—SOFTWARE—MESSAGE—SOFTWARE—RECEIVER (Manovich, “Post-Media Aesthetics” 17-18). In this model the cultural significance of software is emphasised. The software, much more than the noise introduced by the communication channel, may change the message. Significantly, the software may introduce an error into the message. Following Gilles Deleuze, we may say that the software may articulate a link to the field of potential in order to generate unforeseen, and perhaps unwanted, information.
The cultural role that Manovich ascribes to software becomes elucidated in Dimitre Lima, Iman Morandi, and Ant Scott’s Glitchbrowser. Glitchbrowser is an alternative to the traditional model of a web browser. This browser, rather than attempting to assist user navigation of the internet, creates errors when displaying the pages that it accesses. The images of any page accessed by Glitchbrowser are distorted or glitched through colour saturation and abstraction from their original composition. In this work, following Manovich’s cultural communication model, the software that intervenes between sender and receiver alters the content of the message. Thus in Glitchbrowser, the artists remind us that the information we receive is largely reconstituted by the system it travels through. In a sense the machine reveals itself, rather than creating the illusion of a transparent interface to information. In the application of Glitchbrowser the user witnesses the way that messages are transmitted and altered by the interface. Here, the machine reminds the user of its existence (Manovich, The Language of New Media 206).
Any system that seeks the actualisation of unforeseen potential is also a system that has the capacity to become errant. Rather than thinking of the error as something to fear or avoid, we can think of an error as something that brings with it the capacity for the new and the unforeseen (perhaps it is this link to the unforeseen that is precisely the reason that we fear the errant). We can think of any system that is open to the unforeseen as surrounded by a cloud of potential errors, or, as Deleuze would put it, a cloud of the virtual (Deleuze and Parnet 148). At any point in its process, a system is traversing potential errors—and at any point, one may become actualised. We can picture a potential for error at every point that a system is opened to unformed information.
As a system attempts to actualise this unformed information, to form the unformed from the cloud of the virtual, the system may also give form to an unformed error. Deleuze’s virtual can be understood as the field of pure potentiality. In this field there exists all those things that could potentially become actualised in the course of a system, but for some reason, do not. We can think of the virtual, from the present moment, as containing all the potential events that could take place in the future. Only one of these events will become actualised, becoming the actual present, and the other events will remain virtual. As Brian Massumi describes, the virtual that Deleuze theorises is a mode of reality that is articulated in the emergence of new potentials—the virtual is implicated in the reality of change. A system, in the event of change, moves through and connects to the virtual, actualising some information and leaving other information as un-actualised virtuality. This system is surrounded by a cloud of the virtual, surrounded by potential errors. At any moment, as the system moves into the virtual it may actualise an error.
Rather than thinking of an event as the process by which preformed or preconceived possible information becomes realised, we can only think of an error as coming into being as the unformed and the unforeseen potential is actualised. This potential emerges from unique activities that occur in the process of a system. These unique activities open the system so that unforeseen information may emerge (DeLanda, Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy 36-37). If a system runs through its process without the potential for error it is essentially closed. It does not allow the potentiality of the emergent or the unforeseen. It is only through allowing the capacity for potential errors that we may provide the opportunity to think the unthought, to become-other, and to hence initiate further unforeseen becomings in the virtual (Rodowick 201). In a sense, when there is potential for an error to emerge in a system, the system cannot be regarded as a pre-formed linear progress; rather, it can only be thought as a divergent process that actualises elements of the virtual.
Yann Le Guennec’s Le Catalogue is an example of artist designed software causing unforeseen errors. This online work allows public access to a catalogue of images and installations created between 1990 and 1996. Every time a page is accessed from the archive, an intended error is activated in the form of an intersecting horizontal and vertical line, generated at random points over the image. The more that the page is viewed, the greater its deterioration by the obscuring intersecting line and the closer the image comes to abstraction. As Eduardo Navas states, “the archive is similar to analogue vinyl records losing their fidelity and being slightly deteriorated every time the needle passes through the groove.” In Le Guennec’s catalogue the act of accessing and consulting an object of the archive, in essence, causes an internal error to the object. This is an error that is inbuilt; it is an error that we cause by the act of looking or accessing any of the images. As we access the image we allow a virtual error to become actual. Eventually the error will take over the original image, and the image will be more about error than it ever was about its referent.
Just as in Cascone’s glitch music, the form and the theme of Le Catalogue is error. In Le Catalogue we see the potential for error whenever information is mediated; the work becomes a reflection on the act of looking, but looking through a particular paradigm, looking through the interface. The work’s archive can only be preserved by allowing the images to exist, un-accessed, behind the interface. But this work is not about preservation. It is ultimately about the ephemeral and its uniqueness. Each error caused by the user, which becomes actual from the virtual, is unique—and each time the archive is accessed it is differentiated from its past. Every time an image is accessed, it becomes its own original; every time an error from the field of the virtual is actualised, the unforeseen emerges.
In these types of works the error can be understood through a Deleuzian ontology as a generative and creative force. As mentioned above, in order to position the condition for error as the condition for the unforeseen, we can think of the errant system as involved in a process of making actual potential from the virtual. In contrast, the system that holds no potential for error is involved in the process of realising possibilities. The possible follows a line toward an already established attractor; in this instance the future is closed as it is already given in the present. If we could access information in Le Catalogue without causing the unforeseen error, the information is possible. If this were the case, any selection from the archive’s menu would return a preformed image. In opposition to this, the potential moves through processes of bifurcation and divergence toward chaotic attractors; in this case the future is open (DeLanda, “Deleuze and the Open-Ended Becoming of the World”).
Actualisation is separate from realisation in that realisation suggests a passage from the possible to the static. Actualisation implies the production of something new and unforeseen, a becoming virtual that results in new possibilities and transformations (Lévy). The possible exists in a state of limbo as an already constituted thing; the only thing separating the real from the possible is existence. The possible is thus thought of as a latent phantom reality (Lévy 24).
If we were only ever interested in realising the possible then errors would not be a concern. The system only becomes errant when we seek the unformed. This occurs whenever we actualise information from the field of the virtual. The virtual error is to be thought of as the potential that may or may not come into being through a process of actualisation. As Lévy states, “the virtual is that which has potential rather than actual existence … The tree is virtually present in the seed” (23). The seed does not know what shape the tree will take, as it would in a possible-real model. Rather the seed must actualise the tree as it enacts a process of negotiation between its internal limitations and the environmental circumstances that it encounters through this process. We can thus see potential errors as virtual in that the system does not know the errors that it may actualise. The system actualises these errors as it explores its degrees of freedom and the circumstances that may allow the emergence of error.
As the potential for error marks the potential for the new and the unforeseen, we can see that an error in itself may be creative. An error may be utilised. It may be sought out and used to create the unforeseen within traditional systems, such as our routine computer use. In these instances, as the unique generative qualities of error are actualised, the artist can no longer be thought of as the sole creative force. Rather it is now the artist’s role to provide the circumstances for an error to emerge. The error fills the potentiality of a system with meaning, whether intended or unintended by the designer. It is the participant’s interrelationship with this error that may be thought to proliferate artistic meaning. The aesthetics of the digital encounter occur as an interactive event between participant and machine, with the artist, in a sense, hidden behind the machine. When an error occurs, unforeseen to the artist, the work is affected and possibilities are created for new meanings to emerge.
Desert Rain, a complex mixed reality environment, by the group Blast Theory, actualises errors and exposes its software limitations in ways unintended by the artists. The work involves six participants that are asked to navigate a digitally generated landscape of the Gulf War in order to locate a target. This digitally generated space is projected upon a curtain of water spray. Once all the participants have found their targets they are lead through the rain curtain, over a sand dune and to a representation of a hotel room. In this room there is a television screen that displays one of the targets narrating their real life experience of the Gulf War. The digital target is now made actual as a physically real, yet still mediated, person. This work presents a space in which the real and the digital mutually affect one another; the participant’s experience in the digital landscape directs the meaning that they take from the target’s real life narrative, and the experience of this narrative affects the participant’s memories of the digital landscape. The overall experience of Desert Rain is constituted by the coming together of the material and the digital spaces so that they may produce a mixed reality space.
However, the actual functioning of Desert Rain does not always provide the means for the theoretical tessellated space that Blast Theory seeks. This is due to certain errors and limitations in the machinic system. But these are not necessarily aesthetic bugs; in fact they may enhance the aesthetics of the form of the work. For instance, the digitally generated graphics are rather clumsy and hard edged, with a slow frame rate and low definition. Also, some participants found it difficult to use the footplate effectively (Benford et al. 54). For these reasons, the space of the digital and the space of the real remain separate, with the participant struggling to manipulate the interface in order to access the digital; the sometimes errant functionality of the interface acts as a barrier between the digital and the material. However, this technical bug may enable the participant to grapple with the machinic in ways which would not occur had the machine been perfect. As Blast Theory and the Communications Research Group point out, ethnographic research into interaction has found that this technical bug was generally only seen as a detriment to the work by those participants with a technical background (Benford et al. 53-55). Those participants, in contrast, with an artistic background tended to see the limitations of the form as a conscious aesthetic gesture. That is, the slowness and clumsiness of the media became directly connected to the larger purpose of the work, which is to criticise the media’s coverage of the Gulf War and the general place of media in our daily lives. Here, for the artistically inclined audience, form and content come inextricably linked. Thus the error in the form is inextricable from the meaning of the work. The imprecise navigation, due to the nature of the footplate, through the obvious and imprecise mediated imaging of the world, directly links to the experience of receiving information through television broadcasts. In a sense the limitations of the media and the interface device are embodied, quite unintentionally, in the content of the work.
If the participant of interactive digital media is to be thought of as coupled to the machine, when the machine becomes errant, the participant shares in this condition. The interactive participant experiences limitations, glitches, or bugs first hand; they are, in some respects, party to the glitches and bugs and a part of the system’s limitations. New media theorists and artists such as Valie Export, have already pointed out that the subjective space of the viewer co-exists with the objective space of the machine. As a result the user is tied to the machine and thus connected to its glitches. This is because the work is not just constituted by the machine and its substrate but also by the way the human responds to the immersive environment. The work no longer takes place in a time and space that is separate from the spectator. Rather the time and space of the spectator and the time and space of the machine are both implicit in the realisation of the work. Thus, the spectator’s time and space has become filled with the potential for error. The participant and the machine are mutually engaged in a process of becoming virtual; they deliberate together, as one system that moves into the field of potential.
(...)
