Re: [Frameworks] unsettling possibilities

From: Aaron F. Ross <>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:29:06 -0700

I haven't read C.S. Lewis, I could never tolerate the heavy-handed
Christian apologism. Tolkien was the better writer because he
abhorred allegory. Anyway, I think it's worth questioning whether
"The Abolition of Man" might not be such a bad thing after all. Or,
to quote Nietzche, man is something to be overcome. The utter
virtualization of all experience may liberate consciousness in ways
we puny humans cannot comprehend. Intellect and vision are emergent
properties of consciousness; we should be doing everything in our
power to extend those capabilities or risk obsolescence. The
singularity is coming whether we like it or not. Shall we light a
candle, or curse the darkness?



At 10/30/2011, you wrote:
>Yes -- and there will always be constraints of one kind or
>another. New tools will still be tools. . . . My "unsettling"
>reference was in regard to the inevitable misuse of the tools. But
>the various roles of artists will likely include, as always,
>creating new and alternative visions as informed by whatever
>technologies exist, as well as ongoing social/cultural criticism
>and provocation. But to Aaron's comment: while "the most
>imaginative visionaries" and "pure intellect" (whatever that may
>be) seem somehow contradictory . . . i,e. from where do these
>visions and intellect arise? . . . it is certainly believable that
>the scope possibilities will be widened. It's just that the notion
>of the end of artisanal craftsmanship does sound a bit like "That
>Hideous Strength." Marilyn On 29-Oct-11, at 1:21 PM, Brook Hinton
>wrote: > And before I get labeled as a luddite or film fetishist,
>which anyone > who knows me knows I am not at all - I love the
>things digital > technology has opened up for making and
>experiencing art. My work has > been completely digital for years
>(though I also love, and loved > working with, film for its own
>unique capabilities). And I can > certainly see "brain recordings"
>as great ingredients in a piece of > art made with constrained
>tools. But raw vision dump? I want to see > the amazing collision of
>the artist's vision with the tools and > materials - digital,
>analog, virtual, I don't care - not the one > unmasked
>ingredient. > > Brook > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Brook
>Hinton <> > wrote: >> I am interested in tools
>because they can jolt my mind into finding / >> expressing / using
>things it couldn't otherwise envision. The >> "constraint" of tools
>is the key to aesthetic transformation, which >> then helps me see /
>live better the rest of the time. >> >> I'm not interested in
>unfiltered manifestation of something direct >> from my, or
>anyone's, brain. I already live there. Same even with the >> "dream"
>of 3D 360degree cinema - I already live in a 3D immersive >> world.
>I need things like cinema to enlighten, inform, enhance being >>
>alive, not duplicate it - goes for the life outside as well as
>inner >> life. >> >> Making art is a way to surpass the limitations
>of the brain. The >> constraints of the tools are catalysts in this
>process. >> >> >> Brook >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:38
>AM, Aaron F. Ross >> <> wrote: >>> This is
>not unsettling to me, I've been waiting for it to happen >>> since I
>first read science fiction stories as a young boy. >>> >>> With
>brain-machine interfaces, the opportunities for self-expression >>>
>will be blown wide open. At that point, I'm hoping that the most >>>
>imaginative visionaries should be able to rise to the forefront
>of >>> public awareness. No longer will we be constrained by
>tools. >>> Artisanal craftsmanship will no longer exist, to be
>replaced by pure >>> intellect. And that's a good thing. >>> >>> I
>gave a talk this year that touched upon this topic, mainly in
>the >>> context of how 3D graphics has widened the scope of
>possibilities >>> for >>> art and communication. I know that
>computer art is very unpopular >>> among this crowd, I've been
>attacked again and again for mentioning >>> it, so let the flames
>begin. I'm wearing my flame-retardant vest. >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
>Aaron >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> At 10/28/2011, you wrote: >>>>
>Interesting article with complex social, biological, as well >>>>
>as aesthetic implications into the future. . . . Obviously, >>>>
>capturing imagery is a far cry from understanding the
>complexities >>>> of 'thought,' and it's still very futuristic, but
>as we >>>> conceivably >>>> 'think' to each other, or project our
>thought/images, there would >>>> have to be resultant changes in
>consciousness, and the role of the >>>> artist would necessarily be
>re-defined along with >>>> everything/everyone else. "Direct"
>visual art? Ultimate loss of >>>> the artisanal? And/or a
>revitalizing of same? I realize this has >>>> little or no
>immediate relevance to anyone here (probably), but it >>>> showed
>up in my email and I just thought some frameworkers would >>>>
>possibly find it interesting as well: >>>>
> >>>> Marilyn Brakhage
>_______________________________________________ >>>> FrameWorks
>mailing list >>>>
> >>> >>>
>------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Aaron F.
>Ross >>> Digital Arts Guild >>> >>>
>_______________________________________________ >>> FrameWorks
>mailing list >>> >>>
> >>> >> >> >>
> >> -- >> ____________________________ >> Brook Hinton >> Moving
>Image and Sound Maker >> >> >> Associate
>Professor / Assistant Chair >> Film Program at CCA >> California
>College of the Arts >> >> > > > > -- >
>____________________________ > Brook Hinton > Moving Image and Sound
>Maker > > > Associate Professor / Assistant
>Chair > Film Program at CCA > California College of the Arts >
> > _______________________________________________ >
>FrameWorks mailing list > >
>_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing


Aaron F. Ross
Digital Arts Guild

FrameWorks mailing list
Received on Mon Oct 31 2011 - 00:55:41 CDT