j.bek_readings

9_12_06

From Grid to Network

Taylor really attempts to break down the evolution ofhistory in terms of a transition from grid oriented cultures and societies toour present day modern system of networks. At first examining what grid is in relation to all aspects in life andarchitecture then the network system. Insum, his definition of the grid is a result of a need to find reason in asystem for maximum efficiently, completely rational and thus controllingnature. While defining a global networkis based on complex logic and dynamics, which is constantly trying to beunderstood. Another key factor of thenetwork culture is the inability for a society or individual to be in controlof it. In many ways the network is anorganism in constant change flux bringing everything to the point ofchaos. As Taylor refers to this as the ”momentof complexity” it is “never fixed or secure”. He first exemplifies the grid with Mies’s Seagram’sBuilding. This is the primary example ofrationality and efficiently in modern architecture. The building is referred to as “functionalism”,“absent of ornament”, “principle of order”, and “the formal simplification ofcomplexity”. This is the point that Ifound most interesting. He begins hisargument expressing the grid as rational thought then it makes this shift intothe idea of the grid being the simplification of complexity. Is it only with the introduction of thenetwork culture that we regard rationality solely a simplification? Then in the progression of time there is the intermediaryphase with the notion of the decorated shed. This idea is a grid of a substructure with tacked on ornament only forthe purpose of breeding complexity. ThenTaylor proposes Ghery as the architectural example of a network culture, thepoint at the edge of complete chaos. Ithink it would be easy for one to argue that we, as well as Ghery, are still inthe same intermediary phases expressed by Venturi. Is our modern culture dependent of the grid?

From Object to Field

First lets try to define the term field. At first glance it is any special conditionin which is able to connect local reactions. Allen refers to the field as a "bottom up reaction" whichimplies that the end form or visual characteristics of the field have lessprominence than the relationship between the forms. He then puts the idea of the field into ahistorical context beginning with classical architecture. At this stage the field was based ongeometric principals and proportion. Rules of symmetry and progression were the prominent definingcharacteristics of the field condition. The next argument is based around cubism, minimalism, andthe grid. It seems odd when the grid isoffered as and end result to the complex system of the field. When the field grows to the point that theinterconnection between the smaller local effects are not dominate then itbecomes a grid. That breeds the questionare all fields grids? Allen answers thatas no though all grids are fields. Thisdiscourse leads to the discussion of figure ground and later the notion of athree dimensional field. Is a moderncity just a three dimensional field? One of his last arguments is of the digital field. In the digital field a code is translatedinto a reoccurring system and then translated into a visual form. In this case there is a very cleardelineation between hierarchies and the value of very specific elements. The one emergence that I found to be quiteinteresting is in a digital field is that the background have just as muchimportance or density of code than the foreground. As Allen states, "Blank space is notempty space". It seems that Allen idea of the field is very close toTaylor's ideas of a network culture.

African Genesis

It seems quite difficult to speak about the rhythms andformal qualities, Kwinter speaks of, not in relation to the previous readingson grids, networks, and fields. He beginwith a more generalized discussion on the evolution of the African plains andsome of its inhabitants over time. Theevolution of human in this environment was based around the "inherenttendencies" of ancestors before existing in the landscape. This relationship is very similar to the oneof the field, though the spatial qualities of the field are replaced by theaspect of time. The primary issue is notof the plains as a whole but of creatures and resources that exists within it. Soon Kwinter continues to the aspects of music. He speaks of the rhythms as a relationshipnot individual single beats nor the end sound. The beats can only be addressed in connection to other beats though theyare autonomous to themselves. A musiciancan only enter a song locally through a single beat of another though at anytime each individual musician can only hear his/her beat. The outcome which is the song has no realmatter it is on the smaller local level that is of significance. Then, similar to Taylor's ideas of thenetwork, the rhythm or song as a whole is stabile onto itself though it isalways in flux and can develop and progress autonomous of the musician. "Rhythms, as we noted, do not standalone; they pick one another out, cut across one another, focus one another,and make one another be "heard." Rhythms are responsive and reciprocal." (pg.35) Kwinter takes this one step further to the idea of forcesin Nietzsche’s argument that forces only have an effect on other forces and noton the object. Taking that idea into thefield condition, the local is no longer as prevalent. The local object or condition becomes amedium between the cause of one force to the effect of another, breaking downthe idea of the field one step further. "...nature moves: composing forces, not composed things."

Code 46

The most influential aspects of the film, or at least tome, are all the subtle and unspoken occurrences which fell to the background ofthe background. The primary drive of theplot, the breach of a “Code 46” violation, really fell secondary to the settingand relative time period in which the film to place. For all intensive purposes the film couldhave be set in the present day or very near future. While the futurism is clear expressed, or atleast within the urban boundaries, many objects did not seem to develop much atall. Any infrastructure or buildingswere expressed with out change, while personal items, regulations orrestrictions on the individual were rather different. On the smaller scale life is very differentthough it may not appear that way on the larger. Another rather interesting aspect of the film was themelding of cultures and races. It seemedit there only one language existed globally which was comprised of littleportions of every language. Hello inChinese, thank you and sorry in Spanish, but over all mostly English. At what point down the road in history willyou go to Shanghai and see as many Chinese people as any other race? It seems to be a rather idealistic outlookwithout one dominate race. One last phenomenon which was played out was the nightday paradigm. It seemed that the extremeresult in climate change forced a number of reactions. The inverse of day and night was the mostobvious result. The next was the dividebetween the urban setting and everything else outside its boundaries. What was once flourishing forests andthriving natural landscapes is now reduced to desert lands. The “civilized world” inhabits the urbanspace while the exiled are forced to live as nomads in tents in thedeserts. It seemed that cultures whichhistorically lived in these setting types were forced to inhabit them. Outside the Chinese city of Shanghai a MiddleEastern type culture was able to live in the desert climates. These types of cultural and social effectscan be traced back to natural causes rendering a new world not that far fromthe one we live in today.

Syriana

What struck me most while watching the film was thestructure or layout in the varying sequencing of scenes therefore points ofview. The amount of players based aroundsomething such as an oil merger really exemplifies how global of a society welive in. While trying to visualize themap or web of connections to keep track of each player, and their effect on theoutcome or route in which the game is played out it, was quite difficult. It is absolutely part of the modern daynetwork system that Taylor speaks of if “From Grid to Network”. On another level it is a bit frightening to see theamount of parties involved providing an every day commodity such as oil. Once again the cause and effect reaction inorder to provide the cheapest energy source possible seems incredible. One portion of the web begins with a workerlosing his job at an oil refinery resulting in him eventually destroyingit. It is this type of reoccurrence andreinvestment in the system that has control over the outcome of thenetwork. Living in a modern globalnetwork leads to our need for the cheapest resources as possible resulting withan entire society in unrest.

9_18_06

Emergence

Johnson begins his introduction with the discussion of the slime mold. A slime mold is spends most of its life as a single celled organism autonomous from other slime molds. In the most ideal conditions slime molds can join and work with others to create a larger organism. In less ideal situations, such as during a scarcity of a food source, each individual cell will exist alone in order to survive, every single celled organism for itself. The slime mold can flux in ones life back and forth existing as a whole or an individual. Without a hierarchy between cells or a dominating force dictating the actions of a single cell how does each know when to join together? This is what Johnson regards as “emergence” not aggregation. Emergence is a bottom up process in which one in informed by the one below. He states, “The movement from low level rules to higher level sophistication is what we call emergence.” With very simple local conditions one can render incredibly complex results. It is in the variation of simple local rules alone that allow the global result to be complex. Johnson then identifies the term “artificial emergence.” Artificial emergence is a system created with the understanding or preconceived notion of emergence for a specific result. In later chapters Johnson looks at many types of living organisms and systems that display emergence. One seemingly key point is Johnson’s idea of the “street level.” He explains this with the example of the ant. The ant has no ability to see or understand result of an entire ant colony or even have the knowledge base to understand the sequence of the whole. He or she is limited to its immediate surrounding and nothing else. If this is the case how is the ant able to know and perform its job in the colony?

Playtime

Let me justsay that I do not think I will ever be able to understand a large extent ofthis film. A few main points do seem tobe repeated. Firstly, in context withthe other readings, there seems to be this odd dynamic between the individualinhabitants, local, and the “glass box,” global. It is very similar to Johnson’s example ofthe ant colony and the notion of the “street level.” There are many functions of this building,from the offices, conference rooms, tourist attractions, technology fairs, andrestaurants to name a few. Each servingdifferent uses, though the boundary between them is very specific, with a largeglass panel, though the flow or transparency between them is oftenunrecognizable. One clear example ofthis is when the glass door breaks. Thesolution is the doorman holding the door knob in place. The physical boundary of the glass door losesall importance having no function as long as the notion is there. There is a clear delineation betweenfunctions and programs though the inhabitant in not very aware of them,everything seems to look identical. Eventhe users of the building all seem to look identical. It portrays the human as the ant and theglass box as the colony. Whenlooking from the angle of the American tourist there is seemingly no need tosee the actual Paris. Without projecting to far into it, the newmodernist wave is disregarding the past. The true culture and history of Parisbecomes secondary in the reflection of the new. Taking place in the fifties, the not so subtle portrayal of the everydayman and woman is so sedated and blindly engrossed with new technology,forgetting the past, while still not able to understand this new machine forliving. Within thismini city that is one building there seems to be such order until appearance ofnightfall. In every completely rationalsystem there is the lapse. At night thesystem completely falls apart, complete chaos. Nothing performs its intended function. It seems to be an end note to our new technological age.

Incorporations NonorganicLife

In one wordDelanda seems to be examining notions, causes, and effects of reactions. The reaction or interaction between twoparts, whether it may be chemical, organic, linear, or nonlinear, along with arule base will perform different function with varying results. These interactions create systems which willoccur until the state of equilibrium. One of thefirst points to settle is the difference between linear and nonlinearsystems. In a “linear” system orequation a sum off all the parts or reactions nearly always render the sameresult. This behavior is similar to amath problem, with the same imputes one gets the same predictable results. Linear systems are most useful whenaddressing a material practice. On theother hand there is the relatively new notion of the nonlinear system. These systems seem to be the abnormalitiesthat are extremely difficult to address and for the most part are regarded aschaos or “solitons”. They do not conformto the norm or unpredictable. This waveof the nonlinear system allows one to examine matter or multi-cellularorganisms to self organize without a hierarchy or regulatory system. In mathematics this is known asbifurcation. In these systems there is acomplete balance of power, no single unit regulates the others. Delandafurthers the idea of the nonlinear system throughout the article. He attempts to tackle the discussion of the interactionwith flow of matter and energy. Then hespeaks about some of the outside occurrences that affect the system, such asreactors and attractors. With out goinginto great detail I think in the end one of the main points is that this is arelatively new discussion that was made possible with the advent of computersbut we still have barely touched the surface in trying to understand them. If there ever becomes a point when we dounderstand them then they become linear systems.

Videodrome

It seemshard to attempt to analyze past the immediate surface of Videodrome’s sadisticnature. The film starts out with theintroduction of Wood’s character as nothing more than a sleazy man making aliving displaying pornographic and violent material on public television. He also profits off of pirated video. The more sick and twisted the material themore profit is to me made. As the filmprogresses the viewer’s perception of this character develops into a bit morepositive. He seems to honestly believethat we all need and outlet to experience these horrific acts in order not tocommit them ourselves. This outlet ispreventive of many issues that exist today. In hissearch for worse and worse material he is exposed to the Videodrome. The Videodrome is nothing else then pure sexand violence for no apparent reason. There is no plot or purpose for its creation nor purpose for the viewerto watch it, while simultaneously capturing the view. What is this innate need that is humannature? The curse of the Videodromewithin its blur between watching others commit these horrifying acts and beinga participant in them. The view is takenover or poisoned by the video waves of the Videodrome to a point of hallucinationand partakes in these acts. Without allof the side effects this is seemingly a good outlet in order to prevent peoplefrom committing such acts in reality.

Soft Systems

InKwinter’s notion of a system the primary drive exists in its ability to be“soft.” He uses the term “softness” to relate to the systems ability tochange. A stable system is grounded inits ability to move and adapt, not the other way around. Kwinter explains it as, “A system is “soft”when it is flexible, adaptable, and evolving, when it is complex and maintainedby a dense network of active information or feedback loops…” Kwinter continues with a similar discussionto Delanda regarding linear and nonlinear systems, though Kwinter titles it asthe “superposition principle.” With theaddition of part with out any outside factors one will always obtain the sameresult. Nonlinear systems can not beunderstood by only looking at their parts but the interactions between theirparts. The system is emergent as theinteractions and the parts begin to disappear. Nonlinear systems have the ability to grow, change, and adapt over time,in other words are “soft systems.” Kwintercontinues with a discourse on genetics. Genes are nothing more than the basic or simple containers ofinformation. Without their existence ina nonlinear system they remain static and inactive. It is the interaction system with its partsthat is of importance not the raw material that makes it up. In this interstitial space is where life exists. The nextdiscussion is based in geometry. In thisexample of a Boolean network, the system is in constant chaotic flux until itcreates logic overtime. To simplify theargument, when a system is at it most “soft” and adaptable state, in otherwords complete chaos, a peak occurs and it is able to redefine its logic. This is the difference between a gas and aliquid state. In shortKwinter’s last argument is based in matter and material. New materials and technologies emerge out ofthe “soft system” we are developing and living in. We are in a constant state of flux in realtime. Modern culture is an example of a“soft system” emerging from natural evolution.

9_25_to_10_02_06

Demonlover The basic plot of Assayas’s “Demonlover” revolves around two competing French and American companies, racing to purchase a Japanese anime/pornography corporation. In the rather explicit or disturbing series of events which surround the purchase. A web of deceit and scandal begins from the first scene of the movie in which the protagonist poisons and threatens the life of her boss in order to take over her poison in the company. The scheme is works though it is clear that someone knows of her actions as well as plotting their own ploy. Without going through every banal detail, by the end of the film the viewer realizes that there are many overlapping scandals and schemes in order for separate individuals to benefit for themselves. The sort of most interesting point to the film lies in this relationship of the individual to the larger game of company mergers. The three main players, the French television company, the American film company, and the Japanese anime company, all are looking out for their interests on the global scale. Though, within these three primary groups there are many individuals whom are not looking out for only their own interests regardless of their role in the game. At separate portions of the film the view switches opinion and believes that another is truly the conspirator. This switch is constantly changing. At some point it does not matter which actor or actress is playing which role because they become interchangeable. At any given time there is this flux from one traitor to the next, as if the disruption or force of the system is being transmitted through each local player throughout the larger game. The carrier is insignificant, what they are carrying is. The Hacker Work Ethic The notion of the “hacker work ethic” seems like a rather interesting one that could and should be extended to other disciplines. There is such a pure notion that the individual does their work for only one purpose, and that is their own self gratification. Through this discussion the idea of one’s work comes into play. Pekka then goes into describing different theological attitudes towards the worker and his/her work. These few points seem essential. One of the first views was of the early monks. They believed that the nature of ones work should not be questioned, but obeyed. The purpose of the work was not to exploit the outcome, but to quiet the soul of the worker in forcing him to do as he was told. In a way work was to benefit the worker, not in a monetary way. Later Pekka speaks of the “Protestant ethic.” This with the early ideas of capitalism developed a new meaning for this idea of work. At this point the notion of “wanting to do my job well,” loyalty, responsibility, and reliability became traits of the worker. Moving onto modern times with an industrialized society the idea of work has shifted again. Work is no longer for the present worker but for the future. In our network society ones work is in a way a development of the network. In this period is where the hacker/ open source identity comes into play. Noise in Formation Taylor brings up many interesting points in relation to the discussion of systems, more specifically in relation to noise in a system. I think that the first key point is that the preconceived notion that “noise” is a bad thing is untrue. Noise should be welcomed “interruptions and disruptions” into ones system. At the point when noise is introduced into the system, not only a result of the system, it can be utilized and is a sign of rising complexity. In a system of rules, along with the increase of stiffness in the rule base, the least amount of information is able to pass. In contrast to that statement, a system with more flexible rules allows for more information to pass therefore having more complexity. If complexity is a result of noise, noise must be congruent to the flow of information if not information itself. From this point a loop in the system occurs with noise breeding information as well as information breeding noise and so on. The next step implements time into the equation. As information continues to flow repeatedly through a system it is affected by its repetition and noises and will eventually reach a state of entropy. This state of entropy is still a bit unclear though it seems to be the state at which the information being passes becomes stable. At this state the information is able to breed new information previously unknown to the system. Not to make this even more complicated but Taylor continues to express entropy as a drive of energy into the system, therefore the entropy could be interpreted as a type of noise within the system. Roma Fellini’s Roma is seemingly a reflection on elements of Fellini’s life and his first introduction to Rome. The bulk of the film takes place in the years of Mussolini as well as a select number of scenes from modern life. The underlying theme is this play on perspectives of viewers. In many cases, no matter how different or how many numbers of characters that is in a scene, the perspective is very similar. There is often a rather simple string holding in characters together in every case. A key example of this is the scene in which cars are arriving into Rome. As all types enter the city, local and foreign, they are all excited and sort of immature in nature as they were seeing Rome for the first time. At many points in the scene the camera takes the position of a different character and the audience is barely any wiser. Simply the characters are all tied together by the excitement and the experience upon entering the city. In retrospect, take nearly any scene in the film and this is the case. For example, in the brothel, restaurant, or theater hall all the viewers have more or less the same experience. One of the interesting things in the theater hall scene, with the reoccurrence of the performers, there is always what Taylor refers to as a consent “noise” in the system. This noise is playing both literal and theoretical role in the scene. It is this noise and complexity that makes it an interesting scene, which probably would not have been otherwise. Pianos Not Stereos The initial question raised in this article is a result from customer society. Why should children be spectators and passive in their learning experience and not active by learning? These three proposals set up a structure in which children can embrace technology on a level that will benefit their development. This development occurs on two levels. The first level is by making personal connections, relating to ones specific interests, and two by epistemological connections. Epistemological connections have more of a relation more overall areas of knowledge and development. In these examples, Programmable Brinks, StarLogo, and MOOSE Crossing, children are exposed to rudimentary computational systems. They simulate different types of scenarios to achieve relatively simple or in some cases not so simple outcomes. Without making a judgment on this as a developmental tool for a seven year old, I think there is value is this idea that can be related to other disciplines and aspects of life. Creating relationships that “work” give the user one result while creating relationships that do not give another. These do seem like very simple cause and effect principals but they never seem to stay that way. With relatively simple rules and imputes, even from a child, one can render and begin to understand complex results.

Complexity Let me start off by stating that I do not really believe the notion of complexity can be defined, or at least with one definition at any one specific time. Complexity itself, as a construct, is extremely complex due to its perpetual redefinition. In the broadest sense, as well as forcefully imposing this idea, complexity could only define itself on its own ability to be redefined. This notion does seem to be repetitive though I think that is the only way at which (thus far to me) it can be explained. This loop of definitions is constantly growing, questioning, evaluating, and then redefining itself built up from previous knowledge. Relating this to the conversation surrounding the “ambient machine,” I believe a complex system is defined but its own ability to develop perpetually to its interior or exterior forces. All new input absorbed by the system is taken in as knowledge, evaluated, and then redefines the rules governing the system. In this scenario the system is forced to constantly change due to its necessity to, in a sense, survive. Kwinter would address this notion as the system’s to be “soft.” By no means does this imply that the rule set has to be vast or there be a massive number of agents in the system, as long as there is the ability to learn and adapt from past input / experiences. With this in mind the most “complex” of the software packages seems to be Processing. The structure of the script in Processing is such that one lays out a list of initial variables at first, in many cases without yet defining them value. Then the “void setup” is established, more or less defining some limits and default staring points. Next in the script sequence comes the “void draw.” In this portion any number of references can to either the initial set of variables or subsequent ones. In many cases it references any number of “voids” later in the script that have the ability to be looped a relatively infinite number of times. In each of these subsequent “voids” one give definition to any variables specifically to only one statement (with a push/ pop matrix) and then again within another, or it can be assigned to the entire system. Each time a variable or “void” is read in the “void draw” it is redefined relative to the previous time it was read. For example i=i+1. Every time “i” is defined it adds one to the previous definition. The system in a sense is contently redefining itself relative to its own previous inner workings or outside input, such as the mouse. Any seemingly interesting effects come out of the looped system redefining the same variables. The other aspect that seems to be quite interesting is an issue of scale both in a qualitative sense and in relation to time. The same variable being introduced into a system over a long period of time may be able to introduce itself with ease when the same input over a short period of time may force the system to adapt in a much more radical way. Each may have different end effects resulting on the system with the same input. Another possibility is a small effect on a given single agent within a system and the possibly massive alteration of rule base forced onto the system as a whole. In all these cases the system loop or time invested in any given system will have to refine itself, i.e. variables and rule sets, in order adopt and change with the its ability or “complexity.”

In regards to the previous discussion on Processing and definition of complexity the following scripts were examined by the established rule basis. Firstly, the circle array script. In this relatively strait forward script a circle with a clearly defined radius is randomly arrayed throughout the screen. Though the final result on screen is not incredibly stimulating to the eye, this script does seem to fall into the previous definition of complexity. What rules are being established? The infrastructure of the script, which is completely controlled by the user, has only two parts. One half of this infrastructure is described by the size or radius of the circle and the other by the amount of desired circles that are scattered around the screen. The trick is that the user is only drawing one circle and looping it. The rest of the script is a “random” variable which gets redefined each time to determine where each circle is placed. That’s it, though one could regard it as being complex in nature because it is a system that is constantly redefining itself.

The next script examined involved a rather similar rule base though containing many more input s. More or less the b asis of the script is the same, a single cube being redrawn over and over each with time while redefining its variables. The cubes are placed in the screen with a bit more rigor in rows and columns. Each time a cube is redrawn it moves on step over to create a grid pattern as opposed to being placed randomly throughout the screen. The input, which is the mouse position, determines the ability for the grid to diverge from the Cartesian organization. This var ying input, being ran through a “sin” value (in the X) and a “cos” value (in the Y), determines the resultant field condition. Again, in this system there is a bit more in terms of input though it has a similar degree of complexity; the system repeats, constantly redefining its rule base, with varying input in real time.