Yule tide greetings and some not-so festive thoughts

My mother and brother live in Spain (yeh good deal) so for Christmas ive come over to Marbella to spend it with the fam. My brothers quite a keen philosopher and has been pointing me in the direction of some heavy research material. Philosophy Now back issues as well as The Philosophy Gym by Stephen Law. The latter articulates some pretty deep ideas in a very accessible manner and the former is obviously an excellent source. So ive been reading chapters and articles surrounding the issues of causality, control, free will, Evolutionist vs Creationist. Ive also been rereading Albert Camus "L'Etranger" or "The Outsider" due to its link to free will and expression of existentialism. Meursault, the protagonist, is an atheist who kills a man for almost inexplicable reasons. He keeps things simple, never saying more than is necessary. When Meursault refuses to turn to God after his crime he is sentenced to death. This, like his imprisonment, barely bothers him. The important fact is that he stays true to his beliefs. He is not a religious man therefore it seems absurd for him to suddenly accept God just to escape death, which he completely accepts responsibility for. He appears a very insensitive character (for example at the beginning of the story he doesn't cry at his mothers funeral) but it is simply that he remains honest to how he feels. He doesn't exaggerate emotions or reactios just because that's what's expected or just because that's what everyone else would do in the same situation. As i said, he stays true to his beliefs, no more, no less.

Ive also started to touch on Jean-Paul Sartre (not literally). Ive been reading about him in the Philosphy Now magazine. He is one of the fore-runners of existentialism and was friends with Albert Camus until they differed on their political and philosophical perspectives. There's a couple of quotes that really hit me, he claimed we, as human beings are
"condemned to be free"
I really like this statement, it's a poignant quote in existentialism and sums up an angle of free will. As Neo and the Architect discuss in The Matrix Reloaded, the reason why the human race cannot live in a peaceful paradise of loving harmony is the problem of choice. To act, or not to act. To interact, or not to interact. To make love, or war. Now of course those who do not believe in free will and take a more deterministic approach may argue that we are simply reacting to prior outside material causes, or that we are just resulting effects of the laws of nature and science. This to me is an excuse. If society took this deterministic idea we would have absolute chaos, a civilisation without moral responsibility. Imagine the madness. But nowm, back to Sartre, who also believed,
"existence preceeds essence"
Its not the meaning of life thats important, but the fact that we are actually alive. Anything we do with our life comes after the real significance that the human race exists in the first place. For arguments sake lets say we all believe the Big Bang theory. Now if that explosion had differed by even the minutest detail - we, earth, life, would not exist at all. It took the most perfect conditions for single celled organisms to come into being after the explosion, and then (assuming we are all Darwinians) millions of years of evolution for homosapiens to develop, for conscience to become, and for civilisation to advance to its current stage. The meaning of life is the miracle that we are alive. Similarly, whether free will is actual or an illusion, the crucial point is that we have the idea of free will. It is vital to society that we think we have the choice between right or wrong. As i mentioned above, if we can blame everything we do on outside forces, that are out of our control, then noone will have to take responsibility for their actions, be them positive or negative. It is essential for morality, justice and social responsibility that we believe we are free agents who have the option of acting or not acting and accept the consequences.

There, i did it, thats what im thinking at the moment. How i integrate this into a digital media interactivity brief is another matter. But until then. HAPPY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE! (Does that hold any significance if im an evolutionist who therefore doesn't believe in God...)

Articulate to matriculate

Lev Manovich - Totalitarian Interactivity.

The above link was provided to me by Claire in a comment a few weeks back. It's Lev Manovich writing on the myth of interactivity and interactivity as a subtle form of manipulation and the resulting effects on society. This was the initial issue i was dealing with in regards to the brief. I have since moved on to other pastures and have developed an idea for an installation that sums up my recent thoughts. Therefore now this is covered i want to explore the original idea of control.
Back to the myth of interactivity. By giving the user choice this alludes to them having control, when in reality the author is simply herding the audience in a certain direction. As we move from an industrial civilization to an information civilization, the text (art work) moves from representation to manipulation, giving digital media and our current information age a very foreboding feel.
Focusing on psychological interaction between user and computer we have discussed how hyperlinks externalize the authors mind, the user follows this pre-meditated path of anothers associations, mistaking them for their own. As well as the issue of our current postmodern culture desensitizing the commonwealth as we are bombarded with hideous imagery of death, misery and pain. Now photographs and footage of this nature have such little impact. It seems our digital media society cannot escape the fact that no idea is original, thoughts are merely residual of early mechanization and more recent technological development. We are doomed to follow set narratives in every sense and our minds are therefore becoming ever more narrow.

Installation Proposal:

A fairly small room, longer than it is wide, is split in half so to the user it appears they are entering one very small room, with a screen, plinth and switch facing them. In the other room, to which the interactee is completely oblivious, is the Mouse Trap game.

The user approaches the plinth and triggers the switch, which plays a video of the artist in a mouse mask, setting up the game Mouse Trap. In real time this process took 40 minutes. The video will be sped up to last around 6 minutes – the alleged number of days it took God to create the heavens and the earth. Once the footage has run the screen switches to a camera that is suspended from the second rooms ceiling, filming the mouse trap game. When the video is over and this camera is activated, so too is the mouse trap game, and the user (if they’re still in the first room watching the screen), now gets to see the game in effect through a real time feed from the secret room.

The ideas here are still fairly rough, but do you see what im going for? If you’ve read my blog recently you’ll know I’ve been exploring the contrast between the extensive time taken on the artists behalf to prepare and create a piece of work, compared to the brief time it will take for the reader to view the piece. In my installation I want to force the viewer to sit through the process of creating the art work and delay the expected instant gratification i.e. the Mouse Trap game executed.

The video of the artist setting up the game: I initially imagined the artist in a white room dressed in a mouse costume as this seems to be quite a zeitgeist trendy thing to do at present, what with Mark Wallinger winning the Turner Prize in a bear outfit. However Elly Rees advised that this is a good reason NOT to have it. As well as the fact that the novelty value of someone dressed up as a mouse will detract from the main focus of the piece. Therefore the artist will remain in a white room, but will wear a simple mask simply to hide his identity.

The way things flow

Over a pint of Kronenberg in Rikitiks i was chatting to a friend, Will Jarman about my thoughts on causality. He mentioned the absolute necessity of the begining agent, the catalyst of the reaction, the creator. I was proposing to him my idea of the least possible amount of interaction on a complex system with such impressive results, referring to Fischli and Weiss's "The Way Things Go." As well as focussing on the time and effort on the authors behalf compared to the minimal effort on the audiences side, and the awe-inspiring nature of the resulting spectacle. Now, Will concentrated on the integrality of the audiences primary input, it is essential to initiate the reaction. I found this angle a very interesting consideration and so at this point the discussion goes two ways:

1) The theory of the Big Bang and
2) Genesis, The Old Testament

Science vs. Religion. A classic battle. I shall research both.