[...]suality is nested into vision; vision is reciprocally primed to recognize a visuality ***

visuality involves more than pattern recognition

perception is not the tool by which we experience art, but its very content and substance. john Onians concludes that “each painting forms its own ‘eye’.”

what kind of eye the art (of my Kinect) cultivates? (a techno-aesthetic eye?) (the diagrammatic eye?) (referring to the diagram project “sadistic statistics”)

the ways we see ...ly (historically, ecologically, evolutionary, technologically,) more part and parcel of the visuality of the anthropocene

the neuro-aesthetic eye

to “read” environment in terms of info pick-up and accommodation
to simply perceive as we do
but to parlay (double up) our perceptual system into a modality of processing, response, and responsiveness
(the aesthetics of) the visual brain is the contact (not contract) between the individual and the ecosystem

modulation of ethos in landscape?

Kinect is not bringing a knowledge that is neurobiologically imperceptible to the naked eye nor is it technologically making a worldview accessible.

“it is low tech”, its images are born of partial recognition, attunement, and attention

low-tech works may be critical for developing a visuality that is not yet integral to or explicit within new media, visualising the specifically neurological dimension of ecologicity and mobilizing vision as a perceiving organ to cultivate this self-awareness.

...................................

(McKenzie Wark)

climate science, a key science of our time, rests on an apparatus of very powerful computers and communication vectors, which overcome the “friction”, as Paul Edwards calls it, between data and communication. it brings together global data according to global standards, mathematical models of physics of climate drawn from fluid dynamics, and massive computational power. the model and data coproduce each other in a way, as the data sets are all partial, and many data points have to be interpolated to make the models work. and then all of that has to be mediated back to human awareness via tables, graphs, computer simulations, and so forth.

...................................

(Irmgard Emmelhainz)

(anthropocene) change in the conditions of visuality
transformation of the world into images
phenomenological + epistemological consequences

images participate now in the forming of worlds, they have also become forms of thought

the optical mind

the radical change in the conditions of visuality has brought about a new subject position or point of view, announce by the trajectories of:
1. antihumanism (between impressionism and cubism)
2. posthumanism (between cubism and experimental film)
3. non-grounded form of vision (from experimental film to digital media)

this regime of visuality implies: automatization, tautological vision, and signs leading to other signs
resulted to => the proliferation of images also implying the cancellation of vision

“vision cancelled”

linearity of the Renaissance perspective plan created the illusion of a view to the outside world, analogous to a window.

cubism: showing a perpetual present in a parallel temporality.
perspectival multiplicity became embedded in the picture plane.
invented a discontinuous space, making identity and difference relative (questioning the classical metaphysics), by subverting the relations between subject and object.

does my Kinect pictural model employs the architectural space? is camera architectural?

in experimental film, duration became a key component of aesthetic experience, analogous to human consciousness, a prosthetic vision

identity and difference, rejection of a priori space

how to release the subject from human coordinates? what are references to human coordinates? screen's rectangular frame?

the machine (optical perception) delivers a posthuman, prosthetic enhancement of vision, which announces, first the incipient (initial) normalization of perception as augmented reality and data visualization

displacement of the subjective center of operations

epitomize

subvert

fragmentation brought by mechanization, has an alienating character

its impossibility to give back an image or serve a reflective mirror

it is indifferent to “me”

the exhaustive visualization and documentation of wildlife is effectively concealing its ongoing extinction (one of the reasons i am not using the zeiss-lens-camera recordings)
(for Susan Sontag) taking photographs [...] is a way of certifying experience, also a way of refusing it - by limiting experience to a search for the photographic, by converting experience to a souvenir. [...] the very activity of taking pictures [...] assuages (erleichtern) general feelings of disorientation that are likely to be exacerbated (worsened) by travel.

cognitive activity

giving form to experience, also transforming things into signs, welding image and discourse

the contemporary experience is also made of sharing/tweeting/liking images

the contemporary political economy: communicative capitalism derives surplus value from the volume and velocity of sings and data circulating in the infosphere.

proliferation of cognitive signs is another feature of communicative capitalism, submitting the mind to an ever-increasing pace of perceptual stimuli

(for Berardi) seeing means accelerating perception in the fields of everyday experience, accelerated tautological vision derived from constant passive observation. this is another of communicative capitalism's form of governance, as this kind of vision generates techno-linguistic automatisms by carrying information without meaning

is Kinect image-compilation a creature of infosphere? (boring question?)

normalization of groundless seeing (exemplified in google earth)

“picture does not make an image” (Serge Daney, before and after image)
image against vision

life persists irrationality, not given form by imagination, ceasing to cohere into a higher truth. (Fox, cold world)

...................................

(Ada Smailbegovic)

nature of things (2013, Sina + Elisa)

related to temporalities and velocities (plant politics of movement)

the video registers different rhythms and textures of change in the event of weather
methodological impulse to draw on descriptive practices of natural history
attuning to particulate differences that compose change

the temporal dimension of human “umwelt” is tuned into a limited set of rhythms and durations. therefore many of the temporalities that are relevant for developing a politics of time (such as longe duration of geological time) may not be directly available to human sensorium.
not just something that it is difficult to sense, but temporality as a compound entity of other variables. (temperature, etc.)

binding times together

an alternative perspective on (anthropocene) temporality involves developing a poetics of description as a mode of affective and aesthetic amplification

=> developing an experimental poetics of technology as a mode of aesthetic amplification towards a less perspectival visuality -- the writing tends to operate in a more tentacular mode of perception --> sweating on every negative space
+++ sweating again was crucial in our sensorial (and therefore cognitive) relation when we were in Amazon. Kinect and sweating both propose modes of perception other than perspectival shadow casting system of vision.

(organic or inorganic/technological?) processes that constitute the planet/plant

=> intimacy with the organic/inorganic/technological processes that constitute the planet

(my work is to create or find out) poetics and the methodologies that register the bite and indexes its significance
(+ bite of the critter on my skins)

(Chakrabarty in The climate of history:) “man's environment did change but changed so slowly as to make the history of man's relation to his environment almost timeless and thus not a subject of historiography at all”

the collapse of this age-old humanist distinction between natural hi[...]