[...]

(around me / around here) ='lgc'>=> importances and pleasures of going from “around me” to “around here”

(how can we stop in art to) recreate exploitative patterns from the ="trms">past (='qstn'>?)

="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> ="trms">ecological ="trms">imagination is a turn towards reciprocity and ="trms">relationship

in Kinect the path of a journey is refracted, mirroring a critical site of refraction, as a practice. walking with ="frds scrmbld">Hanno in the Amazon forest is a joyful and critical engagement through a form of practice that resists universalizing tendencies.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

tree is never tree-like (filial, Arborescent, versus rhizomatic)
vertical vs. lateral
Arborescent vs. reticulated (like the patterns on a giraffe or spots on the python)
stake at “="trms">relationships”



how can we problematize ="trms">narcissism='qstn'>? what if it is the wrong word describing a certain property of life='qstn'>? ="trms">Narcissus is recognizing himself in his environment and he dissolves himself in that image. the main thing about this ="trms">story is that he is most alive via the ="trms">story, ="trms">Narcissus is basically undead.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

close-range vision

how can we practice movement and touch in the physio-locality of the eyes='qstn'>?
tentacularity
touching was considered a cruder scanning at close range and seeing a more subtle touching at a distance
importance of far distance over close range ='lgc'>=> refer to project Standing on the Shoulders of Giants (2015, ="frds">Sina)

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

forest's “space”

Hernri Lefebvre distinguishes Re="trms">presentation of space and Re="trms">presentational spaces. ... Re="trms">presentational spaces are “directly lived” through as="trms">sociated images and ="trms">symbols which overlay physical space, making ="trms">symbolic use of its objects.

Re="trms">presentation is a distinctive manner of ="trms">imagining the real, and is a fundamental ="trms">phenomenon upon which all culture rests.

or instead of how a forest looks like, what is the forest made of='qstn'>? and for whom='qstn'>? what is the forest made of is the ="trms">matter of negotiation (between the ="trms">different kinds of beings who think ="trms">differently about the forest)

in order not to neutralise the forest to culture (cultural ="trms">history as an explanatory ="trms">priority to the ="trms">historically ="trms">contingent circumstances) we can propose two ="trms">questions of older critique of perspectival perception='lgc'>:
="lstsrd">1. that the body accounts for perspective (='qstn'>?)
="lstsrd">2. re="trms">presentation is ex="trms">="trms"nttrm="cluster,club">clusively mental (='qstn'>?)
of course both ="trms">questions are ="trms">phenomenological ="trms">positions, but that does not mean that we no longer need re="trms">presentation to understand ="trms">relationality. (Konh words)

needing or not needing re="trms">presentation to understand ="trms">relationality

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">="ppl">Latour)

not a philosophical argument, but a cabinet of curiosities assembled by “friends of ="trms">interpretable objects”

... not an encyclopedic undertaking ... we have chosen only those sites, objects, and ="trms">situations where there is ambiguity, a hesitation, an iconoclash on how to ="trms">interpret image-making and image-breaking. (going to sites or objects where there is ambiguity, hesitation)

(the exhibition is not about recollecting truth or objectivity)

christian ="trms">religious paintings that do not try to show anything but, on the contrary, to obscure the vision.

redirecting the attention away from the image to the prototype (="ppl">Platonism run mad='qstn'>?) ='lgc'>-- redirecting of attention to another image

are we really going to spend another century naively re-destroying and deconstructing images that are so intelligently and subtly destroyed al="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready='qstn'>?

do we really have to spend another century alternating violently between constructivism and realism, between artificiality and authenticity='qstn'>?
="trms">science deserves better than naive worship and naive contempt. its regime of invisibility is uplifting as that of ="trms">religion and art. the subtlety of its traces requires a new form of care and attention.

(we need new forms of attention)

the more artifactual the inscription, the better its ability to connect, to ally with others, to generate even better objectivity (Kinect='qstn'>?)

="large lg10" stl="font-size:117%"> Kinect recordings as ethnography='qstn'>?
how to escape from the tyranny of “simply objective”, “purely re="trms">presentative” quasi-="trms">scientific illustrations='qstn'>? Freeing one's gaze from this dual ="trms">obligation accounts....


="trms">religious icons and their obsession for real ="trms">presence
they have never been about ="trms">presenting something other than absence

="trms">scientific imagery
no isolated ="trms">scientific image has any ="trms">mimetic power; there is nothing less re="trms">presentational, less ="trms">figurative, than the pictures produced by ="trms">science, which are nonetheless said to give us the best grasp of the visible ="trms">world.

="large lg6" stl="font-size:114%"> ="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

is Aruz (عروض) ="trms">interface='qstn'>? surface/face and meaning/inhalt/content dualism in Tasavof, ="ppl">Rumi breakings of Aruz. Tsavof believes that only through appearance one can get into the depth


="trms">science, ="trms">religion, and politics all three take for granted an image of ="trms">nature.

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">Peter ="ppl">="ppl">Galison, in iconoclash)

wanting to know with eyes-open

it was by way of intuition “that the mathematical ="trms">world remains In contact with the real ="trms">world; and even though pure mathematics could do without it, it is always necessary to come back to intuition to bridge the ="trms">abyss which separates ="trms">symbol from reality.”

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">Dipesh ="ppl">Chakrabarty)

(="trms">history of ="trms">nature='qstn'>?) the ="trms">nature of ="trms">history as a form of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge

(Croce essay 1893 ="trms">history subsumed under the concept of art) Croce drew on the ="trms">writings of Ernst Mach and Henri Poincare to argue that “the concepts of the ="trms">natural ="trms">sciences are human constructs elaborated for human purposes.” “when we peer into ="trms">nature, we find only ourselves” we do not “understand ourselves best as part of the ="trms">natural ="trms">world” (is that not the image of ="trms">Narcissus who looks into the ="trms">nature and can only see himself='lgc'>--="trms">nature observation as mirror ="trms">stage)
so as ="frds scrmbld"nttrm="Robin,Robot,Robert,Robocop">Roberts puts it “Croce proclaimed that there is no ="trms">world but the human ="trms">world, then took over the central doctrine of Vico that we can know the human ="trms">world because we have made it.”
Croce's idealism “does not mean that rocks, for example, ‘don't exist’ without human beings to think about them. apart from human concern and ="trms">language, they neither exist nor do not exist, since ‘exist’ is a human concept that has meaning only within a context of human concerns and purposes” (not saying human ="trms">symbolic ="trms">system of thought)

man environment did change but changed so slowly as to make the ="trms">history of man's ="trms">relation to his environment almost timeless and thus not a subject of ="trms">historiography at all. ='strcls'>***

the ="trms">history of man's ="trms">relationship to the environment was so slow as to be almost timeless

but now scholars are ="trms">writing significantly ="trms">different='lgc'>: destroying the artificial but time-honored distinction between ="trms">natural and human ="trms">histories, climate ="trms">scientists ="trms">posit that the human beings has become something much larger than the simple biological ="trms">agent that he or she always has been.

vision of man “as a prisoner of climate” and not of man as the maker of it

is the ="trms">Anthropo="trms">cene a critique of the ="trms">narratives of freedom='qstn'>?
price we pay for the pursuit of freedom

politics='lgc'>: the most common shape that freedom takes in human ="trms">societies.
politics has never been based on reason alone. (it seems politics is something that is out of control)
(Maslin, Global warming) ='lgc'>[Global warming='lgc'>] requires nations and regions to plan for the next 50 years, something that most ="trms">societies are unable to do because of the very short-term ="trms">nature of politics.

="trms">Anthropo="trms">cene was neither an ancient nor an inevitable happening

the crisis of climate change calls for thinking ="trms">simultaneously on both registers, to mix together the immiscible chronologies of capital and ="trms">species ="trms">history.

as ="ppl">Gadamer pointed out, Dilthey saw “the individual's private ="trms">world of experience as the starting point for an expansion that, in a living trans="trms">position, fills out the narrowness and fortuitousness of his private experience with the in="trms">finity of what is available by re-experiencing the ="trms">historical ="trms">world.”

="display:block;white-space:nowrap;margin-bottom:-1em;overflow:hidden;">...................................

(="ppl">Peter ="ppl">="ppl">Galison, in Image of Objectivity)

“let ="trms">nature speak for itself” (!) a new brand of ="trms">scientific objectivity that emerged in the 19th century ='lgc'>=> restrain themselves from imposing their hopes, expectations, ="trms">generalization, ="trms">aesthetics, even ordinary ="trms">language on the image of ="trms">nature. (the image of ="trms">nature has never been objective)

the ="trms">present usage of objectivity can be applied to everything from ="trms">="trms">empirical reliability to procedural correctness to emotional detachment

each component of objectivity opposes a distinct form of subjectivity; each is defined by censuring some (by no means all) aspects of the personal.

personal idio="trms">syncrasies

this ideal of objectivity attempts to eliminate the mediating ="trms">presence of the observer

the ="trms">phenomena never sleep and neither should the observer

heroic self-discipline

profoundly moralized vision

and like almost all forms of moral virtuosity it preaches asceticism

human worker whose attention wandered, whose pace slackened, whose hand trembled

the self-recording ="trms">instrument promised to replace the weary artist

machines offered freedom from will

being true to ="trms">nature='lgc'>:
="prgrph">-in its ="trms">method (mechanical)
="prgrph">-in its moral (restrained)
="prgrph">-in its ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysics (individualised)

early alternative approaches to creating picture that were true to ="trms">nature, but not objective in the mechanical sense


atlases habituate the eye, they are perforce visual


(contrast to the ="trms">scientific visual forms of photography where one is on the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right place at the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right time with the ="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right ="trms">="trms">equipment) the Kinect's total randomness

one problem of atlases is that they have to decide what ="trms">nature is
they all have to solve the problem of choice='lgc'>: which objects should be ="trms">presented and from which viewpoint (Kinect choosing mechanism and arbitrariness='qstn'>?) (can we not choose what ="trms">nature is when we are at it='qstn'>? and when we are at ="trms">nature='qstn'>?)


="large lg14" stl="font-size:103%"> rejection of ="trms">aesthetics (but what seduction exactly betrays='qstn'>? or what does it make accurate='qstn'>?)


average (is truth to ="trms">nature='qstn'>?)


asceticism of non="trms">interventionist objectivity


“straight photography” is above all a sig="trms">nature of a particular s="trms">cene, a ="trms">specific and localized re="trms">presentation only awkwardly adaptable to a mosaic com="trms">position from ="trms">different individuals (Zeiss-lens-camera images)

how ="trms">scientists deployed mechanical means to police the artist


(for ="ppl">Martin ="ppl">Kusch - objectivity and ="trms">historiography) truth-to-="trms">nature had its rationale in enlightenment sensationa="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">list psychology, with its conception of the self as fragmented, passive, and ="trms">excessively receptive.
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> to be true to ="trms">nature was actively to select and ="trms">interpret sensations and in that way bring them under ="trms">epistemic control.
='lgc'>='lgc'>--> re="trms">presentation in nanofacture, image is used to actually engineer the whole thing. making and seeing coincide.


eliminating judgment
the device would remove the process of abstraction from the artist's pen

what characterized the creation of late 19th century pictorial objectivity was self-sur="trms">veillance

(note of Geppetto, Younus, Pinocchio)

personal equation='lgc'>: a ="trms">systematic error correction


to produce re="trms">liable images


While in the early nineteenth century, the burden of re="trms">presentation was ="trms">supposed to lie in the picture itself, now it fell to the audience. The psychology of pattern recognition in the audience had replaced the ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphysical claims of the ="trms">author. Mistrusting themselves, they assuaged their fear of subjectivity by transferring the necessity of judgment to the audience.


(Grashey's) police ="trms">="trms"nttrm="metaph,metamorph,metabol,metal">metaphor was entirely appropriate. Not only was the ="trms">history of late-nineteenth-century photography thoroughly bound up with the ="trms">history of crime control, the x-ray photography itself was increasingly finding its way into court.

="trms">scientific evidence

legal evidence

at issue was, once again, the shifting border between judgment and mechanization, between the possibility (or necessity) of human ="trms">intervention and the ="trms">routinized, automatic functioning of the ="trms">technology.

medico-legal concept of evidence

the image of the x-ray appeared (in court at least) to preempt and displace all other forms of knowl="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge.

(Allan ="trms">Poe='lgc'>:) “if we examine a work of ordinary art, by means of a powerful microscope, all traces of resemblance to ="trms">nature will disappear='lgc'>--but the closest scrutiny of the photographic drawing discloses only a more absolute truth, more perfect identity of aspect with the thing re="trms">presented.”

trompe l'oeil (new note)

in X-ray, the encryption of information takes place in the ="trms">technology itself

photographs did not carry a transparent meaning


once so policed, and presumably only then, could the photographic process be elevated to a special ="trms">epistemic status, putting it in a ="trms">category of its own

in contrast to drawings, photograms were tarnished by the crudeness imposed by the limited palette of the color raster. Given the choice, the ="trms">author clearly favored the crude but mechanical photographic process. Accuracy had to be sacrificed on the altar of objectivity. (is Kinect pure mechanical='qstn'>? why i have been insisting to remove my hands='qstn'>?! why i was craving for objectivity='qstn'>?)

='lgc'>=> to leave imperfections in the photograph as a ="trms">literal mark of objectivity

testimony to objectivity

rejection of subjective temptation

sophistication could corrupt an individual='qstn'>? (you can be accurate but not sophisticated) (not cleaning up the image of plates)


The moral ="trms">narrative surrounding this mechanical construction of pictorial objectivity took many forms. As we have argued, pictures (properly constructed) served as talismanic guards against frauds and ="trms">system builders, ="trms">aesthetes and idealizers.

extending the mystique of the visual to the ="trms">dense ="trms">symbolic ="trms">presentation of functions and graphs

inscription ="trms">instruments

(Marey, ="trms">method grafique) “the graphical ="trms">method ="trms">translates all these changes in the activity of forces into an arresting form that one could call the ="trms">language of the ="trms">phenomena themselves, as it is superior to all other modes of expression.”

graphical re="trms">presentation could cut across the artificial boundaries of ="trms">natural ="trms">language to reveal ="trms">nature to all people,

they were the words of ="trms">nature itself

the search for this rendition of objective re="trms">presentation was a moral as much as ="trms">technical, quest.


morality of self-restraint


(for the ="trms">scientific atlas makers of the later nineteenth century,) the machine aided where the will failed. (at once a powerful and polyvalent ="trms">symbol,) the machine was fundamental to the very idea of mechanical objectivity.

the machine, in the form of new ="trms">scientific ="trms">instruments, ="trms">embodied a ="trms">positive ideal of the observer='lgc'>: patient, indefatigable, ever alert, probing beyond the limits of the human senses. (what other ="trms">relationships exist with the machine='qstn'>? other than this self-disciplined observer)

(="trms">rhetoric of) ="trms">wonder-working machine

="large lg3" stl="font-size:110%">
the machine, (now in the form of ="trms">techniques of mechanical reproduction,) held out the promise of images uncontaminated by ="trms">interpretation.

="large lg14" stl="font-size:114%"> ...the ="trms">scientists’ continuing claim to such judgment-free re="trms">presentation is testimony to the intensity of their longing for the perfect ‘pure’ image. in this context the machine stood for authenticity='lgc'>: it was at once an observer and an artist, miraculously free from the inner temptation to theorize, ="trms">anthropo="trms">morphize, beautify, or otherwise ="trms">interpret ="trms">nature.

one type of mechanical image, the photograph, became the emblem for all aspects of non="trms">interventionist objectivity ... not because the photograph was necessarily truer to ="trms">nature than hand-made images='lgc'>--but rather because the camera apparently eliminated human ="trms">agency
(what is the ="trms">difference between ="trms">systematic image and mechanical image='qstn'>? same='qstn'>? -glitch..)

(mechanical) images that could be touted as ="trms">nature's self-portrait

="large lg4" stl="font-size:112%"> aura of stoic nobility
painstaking, humble, laborious (work)

moral virtuosity never exists without an appreciative audience

by ringing the changes on the resonant cultural themes of self-purification through self-abnegation, ="trms">scientists persuaded themselves and others of their worthiness to assume priestly functions in an ever more secularized ="trms">society.

humanity and self-restraint, the one imposed from without a[...]