#specifically deleuzes notion of a table

[agp]

started flipping tables in my head again like those old rage comics cause cbc published another article on solidarity with palestinians that presents 'from the river to the sea' as a call for the ethnic cleansing of jewish people, but that 'its meaning and use is more complicated'. ill click the link on the part of the sentence that says 'experts told cbc' (its complicated) when i feel like flipping tables again but in the meantime lets try working with one instead of dropping the whole thing.

from the river to the sea palestine will be free from jews is an antisemitic position, one that is no different from the same calls for the ethnic cleansing of jewish people antisemites around the world call for in their own countries. a problem arises in that israel benefits from antisemitism in what it maintains as diasporas, antisemites and zionists have worked together for over a century to tie jewish people to this particular colony in palestine, and the notion of jewish people as necessarily foreigners wherever they may be maintains its legitimacy specifically through the exception that is israel.

to belong somewhere is too often not to belong elsewhere, and in the case of zionism, belonging is employed in a way that existentially ties the struggle against antisemitism, the ongoing genocidal process that targets jewish people, with zionism, the ongoing settler colonial process that targets palestinian land and produces a genocidal relationship between its settlers and indigenous people. for jewish people not to belong 'here' and not to 'belong nowhere', they must 'belong somewhere', and for them to 'truly belong' (the american way), they must put into question the belonging of everyone only to fall back on settler bourgeois property relations. that is why the right to return of palestinians is something zionists refuse to concede to, and fundamentally can not: because the unbelonging of palestinians from their land is a necessary function of israeli sovereignty, through the colonial establishment of bourgeois property rights.

the violence capital has wrought on the body of the earth has been given a special attribution to jewish people for a long time. so called socialists have historically tempted to solve the contradictions of capital by means of scapegoating jewish people. the violence committed in the name of israel is not uniquely jewish in character: it is colonial, imperialist, capitalist violence being committed by people who are jewish. even though israel is a product of global antisemitism and a pervasive cultivated desire in the west to expel jews, the israeli economy and its settler bourgeois property relations is its material raison d'etre, and this, again, is not uniquely jewish, it is simply another segment of the bourgeoisie being bourgeois. what one calls a national bourgeoisie

from the river to the sea palestine will be free. from apartheid. from genocide. from settler colonialism. from imperialism. from capitalism. but right now it is not. the sun will set on israel one day, just like canada and the us, just like the so called thousand year reich that only lasted a handful of years because of its imperialist colonial and genocidal relationship to its volk, lebensraum, and whoever and whatever was next door.

to fill the gap of 'what does freedom involve' with 'the ethnic cleansing of jewish people' shouldnt be considered more reasonable when the topic is israel and palestine. it should be rejected as an antisemitic position, and yet it is so often being presented not only as a reasonable conclusion but as the only way it could be. as common sense. of course freedom means kill the jews, and to question this is the real antisemitism. of course this is all the palestinians could ever mean by freedom

when mel gibson was screaming about freedom in that movie do you think it was about getting back to committing pogroms? that jewish presence was his characters real problem with the english? idk ive never seen it but why would it necessarily be the case with israel and palestine? there being a greater need to expel jews because there are a higher proportion of jews is just antisemitic reasoning. it being a colony that is so jewish it explicitly considers itself as such shouldnt be a reason for us to implicate every jewish person globally as a collective in punishment and further buy into and reproduce zionist propaganda.

to abolish israel would not only liberate palestinians, it would also liberate jewish people from zionist claims of an existential relationship to apartheid in palestine. to believe that without zionism jewish people could not culturally or biologically survive is to take the zionist claim regarding existentiality and colonialism to those degrees.

the liberation of palestine is historically inevitable. it will happen. this process necessarily involving the ethnic cleansing of jewish people is an antisemitic lie that serves a dual function: rejection of palestinian resistance based on essentialist claims of antisemitism and rejection of antisemitism based on essentialist claims of zionist interest. zionism puts the interests of jews and palestinians in conflict, and only a free palestine can allow for actual jewish safety there.

from the river to the sea palestine will be free from collective punishment. but right now it is not. palestinians are experiencing genocide at the hands of israel and its supporters. the end of apartheid is a historical necessity: it will eventually happen. you cannot stop it from collapsing, only delay it. israels days are numbered, just like canada and the us. every day without a ceasefire is another particular form of breath of existence for israel, and another set of breaths taken away from palestinians. ceasefire now.

[meteoradominic]

Pantheon of Influence

The fate that awaits Elizabeth as the daughter of a media entrepreneur turns out to be a heavy burden. Left with an Empire of «old fashioned» media, that is on the edge of abyss. (…) times change and the Empire is no longer what it was. [1] The newspaper of the day, fashion, both go out of fashion, the news quickly becomes outdated. [2] The heritage in danger, it requires an effort to adapt to the changing conditions. She (…)felt a thread of a sense of personal responsibility associated with the deep, deep fear of loss. [1]

The solution for preserving new media culture lies not in attempting to circumvent its variability with outdated notions of fixity, but rather in embracing the essential nature of the medium and transforming its greatest challenge into a defense against obsolescence. [3] While “old” media such as print, film, and television traffic in immaterial representations that can be reproduced endlessly for any number of viewers, the interactivity of “new” media draws it closer to live performance. [4] As the secular empire faded, a new idea of spiritual domination that had been growing quietly and slowly in seclusion slipped into the great house of the dying world giant. [5] Moreover, the motive behind the writing of history was not objective curiosity, but a desire to influence contemporaries, to stimulate and uplift them, or to hold a mirror up to them. [6]

The new Brand of Elizabeth Murdoch stands above the chaotic noise of information and

media. From the elevated platform vision is unobstructed. [7] At that height one could look into the top rooms from the elevated pathway. [8]

In all of these media we see a number of consistent patterns. [9]

That assemblage is the “ megamachine,” or the apparatus of capture, the archaic empire. [10] (…) Elizabeth always tried to talk as though there were lots of people in it with her. [1] Her new brand is not defined by its clear agenda but the appropriation of viral phenomenons. Consisting of Influencers, attracted by their striving for fame and recognition.

The gods have entered the “cultivated” world; they no longer speak through the moving figures of animals and natural elements but through those of a sedentary pantheon that takes charge of society and supports the activity of transforming the world. [11] The image (…) shifted from social crusader and aesthetic puritan to trendsetter and media star. [12] But they somehow function together in structuring the social life process, as complementary media, each with its own specific affordances and limitations. [13] The crowd, a compact mass, a locus of multiple exchanges, individualities merging together, a collective effect, is abolished and replaced by a collection of separated individualities. [14] The media become the messengers, rather than the message. [15] The type of frame used to present information dramatically affects how people make decisions and judgments, and is consequently a powerful influencer of behaviour. [16]

Therefore, this new type of Pantheon is created by Elizabeth. Gathering selected contemporary influencers under her roof.

Influencers such as: Owners of different Media outlets, Presidents like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, modern industrialist entrepreneur like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. [17] very bright people, like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk. [18] CEO of Social media Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Search engines Sundai Pichai, Environmental activists like Greta Thunberg, Sport Stars like Roger Federer or Cristiano Ronaldo, Or trash media stars like the Kardashians.

The overall effect of the display (…) is create an exotic display; a sort of cabinet of curiosities. [19]Contradicting and supplementing each other. Her palace a place to collect them all.

The facade was well constructed, composed of bricks, glass walls and windows. [20] The field of glass bricks is ordered in a raster of a thin solid framework made of white granite with black frames and stripes indicating the main direction. [21]

Hall of Fame

The entrance was discreet, with a rounded metal railing. [22] Leading into the Hall of Fame. Inside, you confront a wall of glass bricks set in concrete in a black steel frame at the back of a standard Paris type courtyard, with two steel ladders flying up on either side, and some massive floodlamps carried on clever steel brackets. [23] Self reconfiguring building skins (…)filter both urban noise and airborne toxins.[24] Creating a place which was quiet, well lit (…). [25] Only selected and high-quality materials are used. The atmosphere was perfect, the moment sweet for something sacred. [26]

It’s is the Place Elizabeth welcomes her guests. Start with a house cocktail—say, L’Alsacien, in which the aperitif Belle de Brillet meets cognac, pear, and fresh lemon in a happy union. [27] Everyone shouts and has an alcoholic smile(…) A French aperitif is taken when you are seated around a table. There are two, three, four persons. You have chosen your companions. You drink slowly. [28]

Chamber of Feasts

In the dining room, meals were served family style at long tables that could seat 150 guests. [29] Only the finest dishes made by world class chefs are served. This dinner the place for debate and disputes. This performance, itself enough to win great fame,(…) [30]  It resembles a Sensation drama: play that intends to create strong effects. [31] Harmony and dissonance of ideas create a rough and interesting music. [32] The principal requirements of a summer dining room are water and greenery; of a winter one, the warmth of a hearth.[33] Both should preferably be spacious, cheery, and splendid. [33] For this reason, distribute more spacious intercolumniations around the performance space. [34] (…) the walls of the ceremonial chamber were covered with purple tapestries embroidered in gold, specially made for this feast. [5]

Oracle of Artificial Intelligent

In the middle, as in the center of a house, there is an Capsule, roofed, spacious, and majestic; (…) their lineaments taken from the Etruscan temple, as we have described it. [33] Enter the oracle. [35] Intensifying the color, lights, and excitement of Broadway by translating the commercial message into form and color, a wordless interpretation of New York. [33] The “Oracle (…)” presented a head that seemed to float in space. [36] Commercial constructions such as Apple’s Siri and more recently Microsoft’s Cortana are quite literal but archetypal examples of “the guide” or “concierge,” elsewhere manifested as the guide, oracle, or personal secretary. [37] There is no knowing how far a real image may lead: the importance of becoming visionary or seer. [38] Is it Illusionism, confusion, or manipulation? [39]

Paris

Paris. [40] Facing Notre Dame, a church for one god.   In close Proximity to the existing Panthéon, a symbol of glory and a burial place of famous French personalities.

Elizabeth's palace does not require the physical size of those buildings of past times. It is not dependent on its rigidity but flexibility to accomodate as much power as possible. In the digital age, power is no longer seen through its built image in stone, but through the power of those present. The once powerful institutions have lost their power. Today, the influence changes rapidly from person to person, from ideology to ideology, from institution to institution.

Elizabeth's pantheon is a machine to capture those all new and constantly changing influence.

Bibliography: [1]Asimov, Complete Robot Anthology.[2]Serres, Biogea.[3]Rinehart, ReCollection Art New Media and Social Memory.[4]Siemens, A Companion to Digital Literary Studies.[5]Semper, Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts or Practical Aesthetics.[6]Freud, The Uncanny.[7]Alexander, A Pattern Language.[8]Hollis, Cities Are Good For You.[9]Tuck, A History of Roman Art.[10]D. Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus.[11]Henaff, The Price of Truth.[12]Hays, Architecture Theory since 1968.[13]Schumacher, The Autopoiesis of Architecture Vol 2.[14]Foucault, Discipline and Punish.[15]H. Buehlmann, Quantum City.[16]Holden, Universal Principles of Design.[17]Heskett, Design and the Creation of Value.[18]Green, Architectural Robotics Ecosystems of Bits Bytes.[19]Tythacott, Collecting and Displaying Chinas Summer Palace in.[20]Bill, Form Function Beauty Gestalt.[21]L. Eisenschmidt, Twentieth Century Architecture.[22]Goldsmith, Capital New York Capital of the 20th Century.[23]Banham, Critic Writes.[24]Bureaud, MetaLife Biotechnologies Synthetic Biology ALi.[25]Jerram, Streetlife The Untold History of Europes Twentie.[26]Goldsmith, Capital New York Capital of the 20th Century.[27]F. Travel, Fodors New York City 2015.[28]L. Corbusier, When the Cathedrals Were White.[29]H. Lawson, Gastropolis Food and New York City.[30]Serres, History of Scientific Thought.[31]Gaudreault, A Companion to Early Cinema.[32]Alberti, The Family in Renaissance Florence.[33]Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books 1988.[34]Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture 1999.[35]Serres, The Five Senses.[36] Gaudreault, A Companion to Early Cinema.[37]Clarke, Design Anthropology Object Culture in the 21st Ce.[38]Deleuze, Cinema 2 The Time Image.[39]Derrida, Signature.[40]Naginski, Sculpture and Enlightenment.

[vrcomputart]

27.10.18

WEEK 3 - research

I picked an article on JAR called Stained Black Mirror by Vappu Jalonen. What initially attracted me was the title and the layout of the article.It’s presented in a way that makes it easily legible, with corresponding references appearing on the right of each paragraph, and begins with a black rectangle, immediately inviting the readers to enter the content of the article - the screen, the black mirror.

“Our best machines are dirty” – nowadays our portable machines are stained with our fingerprints, which is one of the main concepts explored in the article. Historically, the black mirror was a tool for painters (18th-19th century), somehow making the paintings look better, as well as for magical practices such as divination and connecting to spirits. More recent usage includes turning that reflection inwards to understand the subconscious or the inner workings of the psyche.

“The European black mirror was thought to show the far away, the future, errors, the invisible, or the spirit – something that is outside the one who looks into it. But later on, with the rise of the notion of the unconscious (and perhaps progressing optics), the focus turned inside. The black mirror was then thought to expose the desires, fears, drives, and inner feelings of the one who looked into it. The black mirror became a horrifying tool for seeing to the inner self.”

In today’s context, the black mirror is the interface for many personal electronic devices. The artistic use is comparable to Instagram - a platform for editing and curating elements of daily life or a person’s identity, showing something that is perhaps more beautiful or elevated than the ‘reality’. Our devices show us who we are, inside as data stored and on the surface, capturing dark reflections of our face and our physical imprint in/on the glass. We always see ourselves and the mirror itself, we see ourselves using it. We see the stains, what is left behind -  “a stain is a trace of the action of the body, the body rubbing against the machine.” This kind of goes back to that choreography idea, how do these devices change how we behave? It is also an introduction to the intimacy we share with them. This is especially interesting to think about in terms of child psychology as we don’t yet know the long-term effects of these entangled relationships -  “A nine-month-old baby of a friend lies on the floor and tries to change the pictures of a magazine by swiping them with a finger.”

Using mobiles has added a tactile element to the act of viewing images - “pinching and zooming an image has something special in its concreteness since an image has often been seen as only or mainly belonging to the realm of vision, not touch. And because of that, I guess, the childlike pointing of colourful icons and images can feel so lovely”. So there’s something new being offered through the phone as medium in terms of converging senses. 

The black mirror also does something to our view of ourselves, even if its subtle or imperceptible, as well as providing a new way of producing or performing identity. There’s the classic association of mirrors as a narcissistic instrument of vanity, which is directly translated in selfie culture and Instagram, and is heavily gendered as something feminine due to its connection to beauty - using a mirror, sometimes in a vanity (the table), to enhance beauty or disguise using makeup. Sometimes our dark reflection is shocking, like when your screen goes to sleep and you’re confronted with your wild self staring back at you after you’ve gone on a research rampage on your laptop. 

Thinking back to discussions on algorithms and choreography, “the machine wants me to do something, all the time” - this brings up questions of power and control in the context of neoliberalism - who’s controlling these machines? How much free will do we have? This point reminded me of a song by Poppy called Times Up (see below).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg2pS9KN28U

Aside from looking at how the screen produces the self, we should also look into the production of the screen itself which has a history of unethical practice – when we look at the screens we sometimes see how they’re manufactured (tbh this isn’t something I’ve thought much about, besides the environmental damage of producing them and the rubbish that’s left behind when devices break). The conclusion Jalonen comes to is that ultimately there is no secret hidden behind the screen – the black mirror shows itself, it’s becoming and its being. Despite the mysticism surrounding it, it’s manufacturing, its function, its effect is as transparent as the glass that it is composed of.

I found the article interesting because it connects our screened devices to magical practice and raises points about psychology, self-reflection, and identity. We are becoming ourselves in new ways which is important - we are hyper-aware of our actions, interactions, performances, and our effects on the surrounding environment. We practice suveillance. How does this affect our mental health, our relationships with ourselves and others? Can personal technologies enhance our self-love and health? Or are they refracting our insecurities, hindering us, squaring tensions fractally, infecting all facets of life?

And how does this relate to art, specifically computational art? In a simple interpretation of this question, the black mirror is a modern artistic tool - many artists use their phone to film or take photos (myself included), and I reckon most artists who use computers to make art use laptops. Another understanding would focus more on the relation to the artist - whatever affects who you are, your mode of being, would inherently affect your practice, as well as how its perceived by the public. But this is all surface level and can be said about most things - your diet, your education, literally any detail can have an effect on your art. I think what’s more important is that this is our timestamp, our context that will suggest to future generations what we were going through, working through, solving and further questioning. What we were trying to change. 

And what if I show you my reflection? How can we understand each other, our individual complexities, through the black mirror? Can this increase empathy? If you scroll on my phone, our DNA combines on the surface, do we become each other molecularly? (think Deleuze spoke about this)