ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Michael Szpakowski is an artist, composer, writer and educator.
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
The World
A <em>numbers station</em>: unfortunately not live :) <br>
From the excellent conet project at http://irdial.hyperreal.org/ <br>
Same drill as before: player currently set to zero volume.
Manifesto
Sorry - meant of course to post the following *here*. But that's another thing about humans -we make miskakes, um..imstakes
m.
There is no proof but there is a perfectly respectable (and for me clinching) philosophical argument.
Computers are not glorified media machines but glorified adding machines. Even when they rewrite their own code they do it only in accordance with human instruction at some remove.
On the other hand human beings are *embodied* intelligences - we don't just process logical operations, in fact that forms a relatively small percentage of what we do.
We feel, we smell coffee, we speak, we love, we make puns, we piss, we shit, we fight, we feel hungry, we view cherry blossom, our feet feel numb in our boots in the snow even with two pairs of socks, we experience sexual desire, we sicken and we eventually die.
Were we not so constituted our intelligence would be other than what it is - it is our physical being in the world that ultimately determines the nature of the use of such logical operations that we do have in common with the computer. Our processing always takes place through our physicality and the need to sustain that physical existence.
This is of particular importance in art but it applies generally.
Were it possible to make a machine that replicated all this you would not have a machine - you would have made a human being.
On a smaller note, not for the first, or I suspect the last, time, I'm in complete agreement with Curt on the artistic question, not only for philosophical but also practical reasons. If we want to be big "digital" fish in a tiny digital ghetto, fine. If we want to make *art* then we have to let go of the comfort blanket of asserting that some number crunching or logical skils or the ability to read a technical instruction manual grant us special artistic privilege.
m.
There is no proof but there is a perfectly respectable (and for me clinching) philosophical argument.
Computers are not glorified media machines but glorified adding machines. Even when they rewrite their own code they do it only in accordance with human instruction at some remove.
On the other hand human beings are *embodied* intelligences - we don't just process logical operations, in fact that forms a relatively small percentage of what we do.
We feel, we smell coffee, we speak, we love, we make puns, we piss, we shit, we fight, we feel hungry, we view cherry blossom, our feet feel numb in our boots in the snow even with two pairs of socks, we experience sexual desire, we sicken and we eventually die.
Were we not so constituted our intelligence would be other than what it is - it is our physical being in the world that ultimately determines the nature of the use of such logical operations that we do have in common with the computer. Our processing always takes place through our physicality and the need to sustain that physical existence.
This is of particular importance in art but it applies generally.
Were it possible to make a machine that replicated all this you would not have a machine - you would have made a human being.
On a smaller note, not for the first, or I suspect the last, time, I'm in complete agreement with Curt on the artistic question, not only for philosophical but also practical reasons. If we want to be big "digital" fish in a tiny digital ghetto, fine. If we want to make *art* then we have to let go of the comfort blanket of asserting that some number crunching or logical skils or the ability to read a technical instruction manual grant us special artistic privilege.
Manifesto
There is no proof but there is a perfectly respectable (and for me clinching) philosophical argument.
Computers are not glorified media machines but glorified adding machines. Even when they rewrite their own code they do it only in accordance with human instruction at some remove.
On the other hand human beings are *embodied* intelligences - we don't just process logical operations, in fact that forms a relatively small percentage of what we do.
We feel, we smell coffee, we speak, we love, we make puns, we piss, we shit, we fight, we feel hungry, we view cherry blossom, our feet feel numb in our boots in the snow even with two pairs of socks, we experience sexual desire, we sicken and we eventually die.
Were we not so constituted our intelligence would be other than what it is - it is our physical being in the world that ultimately determines the nature of the use of such logical operations that we do have in common with the computer. Our processing always takes place through our physicality and the need to sustain that physical existence.
This is of particular importance in art but it applies generally.
Were it possible to make a machine that replicated all this you would not have a machine - you would have made a human being.
On a smaller note, not for the first, or I suspect the last, time, I'm in complete agreement with Curt on the artistic question, not only for philosophical but also practical reasons. If we want to be big "digital" fish in a tiny digital ghetto, fine. If we want to make *art* then we have to let go of the comfort blanket of asserting that some number crunching or logical skils or the ability to read a technical instruction manual grant us special artistic privilege.
Computers are not glorified media machines but glorified adding machines. Even when they rewrite their own code they do it only in accordance with human instruction at some remove.
On the other hand human beings are *embodied* intelligences - we don't just process logical operations, in fact that forms a relatively small percentage of what we do.
We feel, we smell coffee, we speak, we love, we make puns, we piss, we shit, we fight, we feel hungry, we view cherry blossom, our feet feel numb in our boots in the snow even with two pairs of socks, we experience sexual desire, we sicken and we eventually die.
Were we not so constituted our intelligence would be other than what it is - it is our physical being in the world that ultimately determines the nature of the use of such logical operations that we do have in common with the computer. Our processing always takes place through our physicality and the need to sustain that physical existence.
This is of particular importance in art but it applies generally.
Were it possible to make a machine that replicated all this you would not have a machine - you would have made a human being.
On a smaller note, not for the first, or I suspect the last, time, I'm in complete agreement with Curt on the artistic question, not only for philosophical but also practical reasons. If we want to be big "digital" fish in a tiny digital ghetto, fine. If we want to make *art* then we have to let go of the comfort blanket of asserting that some number crunching or logical skils or the ability to read a technical instruction manual grant us special artistic privilege.