« March 2004 | Main | May 2004 »
April 22, 2004
Linnaeus: Natural History
Looking into taxonomy I came across this Swedish guy, Carl Linne [usually referred to in the Latin, 'Linnaeus'] who wrote the "The System of Nature" in 1735. This book presented a descriptive system designed to classify all the plants on earth [known or unknown] according to the characteristics of their reproductive parts.
This was the beginning of what came to be called 'Natural History'. He is said to have made Order from Chaos! "In Natural History things are extracted from the world and redeployed into a new knowledge formation whose value lies precisely in it's difference from the chaotic orginal" [from Mary Louise Pratt's "Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation].
He also proposed systems of classification to give order to minerals and animals [later including Homo Sapiens in this category]. Notions of standardisation, systemisation, and classification were obviously hugely popular in western European thought of the eighteenth century ñ the Enlightenment, and seem to have been pervasive since . . .
This reading has drawn a few parallels with the Downton book, and a Feyerabend one I've been [attempting!] reading 'The End of Reason' ñ tracing our interests in objectivity, order, and 'science'.
Downton actually says "pattern is pervasive" and that Bateson argues that it underlies all connections in the world [this is why taxonomy works, and is also, I think you could say, pervasive].
What if this is not so?
All patterns must exist in a state of hybridity. The pattern must evolve or die/dissapate . . . so no pattern is universal or timeless . . .
HYBRIDITY IS PERVASIVE
Obviously our ability to see PATTERN and thus to CLASSIFY and PREDICT, has been instrumental to our so called "progress" [and yes I'm writing this on a computer, I know], but could our reliance on this one form of knowing be impeding our progress in other ways?
I'm certainly not trying to get all new-agey here!? But what if we simply cannot NOT see pattern? Our brains will "make sense" of things they don't understand . . . where am I going with this?
To bed.
As a special treat for those of you who've read this far I'll tell you what I did today . . . I photographed Anna [my girlfriend] wearing different bikinis, holding some of my favourite records, wearing an Elvis mask . . . Yeah!
Posted by Luke Wood at 07:57 PM
Taxonomy [new trigger]
Taxonomy is a new trigger, and replaces 'Design Process' . . . so:
TAXONOMY, APPRORIATION, AND HYBRIDITY
Why? . . .
Taxonomy first came up a couple of weeks back in regard to my 100 images assignment, 'Hot Rod Biology' [see post] . . . taxonomy as a similarity between the Hot Rod mag and the Biology text book.
I hadn't thought about this much more until the reading into borders/borderlands [previous post] got me thinking about how we create artificial boundaries ñ how we define and classify what's appropriate . . . authenticated . . .
[I had actually touched on this in the questions for the Appropriation chapter in the Poyner book, but I didn't really have much clarity/direction back then!]
I wrote the following in my workbook . . .
1. Laguages exist in continual states of hybridity [including visual languages]
2. We see [our own] language as integral to our identity
3. We therefore attempt to define and classify our language in order to understand our identity as seperate to others [we are special]
4. STATEMENT 3 EXISTS IN CONFLICT WITH THE INITIAL STATEMENT 1
Then, a bit later, I wrote . . .
Dwelling in borderlands means inevitable flux, shift, hybridity . . . taxonomy will fail ñ it has a shelf life. Taxonomy is an important tool of the status quo ñ the dominant narrative ñ so when taxonomy does fail, those at the border [the hybrids] will be persecuted. Their ways, means, and selves will be invalidated, labelled 'unauthentic', and possibly 'dangerous' [the hybrid threatens the dominant narrative]. Yet they are the way forward . . . this is evolution.
Posted by Luke Wood at 07:14 PM
April 18, 2004
Borders
Just read a great text by Gloria Anzaldua called "Borderlands/La Frontera: the new Mestiza" (1987), in which she discusses the ideas and realities of living in the border between Mexico and the USA. These places exist in a continual state of transition/hybridity, and it permeates all aspects of the border culture ñ language, music, food, and art.
'Chicanos', and especially their use of language ['Tex-Mex', or 'Spanglish'] are looked down upon with some disgust by both the Spanish speaking Mexicans, and the English speaking Texans.
She says: a borderland is a vague and undetermined place . . . the residue of an unnatural boundary . . . the prohibited and forbidden are it's inhabitants . . . the perverse, the troublesome, the mongrel, the mulato, the halfbreed . . . those who crossover, or go through the confines of the normal.
Improper use of language, mongrels, halfbreeds, . . . all the result of hybridisation, and all [generally] devalued by society . . . those 'Protectors of Culture' again? Yet this is the way things go ñ we cannot stop evolution . . .
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:58 PM
Collage
Braque > Futurists/Dada > Punk . . . using found materials > reconfiguring found texts and images creating a new message[s] that didn't apply to the original 'pieces'.
> Jan Michl: All design is redesign . . . a reading on the neccessity of seeing the commonly held notion of 'design' as actually being 'redesign'. The premise being that the designer only ever builds on exisiting developed knowing/knowledge, and is always in debt to what has come before. Michl argues that the term 'Design' is misleading as it is generally built upon the flawed notion of total orginality . . . discusses God as Designer, and negates this argument.
> Barthes: "tissue of quotations" ñ "a text is a multidimensional space in which a variety of writing, none of them original, blend and clash".
Ok my bit now . . .
Based on these statements I can see I might discuss the evolution of visual languages as a continual process of hybridisation. The point of tension being that we constantly have 'Protectors of Culture' trying to stall, stop, and apprehend this natural [inevitable] process.
Should any culture [image] therefore be open to wholesale appropriation by any other culture [designer] in the name of progress?
Posted by Luke Wood at 11:12 AM
April 08, 2004
Hot Rod Biology
Idea for the presentation of my 100 images . . .
I had been looking at possibly using the form/medium of either a cheap hot rodding mag or a biology text book . . . then I thought that if I'm looking at hybrids why not look at a crossbreed of both these mediums. Apart from obvious differences there are some nice cross-overs/similarities between the two ñ Taxonomy, I think could be really helpful in terms of my images. Also use of photography, close-ups/details [important parts of bigger things], diagrams, branding/breeding [?], and lets not forget nudity!?
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:39 AM | Comments (1)
Inherent Vice
"Inherent Vice is the art conservation term for used to describe materials lacking certain archival properties . . . the intentional employment of a material's inherent vice can add a rich 'time-released' dimension to one's work."
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/001884.html
Found this entry on the Speak Up site/blog thing . . . relates directly to my earlier idea about extending process ñ the artefact is further hybridized through it's introduction to, and experience of, different systems . . . of use or storage or whatever . . .
Posted by Luke Wood at 08:30 AM
April 04, 2004
100 images?
What the hell to do with these 100 images?
At the moment I'm looking at games . . . trashy mags . . . and biology text books.
At the moment I'm looking at games. Why? Play and process ñ chance, random nature of experience. Different possible outcomes. Audience interaction. Generative process.
The Surrealists used games in this way, as did Dada, and Fluxus . . . quite often nonsense games that require us to question preconceptions and develop new ideas about 'how' to play or participate. Well known Surrealist one is the 'Exquisite Corpse', where you fold a piece of paper in thirds, and each player draws on a third making up one picture when the sheet is unfolded. A fluxus game of interest involves a Backgammon board with Chess pieces.
Both these examples relate to my idea about hybrids. I think I need to work on defining my notion of hybrids and come back to this?
In terms of Appropriation, I imagined I could use an existing board game and repackage my images within it, and 'as' it?
I'm also looking at trashy magazines. In particular "New Idea" because I like the title, and the before/after type narratives would provide the Hybrid idea with a way of being played out. Also looking at 'Hot Rod' magazines too ñ same before/after narratives, and the idea of customizing. These came from my earlier 'Vernacular' trigger though.
Third idea is a biology text book. My references to hybrids in biology obviously lead me here. But there's also a nice link to ideas about process/systems involved in a science text too ñ especially notions of truth. Putting together a book of this kind with the images I have [Elvis, McCahon, etc] would be an interesting exercise in appropriation too perhaps . . .
So . . . I think I need to redefine the triggers before deciding!
Posted by Luke Wood at 04:31 PM
Update & Triggers
Haven't blogged for a while . . . so here's where I'm at:
Triggers: Appropriation, Hybrids, and Process
Title: HYBRID GRAPHIC DESIGN: towards a design process that explores appropriation as a generative methodology
Previously I had 'Vernacular' as a trigger, but realised when defining/re-defining my triggers that this was limiting, and actually left out a lot of what interested me. It was replaced with 'Appropriation' which I see as being more useful in that it refers to a strategy or process.
I'm interested in the idea of a Hybrid process ñ but this could be because I don't know what I mean by that!? Yet.
I want to focus on the following questions [thanks Lisa] over the next couple of days:
What is a hybrid process?
Will this inevitably lead to a hybrid artefact?
Can you create a hybrid artefact from a conventional process?
What makes the hybrid stronger ñ the process adopted or the artefact created?
Posted by Luke Wood at 04:04 PM | Comments (1)