‘Foot Locker.’ ‘Foot Looker.’
‘Keming.'[1]
This was originally going to be a post about visually ‘misheard’ words, where I talk about how visually ‘mishearing’ words may be similar to how I ‘mishear’ words and conversations like a record player slightly too far from the record.
But then I realized that’s just ‘keming‘[2].
So I’m just going to take this time and glory in the beauty of keming.[3]
Have a good night. 😀
[1]Maybe NSFW.
[2]Still maybe NSFW.
[3]Yep.
Over lunch today, we were talking, and the question came up as to exactly where the boundary was between interpretive dance and non-verbal communication.
Interpretive Dance is described as seeking to “to translate human emotions, conditions, situations or fantasies into movement and dramatic expression”.
Whereas Non-Verbal Communication is seeking “communication through sending and receiving wordless clues”.
So, what is the difference? Is Interpretive dance more intentional? Is it more specific? When an actor or performer is acting at their best, is their non-verbal communication any less intentional?
Perhaps these are just two sides of the same coin, like Rap and Spoken Word.
So, I was talking to G earlier today, after our coaching session, and I was struck by the misheard word: ‘Dada Science’.
I was immediately struck. *Of course!* That’s *exactly* what I try to do!
It’s all about Between. The space between meaning, the difference between art.
But what exactly is Dada? Or Dadaism? As Dadaist Jean Arp is reputed to have said, ‘To be a Dadaist means to be against Dada. Dada equals anti-Dada.’
The following really speaks to me about Dada:
“
”
But what is ‘Dada Science’? Namespace being what it is, there are already two others with a claim to the phrase.
For me, it’s all about helping people get to that space between meaning, where their minds are just a little more open to the possibilities. I quite enjoy being put in that state. Terry Pratchett might have likened it to ‘Thlabber‘, ” a recognised scientific term used by wizards to describe the precise instant during any magical transformation where, after a period of feeling elongated, stretched, altered, or reduced to a single point in the space-time continuum, things have just returned to normal and the subject is feeling the first hints of relief and disorientation.”
Perhaps the space is not created by the stretching, but by the reaction and recovery to the stretching.
WARNING: SOME OF THE LINKS BELOW MAY LEAD TO NSFW OR TRIGGERING THINGS STOP YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED STOP
Some of you may be familiar with the ‘Stupid Hackathon‘, which I believe was started by Amelia Winger-Bearskin and Sam Lavigne at ITP in New York a few years ago.
(I also know of a San Francisco Stupid Hackathon, hosted by Noisebridge (of course).[1])
Setting aside the issues of privilege and the General Malaise required to make such an event work, I wanted to talk about a similar event happening in Toronto in late May:
The categories (APOLOGIES FOR YELLING STOP THEY WERE ALSO YELLING ON THE SITE STOP):
MARGINALLY IMPROVED FOOD DELIVERY
– Is this the purchasing of food on margin? Speculating on food ‘Futures’? Or ‘Presents’?
– Is this finally the incarnation of AirHamAndCheese.com, the sharing economy startup[2] for fractional sandwich ownership? Only time will tell.
– Is this anything like ‘The Food Lift‘?
REDUCTIONIST BOLTZMANN MACHINES
– How many neurons are required for full reductionism?
– What happens when you only have one neuron? Does it talk to itself?
– If it can talk to itself in multiple ways, is that still turing-complete?
– Do you get one of these by taking the PCA of your Restricted Boltzmann Machine and dropping the 90% least used neurons?
EMOJIANAL INTELLIGENCE
– I think I know what they mean here, and I’m not talking about this topic here.
QUICKTIME FOR PEGASI
– Is this about a phase-cloaking video display?
– Perhaps hacking a 6502-based console to run video?
– Perhaps a squadron flying horses in a hurry?
– Thinking about it, what would you need in video for a flying horse? Some type of HUD? Probably something very light.
MILLENIAL FALCONS
– I was looking at our new condo building, and what looked like a Red-tailed Hawk was perched on top. I hope we can become friends. They can live to 25 years old in the wild, so it might have been a millenial.
– How would you feed a stooping bird? Would you put food out on a flexible holder a few feet out halfway up a very tall building? Gotta practice that stoop somehow…
MAYBE PUT SOME SENSORS ON IT I GUESS CAN I HAVE MONEY NOW
– See ‘The Internet of Thins‘
VIRTUAL FEALTY
– Cue ‘Second Life’ references.
– You could talk about player organizations within MMORPGs, but what could you build to actually (not) help them?
– This topic is a pyramid scheme.
PENTACOPTERS
– For starfish, of course.
– Or this guy.
A FUCKING FITNESS TRACKER
– I feel like this would require a considerable amount of calibration for each user
– Alternatively, this could be a hide-and-seek game
THE INTERNET OF BEES
– See my post about ‘Beenary’ logic for some ideas on this.
[1]If you’ve never heard of Noisebridge, check out their website! All of the warnings at the top of this post probably apply.
[2]S suggests ‘Sandwich Rental’ for the ultimate experience.
Yesterday, we were talking about the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Making’.
Over lunch today, I was talking with A & D, and they raised a couple of (unrelated) questions[1].
1. Yesterday, we had talked about the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Making’. But what about the line between ‘Art’ and ‘Destruction’? Auto-destructive art a reasonably recent example[2], but think about sculpture. In general, sculptures made from stone are just very (sometimes very very) finely controlled destruction.
Is it the intentionality? You could write an essay about the meaning of it, then hit a cube of concrete once with a sledgehammer and call it art. In the right context, that could be very provocative. So, where’s the line? Is it someone trying to make ‘Art’? Is it someone trying to create an emotional response? Because I would argue there are plenty of people who have destroyed things to create an emotional response[3], but that is not art. Is it destruction with the intent to help someone by creating an emotional response? Destroying a prized but hurtful possession can be helpful, but I would argue it is not art. So where’s the line?
2. On a more minor note, they also mentioned the line between graffiti and art. I would argue that a simple tag (especially tagging a mural) is not art. Often, it is vandalism. But when you draw an entire mural of your tag, with shading and curlicues, I would argue that that is art. It may be ‘pop-art’, it is likely still vandalism, but is still art.
So, where is the line here? Is it percentage art vs. percentage vandalism? Is it intentionality? Is it the amount of time spent? In the words of the immortal Duke Nukem, ‘Where is it?’
[1]I always really enjoy hanging out with sysadmins, and people who have been sysadmins in a previous life. They are endlessly fascinated by people and their design (or lack thereof) of complex systems. Complex systems which inevitably try to fly apart at the slightest provocation.
[2]And the first thing to appear when I searched for ‘destructive art’.
[3]I will not enumerate these here. This falls under the category of ‘memes I will not spread’.
Note: I am part of the Site 3 Fire Arts collective (S3FA), but I am speaking for myself, not them/us.
Some friends of mine went to FITC earlier today, ‘a three-day professional celebration of the best the world has to offer in design, web development, media and innovation in creative technologies.‘[1]
To me, reading the list of presentations, it feels like a software/design/digital/’creatives’ conference, and I’d always heard good things about it.
One of the presentations earlier today was about ‘Future Arcades‘, about how arcades and interactive installations can learn from each other. They even showed pictures of S3FA’s Riskee Ball! Yay! (Although, there was no attribution[2]. Boo!)
This naturally sparked a discussion about attribution, and how important it is. Whether people should be happy that their art/installation/etc is getting out there, or should be insisting on attribution and making sure people do so.
For S and I, this sparked a conversation about the line between ‘Making’ and ‘Art’. Is the attribution requirement different? Even if you’re copying the phone book, it feels polite to credit those whose shoulders you’re standing on.
Moving back to the title of this post, the more interesting[3] (for me) conversation was about the placement of the line between ‘Making’ and ‘Art'[4]. S mentioned that while we were designing and building Mirror Blaze, she always thought of it as a ‘Fire Installation’ more than ‘Art’. I had always referred to the group as ‘a fire art collective’, at which point most people asked if we spun poi. Some people in the group say that we build ‘Big Dumb Fire Art’.
So, how do you reconcile these views? I’ve always like the “I don’t know art, but I know what I like” statement, that like many things, you’ll know it when you see it. A common theme seems to be that there needs to be significant personal time and work invested by the artist(s) involved[5]. S suggests that intention of ‘Emotional Impact’ is what makes something ‘Art’ for her. (I’m the kind of person that takes great enjoyment in finding faces in everyday objects[6], so I guess that’s where the intentionality comes in.)
We also briefly touched on the line[7] between ‘Art’ and ‘Illustration’, but agreed that ’emotional intentionality’ also applied.
Comments? Questions? Rotten tomatoes? Comment below!
A note about ‘Art’ vs. ‘art’. I use the term ‘Art’ to refer to ‘what people generally think art is’, with all the associated baggage and politics that comes along with social pressures and millennia of history. Personally, I see art as whatever someone calls art, because at that point, they’re asking you to think and/or feel about the definition of art, if nothing else. I think there are also a number of things not described as art that qualify, but that’s another post.
[1]It always feels better to use peoples’ own ‘about’ statements.
[2]Maybe it’s my background in academia, where attribution is everything. Maybe it’s the fact that I seem to be good at Google, so it seems easy to me.
[3]Although I clearly had ‘feelings’ about attribution. Interesting the things you find in yourself while writing.
[4]I had originally had ‘Building’ here instead of ‘Making’. There’s a subtle difference, but ‘Making’ seems to be term more often used, and feels like it speaks better to what we do. (Even though there’s a *lot* of building. 😀 )
[5]I also feel like a lot of ‘Art’ presupposes one ‘Artist’, even if they have apprentices or other helpers.
[6]While researching this post, I came across this gem.
[7]Ha!
He was remembering back to a simpler time, from his childhood, from before. He was unworried, free to go about his business, that serious business that children do.
Then it started to appear. It wasn’t obvious at first, but then as it grew in, it was very clear what was happening.
He was growing a purple moustache.
He was embarassed for many years, always carrying a shaver, lest anyone notice. He tried dyeing it, bleaching it, to no avail.
Then one day, in a weaker moment, he showed it to his partner.
His partner said ‘Your moustache is mauve’!
‘Mauve? I always thought it was purple!’
‘No, it’s totally mauve.’
‘Wait. I’m getting an idea…’ ‘Mauve…What goes with mauve?’
‘Mauvey Povich?’
‘Nah. Everyone knows his favourite colour would be “Burnt-Umber”.’
‘Like the “Burnt-Umber Hulk“?’
‘Exactly!’
‘Wait…I think I’ve got it.’
‘What is it? Tell me!’
‘Quick, what month is it?’
‘November? Mauvember? Movember! And I can say it’s when people grow moustaches and talk about uncomfortable and embarrassing but very important things!’
‘Like prostate cancer!’
‘Yes, that is important.’
‘And regulatory capture!’
‘Yes, that too.’
‘Early screening is important to reduce the risk of Regulatory Capture.’
‘Wow. There are some intense pictures behind that link. Are you sure that won’t break the fourth wall? And don’t you mean “reduce the risk of Prostate Cancer”?’
‘Yes, but Regulatory Capture is probably just as dangerous or more dangerous.’
‘Fair enough. So, remember folks, get your regulations…’
‘…and prostate!’
‘…checked out on a regular basis.’
‘And if your hair grows in purple…’
‘…mauve!’
‘Be proud!’
‘And get yourself checked!’
Earlier tonight, I was at a dinner where awards were being presented. One of the awardees had a name with only four characters (two each for first and last name). S mentioned that this would be incredibly useful for anonymity, because you would never be findable[1].
This got us to thinking that if or when we have a child, we should call it ‘It The’. Of course to do this, we would have to change our last name to ‘The’, but since our most recent last namechange to ‘Spaceman’ that’s not as much of a stretch.
Of course, since our consulting group is called ‘the The Group’, this would make for some interesting descriptive sentences, such as:
‘The Thes of the The Group’
But we then decided that ‘The’ should be a title as well as a last name[2], leading to:
‘Sarah The, the The, and Bryan The, the The, the The Thes of the The Group.’
You’re welcome.
-S&B The.
“Ruining Language.”
[1]’findable’, or ‘findeable’?
[2]cf. ‘Thane’
S and I were walking down the street today, and were thinking about the Internet of Things. Now, it’s a buzzword, and should be taken with a similar-sized grain of salt to all other similar buzzwords.
So we attempted to come up with the worst ideas possible for an Internet of Things.
The first idea was to put chips/sensors in each block in the sidewalk. But thinking about it, that would be really useful. Similar to rail lines[1], there is a widely distributed infrastructure, and checking each part individually is expensive.
Then we thought of putting individual chips/sensors in each tile in a person’s house. How silly would that be? But then you could know exactly what the person was doing, turn lights on and off correctly, rather than the current primitive motion sensors, help people track a daily routine, all kinds of things.
But the last idea we came up with led to the title of this post. What if every cracker you ate had a sensor/chip in it? You would have an almost continuous stream of data about your digestive system, what you were eating, how your body was responding to it. Think of the advances in nutrition science!
And we would owe it all to the Internet of Thins[2].
[1]Look it up! Think about the maintenance costs of surveying 140,000 miles of track.
[2]Gluten-free Wheat Thins for some.
Bat Etymology: Convergent Evolution or Multiple Discovery?
So, we were talking about bats the other day, and knowing a little bit of French, it struck me as quite odd that the word for bat is ‘bat’ in English.
You see, the word for bat is ‘chauve-souris'[1], to which I say, yeah, so it’s probably a Germanic root, that’s why it’s so short. At that point, I remember the word ‘fledermaus’, or ‘flying mouse’, which is the German word for bat. At this point, I realized that ‘Germanic’ does not necessarily mean ‘German’.
”
English, Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Frisian, Flemish, Dutch, Afrikaans, German, and Yiddish are the living languages that are part of the Germanic family.
This family is divided into North Germanic (Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish) and West Germanic (English, Frisian, Flemish, Dutch, Afrikaans, German, Yiddish). The now defunct East Germanic branch consisted of Gothic, which is extinct.
”
…
”
As Calvert Watkins writes in The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European Roots, one of the dialects of Indo-European “became prehistoric Common Germanic, which subdivided into dialects of which one was West Germanic.”
This in turn, Watkins says, “broke up into further dialects, one of which emerged into documentary attestation as Old English. From Old English we can follow the development of the language directly, in texts, down to the present day.”
But while English is Germanic, it has acquired much of its vocabulary from other sources, notably Latin and French.
”
The actual etymology of bat is much more complex, coming through Middle English ‘bakke’, likely from Old Norse ‘leðrblaka’ or ‘leather flapper’. I love all these different ways people tried to describe the sounds that bats make. Source for the above and more here:
”
bat (n.2)
flying mammal (order Chiroptera), 1570s, a dialectal alteration of Middle English bakke (early 14c.), which is probably related to Old Swedish natbakka, Old Danish nathbakkæ “night bat,” and Old Norse leðrblaka “leather flapper” (for connections outside Germanic, see flagellum). If so, the original sense of the animal name likely was “flapper.” The shift from -k- to -t- may have come through confusion of bakke with Latin blatta “moth, nocturnal insect.”
Old English word for the animal was hreremus, from hreran “to shake” (see rare (adj.2)), and rattle-mouse is attested from late 16c., an old dialectal word for “bat.” Flitter-mouse (1540s) is occasionally used in English (variants flinder-mouse, flicker-mouse) in imitation of German fledermaus “bat,” from Old High German fledaron “to flutter.”
”
[1]Literally ‘bald mouse’, but that is from Greek by way of Latin, as NakedTranslations explains:
”
Chauve-souris comes from Latin calva sorix (bald mouse), which is an alteration of Greek cawa sorix (owl mouse).
“