|
Lorna Mills and Sally McKay
Digital Media Tree this blog's archive OVVLvverk Lorna Mills: Artworks / Persona Volare / contact Sally McKay: GIFS / cv and contact |
View current page
...more recent posts
Schwarz is looking for recommendations on tunes from this collection of old Canadian gramaphone recordings from the National Library and Archives site. It's massive! who knew?
Ratzinger.
(no fucking comment)
(fuck)
Mary Midgley on metaphor (as used/abused by scientists):
To understand how metaphors can properly be used in scientific writing, we must get straight a fundamental point about the relation between metaphors and models. Every metaphor suggests a model; indeed, a model is itself a metaphor, but one which has been carefully pruned. Certain branches of it are safe; others are not, and it is the first business of somebody who proposes a new model to make this distinction clear. Once this is done, the unusable parts of the original metaphor must be sharply avoided; it is no longer legitimate to use them simply as stylistic devices. For instance, the familiar model of mechanisms in biology has long ago been pruned of its original implication that a mechanism needs an inventor or maker. Anyone writing about a ‘biological mechanism’ knows that he must keep such inventors out of his explanation. He must somehow manage to use the language of purpose and adaptation without this reference; figurative speculations about the inventor’s character and history will damage and confuse his reasoning. He may want to do theology, but if so, he must do it explicitly, not by loosely extending the language of ‘mechanisms'.Vilayanur S Ramachandran on metaphor (as related to synesthesia):
...one of the odd facts about synesthesia which been known for a long time and again been ignored, is the fact that synesthesia is much more common among artists, poets, novelists, you know flaky types! So now why is it much more common? Well one view is that - in fact according to one study it's seven times more common among artists poets and novelists and the reason is what do artists, poets and novelists all have in common? Just think about it. What they all have in common is they're very good at metaphor, namely linking seemingly unrelated concepts in their brain, such as if you say "out out brief candle", so it's life, why do you call it a candle? Is it because life is like a long white thing? Obviously not. You don't take the metaphor literally, although schizophrenics do and we won't go into that. So why do you that? Well it's brief like a candle, it can be snuffed out like a candle, it illumines like a candle very briefly. Your brain makes all the right links and Shakespeare of course was a master of doing this. Now imagine one further assumption - if this gene is expressed more diffusely instead of being just expressed in the fusiform or in the angular, if it's expressed in the fusiform you get a lower synesthete, in the angular gyrus TPO junction you get a higher synesthete. If it's expressed everywhere you get greater hyperconnectivity throughout the brain making you more prone to metaphor, links seemingly unrelated things because after all concepts are also represented in brain maps. This may be seem counter-intuitive but after all a number, there's nothing more abstract than a number. You can have five pigs, five donkeys, five chairs - it's fiveness - and that's represented in a fairly small region namely the angular gyrus so it's possible that concepts are also represented in brain maps and these people have excess connections so they can make these associations much more fluidly and effortlessly than all of us less-gifted people.
I had a stomach-dropping sensation when I walked into YYZ Artists' Outlet and first saw Christopher Flower's installation because the video of shaking beads looked JUST LIKE some of my video of shaking beads which has not yet been shown. Only his looks better. And he also has a cat in box. Arg. But I figure its a big world and there's room for more than one artist to make images relating to physics and philosophy using shaking beads and cats in boxes...right? heh. Anyhow, once I got over the professional jealousy hurdle I started to really enjoy the work. There are more things shaking than cats and beads, also bagels, beer bottles, soccer balls, goldfish, and other sundry items. The installation is called The Cave, which makes tons of sense, as these objects and the patterns they make are both everyday and mysterious, un-revealing like shadows on a wall. Three monitors display three different scenes, each always a container with something bouncing around inside. I don't know how he achieved the effect, as the boxes and bowls are static, while the stuff inside is clearly bouncing and jouncing as it is being vigorously shaken. As you stand there for awhile, the accumulative effect of watching these items zoom around under unseen forces gets pretty spooky. But nothing is really hidden, you can hear the sounds of shaking, and everything has a nice clunky table-top feel. Flower cites the influence of Der Lauf Der Dinge by the artist team Peter Fischli and David Weiss (nice little trailer available here). The connection makes lots of sense, as both works share the gawky-get-somehow-thrilling dichotomies of banal/sublime, mechanical/alchemical, science/magic, experiment/performance, all handled with clumsy/finesse and DIY/expertise. The show is on til May 21st. If you are the least bit nerdy, go see it.