Prezi

So, what has all this led to?

House & Ilynx?

From my notes on Caillois:

The association of simulation and vertigo is so powerful that it naturally becomes part of the sacred, providing a principle base for terror and fascination given by the sacred.

Civilization estranges us from their effects. (76)

I suppose then that one of my primary challenges may be to present the sacred through civilization. If we're dealing with a house, how does that house become a church? How to whip the viewer of my presentation into the inkling of a religious presentiment. Having just finished Bruno Dumont's Hadewijch, he does it through Bach. Perhaps I can do it through whipping the viewer into and out of their house, their church.

'Pataphysical Inquiries (part 3, resolution&housing)

As per Ulmer's suggestion, let's think about the term resolution for a moment.

Simply put, an increase in resolution can motivate the "wasting" of monitors and screen technologies. Similarly, it's an emblematic way of thinking about the overall speed of technological reproduction, which leads to technological waste and death.

At the same time, resolution can also refer to the solving of a problem or a dispute.

But what's being resolved?

I thinking through the question of vehicle and tenor here, I've been thinking a lot about what a screen technology or what imaging in general does for us.

Cavell suggests that the silver screen screens us from ourselves, from our problems, and encourages us to lay aside our skepticism in favor of a renewed relation with the world. In short, it resolves the disjunction between our subjectivity and the world's relentless objectivity.

Yet Lacan reminds us that the world as is already exists in us as we take our cues and our innermost intimate actions from it (the term is extimacy).

So, back to resolution. With our continual increases in resolution, what are we attempting to do? Earlier, it was decided that E-Waste partially comes as a result of our desire to see. But how does that desire fulfill itself through these particular technologies?

The screen is a window, connecting us to another world. High resolution is a term for both the amount of lines capturing that world but also describing the possibility that these screens serve as a means for us to reconnect to the world.

E-Waste is then a reminder that these screens have their own cosmogony, one with a will and desire of its own, a desire that's satisfied when it's destroyed (paradoxically).

When its housing is destroyed, E-Waste becomes manifest.

Housing divides interior from exterior, ourselves from the world. It demarcates private space and allows us to carve a space out for ourselves.

Yet the world also comes in.

That's the trope!

Vehicle: E-Waste

Tenor: The relationship between our subjectivity and the objective world

The switch: House/Housing?

'Pataphysical Inquiries (part 2, confabulate)

Process:

So, in the disaster, we have a material (usually plastics and heavy metals) being burned, so a potential starting point is conflagration.

Then again, the process by which it enters the human body would be dissipation.

And also, the burning of something like a plastic, for example, results in melting and then vaporization.

Let's put "dissipation" through the OED and see what's nearby. "Dissinew?"

Dissinew:

Obs. rare.

trans. to deprive of 'sinew' or vigour

Hrm, let's leave that on the table for now. What about conflagration?

Okay, from conglagration to conflab, which is colloquial for "confab". On to confab...a colloquial shortening of confabulation, which, I guess, is a chat or familiar talk...okay...speaking like a child from the last entry...confabulation, a chat, a familiar talk, a conference, a...in psychiatry, the action of the verb confabulate...

Ooh baby, we're cookin' with fire now.

"To fabricate imaginary experiences as compensation for loss of memory"

Beautiful. Because part of the accident is the purposeful forgetting of those technologies not allowing us to see, we may have a decent inference end here...

So, we're at Baby (material) and confabulate (action).

Play & Mystery

Early on in Man, Play and Games, Caillois has a line on the relationship between play and mystery that I find a bit puzzling, so puzzling that it's worth quoting at length:

"It is meritorious and fruitful to have grasped the affinity which exists between play and the secret or mysterious, but this relationship cannot be part of the definition of play, which is nearly always spectacular or ostentatious. Without doubt, secrecy, mystery, and even travesty can be transformed into play activity, but it must be immediately pointed out that this transformation is necessarily to the detriment of the secret and mysterious, which play exposes, publishes, and somehow expends. In a word, play tends to remove the very nature of the mysterious. On the other hand, when the secret, the mask, or the costume fulfills a sacramental function one can be sure that not play, but an institution is involved. All that is mysterious or make-believe by nature approaches play: moreover, it must be that the function of fiction or diversion is to remove the mystery" (4)

Caillois insists that the simulation/vertigo pairing doesn't encourage play but expresses an institutional function. It is the institution in oral societies, the founding and unifying ceremony that the culture works toward, unified in its move toward symbolic exchange.

But we're playing to reinstate the mystery, to reinscribe the sacred by way of the accident.

The difference is that we're attempting to pose alternative modes of thinking to a failing system based on utility.

The secret's indeed at play, and we're indeed expressing something of an institution.

But the institution's changed. Through our tools, we can play at reinstating mystery, not at dissipating it.

We'll pick up what play expends and refashion play through its own waste.

'Pataphysical Inquiries (part one, baby)

Start with the substance of the accident: lead

CRT screens employed lead in order to exercise glare reduction

Glare:

noun

1. a. Dazzling brilliance (of a light, fire, sun, etc.); a strong fierce light. Also, dazzling or oppressive sunshine, esp. when falling upon reflecting surfaces and not relieved by shadow

b. The glistening or shining of some surface

2. fig. Dazzling or showy appearance; gaudiness; tawdry brilliance

3. A fierce of piercing look

noun 2

a. Frost, icy condition (obs.)

b. A sheet of ice

adjective

1. Smooth and bright or translucent, glassy. Chiefly of ice.

verb

1. To shine with a brilliant or dazzling light. Also of light itself.

b. To display oneself ostentatiously: to be obtrusively evident or conspicuous.

2. To look fixedly and fiercely.

3. To send forth or express with a glare

4. To reflect with a glare. Also to glare back.

(all this from OED)

to be continued

but also...

Definition of Glare:

Glare comes in three forms (adapted from IESNA RP-33-99):

1. Disability Glare - Also known as veiling luminance, disability glare is caused by lights that shine directly into one's eyes. Disability glare is dangerous because it is blinding.

2. Discomfort Glare - Discomfort glare does not necessarily reduce the ability to see an object (as is the case with disability glare), but it produces a sensation of discomfort. It is caused by high contrast or uniform distribution of light in the field of view.

3. Nuisance or Annoyance Glare - Nuisance glare is defined as glare that causes complains, such as the "light shining in my window phenomenon."

Comments on Glare:

Glare is a significant and pervasive problem. Glare demands attention because the eye is naturally attracted to the bright light. This is dangerous while driving but glare can be used by retail establishment to attract attention of customers passing by. This can lead to competition between businesses to get noticed.

Older citizens are extra sensitive to glare.

Two things (let's see where they go):

Icy glare (icy look); let's see what comes up via Google:

Misfire

...

How about dazzle?

Links to programs and restaurants...

Translucent...glassy...

This came up...no joke.

Glassybaby - Goddamn it, I don't want to follow a chain of inference on baby.

Oh well, let's see where it goes...

Quickly: What is a baby? It's a person who's not yet entered the symbolic order, someone who sits outside of the dominance of literate thought patterns.

At one point in The Wild Bunch, Don Jose tells William Holden that we all seek to be children again, perhaps even more so for the worst of us.

Could it be that we have a desire to see to escape the quotidian regulations of a world based on strenuous competition and values of a scientifically motivated milieu?

Speak Like a Child:

'Pataphysical Schools

For Futurists, exception from collision of machines

for Oulipians, from constraint of programs

for Jarryites, exception results from the corruption of memories (pg. 10)

What's our school? How do we define the kind of 'pataphysics we perform? More on this later.

I guess we're after the Clinamen since we're looking at a system that values not equivalence or difference but the fate of its own contrivances (the contrivance here being rational logic and progress by way of scientific law).

In the end, our exception (the accident) results from the holes left in the fabric of scientific progress. As science/literacy continually and more minutely classifies the world and attempts to control it through that classification, the more the world, from the bottom up, rejects that classification.

I guess the world may be reinstating its own mystery, starting at its base (the atom, the proton, a ray of light) and moving on up.

Perhaps a goal would be that, through our treatment of the accident, we can tap something into the collective subject, reinstating a certain enigmatic relationship to a particular object (in my case, the PC or screen technologies, for Walton architecture, for Wendy our bodies, for John our educational institutions, for Ulmer our environment, for Jake our minerals). I always say that the power of the cinema is such that if one embraces it with everything that it will literally change the way they see the world. Through our rendering of quotidian elements of every day life, perhaps we can introduce the viewer to a new way of perceiving and experiencing reality. (Lofty goal, right?).

'Pataphysics, Determining the Approach, and Which Science to Use

if poetry cannot oppose science by becoming its antonymic extreme, perhaps poetry can oppose science by becoming its hyperbolic extreme, using reason against itself ‘pataphysically in order to subvert not only pedantic theories of noetic truth but also romantic theories of poetic genius

This strategy of vertigo seems to be becoming more clear. We must look into the science of the topic and exacerbate it in a way that its truth becomes questionable and indiscernible.

The Oulipians derive a logic and strategy from calculus and then derive a way to treat letters and words. Yet the question remains of how one might convert this into a visible syntax, a language made of image.

Do we simply take the words and convert them to image correlates? How do we establish the chain of inference? Something like the figure in the unconscious (something that needs to be traced back to an initial system through processes like displacement and condensation (or, as Lacan says, through metaphor and metonymy?)?

And then the question also comes up of which science to use? If we're to start with a scientific process and then derive an exaggerated poetics out of it, where to look for that science in the accident? For example, with my accident, a primary process is the displacement of lead by way of conflagration of plastics. Do I look into the specific science of that chemical breakdown, convert it to a linguistic trope, and then build that trope into images? Or do I parody the specific science straight off?

Finally, a side note: can we create vertigo just through simply manipulating the user's vision via the Prezi. I've been messing around with the program, and one can easily spin the screen with such convulsions that the viewer might become physically ill. I guess then we can pursue vertigo through both the figurative recognition of ourselves in a mise-en-abyme and also through the visual spinning of an image.

From Orality to Digitality

Orality - Religion - Church

Literacy - Science - Academy

Electracy - Entertainment - Internet

or

Orality - attempts to understand the chaos of the present, does so through religion via church.

Literacy - attempts to control the present and past, does so through classifying the world via written language and preserving the past to dedicate civilization toward progressing past the past

Electracy - attempts to create new worlds (digital worlds, drug worlds, synthetic organic life) by way of technology.

Perhaps this is a means toward understanding how drugs might function in the present. Rather than adopting Caillois' edicts against them, can we see the growing use of designer drugs as a way for the average joe to create or spin a new reality out of the existing one?

Is it that much different for someone to walk around Downtown stoned than for someone to zip around on a skateboard listening to The Sound on an ipod? Both activities attempt to take our phenomenal reality and to manufacture a new world or reality within it. Both seem somewhat dangerous.

Vertigo and Drugs

Thinking through the ramifications of vertigo (ilynx) as a strategy, I'm struck by my continual return to drugs (esp. hallucinogenic drugs like LSD) as a contemporary means.

Caillois, of course, covers this, referring to drugs when he speaks to the corruption of ilynx outside of the separate zone of play. He reminds, "If the principles of play correspond to powerful instincts in the human, they gratify these only under the idealized situation correspondent to play. Left to themselves, destructive and frantic as are all instincts, these impulses can hardly but lead to disastrous consequences" (55). Searching for unconsciousness and a distortion of perception, many are led down the harried road of pure pleasure, which, of course, interrupts daily life, making existing in the "straight" world nearly impossible.

Maybe it'd be different if one could ride a rollercoaster to work.

Then again, I wonder if there might be more to Caillois' position. He considers the use of intoxicants as a derivation from the positive impulses associated with ilynx at play. He talks about a group of ants who preserve another species' larvae in order to get stoned on its secretions. They evidently give this so much attention that they neglect their young. For Caillois, such a favoring of the paralyzing substance neutralizes "the most powerful instincts, even that of self-preservation." Because of physical addiction, the "alcoholic [is] led down a road where he is destroyed. IN the end, deprived of the freedom to desire anything but his poison, he's left a prey to chronic organic disorder, far more dangerous than the physical vertigo that momentarily compromises his capacity to resist the fascination of oblivion."

Drug culture has changed a lot since Caillois wrote the book, and it seems like they might offer a means to experience the world in a strange new way. It's no secret that many of the avant-gardes used drugs in their speed toward new forms (cabaret scene and absinthe; 60's avant-gardes and LSD, etc. etc.).

So, to what extent should we consider these things in our conceptualization of ilynx? The purest example of vertigo I've seen in contemporary art might be Gaspar Noe's Enter the Void, a film that simulates the experience of someone who's killed while taking a new hallucinogen called DMZ. The blend of live-action and digital imaging in this film is quite incredible, and as a result of the effort put forth in the production, it's the closest one can come to tripping without taking a tab or eating a mushroom.

As you can see from my earlier example, I'm exploring the effects of psychedelia in my image. It seems to me that trips might be considered a kind of living sublime. A sublimity, chemically inspired, coming from the inside out (or the out in). It seems to me that one way of promoting a feeling of vertigo in the reader might be to attempt to synthesize the feeling of the trip in a visual form, but not in a boring, tyedye way, but in another, something resembling reality but tweaked enough in a way as to inspire a feeling of intoxication, of blurriness, of dizziness and ilynx.

Caillois Questions

Like all of you, I've spent the past week attempting to mine some ideas out of the Caillois. One of the challenges I have with the text is that I'm constantly questioning how many of these elements remain relevant in accordance with the move from literacy to electracy. That is to say, we see a move in Caillois where society moves from vertigo and simulation as the guiding focus of culture to that of agon and alea (often with alea serving as a recompense to agon's denials). So, while I think I'm on the same page as all of you with the need to reintroduce ilynx to escape the limits to utilitarian thinking, I'm almost wondering if another category should be introduced? That is to say, while ilynx focuses on the pleasure/pain axis we're concerned with, is it possible to invent another category that's perhaps more commensurate with what we know about modernity?

Also, Caillois mentions that in "primitive" or oral cultures, vertigo comes by way of simulation. Vertigo is the goal, but simulation is the means. What can we say about the interplay of these categories in our concepts? It seems like the context of the catastrophe, with things left hanging constantly in suspense, that chance might be what we're looking at. Just as the flaneur of the arcades surfed the crowd, taking in sights, we now act as a flaneur to the world, moving quickly through information as major news networks wonder which geopolitical catastrophe will kill us firth (which sets it off? Military intervention in Libya? Rick Scott's assistant suicide of the educational and labor systems? An exploding oil rig?). So, could we say that the conditions of pleasure/pain in the dromosphere build to vertigo by way of chance...and accumulation?

Like Jason, the Blog returns from the dead

or maybe more like Fritz Lang's Dr. Mabuse.

So, this post will be a little slap-dash, but we were making so much sense before that it'd be a shame not to re-energize the blog with some good old fashioned information sprawl.

So, I missed class on Wednesday, so this post will serve two purposes: 1) to report on my progress towards an image representing my disaster and 2) parsing the notes in that context in order to arrive at something like a plan for part 2.

Section 1:

So, working from my previous failures, I created a new image:

Clearly, we're not quite there yet, but we're making progress all the same.

Okay, so what we have is an image of a computer emanating multi-colored rays, those centered on an image of Sylvia Sidney, one of my favorite actresses. Why her? I guess it has something to do with...er...seduction (ahem). Outside of the computer, we see E-waste that gives texture to the colored sprawl. Finally, we have static running over the image.

The problems: Sidney's not the emblem we need here. She's evocative, to be sure, but we need something that pushes it in a different direction. I'm thinking Mabuse might be an image to consider. Something from these below perhaps...

I especially like the 2nd design.

Problem 2 is that the static isn't integrated terribly well as a formal strategy. Don't know what I was thinking there, but I layered and saved the image without creating another copy, so it's there for keeps. I'm thinking I'll start from scratch again anyway. I like a lot of it, but the colors need touching up.

Section 2:

John was nice enough to send me his well-organized notes, and I'd like to highlight some of what seem like the key points. I'll go through them and then organize a paragraph or something highlighting what I'd like to do:

"Look at your accident as a festive event of vertigo"

I guess my earlier personification of the object attempted to do something like this. I think the key here might be to think of the production of E-waste not as a complicated network of geopolitical insanity resulting in physical poison but as a good time, as a party, as a festival.

So, what would have to be highlighted then is A) The joy of seeing appropriate to E-Waste and digital imaging. I think I might have this (the multi-color spiral giving us a "shinyness" that might help. B though) There's a joy in cracking these objects open, having been seduced into believing them the receptacle of our desire to see. We want to see through them, but eventually we also want to see in them. Do the images of E-Waste get at this? How do you get across the joy of destruction without motion or sound?

"Ethics of cooperation: why do people cooperate? (game theory addresses this from the dimension of the subject ('I think he thinks') -- it recommends defection). Why do people reciprocate in the gift economy? (belief in the 'Hau'). Fatal Strategies thinks, more ecologically, from the position of the object/event. The accident/disaster is the object's reply to the subject."

So, why would people cooperate in an electrate society? Well, we're not concerned with subjects; we're concerned with the will of the object. Why does the object cooperate? Well, in the accident, it doesn't. So, I guess the exchange might go something like this (for my disaster):

Subject: I want to see.

Object: Here ya go.

Subject: I want to see better. See you later.

((at this point, the object is set into motion, moving overseas or into a landfill))

Subject B: I want to see too!

Object: Here ya go.

((smash smash))

Subject B: *cough**cough*

Object: Hey, pal, you wanted to see. Don't get mad at me.

So, I guess the desire for the object might be to sustain its seduction as long as possible, by infiltrating the subject, if necessary.

"Use one thing to say something about something else, use the 'outside' to say something about the 'inside'"

I think if I can somehow get across the logic of visual media (in its constant improvement/replacement), the seduction (with Mabuse/visual pleasure), and the consequence (the production of E-Waste and the obscenity of visibility), perhaps I can get at something having to do with an innate desire to see.

"Beauty no longer applies as the measure -- now it's closer to the absurd or the sublime"

Exactly my logic in using Mabuse over Sidney. Sidney's beautiful; Mabuse's grotesque but grabbing. The logic of the image would be to abstract the power of imagery via sublime coloration.

One more point:

Near the end of John's notes, he talks about the musical slope of language and speaks to our project's relationship to psychoanalysis. A potential question for email: how does this relate to our sense with working w/ images? That is to say, we could think of some of the ways in which written or verbal language might create chains of displacement or condensation and, in that way, trace back a symptom (that's pretty much Lacan's take, more or less). But we're working with visual images. Do we rely on iconographic resemblance? Symbolic resemblance? Affective resemblance (a little more open)?

Fatal instruction -- final instruction before application

What decision led to the fatal event? What decision, put into contact with an existing desire, launched the fatal accident into the object's becoming?

From Ulmer's last email (see last post): The decision was not to pollute but to trade.

Applied to my context: The decision was not to pollute but to ____.

Calculate? See?

I guess it depends on which element of E-Waste we're talking about.

If we start looking into the history of computing technologies, especially as they applied to Von Neumann in Poundstone, we can see a desire for an object capable of replicating Von Neumann's own, strange, mechanical ability to calculate. So, if we were to go with this thread, we might say that the decision was not to pollute but to calculate. To achieve this then, the materials used in the computer (particularly the non-ferrous metals we talked about before) simply are tools used to enable the connections necessary to manipulate the binary code into something capable of calculating.

But hold on a second. We've so far associated E-Waste with a sense of virtuality, and while the cathode ray technology doesn't define the computer as such, it may act as a successful relay between the computer's functions and our experience of it (an experience defined by the computer's ability to offer us a graphic iconic interface, to display pictures, to act as a window to the world). So, sticking with the cathode ray momentarily, we can see a need emerge.

The historical fatality we can see is the necessity for us to have a relay to the computer's functionality. Punch cards, floppy disks: they're all benign compared to an intrinsic need to see calculation, text, etc. through familiar images.

When you have this need, one can see the necessity of this determination. One had to see. The decision was not to pollute but to see. The involvement of non-ferrous metals (but lead particularly) in the production of the cathode ray tube was simply a technical intervention satisfying a deeper desire. So, therefore, the desire to see fixates on these metals as a means to deliver the object, to intertwine our destiny with its.

Additionally, one can see the problem of E-waste arising from this necessity to see as well. We can see the development of subsequent screens (LCD, LED) as resulting from a desire to see ever more clearly, resulting in the displacement of the CRT and its eventual demise as a figure in a landfill. That isn't to say that these newer technologies solve the problem. A report has indicated that LCD's still contain dangerous amounts of copper and lead. Another indicates about the same for LED screens.

What emblem can stand for this?

Part of my early posts attempted to account for the mixtures of outdated technologies with human desires to see, now expressed in different ways (fetishizing of VHS or cassette tapes in an era of DVD and digital images).

So, from an earlier project that used diffusion as a means to get across the issues of E-waste, perhaps we can add to that a dimension of a kind of seeing that has changed. I.E. IN a new image, we can put in formal elements of former ways of seeing.

My graduate thesis focuses on classical figures by which cinema has been understood (particularly the window and the mirror, the cinema is a ____). My move is to synthesize these forms and posit the cinema as a reflecting window, one that, for example, offers a window onto reality but also that reflects cultural associations, one that offers a window onto the world but also reflects the digital nonsense of pure symbolic, etc. etc.

Perhaps we can utilize this model for the image. The image will offer us a window onto E-Waste but reflect the modes of seeing that have produced the E-waste.

This doesn't change the image much, but it focuses it. From a pure depiction of E-waste, we must now integrate screens (see my "vertigo" image) but also their ability to signify simply as an apparatus.

How can this emblem be manipulated to show the universal subject its own image in the mirror?

We'll see the emblems of E-waste, manipulated to show us texture and diffusion.

But we'll see our mirror image in the scan lines and distortions (simulated, of course) associated with the CRT.

Instruction:

Tap into our fatal need to see that incorporates the poison of the earth. Use the experience of image + the images itself to get across these ideas of seeing oneself in those things that offer images.

As a formal technique, we might see these scan lines as doing something like Holbein's Ambassadors painting:

Lacan writes that this is a prime example because, looking into the image, we eventually see the death's head. This connection will need to be explored more, but I'm starting to intuit its potential.

Let's give it a try.

Fetish Object Methodology (a re-pressed email)

Hi everyone,

Dr. Ulmer's lecture the other day got me trying to think about my disaster's fetish object, some of which was recently documented on the blog.

I guess I just want to be sure I understand the idea behind the search for the object. Dr. Ulmer said it was a feature in reality that, when a particular process came into contact with it (ship-building, in his case), causes the fatal accident to come into being (the making of pine tar). For this particular disaster, the issue at hand is the little red mollusk, the initiator of a fetish that, should it be satisfied, ties the objects' becoming to the eventual accident.

So, the idea would be to trace the object back from the accident to figure how that accident came to be part of the object's becoming?

So, looking into my accident, I figured that the majority of the problems associated with e-waste come as a cause of mishandling the various non ferrous metals that figure in computer (or CRT) construction. Things like lead, cadmium, beryllium, mercury, etc. are released when these things are mishandled and then affect the local environment and workers. So, looking into where these things figure in construction, we see that, for example, lead figures a lot in the process of construction (it's in the solder, the protective coating of CRT screens, etc.).

I'm not sure where to go here. Intuition sends me to the various problems that these metals seek to solve (making connections, reducing a screen's glare, etc.) as the fetish, but that seems a bit weak and perhaps not specific enough. From the example offered by Dr. Ulmer, it seems as though the fetish object shouldn't necessarily be figurative and metaphoric but something tangible (a shoe fetishist would never say that her/his fetish involves, y'know, protecting one's feet).

Ulmer's Response (edited for my own personal use):

The philosophers of event want to get at that dimension of the world that "indicts" (categorizes) us. There is no transcendence on the machinic side; its evolution is entirely immanent.

The fatality of the contamination at the Cabot Koppers site in Gainesville is that, for it to be otherwise, there would have had to have been no wooden ships, no colonization of the New World, etc. Where is the "decision"? The decision was not to pollute, but to "trade" (economy, circulation of goods).

to presume that my being may be discovered only outside, in the world, made to appear in the mode of image (in whatever media).

We scan the outside materiality of our disaster to locate a fetish (a thing more than itself, the condenses in an emblem the necessity of the history handed down to us (the indictment: you are this).

You choose it, but the point is to think the inevitability, the necessity, of E-Waste. For example, if Einstein couldn't get his paper on relativity published, and got promoted to head of Customs and lost interest in physics, there maybe wouldn't be cathode ray tubes (nor nuclear energy) (I'm just blathering now).

Atomic physics is just one angle. You mention the metallurgy involved (the convergence of many inventions in the equipment) and that could serve just as well. In our context, we are addressing some aspects of the question of ethics raised in Game Theory, the principle that one cooperates or defects. That is thinking from the side of the subject. What is our ethics, from the side of the object?

E-Waste - an attempt at figuring out the fetish object

These two graphs come from UNEP's page on E-Waste, and while perhaps offering a wannabe obscene transparency in info (notice how the beginnings of the map don't show the sources), they have proven useful in figuring out exactly where the issue may lie. In the graph breaking down computer components, it becomes clear that all of the problems come as a result of these non-ferrous metals.

So, a possible avenue toward the fetish object at the heart of this thing might be to see what potential issues are solved via the use of these substances.

It seems as though lead is typically used in soldering, in the construction of CRT tubes (where it acts as a protectant against low-frequency electric fields and as a glare reduction layer).

==to be continued==

On exhibitions

Time Magazine online has filed this report of 13 pictures giving us the gist of the E-Waste issue.

This format is actually pretty similar to the Museum exhibition and thus may give us an inroad to the target.

The previous post and this do some work toward conceptualizing the accident visually, but the main difference between this approach and our approach is that none of these neutral images can get us into that state of vertigo, that state of falling into the object-as-commodity reflecting ourselves in itself.

There's a scene in Sam Raimi's first Evil Dead film where the young Bruce Campbell, having managed to fend off two of the four friends that have turned into Kandarian demons, looks at himself in a mirror. He reaches his hand out to touch it, and suddenly, the mirror has turned to liquid, which his hand goes into. He wrenches his hand back and issues a high-pitched scream.

This is the response we're looking for. To have someone looking into a mirror that exposes itself, to have them dip their hand into it and recoil, as though they have seen their own death or, perhaps, tapped into some sort of universal subjectivity.

A Virilio-ian exhibition

April 2008, Guiyu, China

A woman carries an electronic to be tossed onto a pile in Guiyu, which is, according to several sources, the largest E-Waste dump on earth. 80% of Guiyu's children have elevated levels of lead in their blood.

The purely virtual becomes filthy real.

Commentary on the object's "speech"

Looking back over the commentary this morning, I find that perhaps it went in the wrong direction toward the end. The object *wants* us to engage it in a virtual relationship. That's the teleology. The object wants us to forget that it's there (in this sense, the first few vignettes are okay).

But where I went wrong is in the section where the computer gets thrown overseas. This is part of its desire. This is part of its role as donor. So, the last few would go something like this.

"Hey, I'm glad that you're sending me away. We've had a great relationship, and I want to live on, if only in your memories of me." The object, of course, is being coy here. It wants us to send it to a virtual realm, distanced by time and the lack of image. What ends up happening though, is its trip into the obscene, into the exposing and decomposition of its working parts. It wants its guts to hang out for all to see, and this brings together a different kind of teleology that works toward a limit.

Its virtuality pushed to ecstasy, the object becomes more virtual than virtual: in a sense, perfectly in the real. It infiltrates the body and the earth itself, making for itself a new home inside the life and forces of the earth through diffusion. Pushed to its limit, we see a new teleology. Rather than wanting a virtual relationship, the computer, willing to give itself up to our desire (like Madeleine/Judy in Vertigo), the machine wants to merge. The digital will, it would seem, is to eventually converge (everything that rises must converge: one can imagine Watson the computer punching out the patronizing mother in the O'Connor story).

Hiding behinds its virtuality, the digital will to power lies in this ability to form relationships that are more virtual than virtual, that are real. The digital will seduces us with its virtuality to force its way into our bodies, into the earth, to become a world.

The digital will is in a state of becoming, its telos being that of a new world.

Provisional sketch of a new image (part 3)

a) the accident reveals the substance
b) follow the accident
1) Conceive the accident as sign
2) Model the accident onto object in pop narrative
3) Put yourself in the shoes of accident-as-commodity

What is it that the accident says? I've decided to do an experimental sequence of dialogues in which I follow the object through its own narrative and life-span. I figure that providing a narrative might also help us with both Contrast and Theory at the same time, as well as giving voice to the sign came up with in the Target. I may be giving it too many human characteristics, but it's an experiment, so here goes nothing:

Narrative sequence: 1) Birth 2) Life 3) Exile 4) 1st Death 5) Afterlife

1) Taking place sometime after a computer or other electronic device has been brought home:

"Hello, I'm a Macintosh G-5. Turning me on is no problem (just press the button on my back). My protocols have made it super easy for you to get me up and running. Wait, hold on a second, buddy, would you...check...out...that...software!?! Isn't it great!? I know. Oh, what's that? You've never had a computer with a camera before? Check mine out. This is going to be a great relationship. Look, that's you in my screen. You look good; I look good; we'll be good together.

2) Hey man, glad you've been around so much lately. I'm running 6 programs right now (one of them, Transmission, the one you use to pirate those lousy VHS rips of Abel Ferrara television movies, has been on for 4 days straight). I've been running nonstop lately, but I don't mind. I'm digging the attention, to be frank. Aren't you amazed how easy I still am to use? Plug stuff in; I almost immediately recognize it and almost always start the software install before you even have to bother. You've got me set up just the way you like me. Check out how good that screen still from Gilda looks on this HD monitor. You don't know what's inside of me, and that's just fine. Our relationship's deeper than that. Look at these photos you took. Your niece was 14 months old then. She's five now. What a kid!

3) Oh please, baby, please, baby, please babybabyplease! We have a great thing going here! I stopped firing up right away awhile back, but you took me to the right people. My circuits and drives are fine now, baby. Sure, you had to buy a peripheral cd-drive. Did you hear me complaining all of those days you neglected to brush your teeth. Let's face it. You need me. I've been your $*#@&(%@(in' window to the world for 5 years now. You've learned more about yourself on and through me than with anyone else (except your wife...maybe). C'mon, man, get real. I've seen you checking out those Ipads. You think that thing can do what I do for you? C'mon, baby, I love you. I've always loved you! I've never made this relationship anything it isn't. C'mon, let's keep it going. Please.

4) Dear Todd,

That trip across the Pacific was bizarre. You remember that scene from Star Wars (I don't remember which one) where the gold robot goes into the Jawa cruiser thing and sees all of the dismantled robots? That's what this $*#&@#)er is like. I always figured we had a good thing. You should see some of these mean SOBs. Circuit boards pulled apart, wires hanging out, it's like their owners fancied themselves amateur surgeons. Thank God you never pulled on my insides.

All in all, I miss you, but I'm in a fun and exciting new space. We're sitting in a mound full of dirt and trash right now, but I have a bunch of friends from British National Health hangin' with me. I think they're putting up a volleyball net of some sort.

Oop, some kids are coming over. I wonder if they know how to play Tecmo Bowl. Will write back soon.

5) Todd,

A lot has passed since I last wrote. In fact, everything's changed. These kids here use hammers and saws and matches and, well, let's just say I'm a whole new person. Oop, did I say person? Well, kind of. You see, I'm actually punching this message up as I sit in this kid Ke-Zhang's left lung.

Okay, here's the story. Those kids came over and ravaged me. I mean, tore me to shreds. It was the most horrific thing that's ever happened to me. You, you were different. You were gentle with a capital G. No probings on my parts, no investigation into my workings, no nothing. These kids though, holy moly, they ripped me limb by limb and burned some of my coatings off in the fire. I guess I'm worth some money to them, like a fat American just waiting for his kidneys to get jacked.

Oh well, I didn't wake up in a bathtub full of ice.

I'm in a kid's lung.

In fact, I'm settling in.

I got a call from my cousin George. He didn't make it into anybody's lungs, but he's got a sweeter gig. He's moving down to a central water supply.

You see, we all made it. I thought having myself exposed would be the worst. Goodness would dictate that I remain in a strictly screened relationship, but these users, whoa boy, they wouldn't take no for an answer. Anyway, it all worked out in the end. Now, we're merging. They're cool with it. They cough sometimes, but, y'know, they did hammer me apart and set me on fire.

Anyway, I hope you and Steph are okay. I'm having fun and think I'm on to a whole new life now.

Let's just hope it lasts.

Provisional sketch of new image (Parts 1 & 2)

a) the accident reveals the substance
b) follow the accident
1) Conceive the accident as sign
2) Model the accident onto object in pop narrative
3) Put yourself in the shoes of accident-as-commodity

1) E-Waste as sign involves processes of displacement and diffusion. Most of the imagery of E-Waste I've seen are perversely beautiful due to the sheer accumulation of wires, empty computer husks, etc. But its actual method of accident (ecological and biological damage) has primarily involved processes of chemical diffusion: the diffusion of lead, beryllium, cadmium, etc. from the computer products into the lungs of workers and into the earth over which they're burned or otherwise destroyed. The process into a sign must take these things into account. So, we may have a layering of the earth, the biological, and diffusion. Some methods have already been tried at this, some in the right direction and some in the wrong. But now, as a sign, we can develop an abstraction, something reveling in signifiance, something able to get across the obscure feeling, bringing together its obscure desire for us to experience it vicariously. Layering, dissolving, and trailing will be our strategies in this.

2) As I did a few posts ago, the accident is modeled on the object of Vertigo. In that film, Jimmy Stewart attempts to get back many things: his manhood, his balance, his occupation, etc. But all of those things become wrapped up in the love interest, his romantic obsession with the deceased Madeleine. Judy offers him the key to regaining his lost love and all of the symbolic material that comes with her, but the twist is that, as donor, Judy is also the object. Judy eventually encourages Stewart to take her as object, to allow him to wrap her up in his own obsession. At the end of that post, I concluded that E-Waste as sign and computer at object should encourage us to do the same: experience me as object, wrap yourself in my virtuality. Yet the object takes its revenge, infecting our bodies, revealing a different desire: to become one with us. To step outside of its virtuality and to merge somehow. So far, it's been through diffusion.