Tag: CS A5

CS: Extract

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ 3 Comments

In the age of entanglement

Photography discourse is littered with opposing statements such as ‘photography is more important than ever’, or else it might be ‘dead and irrelevant’. Are proclamations such as these becoming as questionable as the West’s mechanistic view of reality, which arguably tends to foster such binarised positions? If the West’s historical paradigm, dominated by isolated objects, people, and places, spread across the planet and universe were receding, and instead, reality increasingly perceived as emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like, how would photography fare?

Drawing on Karen Barad’s agential realism, a synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, the ensuing discussion results in more questions than answers. The challenge is compounded because we are also invariably constrained by a “Cartesian habit of mind” (Barad, 2007: 49) which informs our imaginations, language and academic conventions. Barad’s phenomenologically informed philosophy urges us to review our ethical relationship with the universe. Their thesis challenges boundaries we assumed were fixed, including those photography has relied upon to promote itself even when claiming to challenge the status quo. While describing some tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, work by a variety of practitioners is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion, photography matters as art as never before remain valid alongside Daniel Palmer’s (2014:144) statement, photography as we once knew it is practically over? Could both be true simultaneously in an entangled world? Will photography escape its Cartesian origins as it evolves into ‘image-making’ in a digital universe? The possibilities undoubtedly demand a deeper discussion than the stipulated 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.

SJField 2020

CS A5: Final edit of essay – Image in the age of entanglement

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

Final version of extended essay:

31/08/20 CS A5-image-in-the-age-of-entanglement-sarah-jane-field-512666-offlineDownload

Earlier version:

13/08/20 CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement Sarah-Jane Field 512666 – offline

Please note, I have requested permission from relevant artists to publish their images online. If artists have not replied, the online version of the essay has blank spaces where an image should be but captions are included. OCA students/staff are welcome to email me for an offline copy showing all images. I will update this PDF if other artists give permission before the deadline for making changes arrives.

Please see the initial submission for OCA reflection.

In addition to the PDF, I will include the following in the final submission for assessment.

  • Thanks to the many proof-readers (OCA and non OCA) and my highly educated friend Mariana for checking the citation style.
  • Thanks to the three scientists who read through earlier drafts, Professor Peter Doel – University College London, Professor Alan Woodward – University of Surrey, and a quantum mechanics student who prefers to remain anonymous.
  • Thanks to artist Rowan Lear, who is far more knowledgeable about Karen Barad and agential realism than I am, for reading through excerpts I was unsure about and clarifying for me.

CS A5: thoughts New Materialism(s) – Critical Posthumanism Network

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

One of things I have not touched on at all in the essay is New Materialism. Barad’s work comes under that heading and it seems remiss not to mention it. I’ve avoided it though as the topic I’ve covered is so vast, and my initial iterations were so rambling, I felt it was adding yet another idea into the mix which would be confusing/diluting. Since the essay is more streamlined now (I think) perhaps this is something I can address but I wonder if it would be better to add it to the appendix. As I said, I think I need to severely cut Appendix no. i anyway, maybe altogether – but perhaps I can add it there.

Then, if I do that, should I add a brief criticism of New Materialism? Zizek has stuff to say (but he sniffs a lot and thought Trump would be better than Clinton so I’ve less time for him lately …)

Things to consider..

New Materialism(s) – Critical Posthumanism Network
— Read on criticalposthumanism.net/new-materialisms/

CS A5: Extract updated

~ Sarah-Jane Field ~ Leave a comment

Photography discourse is littered with opposing statements such as ‘photography is more important than ever’, or else it is ‘dead and irrelevant’. These proclamations have lately become as problematic as the long-held mechanistic Western view of reality, which arguably fosters these kinds of binarised positions.

However, we are no longer living in a world consisting of isolated objects, people, and places spread across the planet and universe, while time is only singular and forward-moving. Instead, reality seems increasingly emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like.

Drawing on Karen Barad’s agential realism, a synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, the ensuing discussion results in more questions than answers. It may also be hindered by inescapable limitations of, to quote Barad, the “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49) most of us inhabit. Such habits inform our language, academic conventions, and, of course, photographic critical theory. Barad’s phenomenologically informed philosophy is a threat to the boundaries photography has used to promote itself even while claiming to challenge the status quo. While describing some tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, a range of lens-based art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion, photography matters as art as never before remain valid alongside Daniel Palmer’s (2014:144) statement, photography as we once knew is finished?  Could both be true at the same time in an entangled world? The possibilities undoubtedly demand a deeper discussion than a 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.

 

(Edited 7/8/20)

History

The long-held Western view which suggests isolated and unrelated objects, people, and places are spread across the planet and universe, while time is only singular and forward moving, is less and less convincing. Rather than seeing a hierarchical collection of separate entities existing within linear space and time, reality increasingly feels emergent, dynamic, multi-dimensional, and rhizome-like.

Drawing on Karen Barad’s synthesis of quantum science and poststructuralism, coined ‘agential realism’, this 5350-word essay results in more questions than answers. It may also be hindered by inescapable limitations of, to quote Barad, a “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49). Such habits inhabit our language and are embedded in our perception of reality, asacademic wellconvention, asand academicphotography conventioncritical theory. However, structural transformation means inevitable changesshifts, whether we agree or not, are aware, in denial, or remain oblivious. While describing some key tenets of agential realism, focusing in particular on the phenomenological nature of existence and Barad’s use of the word entanglement, a range of lens-based art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. How can<span style=&quot;color:var(–color-text);font-size:1rem;&quot;> </span><span style=&quot;color:var(–color-text);font-size:1rem;&quot;>Michael Fried’s (2008) assertion that, photography matters as art as never before (2008), isremain queriedvalid alongside Daniel Palmer’s suggestion that photography is all but over (2014:144).is finished? Could both be true at the same time in an entangled world? The possibilities probably demand a longer and deeper discussion than a 5000+/- word limit allows for, however, the paradigm described above presents image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums that increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.</span>

 


			

	


				
					


	

		
CS: A5 Edits following tutor feedback
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ Leave a comment					

				

		
Following the chat I had with Matt a couple of week’s ago and his feedback, I have finally managed to get the word count down – I suspect it is a bit less than stated on the cover now and will recount before assessment (I counted over the weekend but cut more this morning.)


I have emphasised the link between poststructuralism and the science philosophy/science using Barad’s interpretation far more than before, not so much due to Matt’s response – in fact, he told me not to undermine my argument after I attempted to accommodate notes made by two quantum scientists, both of whom said, but you can’t feel quantum fluctuations. It was that which made me grit my teeth (yes, I am aware!) and look through Barad’s work again and then to underscore the links between PS and the science.


Despite my frustrations, I am grateful to the scientists as their comments resulted in a more focused essay, I think, and I need to add thanks to them on the document.


I need to write to artists included and request permission to show their images on the blog version of the essay.


Introduction still isn’t quite right and I need to look at it again.


Appendix One could probably do with being heavily edited or even cut altogether now as I address the topic in the essay more.


At this point, finally, if any peers do read this yet again, I am now ready to address proofing/corrections if you notice them. It will be proofed by someone external in any case before the assessment deadline and has been through Grammarly. I do hope to God I have picked up the really daft mistakes/typos now and that everyone’s name is right.


CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement – July27th


 


 

			

	


				
					


	

		
CS A5: Tutor Feedback
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 2 Comments					

				

		
Matt read a recent version which I had worked on following some interaction with a couple of quantum scientists.


I have since, following a chat with Matt, reworked the essay a bit and am now at a point where I need to edit down again – I suspect it is about 1000 words over but am just guessing and so I will need to keep working on it for a while longer to bring in it down to the correct word count. Online CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement – July14th


A5 CS Feedback Form SJFIeld




Written by the student, and endorsed by the tutor.


Key points


    

  • An interesting, ambitious essay which can be improved with some additions and clarifications.
    • 

  • Does the argument suggest we need a “new way of thinking about any form of representation” (MW) altogether?
    • 



Summary of tutorial discussion


    

  • I need to expand on why I have ‘lumped’ photography and moving image together. (Hopefully can be done with a couple of references either paraphrased or cited directly.)
    • 

  • No need to undermine myself – believe in the post-structuralist argument I’m making.
    • 

  • Do I need to follow through with the discussion about still photography falling short, if so, what comes next, process-led practice, participatory practice, etc. Matt asks, “Is the barrier created by the lens between artist and subject too great to undo? Is the obvious next step to eliminate the use of photography at all?”
    • 

  • Perhaps there is a bit of room to discuss the tyranny of Western cinematic montage patterns and conventions being absorbed into our perception of time, personal narrative etc.
    • 

  • Be clearer about indeterminism being different to uncertainty (clarify the passage)
    • 

  • Temper a couple of overly bold statements.
    • 

  • Have not made enough of a case for introduction of imperialist discussion – can it be woven in more fluently or else dropped?
    • 

  • From Matt: The anthropologist, Roger Sensi, in his book, Art, Anthropology and the Gift, looks at the relationship between art and anthropology and particularly about the nature of collaboration and exchange. Quoting Marilyn Strathern from her work, The Gender of the Gift, he says, it is at the point of interaction that a singular identity is established’. From this perspective, people are constantly being made and re-made through relations, and things are constantly being created not in contradistinction to persons but “out of persons”. Through gifts, people give a part of themselves. They are not something that stands for them, a representation, but they are “extracted from one and absorbed by another”. This continuity between people and things is what she called a “mediated exchange,” as opposed to the unmediated exchange of commodities, which is based on a fundamental discontinuity between people and things”.
    • 



Reading suggestions


See above


Summary 






Strengths
Areas for development




Interesting and challenging subject
 No need to justify or undermine self




 Relevant
Explain why putting photography in the same category as moving image




 Ambitious
 Be clearer about introducing the imperialist section




 
 


  







Any other notes


 






Tutor name
Matt White










Next assignment due
n/a






 


 


 


 


 


 


 

			

	


				
					


	

		
BOW CS: Developments/Updates
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 10 Comments					

				

		
A couple of weeks ago, I planned to devote a day to OCA work. The kids’ computer went awry and so I had to hand my Mac over to one of them to attend a live lesson, and I ended up cutting down an overgrown ivy bush which I’ve been begging the landlords to deal with, to no avail, for years. I ended up spending the day at it and went to bed exhausted. (It’s still not quite finished!)


As I did, I noticed the way the wooden fence had warped, rotted, become enmeshed with the plant, and of course, the entangled nature of its growth. And ever since, I have been thinking – that is not quantum entanglement. That is physical entanglement. I have been thinking about this ever since and what that means for the whole thrust of my essay.


I gathered up the bravery to send the essay to a couple of scientists working or studying in a branch of quantum mechanics. I asked the following:


    

  • 

      

    • Big worries of mine apply to my use of the word Entanglement which informs the whole essay (:-/) and also the brief description of Superposition. The other night I lay awake thinking, I need to make clear that quantum entanglement is different from the entanglement of a fungal system/rhizome (or any physical system for that matter) because in QS (I think) we don’t have any way of seeing how two entities might be connected, we simply see, under certain experimental conditions, that they are. (Am aware, there’s is stuff we can’t see but suspect must exist)
      • 

    • If that is so, do I need to suggest that the entanglement of language, time, ideas is ‘merely’ metaphor, which Karen Barad asks us to avoid. Also, if that is the case, the whole argument of matter and meaning being ‘entangled’ is undermined. If the essay is flawed because of this, that’s OK, as long as I acknowledge it. I also think I am muddying the difference between superposition and entanglement in my thinking – evident in the writing. There are a couple of highlighted sentences that concern me but basically, Part 1 which begins on p5 ends p22 would benefit from a scientist’s eye.
      • 

    

    • 



I am really glad I did ask. Thank you fellow Holly for asking her husband, Professor Alan Woodward from the University of Surrey to help out. I can almost hear the deep sigh – the following has helped me to clarify.


    

  • The concepts you are describing relate more to quantum social sciences and to philosophy than to quantum physics. Physicists would argue that quantum processes can only occur at the nano-particle level and cannot be applied to the Newtonian level (our experience of the world). Also, that quantum entanglement and superposition are provable physical processes. He’s aware that social sciences are importing some of the theory of quantum physics and of but argues that using them to describe human behaviour is a metaphor rather than a potentially provable fact. From a philosophical point of view, the concepts make sense, but it would be wise to steer clear of correlating them with the natural sciences.
    • 

  • An easy to understand explanation of superposition is to think of tossing a coin. When it is in the air it is neither heads nor tails but has the potential to be either. (I knew I had got this wrong – I have removed it as I suspected I would and focused on entanglement only for now – word count was an issue in any case.)
    • 



Everything is interrelated physically but the forces that have hold sway are different at different sizes. Take for example when you sit down on a chair – in our world, the Newtonian world, although everything is made of the same particles, you do not fall through the chair. At cosmological scale, the rotation of our solar system around the galaxy is something that clearly exists, but does not affect us at planetary level – the size and timescale are irrelevant to us. Equally, for most purposes, quantum forces are not relevant to our experience of the world.


 



The above section has prompted me to really underline the post-structural aspect of the essay, quoting Barad as well as using her repeated words to drum home the point that a Cartesian view is challenged in her reading. I have also quoted Prof. Woodward (I suspect Barad would refer to PW as a scientific realist) the use of the word by writing “Barad’s entanglement” often, as well as including the work philosophy to make that aspect loud and clear. I have in addition underlined the fact that entanglement in the physical world is not the same as quantum entanglement. But I have included extra citations from Barad about living in a quantum world and dissolving the boundaries between the two models – classical/quantum.


As far as correlating quantum processes with biology goes, this is something Vedral explicitly does over and over again in many of his talks online and in articles. I now appreciate that he is probably a maverick  – he does refer to “experimental” science when he discusses these macro quantum processes. I really wish I could ask Vedral some stuff but so far no joy in my attempts to contact him.


Later today I will be chatting with Matt and will then incorporate his advice and suggestions before posting another version which I hope will be closer to where it needs to be by September!


All in all – the doubts in my mind were right and I am extremely grateful to Holly and her husband for their time and patience. And thank goodness I took the time to cut down that ivy plant – it was a useful exercise for so many reasons in the end.


BOW Developments


I have been wondering about the online version of the work. I have always been very clear it should exist online and off but be not exactly the same. The online version should be animated and should take advantage of the possibilities offered by digital media rather than simply be an exact digital copy of the offline object.  A website like Lisa Barnards thegolddepository is an inspiration and the work may still go that way. But I have been playing with the idea of an ePublication book. Seeing another student using it was interesting as I was able to follow an informative email conversation that explored some of the pitfalls.


Here’s my first early experiment: https://indd.adobe.com/view/6b1b7241-7472-4f7c-becf-2d18508c8607


    

  • There are issues – my font is too small but I’ve animated it to go big and then it’s too big. I might need to address the font size and type throughout.
    • 

  • I don’t want animations on every page – judicious  – at the moments it’s just an early, oh, look what I can do here….
    • 

  • The moving image fragments I’ve placed are not sized correctly so they don’t work   – I need to take them into Premier Pro and size them exactly as they will be used. The scaling feature which works great with still images doesn’t handle moving image at all.
    • 

  • I will probably include a hyperlink to a short film – have asked someone if they’d be up for writing some music for it. That would take the viewer right out of the book so I need to consider carefully where to place it.
    • 

  • I am wondering about sound – at the moment there is no audio. Something to experiment with I guess.
    • 

  • I wonder if Lisa Barnard’s design people used InDesign to get some of those animations on her website… maybe that is something I can do anyway. Not sure. You can save as gifs and Squarespace does take gifs. But it’s a template and I am not comfortable operating outside the template – maybe need to look at creating web pages which feels daunting. But maybe the ePub book is enough… all things to consider.
    • 



 

			

	


				
					


	

		
Bow: A5 revisiting Douglas Gordon
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 2 Comments					

				

		

I came across something Douglas Gordon said and want to start from this place in the next stage of BOW. I am not sure if the next stage will be ready for end of BOW although I do hope to have some basic moving image peice to accompany the publication – even if it’s submitted with the proviso it will be developed further before and during SYP. 





If you want to find the truth in something, take it apart piece by piece, then put it back together with the detail of a forensic scientist. 
—Douglas Gordon





https://gagosian.com/artists/douglas-gordon/





At 12.36 mins an excellent answer to the frustrating question, what is your work about? 










In my own project; Some possible text provided by the AI relating to ‘seeing’















A video about Replika which is the propriety chatbot I’ve subscribed to (there are others) –  specific things I picked up on





Emotional music, desire to connect, death – which links to continuation of Self and Other project, 





More research: 





Have we been scammed?
 byu/glibjibb inreplika

			

	


				
					


	

		
CA A5: Extended essay
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ Leave a comment					

				

		
I have submitted the essay to Matt for final comments. I do however need to address a few issues before submitting for assessment- see below:


Extract


CS A5 Image in the age of entanglement – Submitted to MW (only images with permission or from PR)


OCA form – Reflection 


    

  1. I need to seek permission for some images so those ones are blank in this particular online copy – Matt has the full version.
    2. 

  2. It is still a little over word count and I will need to edit down. I will do this after giving it a rest for a couple of weeks so I can see where edit
    3. 

  3. I will double-check the citation rules and seek advice – that kind of thing is a challenge. (I did spend an evening reading through them and hope it is nearly right).
    4. 

  4. I’ve uploaded an interim version on the Peer Feedback page to accompany the relevant comments written up on 10/06/2020 from peers to show development.
    5. 

  5. Finally (added a day after posting after some thought) I think I need to revisit the agential section – free will is really tricky: unconscious motivation, Pavlovian manipulation, Deleuze’s flow for example all need to be acknowledged and aren’t at the moment. This is an issue for word count – might detract from the main thread – entanglement- which I’m loath to do.
    6. 

  6. The same goes for determinism v. Indeterminism. There are still no clear cut answers despite Barad’s arguments.
    7. 



How things have changed from A4:


    

  1. I was confused about some key issues – I think I have clarified them in my own head, thanks to some advice from a friend who is far more knowledgeable than me, and hopefully, that has translated in the essay. (Also see the difference between version send to the feedback group and the version sent to Matt – it is significant).
    2. 

  2. The essay is much more focused on entanglement along with what is needed to describe that. I think it reads better, is more accessible, but it has probably lost something in the meantime – but overall it is better now.
    3. 

  3. I have restructured it – rather than three chapters, it has two Parts as well as an Introduction and Conclusion. I did this by adding the end of what was Chp. 3 to the conclusion. I think it works better for this length of essay.
    4. 

  4. The essay is still and will forever be (fatally?) flawed by the fact it is too big to tackle in 5000 words (not that I think I could manage more at this time – it has been difficult to research and then manage the information).
    5. 

  5. As challenging as it has been, I have learnt a great deal, so it was worth it
    6. 

  6. I wish I could simply say reread certain sections but I have rewritten and restructured so much I do think it requires another full reading. However, specifically, there is a clearer opening that states the intention, – intra-action, agential realism and indeterminism have all been refined and I think the descriptions are more accurate in terms of Barad’s descriptions now. I have put a lot more of me into Part Two – I was worried it was a bit of a rant now – but hopefully, Matt will let me know if I’ve gone too far.
    7. 

  7. I have added and taken away image examples.
    8. 

  8. The Conclusion is longer.
    9. 



 

			

	


				
					


	

		
CS A5: Draft extract
	

				

			 ~ Sarah-Jane Field			 ~ 2 Comments					

				

		
A first attempt – it’s a bit of a dense, to say the least. But a first stab and will see what Matt says about it – pretty sure I might want to rewrite it to be more friendly but I’ve never written an extract before and am not entirely sure about acceptable tones:


A 5000-word essay exploring the structural significance of digital imagery within a global reality that is largely networked, interconnected and interactive, when formerly, it was more likely to be viewed as a series of isolated albeit hierarchical entities.


Drawing on Karen Barad’s synthesis of quantum science and critical analysis, coined ‘agential realism’, the essay results in more questions than answers. It is also hindered by limitations of, to quote Barad, a “Cartesian habit of mind” (2007: 49). Such habits inform the language we use to describe contemporary reality and are embedded in acceptable academic conventions. However, structural transformation means inevitable changes to our language, perception and physical reality, whether we agree or not, are aware or oblivious. While describing some key tenets of an agential realist’s view, focusing in particular on entanglement, a range of visual art is examined in an effort to make sense of apparently contradictory statements by well-regarded and oft-quoted theorists about the photographic image today. Michael Fried’s assertion that photography matters as art as never before (2008) is queried alongside Daniel Palmer’s suggestion that photography is all but over (2014:144). Can these seemingly opposite views both be true at the same time in an entangled world? Despite the difficulty of tackling a subject too far-reaching to be adequately broached within a 5000-word limit, the effects of the changes described above have led to ethical difficulties, which present image-makers of all persuasions with conundrums which increasingly cannot and should not be ignored.