Frequencies (Bridget Riley)
“Shannon’s theory defines information as a probability function with no dimensions, no materiality, and no necessary connection with meaning. it is a pattern, not a presence”
(Towards embodied virtuality, Hayles, 1999, p19)
(Bridget Riley – Images curtsey of Tate.co.uk)
these are amazing images. I went off to learn something about the artist, and was really surprised at the changes in her style over her career – http://www.op-art.co.uk/bridget-riley/ – the textual narrative tries to weave it together, but the chosen visuals are enchantingly disjointed. This is, I suppose, what I think about ‘pattern’ – it’s easy enough to name it, to explain it, but, as John Law says,
“making and detecting ‘the right’ similarities and differences is difficult, complex, and involves going to extraordinary lengths to delete ‘the wrong’ similarities and differences. …realities grow out of distinctions between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ patterns… It is this that enacts the distinction between real and unreal, and makes signal and silence. The implication is that silence and non-realities are also artful effects. They are the first steps towards avoiding dazzle and making realities.” (2004, 110)
Law, J. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. Abingdon: Routledge.
Wow – love that citation
Is this why mistakes and errors, or control of mistakes and errors result in better analogue interpretation? Yes, isn’t it odd – I’ve seen many of Riley’s works, but Hayles (Posthuman) has woken me up to her genius!
“Is this why mistakes and errors, or control of mistakes and errors result in better analogue interpretation?”
Better as in richer, I wonder?
Better as in the overlay of analogue that describes (I think?) information and how that can be controlled – To what extent do we need to control to achieve richer results that we can all interpret. But then how do we move away from personal interpretation to achieve rigor – linking back to one of my posts on critical design… And to what purpose? I like the idea of (as I mentioned in another post) design in relationships of interactions – sort of what Riley is doing but in the virtual (I think – now that I understand virtual).