LEAD Chat Transcript: Wild Nature and Digital Life
with Sue Thomas and Giselle Beiguelman
Click here to download pdf version.
Also available in Portuguese.

View Sue Thomas’ essay: "Locative and Performative" (LEA Vol 14 No 07 - 08 2006):

The "Leonardo Electronic Almanac Discussion" (LEAD) accompanies selected LEA Special Issues. LEAD has two components a live chat session with LEA authors and artists and a moderated discussion list for readers to engage with the special issue authors.

The following is the unedited transcript from Thursday’s (1 February 2007) chat session with new media artist and multimedia essayist Giselle Beiguelman and Professor of New Media in the Faculty of Humanities at De Montfort University and an Associate Fellow of DMU’s Institute of Creative Technologies Sue Thomas, part of the online discussion around Wild Nature and Digital Life special issue of the Leonardo Electronic Almanac. <Marcus Bastos & Ryan Griffis>

<begin transcript>
Marcus Bastos: So I´d like to welcome everyone to our fourth chat on the Digiwild series of LEAD. Many thanks to Sue and Giselle, our special guests. Great to have Tete around, hope we have a nice conversation.

Sue Thomas: Nice to be here :)

Giselle Beiguelman: I thank you all for inviting me to take part of this conversation.

Marcus Bastos: Since we are heading towards the end of the series and Sue was one of the editors, I thought we could start by summing up some of the ideas behind the edition (and maybe estabilishing some relation to prior chats). It would also be nice if Giselle could deliver us some comments on the gallery, from the perspective of an artist.

MB: First thing I´d be interested is hearing from Sue a little more about the reasons that lead to diving the issue in "Emergent / Generative'" and "Locative / Performative"

ST: Ah. Interesting question...

MB: I am not going to sum up all the articles, to save us time, but I think that we can read connections that are transversal to that division

ST: first of all, it was not intended to do that at the start, but was a result of the kinds of work we finally accepted..
We received many more works than we could use, but of those we rejected, quite a number were similar to each other in that they presented images from the natural world as artistic images..

MB: you mean merely representational?

ST: we felt this was inappropriate but it alerted us to the fact that the amazing photography and video tools available today help us to extract the most incredible images from nature which are amazing to look at but, in the end, were indeed merely representational. So we found ourselves with a certain set of works and essays which pushed the boundaries further than that and which interrogated the human - nature relationship in a more rigorous way.

GB: And the same tools that can be used to illustrate nature can be used to deny it too.

ST: Then... just to sum up.. we were asked to split the works into a double issue and so we looked for a natural divide, and this is where we found it. That´s the story.
I can say more about the works specifically if you'd like but much of that is summed up in the introductions.

MB: yep, it is. but I started to see some unsuspected relations between the editorial divide. For example...the debate about "locating" (so to say) natural disasters is related to themes that could be under "Emergent / Generative", since there´s an amount of data that precipitates some kind of action. We talked a little bit about the represent / deny issue on the first chat, the subject was mainly about means of representing data that goes beyond visual.

RG: One thing that I find interesting is in the dichotomy of nature/society (nature can either be "denied" or "extracted from" but it remains independent of society...
the dichotomies set up in the issue offer something other than nature/society...

ST: in the works, you mean. Ryan?

GB: When you say "works", you are talking about all contributors or focusing the art works, Sue?

ST: I meant all the pieces, not just the artworks, Giselle.

RG: also in the framing...

ST: I would like to know whether that division makes sense to you all here

MB: The division makes sense, but I don´t see it as a dichotomy

RG: Good point marcus - maybe tensions would be better definitive? the classifications of locative/performative, for example, don't so easily map onto the society/nature schema.

MB: Well I was wondering if it could be thought of form the perspective of "scale"

ST: Re the division -- we could just as easily done one whole issue , in which case it would have been organised differently - but it had to be 2 to fit everything in

MB: I mean, we tend to think locative for macroscopic and emergent for microscopic and maybe it would be possible to find connections that reveal similatiries at both ends (if we could "adjust the scaling")

ST: good point marcus

RG: though emergent is used on the macro scale all the time, as in physics

ST: personally i would prefer to have as little division as possible - a more holistic approach
 
MB: could you elaborate a bit?

ST: i'm wary of intellectualising too much around this topic..

RG: that makes sense... but sometimes delineations can help join things together conceptually as well as divide them

ST: very true ryan

GB: The problem is that the globe tode is a mix of scales. we are always in bertween different an simultaneous scales.

ST: yes giselle
 
MB: sure, but we have the body as some sort of parameter that could be thought of as "natural" and we tend to see what is beyond bodily perception as "not natural" and since technology now makes us aware of this mix of scales, things get blurry.

ST: we try to be objective, but in the end we can only be subjective and experiential in much of how we understand what is happening

GB: Did you see 'Babel' (the film by Inarritu)?

ST: the recent one? no not yet

MB: i saw it.

RG: me too

GB: It is a masterpiece about different scales and tensions between mobiliy/imobility.

ST: that sounds very intriguing

RG: yes, there are some great moments in it i think

ST: marcus can you say more about why what is beyond bodily perception is unnatural?

MB: I was thinking about how we tend to feel comfortable with things that are "perceptible" (maybe culturallly perceptible would be better than bodily here) so we tend to see what is beyond our repertoire as "unnatural" (does it make sense?)

RG: or, how can we differentiate bodily and culturally...

GB: yes, sometimes we tend to use natural as atavic...

MB: sorry to interrupt Giselle, could you say more about the tensions between mobility / imobility in the film Babel?

GB: Wow, babel is now... I'm following you. We can go back to the film later.

ST: i think we may be using 'natural' in different ways

MB: that´s right Sue... how would you define natural?

ST: I was thinking of gary snyder.. He proposes 2 options:
1. natural = anything untouched by human.
Or 2. anything that grows and changes, therefore including humans, technology etc..
(NB that is a quick chatroom summary of a much longer definition!)

So which natural are we talking about here, do you think?

MB: I would think of natural (maybe this would be common sense) as something that results from systemic processes that goes beyond our perception of time and space
To go back to the first chat... the way geological formations evolves for example

ST: I guess when we put together the issue we were looking for writers and artists who were rebelling against 1. and developing ideas via 2.

So where do you see human agency in that Marcus? or perhaps that's irrelevant?
what do others think?

MB: that´s the point... I was trying to thing of something that goes beyond human agency, without  trying to reinvent god ;p
(but it would always go back to the point of what is perceptible and how technology "enhance" our agency)

RG: Latour might classify #1 as the most problematic - "nature" is also usually what we call upon to avoid politics, which this issue certainly doesn't do. but it does go into #2 in some quite interesting ways... that i think are difficult to open up , as Brett seemed to suggest in his last post to the list

I think Brett's post for example situates human agency in relation to other agencies that are all based on mediation

ST: Marcus, what about the supernatural?

RG: Like satellites :)

GB: I think Otto Roesler and the endophysics could help here. The Chaos theory also. We are produced by everything that is around us and producing it at the same time. The Buterfly Effect does not aloow us anymore to think about something beyond human interference and vice versa.

ST: good point giselle

MB: so any eventual "supernatural" would be out of question. It would only be a matter of broken links to interfaces yet to be built!

ST: I like that idea!

GB: //2

RG: quite good!

ST: so we nolonger worry about 'the missing link' - now it is the broken link!

RG: we'd just need a better network connection :)

MB: or better data retrieval models?

RG: in some ways, it seems that "nature" has always been about "broken links" - what cultured humans don't have direct access to, but fantasize that Others do

ST: is this where shamanism comes in?

RG: at least that's how they're represented in anthropology...

MB: I would rather think that this is where Freud´s question ("what´s on a man´s mind?") shifts direction since man is always mutating.

ST: i'm not familiar with that - can you explain, marcus?

RG: mutating as in "evolutionary" (adaptive) processes?

MB: I have an edition of Maladie in Civilization (not sure if that is the correct English title) whit an image of Freud questioning himself: "what´s on man´s mind"?

RG: Oh - very sorry i have to run - i'm going to be late! Thank you all for the conversation and i really regret having  to leave :(

take care + good night!

ST: nice to meet you again ryan

MB: see ya!

MB: anyway... this image is used as a starting point to describe how this question lead Freud to a description of how memory is not only about "consciousness"
but also about things that are related to "broken links" (so to say)

ST: thanks marcus

MB: I was trying to say that there are models of figuring out "links" to things not yet described that are not religious (as opposed to a Shamanistic model where the "broken" link seems to connect with something "supernatural")

but I don´t know a lot of Shamanism, so...

GB: and those "links"  would be what you define as natural, marcus?

MB: I would have to think more about it... I think it could be described as "unknown" for sure, but I think it might lead to a paradox…

GB: perfect.

MB: I mean... it could be "human" nature, but then it is already culture, so it might be pointless trying to go backwards (to some sort of romantic spot where the broken links are all tied again?)

ST: ah that is the dream

MB: anyway I´m drifting here, rs! Should we go back to Babel or talk about the gallery for a while?

ST: I would like to hear Giselle´s take on the gallery if possible but must add i dont have much longer. Getting sleepy over here!

GB: The gallery surprised me . it  would be good to talk about it.

ST: surprised you?

MB: how?

GB: Yes, the locative piece by Elisa Giaccardi. It is very interisting. Locative media is one of the most popular themes in festivals and media studies. It is a hype and so sometimes an empty trendism. Naïve conceptions of mapping and fragile approaches to collaborative processes are everywhere.

ST: agreed

GB: In general they seem to be exercises that try to show, using GPSs resources, things that could be… Like the movements of someone crossing a park somewhere… In other cases they demonstrate an amazing difficulty in dealing with the invisible, a necessity to to reveal and transcode everything. This is not the case of Silence of the Lands. I liked very much the  virtual soundscape in the public space

MB: Do you think the fact that it was a soundscape is relevant? (I mean in that sound is not "supposed" to be figurative)

GB: It is creative, it "dislocates" perception. (It seems looking to the documentation). So it allows perceiving new dimensions in the cultural space beyond the locative original and beyond rational history… so I think that the most interesting point it was not the soundscape, but the map.

MB: why?

GB: Because it is a map that is not possible (and at the same time is) It is a map of a remixing process. (I mean the public interface). It does not try to represent the original soundscapes, to locate them, illustrating the land with its sounds (what would be just trying to make the invisible visible. something really boring). So it surprised me because i liked. usually I don't like locative projects. But it is something I must study this year.
 
MB: anything else on this project? What about the other?

ST: That´s very exciting for us, that we have broken new ground for you.

GB: Yes! You are right, Sue.

GB: The other one is closer to what I understand and like,. It is a very interisting way of  dealing with the non atavic dimension of the biotechnological reaserch
I'm talking about  Grimes’ project, “Future Nature”

MB: yep.

GB: The corruption of the post-human aesthetics here is brilliant.  It seems "natural" not post something...  This is smart ;)

ST: Yes I agree. Thanks for those very insightful comments

GB: Oh, I thank you for the insight and inputs :)

MB: and I think we should finish here, right? (unless Sue or Giselle feel  there´s something important missing)

GB: It was really nice to meet you here. I'm OK. Thanks again for the invitation and the pleasant chat.

MB: thanks Giselle and Sue
<end transcript>

Author Biographies
Sue Thomas is Professor of New Media in the Faculty of Humanities at De Montfort University and an Associate Fellow of DMU’s Institute of Creative Technologies. Her most recent book is the non-fiction travelogue of cyberspace Hello World: travels in virtuality (2004). Other publications include the novels Correspondence (short-listed for the Arthur C Clarke Award for Best Science Fiction Novel 1992) and Water (1994); an edited anthology Wild Women: Contemporary Short Stories By Women Celebrating Women (1994), and Creative Writing: A Handbook For Workshop Leaders (1995). She has published extensively in both print and online, and has initiated numerous online writing projects including The Noon Quilt, now an iconic image of the early days of the web. She founded the trAce Online Writing Centre in 1995 where she was Artistic Director until going to De Montfort in January 2005. She is Programme Leader of the online MA in Creative Writing and New Media, which she teaches with Kate Pullinger, and Leader of the Production and Research in Transliteracy group (PART). Her research interests include transliteracy, participatory media, creative writing and the creative industries. She is currently riting The Wild Surmise, a study of nature and cyberspace. http://www.hum.dmu.ac.uk/~sthomas/

Giselle Beiguelman is a new media artist and multimedia essayist who teaches Digital Culture at the Graduation Program in Communication and Semiotics of PUC-SP (São Paulo, Brazil). Her work includes the award-winnings "The Book after the Book" "egoscópio" and Landscape0 (with Marcus Bastos and Rafael Marchetti). She has been developing art projects for mobile phones ("Wop Art", 2001), praised by many media sites and the international press, including The Guardian (UK) and Neural (Italy), and art involving public-access, by the web, SMS and MMS to electronic billboards like "Leste o Leste?" and "egoscópio" (2002), released by /The New York Times/, "Poétrica" (2003) and "esc for escape" (2004). Beiguelman's work appears in important anthologies and guides devoted to digital arts including Yale University Library Research Guide for Mass Media and has been presented in international venues such as Net_Condition (ZKM, Germany), el final del eclipse (Fundación Telefonica, Madrid), Desk Topping - Computer Disasters (Smart Project Space, Amsterdan) rte/Cidade (São Paulo), The 25th São Paulo Biennial and Algorithmic Revolution (ZKM).

Citation reference for this Leonardo Electronic Almanac Discussion Chat Transcript

MLA Style
Thomas, Sue and Beiguelman, Giselle. “Sue Thomas and Giselle Beiguelman: LEAD - Wild Nature and Digital Life Chat Transcripts” “Unyazi” Special Issue, Leonardo Electronic Almanac Vol. 15, No. 1 - 2 (2007). 1 Jan. 2007 <http://leoalmanac.org/resources/lead/digiwild/sthomasgbeiguelman.asp >.

APA Style
Thomas, S and Beiguelman, G. (Jan. 2007) “Sue Thomas and Giselle Beiguelman: LEAD - Wild Nature and Digital Life Chat Transcripts,” “Unyazi” Special Issue, Leonardo Electronic Almanac Vol 15, No. 1 - 2 (2007). Retrieved 1 Jan. 2007 from <http://leoalmanac.org/resources/lead/digiwild/sthomasgbeiguelman.asp>