Talk:Exe0.1 Eric Snodgrass
Dear Eric,
Apologies for being a little late with this. Very interesting text. I like the various sections, or rather plateaus, that you’ve scaffolded (instruction pointer, pincer, skin). After reading the whole text, a subtle link seems to emerge, obviously, between these three plateaus. Could we say, for instance, that Martin’s apparatus has both a perceptive (ptrace registers) and effective (needle) arm? Would the apparatus then create an Umwelt proper where the perceptive world of x86 instructions (or otherwise) is put into correspondence with the effective world of the skin (blood, sharp needle, etc)? How then is this correspondence (or shift as you have it) leveraging the propensity of x86 registers and skin to “execute”, and how is Martin’s “Umwelt execution” differ from another Umwelt? What are the chains of operations composed by this affective conjugate (x86 opcode, instruction pointer, bit-wise operations, motor PWM, sharpness of the needle, blood pressure, skin thickness, etc.)? What kind of enclosure and desire (something you rightly touch upon at the end of your text) does it produce?
Looking forward discussing these during the workshop!
Dear Eric, Thanks for a very interesting piece. The different "sites of execution" is very well-chosen, and it seems they have their own independent role but also address each other in rather complex ways, as stated above. How this is intended as either a linear or non-linear construction would be interesting to discuss: Is "sites of execution" such a thing as an archive, or a narrative? I find the link between the instruction pointer, the pincer and Howse's work very interesting, as a form of symbiosis between nature, hardware and bodies, but I also struggle with the idea of such a thing as a "site" of execution. Whereas the first (instruction pointer) suggest the site is inside the black box(?) the following (both pincer and Howse) suggest execution takes place at the human skin. In this sense, Howse's work is almost a repeatable pincer, never dying. I would like to hear more about what motivates your interest for the site, whether the site is a stable thing, an object, a phenomenon/concept, or something else. Obviously, I also find the link between execution and pain very stimulating, as seen in both the pincer and skin-piece, and I look forward discussing this with you :-) See you soon, Marie Louise
Eric, I really enjoyed reading your article. The article works through sites of execution and what makes these sites become 'sensible', detailing the formation of execution through material-discursive process. In this paper execution is not limited to a computational/technical cut, but expands executions sites, engaging with the 'differences' or 'effects' execution makes. The lexicon-like structure of the work creates a form more alike to that of a computational execution, one that can keep expanding in discrete units. The paper also takes a generative form and the first two sites can be read as cuts into reading Martin Howse's work. The sites engage with what Barad describes as "repetition not of what come before, or after but a disruption of before/after".
The paper returns often to a discussion of site and event in relation to execution - and this is something which it would be worthwhile to expand, i.e how does your formation of execution expand notions of site and event. In the second section (site:pincer) it would also be useful to expand your description of how you make the shift from the phenomenological ontology in von Uexküll's work - into Baradista frameworks of material-discursive and onto-epistemologies. There is a significant shift here, that is almost executed by the pincer - that I would like to read more about. Likewise phrases such as 'mutually executable materials" "enveloping one another in an embrace" could be drawn out, as they seem to be interesting expansions on execution.
Finally in the third section you discuss material execution, new material, material data, material exchange, and materialist energies. Therefore it would be useful to outline, what you mean, in the context of Howse, Kittler and Barad and how material might be understood in the context of execution. Lucy Suchman has recently written a new paper on materiality and material in relation to UAV's that might be useful here. You also discuss the setting of limits in execution as creating sensible (is this a reference to Nancy?) skins and habitable enclosures, sedimenting materials and energies - this sounds really interesting, and it would be good to know how you see this as happening, in the work/other examples.
Helen
Eric! Thanks very much for such a suggestive writing, to me it has been almost pedagogical how you scaffolded the notion of execution into tangible realms. Unfortunately i have few addictions to your text; however, here they go:
1)The cyclic, accretive formulation of execution works superbly as introductory: it situates the reader into the recursiveness given to execution. Which im not sure it is developed in other texts. Perhaps this particular folding could be something you can exploit a bit further later on, not just stylistically in the writing, but also as a whole in the further version of the text.
2) The notion of enclosure works superb, however, I wonder if in any moment you had on mind the idea of work. It comes to me, given i have explored a bit in my paper. This can be summarised as life systems are usually understood to engage in work cycles and constraint construction, which in turn allow for further work cycles and so on. The elementary unit of life and agency, as Kauffman explains, has been described as the bacterium swimming upstream a glucose gradient. Im currently working with one of the references you actually gave me--which now turns out to be referential within my take on execution: that of diffusion/dissipation. I wonder what are the connections/digressions we can take from your perspective in the skin and the one im trying to develop as the tongue.
3)Finally, and perhaps the example you take in Howse, you can draw on some of the old critiques to Tangible media. Some critics claimed, me included, tangible media actually deterred interaction, as it was taken in a very liberal and positivist way. How Howse piece demands other kinds of interactions which can be said to be non-interactive, disruptive or just non-cognitive. Much love