1)Ashby’s writing seems to be firmly in line with the cybernetic readings from a few weeks go. Where he takes it though is interesting, particularly as he lays out a method for interrogating how a self-organizing system develops through formalized interaction. Though I think he is a little optimistic about what is needed for more complex systems to arise through computers, he does identify the need for long term memory and storage for these deeper balances to emerge. The most resonant question that emerges from this reading is the one he poses at the end, “But what will the forms developed be of use to us?” I’d also extend this question a bit by asking if there’s a period of uncertainty in the system, is there a level at which homeostasis is not appealing because the process of getting there is too variable? How can we predict what forms are not useful to us?
2)Burnham’s descriptions of systems art, drawing unexpectedly from minimalism and earth works, was striking as it left our Sol LeWitt. His work, particularly the wall drawings, always seemed to be an exemplary illustration of system based art. Particularly in reference to the process becoming the locus of the art, as opposed to the object or artifact. The influence of multiple systems on the work are what become important in this context. on p 12 he writes
A “sculpture” that physically reacts to its environment is no longer to be regarded as an object. The range of outside factors affecting it, as well as its own radius of action, reach beyond the space it materially occupies. It thus merges with the environment in a relationship that is better understood as a “system” of interdependent processes. These processes evolve without the viewer’s empathy. He becomes a witness. A system is not imagined, it is real.
if a sculptural object is reacting to the environment, and if we can assume that the object was placed with the intention of changing the environment, at what point can we extend the system directly into the human aspect of intention? Where does our intention to insert objects become part, or central to the system?
An aside, there’s a line from these early forms to contemporary algorithms that give us aesthetic expressions of Conway’s game of life and pixel sorts (see images below).
Pixel sorting
Conway’s Game of Life
3) In A Home is Not a House the article openly criticizes American architecture, particularly the weird relationship we have with our environment. We crave open spaces, but also isolate ourselves from natural spaces, necessitating artificial systems of control for heat, water, electricity, etc. I kept thinking of Andrea Zittel and her work in the American southwest, particularly the High Desert test Sites project. How can we create spaces that are meaningfully related to our natural environment, but also offer people the type of protection they desire? Is the change needed socially? Architecturally?
