by alex galloway on April 24, 1997 at 02:42:16:

In Reply to: Re: anthropomorphizing the machine posted by Ken Feingold on April 19, 1997 at 13:19:29:

: Technology has no independent self-existence. Rather, I see it, if we can speak about an "it", as a form of self-representation, and a representation of our imagination itself.

ken -- this was really a stumbling block for me in your lecture. I would characterize interactivity *also* as allowing for a non-human action by a non-human object. (you say "human action by a nonhuman object"). can you talk more about why you are not interested in the work, the text, that exists outside of the author? it seems that, with computers, we can for perhaps the first time starting working in this radically-authorless space (that people have been *theorizing* about for 30 years).

what do others think about this?

follow ups:

• Re: anthropomorphizing the machine Ken Feingold 21:42:02 5/02/97 (4)
  • Re: anthropomorphizing the machine alex galloway 01:35:16 5/19/97 (1)
    • Re: anthropomorphizing the machine benjamin britton 17:13:50 10/19/97 (0)
  • authorless art alex galloway 01:37:45 5/17/97 (1)
    • Re: authorless art anonymous 01:25:36 5/19/97 (0)

name:
e-mail:

subject:

comments:
: : Technology has no independent self-existence. Rather, I see it, if we can speak about an "it", as a form of self-representation, and a representation of our imagination itself. : ken -- this was really a stumbling block for me in your lecture. I would characterize interactivity *also* as allowing for a non-human action by a non-human object. (you say "human action by a nonhuman object"). can you talk more about why you are not interested in the work, the text, that exists outside of the author? it seems that, with computers, we can for perhaps the first time starting working in this radically-authorless space (that people have been *theorizing* about for 30 years). : what do others think about this?