These three are actually part of the same thought, but I’m doling it out in bite-size chunks.

part I: characterizing relationships
The big bang heard lots of talk about translations from data into video, audio, and other forms of output; for example, the translation from measurements of ripening tomatoes into classical music. The only characterization I heard of these translations was one that Scott Snibbe and Camille Utterback referred to: an axis ranging from translations that are so obvious as to be automatic and boring, to those that are so complex as to be incomprehensible and meaningless. This characterization, let’s call it the obvious <=> complex axis, is a valuable one, but I felt at a loss for other ways to describe the translations being discussed. I was surprised by Chris Chafe’s brief mention of the ‘coupling’ between tomatoes and music – what about the tomatoes ripening was coupled to what about the music? How to describe this coupling?

I recently asked Christiane Paul about frameworks for characterizing mediated relationships, and the density of her response made it clear that they exist. Which means there are others besides the obvious <=> complex axis. I admit that I haven’t followed up with her references (though I plan to now that I can read for pleasure), but I suspect that new media artists elaborate ways of characterizing the translations they create, which would be useful to viewers (er…experiencers, since we’re beyond occularism) for appreciating them. I also suspect characterizations of relationships from other fields – e.g. mutualistic, parasitic, and commensal relationships between organisms in the field of ecology – may be instructive.

part II: real-virtual
Ok, I confess. I have an amateur obsession with characterizing relationships.

Much of the discussion regarding the real and the virtual on Monday was about boundary work. Some drew a strict boundary between real vs. virtual, e.g. Hubert Dreyfus’s argument regarding conscious directness vs. indirectness, and others dissolved it, e.g. Melinda Rackham’s acknowledgement that her “virtual” experiences are just as much a part of who she is as her “real” ones. Besides drawing and dissolving this boundary, what about (…yes) characterizing the hyphen in real-virtual? Ecology, once again, draws boundaries between organisms and acknowledges that they’re part of the same integrated system, but it also characterizes the relationships between organisms. Parasitism, commensalism, and mutualism may seem crude ways of characterizing the relationship between real and virtual, but considering those stories about people who become addicted to World of Warcraft or fulfill their artistic aspirations in Second Life, ecological relationships may be an ripe place to start. And thinking along these lines (or rather links) might help move the conversation from real vs. virtual and real = virtual to a place where both coexist along with other types of hyphens.

part III: trajectory of modes
What I’m really talking about is a trajectory. First we draw boundaries in order to create things. A boundary around virtual distinguishes it from the real, a boundary around the hand distinguishes it from the arm. Then we remember that we drew the boundary, decide it’s arbitrary/useless, and dissolve it. Aren’t my virtual experiences real, and where does the hand end and the arm begin? Then we notice that boundaries can be useful, and start playing with where we draw them. Where does Utterback draw the boundary between stillness and movement in order to get the most desirable effect in Liquid Time Series? And then we hit the meta level and realize that we can shift into any of these modes depending on the circumstances. If anyone actually gets here and is still curious, I can explain much (much) better.