Conceptual development: Difference between revisions
Amy Suo Wu (talk | contribs) |
Amy Suo Wu (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==The beginnings of DNA protocol/browser/internet....== | ==The beginnings of DNA protocol/browser/internet....== | ||
From the this [http://manu.sporny.org/2011/public-domain-genome/ link] that Dusan sent, I discovered that a generous fellow by the name of Manu Sporny decided to publish all his genetic data as open source and release all his rights to the data. Followingly, I realised that 6 other people had published their genetic data prior to Manu. After peeking at Manu's genetic file (27GB | From the this [http://manu.sporny.org/2011/public-domain-genome/ link] that Dusan sent, I discovered that a generous ( perhaps overly enthusiastic) fellow by the name of Manu Sporny decided to publish all his genetic data as open source and release all his rights to the data. Followingly, I realised that 6 other people had published their genetic data prior to Manu. After peeking at Manu's genetic file (27GB!) of letter sequences, a few issues arose in my mind: | ||
*how meaningful/less is this data. last week seda talked about how all (non/anonymised) data, mathematically speaking, is personal. | *how meaningful/less is this data. last week seda talked about how all (non/anonymised) data, mathematically speaking, is personal. | ||
*made me think of [http://www.transmediale.de/content/latent-figure-protocol/ Latent Figure Protocol] at this years' transmediale festival. Paul Vanouse's work with DNA samples undermines the authority of what he calls biological 'artefacts'. By re-designing images with semi-living DNA segments, he destabilises its biological destiny. | *made me think of [http://www.transmediale.de/content/latent-figure-protocol/ Latent Figure Protocol] at this years' transmediale festival. Paul Vanouse's work with DNA samples undermines the authority of what he calls biological 'artefacts'. By re-designing images with semi-living DNA segments, he destabilises its biological destiny. | ||
*my interest in this lies less toward the encompassing ethical issues about artificial intelligence in 'playing god' and more about how new subjectivities are constructed and produced. (genetic code as morphogenetically pregnant, teasing out the tendencies of material to form new data/life/subjects/identities) | *my interest in this lies less toward the encompassing ethical issues about artificial intelligence in 'playing god' and more about how new subjectivities for better or worse are constructed and produced. (genetic code as morphogenetically pregnant, teasing out the tendencies of material to form new data/life/subjects/identities) | ||
*properties of genetic code compared to computer code. genetic code is never 'hard coded'. explore the parallels of bio/comp code and perhaps extrapolate different potentialities.... | *properties of genetic code compared to computer code. genetic code is never 'hard coded'. explore the parallels of bio/comp code and perhaps extrapolate different potentialities.... | ||
*implications | *digital data ≠ property ? | ||
*what more consequences/implications/questions can arise from this? | |||
==ways to construct subjectivities== | ==ways to construct subjectivities== | ||
Latest revision as of 10:07, 31 March 2011
The beginnings of DNA protocol/browser/internet....
From the this link that Dusan sent, I discovered that a generous ( perhaps overly enthusiastic) fellow by the name of Manu Sporny decided to publish all his genetic data as open source and release all his rights to the data. Followingly, I realised that 6 other people had published their genetic data prior to Manu. After peeking at Manu's genetic file (27GB!) of letter sequences, a few issues arose in my mind:
- how meaningful/less is this data. last week seda talked about how all (non/anonymised) data, mathematically speaking, is personal.
- made me think of Latent Figure Protocol at this years' transmediale festival. Paul Vanouse's work with DNA samples undermines the authority of what he calls biological 'artefacts'. By re-designing images with semi-living DNA segments, he destabilises its biological destiny.
- my interest in this lies less toward the encompassing ethical issues about artificial intelligence in 'playing god' and more about how new subjectivities for better or worse are constructed and produced. (genetic code as morphogenetically pregnant, teasing out the tendencies of material to form new data/life/subjects/identities)
- properties of genetic code compared to computer code. genetic code is never 'hard coded'. explore the parallels of bio/comp code and perhaps extrapolate different potentialities....
- digital data ≠ property ?
- what more consequences/implications/questions can arise from this?
ways to construct subjectivities
- devise a system and script which assigns segments of code to visual components in the form of an active website. (some kind of absurd semi-semantic interpretater: instead of google.translate it will be some kind of 'amy.translate'??)
- various systems (perphaps in the form of templates/filters) to generate different outcomes.
- > scientific
- > non-sensical
- > various themes...etc
- at this point my technical skills or lack thereof will determine the websites functionality.