凯 Kai Vilmi

The following is my critique of Simon Penny’s 2004 paper “Towards an Aesthetics of Behavior.”

Going Gaga Over CACA

In his paper “Towards an Aesthetics of Behavior,” Simon Penny (2004) argues the need for interdisciplinary approach in comprehending what he terms CACA, or computer automated cultural artifacts. These objects differ from “new media,” which concerns itself in producing static or temporary linear finished products, by being responsive to their environment in real time and thus being able to reconfigure their outward presentation. Because of the primacy of “behavior,” i.e., the process itself rather than the finished output, traditional methods of appraising artifacts are of questionable value in the case of CACA. Penny argues for the need of a theoretization of procedurality, and an integrated approach comprising tools, media and methods from a gamut of disciplines.

Penny proclaims CACA is not media since that idea connotes either fixed output, storage, or conduit thus rendering the term unusable in Penny’s context. Furthermore, CACA is not narrative since its very soul, behavior, is in direct conflict with a priori narrative. In addition, the idea that CACA could only be consumed, and behaved with, with the visual sense — whether or not via a “screen” or any other interface — renders us simplistically one-dimensional. After all, behavior requires the concerted effort of all of our faculties.

Since aesthetics, not technological-commercial aspects, is the major concern of CACA, the instrumentation required to bring into being cultural “applications” calls for an integration of the aesthetic with the theoretical and the valorized. But most of all, Penny stresses the importance of being able to think out of the box, the box in question being the ubiquitous “computer,” as in “to compute.” Rather, he envisions a flexible hardware/software platform to realize our ideas on.

Penny does not offer a definite solution but invites us to embrace the whole spectrum of the arts — whether sculpture, architecture, performing arts, or, even, the radical art methods of the 1960s — and to draw from all fields of intellectual practice in comprehending CACA in its entity.

Rather than going gaga over CACA, as Penny has done, this author is content to limit his quest to “new media” with all its inherently static and linear properties. For example, unlike Penny who declares CACA not being screenal nor interface design, I am very much enamored with the metaphor of accessing the innards of a new media application via an interface — most often than not, a screen. I do believe that it is possible to “break on through to the other side,” to quote Jim Morrison, in a new media application so that the end user would not be hindered by a glass screen between him and the application. Indeed, the act of interaction would become so seamless that no interface would be perceived to exist — to refer to a common phenomenon, learning to ride a bicycle without the training wheels.

Undoubtedly, a Harry Potter-esque all-immersing experience might do justice to a CACA, but in everyday usage this author rather prefers a more standardized and predictable way of exchanging information with an application. After all, the majority of users consuming new media applications do it with the tacit agreement of having at least some common ground with the experiences they have had previously while interacting with similar artifacts. For example, the “killer app” of all time, the writing system, relies on commonality, predictability, and standardization to make it such a long-lasting artifact.

Certainly, there is a place and time for a multi-dimensional CACA experience — e.g., when detecting a sweaty smell while a strobe light is flashing, swing your hands, wiggle your hips, and, for a good measure, shout, and maybe the “artifact” will react to your, and your peers, behavior — as is being witnessed every Saturday night in a Ministry of Sound near you.

This author agrees with Penny in the need for a multi-disciplinary approach. Rather than referring to the academia, as Penny does, I take expertise from engineering, visual arts, communication fields, and management, marketing, sales, administrative professionals, to fully realize any new media application. Simply delegating application building to, say, graphic designer may look logical enough. Unfortunately the end results often reflect the one-dimensional approach, viz., the application is long on bells and whistles but desperately short on anything remotely resembling a conceptual blueprint.

To further that idea, this author supports Penny’s call for the integration of things theoretical, aesthetic, and commercial. I would envision this as a twenty-first-century Bauhaus movement where a symbiotic relationship connects creative and business aspects under the overarching theoretical foundation.

Finally, this author strongly disagrees with Penny of having to resort to aesthetics jargon in conveying a fundamentally simple idea: that to fully appraise CACA, you have to descend from your ivory tower and have a round-table talk with guys from all walks of life.

Related posts

• No related posts.