We would very much like to know about your thoughts, feelings, reactions, questions, comments, criticisms, suggestions etc. concerning the project so far.
A key idea behind Fugue is that its development process should be open and transparent, and that the audience should be involved at every stage. By sending us your feedback, you will become part of our team, contributing to our collective effort to create the final shape for Fugue. If you would like to help us, we invite you to fill in the form below, or alternatively to email us at contact@fugueart.com. Contributions that influence Fugue or lead to fruitful discussion among the team will be acknowledged and documented in the project diary that will form an integral part of the finished project.
Many thanks
Yours sincerely
The Fugue team
contributions
From: Caroline Chuang
I came to the panel to support my friend, and came away feeling like my relationship with technology had received some nurturing. I often say, "I hate computers...etc." and really, I don't use it for anything else but e-mail, internet, and word processing. I identify more with the values of the artist, so I think of the world of commercialization and technology, as 'the other.' But, who would have thought, there could be a path towards connecting and spiritual growth, through technology. It may be a roundabout path, but nonetheless, it is one which leads to a sense of connecting back with nature, and feeling less helpless and fearful about the progress of technology. That is the sense I gained through your piece, when I read the rationale for the work and tried to immerse myself in it. During the panel you mentioned how people's relationship with technology in modern society is the cause for their sense of alienation - The interactivity, philosophical basis, and the challenge of the work made me feel like I could connect with it, and be assured there were people who are charting new territory so bravely.
From: Jude James: Independent Artist-Scholar
Point 1. It is clear that the scientific community has embraced this, and that it has much potential for understanding what is already known, at the research level as well as more generally educationally at all levels. As, and for me, more important, however, is the potential that it manifestly presents to challenge exiting boundaries or ‘frameworks' of thought so that new model/conceptions/relations/potentials might emerge.
The outcome of this potential is totally unknown. This is very exciting.
2. Employing the ‘artificial skin' ‘working towards more complex inter-sensory experiences within an interactive environment' is a wonderful challenge – to your selves no less than to the participant/viewer and to their and conventional conceptions of what and where our consciousness resides, anthropomorphized or not.
To quote Artaud as presented by Steven Connor in his ‘Progression: A Skin that Walks' at the outset of his: The Book of Skin [Reaktion Books, 2004]:
“Man is alone, desperately scraping out the music of his own skeleton, without father, mother, family, love, god or society.
And no living being to accompany him. And the skeleton is not of bone but of skin, like a skin that walks.”
I think you would enjoy Connor's Book of Skin. It is scholarly, engagingly written and of Renaissance breadth – riveting and humorous.
Another challenge too I guess is to somehow sideslip embedding a conventional framework of consciousness within the mechanism itself. This is always my first and constant response to electronics and interactivities
I applaud the liberation from the white cube – YES!
A liberation from many constraints, may I just leave it at that.
I applaud also your ambitious quest for parameters for ‘calibrating' interactivity – not simply a technical or technoetic challenge, but an ontological one also. That, for me, is the exciting potential of electronics and technoetic and subtle phenomenal interactivity.
