Here's what's happening at the Tech90s BBS (http://www.tech90s.net)…

+ + +

Artist Ken Feingold responded to ada 'web curator Benjamin Weil:

weil:
it seems like, in your work, you often refer to the human body when it
comes incarnating technology. I was wondering whether you could
elaborate on that…

feingold:
Yes, that's an interesting place to start - thanks for your question.

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. For me, the body is the
fundamental reference point for the "interactive" work, as that is, for
the moment, how we can express ourselves and transform matter.

+ + +

alex galloway then stopped by:

>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."

galloway:
ken – this [passage] 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?

Ken Feingold responded:
>you say "human action by a nonhuman object"

No, not at all. I said "Interactivity is, in many ways, about
affirmation of the human action by a nonhuman object". That's quite
different.

I'm sorry to answer your question with a question - but what are you
talking about? I can't imagine art that has a basis outside of an
author. What is a "radically authorless space"? Which theories are you
referring to? How does the computer provide a possibility for
"authorlessness". Who writes the code?