"Power of the Market — The Pencil"
Milton Friedman uses a pencil to explain how the operation of the free market promotes harmony and world peace.
Keni
Today's Document

Kaledo Art

PR's Tumblrdome
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

tannertan36
taylor price
One Nice Bug Per Day
Acquired Stardust

JBB: An Artblog!

Product Placement
$LAYYYTER
🪼
Claire Keane

ellievsbear

blake kathryn
h

⁂
YOU ARE THE REASON

seen from Malaysia
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Morocco

seen from Japan
seen from Armenia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
@digitalwetware
"Power of the Market — The Pencil"
Milton Friedman uses a pencil to explain how the operation of the free market promotes harmony and world peace.
Illustration by Nicolas Ménard.
#Lamborghini #Aventador #Sounds
Herbert Bayer, Diagram of the Field of Vision
http://thisisjoker.com/
Vein Visualisation device, 2014.
"... The AccuVein AV400 digitally displays a map of the vasculature on the surface of the skin in real time, allowing clinicians to verify vein patency and avoid valves or bifurcations. ..."
Source: http://www.accuvein.com/
Control panel
We Need To Talk About TED
Let me tell you a story. I was at a presentation that a friend, an Astrophysicist, gave to a potential donor. I thought the presentation was lucid and compelling (and I’m a Professor of Visual Arts here at UC San Diego so at the end of the day, I know really nothing about Astrophysics). After the talk the sponsor said to him, “you know what, I’m gonna pass because I just don’t feel inspired… you should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.” At this point I kind of lost it. Can you imagine? Think about it: an actual scientist who produces actual knowledge should be more like a journalist who recycles fake insights! This is beyond popularization. This is taking something with value and substance and coring it out so that it can be swallowed without chewing. This is not the solution to our most frightening problems — rather this is one of our most frightening problems. So I ask the question: does TED epitomize a situation where if a scientist’s work (or an artist’s or philosopher’s or activist’s or whoever) is told that their work is not worthy of support, because the public doesn’t feel good listening to them? I submit that Astrophysics run on the model of American Idol is a recipe for civilizational disaster.
(Source: azspot)
A cost-optimized Barabási-Albert scale-free network on a square lattice.
Karmakar, R. and Manna S. S. (2005), Sandpile model on an optimized scale-free network on Euclidean space in Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General.
X-Ray, Radiograph (film 5543) of mass of crushed bone wrapped in paraffin wax.
© The Trustees of the British Museum
Aphex Twin — Xtal (Heterotic Version)
/// WEEK 14 /// London Conference of Critical Thought 2014
I will be presenting at this years' London Conference on Critical Thought, to take place on June 27th- 28th at Goldsmith University London.
The strand I will be presenting with, is concerned with "The Human After Anthropocentrism? Life. Matter. Being." organised by Eva Aldea and Danielle Sands.
A brief summary of the strand:
"The rejection of anthropocentrism has become a theoretical commonplace, a prerequisite for new approaches to non-human animal life, for political ecologies and for new materialisms. However, both the understanding and the implications of this rejection differ widely between discourses, and it is unclear whether terms such as post-humanism and anthropodecentrism share a common referent. Despite a seemingly common goal to think outside the human, disciplines such as critical animal studies, ecological and environmental thought, and object-oriented ontology appear unable or unwilling to engage in dialogue.
This stream has two interconnected aims: to invite the exchange of ideas and to encourage a rethinking of the human after anthropocentrism without a return to anthropocentrism. On the one hand, we want to investigate if these separate anti-anthropocentric discourses are actually contradictory or, in fact, congruent, and to explore what fruitful questions may arise from an exchange between them. On the other, we ask how these approaches towards life, matter and being illuminate the human and its philosophical, ethical and political engagements."
Read the short abstract of what I submitted:
— S i l k e n S e l v e s —
Sericulture represents an intricate interplay of environmental conditions (such as light, air, water and plant quality) with people (as equal and mutually constitutive actants), tying them to a systemic alliance. It forms a uniquely resilient, 5000 year old (anthropocentric) human-animal-collaboration, with now far-fetching reach into digitality.
Silk has recently been recognised as material for biomedical applications, such as biodegradable and absorbable sensors to be implanted into the human body, e.g. to monitor diseases and communicating them to the outside, before dissolving gradually and traceless. The material affordances reach beyond its previous known capabilities: the furthered anthropomorphic take on material alteration bridges the organic and inorganic, also conceptually, by compounding it in techno- digital artefacts, forming a consequential gateway into the human body.
Latour would claim this to be an actantial- relational epistemology that rejects a positivist view of such objects being non-relational “in-themselves”. Silken implants, as semiotic techno- artefacts, would demonstrate their action as boundary objects, mediating non-local topology and scale-breaking interconnections – more quasi-objects than neatly joint hybrids of pristine origin. Post- modern principles are in this line of thinking not only reversed – man-made nature vs. societal impact of nature (organic electronics) – but diminished into a planetary-scale of computing with networked matter.
This paper seeks to discuss Latour’s notion of technology “acting from a distance” in dynamic systems by mapping it in relation to silk’s new trajectory. Silken electronics promise to mend the consequences of anthropocentrism with an even more radical and opaque approach to it: Technological inscriptions in materials shift previously comfortable, doxic self-hood into a transient, efficient and alien state of phenomenal space and self-perception – might hyper-anthropocentrism be in fact anthropodecentrism in disguise?
Train for Surgery Using Immersive 3D Holograms of Corpses
Minute 01:10 of the clip: "You kind of feel like you are in the same space as the data ..." — Eric Maslowski, (Lab Manager and Creative Technical Consultant)
Computer-generated models are starting to let researchers and students peer into the body without needing a real human stretched out before them. Virtual dissection tables have been built at places like Stanford and the University of Calgary. Now, University of Michigan computer scientists and biologists have taken the technology another step forward, using projectors, joysticks and 3-D equipment to build a floating holographic human that users can dissect, manipulate, and put back together as they wish.
The project is called Michigan Immersive Digital Experience Nexus (MIDEN), a step forward from CAVE, its predecessor audio-visual system for virtual reality, which Txchnologist has previously profiled.
The team behind the visualisation system say it can be used for many other applications, from helping meteorologists dissect hurricanes to aiding in archaeological or paleontological studies. The previous CAVE system is being used by Department of Energy researchers to visualise sub-surface models for tapping geothermal energy, to place power lines and to explore the insides of nuclear reactors.
This post originally appeared on Txchnologist. Txchnologist is a digital magazine presented by GE that explores the wider world of science, technology and innovation.
/// WEEK 13 /// Design Research Conference in Umea, Sweden.
I am invited as panel speaker by the fine people at Culture Lab in Newcastle to an exciting conference, organised by the Design Research Society. The conference will be concerned with Design's Big Debates, to stimulate fresh views and discussion on future directions for design research.
Taking place at Umeå Institute of Design in Sweden, the city seems somewhat representative for a fresh re-visit: Umea is European Capital of Culture 2014 and disperses a bursting creative spirit, combined with a poetic nordic twist.
The panel is aimed at discussing "Design for Dialogue" and how sense- making of diverse voices and technological imaginaries are relating to a dialogical design approach.
Or to quote the organisers "Over the last decade, design processes have come to prominence as a way of integrating knowledge in complex domains and communicating the potential implications of ineffable new ideas and technologies. For the public, emerging technologies such as synthetic biology, nano-engineering, and smart cities may be hard to relate to as they develop. As such, designerly explorations may support non-experts to engage with the implications of emerging technologies in ways that are meaningful to their everyday lives. And for technology researchers, the increased ‘radical interdisciplinarity’ of such research and development may present complex challenges for collaboration in project teams which draw together diverse expertise. As such, design may serve a role in knowledge integration."
And:
"This proposed conversation addresses this potential for design. It speaks to the growing discourse on the significance of design practice and artefacts in making emerging technology research intelligible and accessible to broad audiences and interdisciplinary teams, whether in terms of potential applications, user experience, public engagement, or other forms of sense making. It also speaks to current conceptual explorations of what it means to do ‘research through design’ and what the research contribution of design could be, what roles designers could adopt in research, and how design practice and artefacts could serve to produce knowledge. Such explorations foreground rich opportunities for design as a form of inquiry, to foster dialogue in complex technological landscapes."
The panel format is hereby part of the re-consideration on how discourse and discussion can take place and one idea we are pursuing, involves a stimulated discussion before the actual conference takes place. We are currently building up responses to the organisers' proposition by providing a reflecting on a design artefact, an outcomes, process, roles or practice, accompanied by a textual response. Such reflection aims to introduce each other's perspective as well as "seeding provocation", which will also help the conference delegates to prepare more specific, more concise questions when attending the actual panel discussion.
The panel speakers act hereby as "catalysts", bringing each different experiences of design research to the table:
— Thomas Binder, Associate Professor, The Danish Design School, Copenhagen
— Tobie Kerridge, Lecturer in Design and Research Fellow, Goldsmiths College, University of London
— Bas Raijmakers, Director, STBY, Amsterdam/London
— Veronica Ranner, Designer and Researcher, Royal College of Art, London
— Tim Regan, Senior Research Software Development Engineer, Socio-Digital Systems (SDS), Microsoft Research Cambridge
Us catalysts will adopt the role of a discussant, stating our reflected perspective in relation to a chosen design artefact (outcome/process etc.) to the panel and audience. At the conference site a "provocation box" will allow delegates to introduce their perspective alongside us catalysts. Simultaneously, a series of Twitter chats will be run by the organisers (#designfordialogue) — the Twitter log of conversation threads promises an exciting and active discussion: The chairs will draw upon the threads to provoke real- time responses from the catalysts during the session.
Although acknowledging multiple trajectories for dialogical design, I am personally eager for its immediate potential for change: industrial manufacturing society came seemingly to an end about 50 years ago, alongside with its rules and its focus on production, materiality and output in quantity. Since then the transition to a knowledge/information society has been a fairly riddled one — the digital revolution manifests itself mainly in electronic bodies, in "big data" and "always on" culture, pressuring individuals to seek for orientation, focus and clarity in their (work)lives. Designers in the traditional sense are now challenged to critically examine their role, to get an understanding how their personal actions have consequences on a much wider scale.
Initially, the shift from industrial society to information society envisioned a world much smarter, cleaner and less noisy, but had created an increasing complex world instead that didn't even challenge its old paradigms: The new world didn't invent a new one, it only copied the already existing. By building ever faster computers that accelerate the production of data, people began to confuse data with "information". The digital turn is – sadly – still stuck in carbon based economies, expelling new machines, and in consequence, exhausts of data.
Biomaterials have the capacity to destabilise such pattern and the material offspring of digitality, as second order consequence in a designed transmission chain. Materials of organic origin might appear in stark contrast to our current understanding of electronics as "digital enablers", but will eventually allow for entirely novel technology paradigms, shifting in consequence our understanding of knowledge construction, spatial experience and selfhood.
The information society has just begun to acknowledge that the designer's role might not be anymore about designing top-down spaces for work and products for knowledge "mining". Instead, the designer of the future might be much more concerned with understanding and interpreting spaces and infrastructures, conversely illustrating responsive systemic effect as part of a larger interconnected network.
I am already looking forward to develop the dialogue over the next few weeks with my fellow panel speakers as collective experiment to demonstrate the beneficial effect of dialogical exchange.