Jason Hoelscher (jason.hoelscher@gmail.

com) Not for distribution Presented in slightly modified form at CAA, February 15, 2014 Diffused Art and Diffracted Objecthood: Painting in the Distributed Field We have gone from the aesthetics of appearance, stable forms, to the aesthetics of disappearance, unstable forms. Paul Virilio, Pure War Introduction Similar to the computers evanescence from mainframe to smartphone to cloud, painting today is undergoing an ontological drift from one mode of existence to anotherfrom fresco to canvas to networked, painterly immaterialitya reterritorialization I call painting in the distributed field. Just as modernist painting ceded representation to explore its own materiality after the advent of photography, I believe painting today risks obsolescence unless it addresses its position relative to virtualization within complex adaptive networks, augmented reality everyware user interfaces, and the differential tensions between shortened attention span and accelerated perceptual intake. I use the term distributed painting to describe a mediumistic diffraction into the conceptual space around painting, from the static interface of pigment and canvas to the contingent screenspace of immaterial distribution platforms.1 This diffraction decenters both the locally manifest single art objecta traditional 1:1 art/viewer relationship based in presentness to a distributed representation of an art object embedded in what we might call telepresentness. In this paper I will thus argue that distributed painting forces a redefinition of painting as a contextual information space, as different from the pastiched postmodern picture plane or Greenbergian optical space as these were from Renaissance picture space: a culturally-coded zone of focus that suggests paint regardless of whether actual pigment or tangible surface is involved. Lastly, I will show that distributed paintings two-way diffractionits form smeared across a range of media platforms on the one hand, and into alternate categories of viewer experience on the otherrenders its information capacity practically limitless, opening a spectrum of possibilities between tradition and newness, and between presence and absence. Painting: Centralized > Decentralized > Distributed A distributed painting is one that can exist in a multiplicity of forms and conditions simultaneously. A passive example is the increasingly common usage of jpegs as Derridean supplements for viewing the actual painting, e.g. I checked out those paintings you mentioned yesterday, theyre pretty great. Here, unless the speaker made a rapid overnight trip to seek them out, the paintings in question are likely the first few dozen results of a Google Image search.2

Note that the present paper is focused more on what is distributed through the field of distributed painting than on the field of distribution itself (to the limited extent the two can be differentiated). 2 A point easily illustrated by showing a digital projection of the Mona Lisa and asking the typical audience what it is. Most will likely answer the Mona Lisa rather than a projected binary-coded representation of the Mona Lisa, indicating the degree to which digital supplemental facsimiles are increasinglyand implicitlyconsidered interchangeable with the original object.

Painting in the Distributed Field

A more active example would be a work that either originates in or is intended to be realized in digital form, such as this work by an emerging artist (and former graduate student of mine) named Will Penny. For this work Penny downloaded and aggregated the first 1,000 Google Image results of the words red, yellow, and blue, and averaged the color spectrum of those 1,000 jpegs per color into a single RGB number for each. The result is this triptych, a crowd-sourced painting that both resonates with Rodchenkos famous triptych of 1921, and provides a snapshot of what the colors red, yellow and blue meant to the digital zeitgeist at the time of that particular search. This next piece, by another emerging artist and former graduate student of mine named Brandon Woods, is a 90-minute recording of the 3D-animated video game The Elder Scrolls, sped up by a factor of 60, routed through sound-processing software and then retranslated into a graphics file. The temporally glitchy result is a literally- and semiotically-coded, visually assaultive, attention span-shreddingand potentially seizure-inducingpainting, as the artist calls it, which in its own way reinterprets and abstracts the landscape and environment as radically as Kandinskys Composition paintings or Mondrians Pier and Ocean series did in their own day. More importantly, by retaining all the information and speeding it up dramaticallythe full 90second clip is over 100 megabytesthe work poses a real challenge to the viewer in terms of attention, or even just keeping up with it. Two important points: while both of these works do things not technically possible until recently, they also make a point to foreground their relationships to artistic precedents like the landscape and the monochrome, or abstraction and flatness. Further, both works are freely available: Wills triptych is time-stamped and includes the RGB numbers of each panel so you can make one yourself, and Brandons works are available from his website. Here, localization and exclusivity are trumped by distributability.

Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), part of a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network.

As these examples show, distributed painting is in many ways an amplification of decentering processes long at work in the spheres of both technology and art, predicated on the transition from centralization to decentralization to distribution. A way to visualize these modes is with Paul Barans 1964 network models (Figure 1). What I call centralized painting is
2

Painting in the Distributed Field

hierarchically locatable in history and in discourse, with an aura of physical instantiation; it exists only in its own physical space as an object and is considered to carry a specific set of meanings: pre-modern and modern paintingat least as narrativized in most art history booksmight be considered centralized networks, hierarchically structured around such qualities as originality, genius, precedence and presentness. Decentralized painting operates as a mesh of peripheral nodes around a centralized conceptual architecture, less hierarchic but still subject to locatability and to a flux of discursive entanglements: postmodern painting was in my opinion a decentralized network, less hierarchic than modernism and organized as a fluid network of subsidiary hierarchies and intertextual entanglements. Distributed painting, on the other hand, is both difficult to pin down in space and conceptually non-hierarchic: a swarm of aesthetic data points, fragmented and packetswitched through networked many-to-many/node-to-node interchanges, and accordingly less focused on metanarrativity or privileged meaning. Contemporary painting is a distributed network, grounded less in discursive placement or hierarchy than in a perpetual, relational flux.3 Distributed painting circulates in at least two distinct directions: on the one hand the format itself is diffused, reconfigured through the virtualization of forms previously grounded in concrete materiality and specificity. This type of distributed paintinganalogous to what David Joselit calls a heterogeneous and often provisional structure that channels content (52)tests the boundaries of what constitutes painting in the first place, as aestheticized binary artifacts defined as paintings are dispersed across a range of nontraditional viewing modes like touchscreens, Pantone numbers, and animations. Such works are taken in quickly, part of a screen culture that privileges fast information intake at the expense of attention span. These forms spread laterally as post-mediumor more accurately, transmodalpaintings, detached from the spatially specific limitations of pigment on canvas.

Figure 2: In addition to the 1:1 relationship of a single instance of an artwork + a single viewer, distributed painting is also capable of 1:M and M:M viewing relationships, serially or simultaneously.

Corollary to this distribution of format, the viewing experience of such art goes beyond a simple 1:1 relationship with a physically present viewer (Figure 2). A distributed painting is delocalized: ready for viewing, downloading and remixing by end-users worldwide, a crowdsourced author-function that poses a serious challenge not just to tangibility, aura and locatability,
An interesting avenue of research would be to consider whether distributed networks can be used to model Hegels notion of the end of history, as a high-entropy continuum of syntagmatically-equalized discursive probability distribution.
3
3

Painting in the Distributed Field

but also to what painting even is in such a formally and experientially disseminated context. Leo Steinberg anticipated some of these concerns in his late 60s essay Other Criteria, noting: Arts perpetual need to redefine the area of its competence by testing its limits takes many forms At one historical moment painters get interested in finding out just how much their art can annex, into how much non-art it can venture and still remain art. At other times they explore the opposite end to discern how much they can renounce and still stay in business. What is constant is arts concern with itself, the interest painters have in questioning their operation. (77) In many ways then, distributed painting is but a continuation of the possibly inherent exploratory tendencies of art itself. I believe, however, that these new modes represent a substantial change, a paradigmatic rather than parametric transformation. A term from statistical linguistics, parametric change describes variation within a system thathowever dramatic remains within the bounds of that system. For example, the transitions from realism to impressionism to cubism to abstraction, as radical as they were, were parametric changes that remained within the bounds of painting proper: variations of pigment on a flat surface. Distributed painting, however, which we might in fact call post-paint painting, is a paradigmatic change, radically reconfiguring not only the components within a system, but the very boundaries and qualities of the system itself.4 Among these paradigmatic changes is the way distributed painting reconfigures the expectations of the viewer: superseding questions of representation vs. abstraction, the issues become those of representation vs. presentation, of a potential for presentness without tangibility. Again, Steinberg anticipated some of these issues in his naming of a new kind of painting surface he saw emerging in postwar media culture, a flatbed picture plane (82) that went beyond the limits of pictorial or optical space and operated instead as an information-dispensing surface, akin to what we would today call an interface. The Distributed Painterly Interface Technology trends in recent decades have been toward the realization of an invisible interface. Anyone who used computers in the early 80s will recall how terrible they were before the Graphic User Interface; the replacement of command prompts with the spatial metaphors of desktops and file folders had the dual effect of complicating the interface codes while making the surface experience more smooth and hence more usable. Todays interfaces are simpler still, being practically invisible and relying less on command prompts than on simple hand gestures. The painterly interface, on the other hand, is more complicated. If a paintings interface is a complex aggregate of picture plane, painted surface and semiotic content, the closest painting ever got to an invisible interface was arguably during the 16th to 18th centuries, with the smoothedout interface of peak realism: at the risk of oversimplification, the experience of the painted object itself was minimized in favor of direct access to the content it carried. With the rise of the expressive brushstroke, however, came a change in the painterly content delivery interface, in which the formal means of communicationthe paintitself became an explicit carrier of

Joseph Kosuth, though he didnt use these terms, described parametric vs. paradigmatic change in his essay Art after Philosophy, writing that cubism and abstraction, however radical, were simply new topics inserted into a long-unfolding conversationand thus parametric changes. With the readymade Duchamp changed the conversation itself, forcing a paradigmatic change in the conditions of modernism (18).
4

Painting in the Distributed Field

content. In a Joan Mitchell painting, for example, the painterly interface simultaneously constitutesand is constituted bythe works form, delivery mechanism and content.5 How, then, does interfaciality operate in terms of distributed painting? Network theorists Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker define an interface as an artificial structure of differentiation between two media [through which] dissimilar data forms interoperate [] Meaning is a data conversion (144-145). Considered as packet-switched signals operative within the teletopologies of networked systemsa dispersed amplification of what Boris Groys called the algorithmic performativity of the digital image file (85)the interface of distributed painting is necessarily layered differently than that of analog painting. Whereas the centralized, analog artwork is an aesthetic instantiation with physical, interfacial presencesize, sensuous surface quality, and so on in distributed form it is manifest via an interface of commercial technology. The smooth glass surface and invisible interface of a tablet creates an interesting conceptual frictiona data conversion in Galloway and Thackers termswhen programmed to represent the semiotically complex, expressive facture of a painterly surface as understood in contemporary artistic discourse. The differential tension between our expectations of paintingphysicality, texture and static permanence vs. the contingent, interactive qualities of a reprogrammable, invisible interfaceopens up compelling possibilities for datafication, a term from big data meaning the quantification and tabulation of content into algorithmically analyzable formats (MayerSchnberger 78). For example, just as tracking the most frequently highlighted phrases in a Kindle ebook generates data above and beyond the authorial content of the text in question, the distributed painterly interface allows for data generation above and beyond the expressive or discursive content intended by the artist. A high-tech example of what Heidegger would call an ontic approach to art, the datafication of distributed painting suggests a reconfiguration of such binaries as drawing vs. design and form vs. content into a triangulation of form vs. content vs. data.6 These relationshipsdatafied form vs. content and paratextual content vs. discursive metadataprovide a painterly corollary to what computer scientist Leslie Valiant describes as the facilitation of computer evolution through the conceptual separation at the very beginning between the physical technology and the algorithmic content of what was being executed on the machines; [between the] physical object and the information processing it performs (54). Interestingly resonant with Sol LeWitts statement that the idea becomes a machine that makes the art (846), this suggests a way to make the most of a slow medium like painting in the fast media of networked systems: by way of aestheticized communicability itself. As Anna Munster claims, in networked systems the important factor is not so much what a signal communicates, but rather a signals nonspecificity, its communicability [.] The key is not what is spreading. ... What becomes crucial is movement between. Communicability, rather than communication, is key (116-117). Unlocked from a materially static surface that unfolds content only over the long run, the distributed painting is a contextual zone, a differential tempo of spreading where transitions occur and then speed gathers (Munster 111). In other words, the
To push the example further, a Peter Halley or Mary Heilmann painting carries not only the above interface complexity, but also the added gloss of a discursively recursive awareness of the modernist history of just such interface complications. 6 This raises the possibility of a kind of parergonic metadata, combining Jacques Derridas interest in the dissolution of binary oppositions and Roland Barthes second-order signification with Grard Genettes description of paratextuality, a zone between text and off-text, a zone not only of transition but also of transaction: a privileged place at the service of a better reception for the text and a more pertinent reading of it (2).
5
5

Painting in the Distributed Field

importance of the content communicated by the distributed artwork is negotiated by the vectors through which that content is spreadablenot only an intriguing network variation on Harold Rosenbergs description of action painting, but also a literalized version of medium as message in which the distributed painting is its own paratext, a dromological semiosphere generating its own data and metadata aboutand as constitutive ofitself.7 Whereas the medium specificity of materials and objects privileged a specific location and tangible presence, the trans-modal, postobject non-specificity of the distributed painting privileges vectors of circulation, copying, sharing and remixing.8 This prompts the realization that as painting enters immaterial distribution channels its information potential increases dramatically, in terms of a foundational measure of information theory called Hartleys formula, H = n log s. Here, H = the amount of information in a transmission, n = the number of symbols in the transmission, and s = the number of symbols possible in that transmissions language. The information content of a transmissionincluding the type of visual transmission we call paintingwas formalized further by Claude Shannon as the sum of the content of its symbol types, reduced by constraints on the likelihood of the appearance of any specific combination of symbolsknown as the transmissions relative entropy. Further, the appearance of any given symbol combination is limited not only by the intended transmission content, but also by the structural limits built in to the signal system itselfknown as the signals redundancy (Shannon and Weaver 56).

Figure 3: The amount of information contained in a message, in this case the word information, is measured by the predictability of what signal comes next as that message is constructed, in tension with the inherent structural limitations of the communication medium. Here also we see Julia Kristevas phenotextthe phenomenological manifestation of communicative possibilities bounded by the conceptual and discursive space of the genotext (28-29)become unstable, undergoing serial, aperiodic instantiations according to the default settings and limitations of a wide range of interface platforms. 8 Mail arta form of art by definition created for distribution and sharingfits into this schema in an enlightening way, due to the differences in the material vs. immaterial nature of what is distributed. Issues of material friction in analog networks vs. immaterial frictionlessness in digital networks, plus their respectively (and relatively) closed form vs. open form, is an important factor vis--vis arts informationcarrying capability, as discussed in the paragraphs immediately following.
6
7

Painting in the Distributed Field

To be more precise, the amount of information contained in any particular message, such as in the word information, (Figure 3) is measured by the predictability of what signal comes next as the message is constructed. Unpredictability is initially high: given the way words are constructed in the English language just about any letter could come after the letter I. As the message unfoldswhether a word, a sentence, a conversation, or a bookthe range of options narrows. In our example of the word information, by the end, following T-I-O, the likelihood of the next letter being B or Z, for example, is effectively zero because such a sequence of letters is always followed by the letter N.9 This might sound fairly abstract, but consider the way different styles of art can be defined by this formula: the type of signal content put forward by any given painting (H) is constrained by its stylistic limitationsImpressionism or Suprematism, for example (n)which are defined by the number of possibilities allowed within the parameters of that particular stylistic language. This signal range of possibilities can be pushed only so far before it becomes a different style altogether (s). For example, there are only so many ways to make an analytic cubist painting: change its stylistic vocabulary too muchits signal range and channel capacityand it becomes something else. The type of form and content one could put across (H, the information in a specific signal like Picassos Ma Jolie), was limited by the number of options used in the painting itself (n), which were in turn constrained by the narrow range of signal options (s) allowable by analytic cubism overall: flattened, shallow picture space, a generally monochromatic picture plane, synecdochal hints of representation, and so on. As soon as a painting stepped outside that limited signal spectrum it became something else: synthetic cubism, or constructivism perhaps.10 Distributed painting, however, has an open-ended signal spectrum unburdened by the boundary conditions of materiality: manifest in multiple locations simultaneously, prone to remixing and privileging dissemination over form, the differential tensions between a particular artwork and its stylistic, material and formal limitations are blown wide open. While this increases its information potential, such an increase risks aesthetic dissolution into random noise: if it can theoretically be everything or anywhere is it really a valid example of anything? If arts dynamism arises in part from the tension between innovation and history, the dynamic equilibrium between structure and surprise and between exploration and limitation, what happens when there are no longer any boundary conditions against which to push? If distributed painting is so different from traditional analog painting in almost every way, from form and content to aesthetic information capacity, how might it maintain a conceptual focus robust enough to remain painting? Correlatively, if its information capacity runs the risk of exponential increase toward meaninglessness, is there a mechanism by which distributed painting can maintain signal coherence as painting? I believe there is, by way of a notion called skeuomorphism.

Incidentally, Googles ability to predict a search query as it is being typed is based on this calculation of a messages relative entropy and its redundancy as the phrase unfolds, with the added input of data-mined correlations of previous users word frequency combinations. 10 Another example of signal range as applied to fine art is Donald Judds work: part of the viewers interest comes from seeing the ways his work was and was not able to progress over decades while operating within such a severely constrained Hartleys formula channel capacity.
7

Painting in the Distributed Field

Distributed Painting as a Skeuomorphic Representation of Painting A skeuomorph is a visual metaphor such as a computers desktop or file folder icons relatable representations that mask complex binary processessimplified interfaces that make new or complex experiences less alien by resituating them in familiar terms. To give but one example, a computers trash can is actually a thermodynamic entropy-producing process of information destructuringbut trash can sounds less intimidating so we tend to call it that instead. When applied to digital visual artifacts, the term painting is itself a kind of skeuomorphic linguistic residue, operating the way we refer to an iTunes download as a record or an album, or how we turn pages while reading an ebook. Just as the skeuomorphs of the graphic user interface made computers much more relatable, the skeuomorphic tag painting, when applied to the ways certain algorithms perform certain configurations of binary code, presents an adaptive aesthetic prompt node in which a certain type of aggregate behavior can emerge from the stochastic, microlevel actions of individual inputs (Miller and Page 46). This emergent, gestalt iconographyan ontologization of binary processesis more easily grasped and appreciated by human cognitive capabilities when linguistically and visually subsumed under the skeuomorphic word painting (Figure 4).

Figure 4: A prolegomenal attempt at diagramming the complex of oscillatory relationships and dissolutions that constitute painting in the distributed field: aesthetic vectors of communicability in a state of dynamic equilibrium with a linguistic skeuomorphism grounded in historical and discursive precedent. [Credit to Rosalind Krauss for image inspiration]

Such prompt nodes thus serve the function of defining as painting something that involves neither pigment nor stable surface. If post-Duchamp something previously not-art becomes art when an artist declares it as such, does something not-paintinginvolving neither pigment nor binderbecome painting because an artist has declared it as such? While that may be the case, I believe something more is at play. In his 1969 essay Situational Aesthetics, Victor Burgin wrote of the importance of contextual cues in constructing an art experience: Some recent art, evolving through attention both to the conditions under which objects are perceived and to the processes by which aesthetic status is attributed to certain of these, has

Painting in the Distributed Field

tended to take its essential form in message rather than in materials art as message, as software, consists of sets of conditions, more or less closely defined, according to which particular concepts may be demonstrated. (894-895) Though Burgin was discussing conceptual forms of art, the distributed painting is itself a conditional prompt, a coalescent agent that embeds deep-structure algorithmic processes within a recognizable discourse of painting that extends centuries into the past. This skeuomorphic locus activates a swarm of ideas about painting through references to a picture plane, to colors, and to other residual expectations of what painting is. Despite the radical differences in form, presence, presentness and information capacity, it is by these cuesfirst among them the implicit acceptance of the screen as a picture plane analogthat distributed painting operates within the discourse of painting and not as digital art in general. The use of the skeuomorphic term painting thus shears off extraneous information and limits possibilities, making an otherwise supra-human and alien artform recognizable and coherent as painting. Questions Raised by Distributed Painting Though a relatively new field of artistic endeavor, distributed painting raises a number of challenges and questions to the way painting is supposed to operate in the world. To barely scratch the surface, some of these questions might be: How does painterly dispersion and immateriality change the way an artist creates and communicates meaning?11 How is the viewers subjective experience transformed if the artwork is experienced optically via touchscreen instead of proprioceptively in a quiet, well-lighted gallery space? What will be the role of the artist/author as technologies like eye-tracking become mainstreamwhen the painting viewed is able to look back at the viewertracking areas focused on vs. areas ignored and adapting in real time according to each viewers archived profile and subconscious preferences? What is the relationship between distributed painting and the commodification of immateriality within the commercial networks of neoliberalism?12 What happens when distributed paintings algorithmic complexity prompts the formation of semi-autonomous, self-encoded paintingsspecies of aestheticized cellular automata or genetic algorithmsdispersed perhaps by way of cryptocurrency block chain protocols or other forms of networks? At the philosophical level, arts compelling quality arises in large part from its unfinalizable ambiguitywhat we might call its epistemological, experiential wiggle-roomand from the differential tensions between the expansive possibilities of content vs. the limitations of the material itself. Ifas per Kant, Bakhtin, Heidegger, Eco and othersart operates in large part via ambiguity and the unfolding of open teleology, can a binary-based, algorithmic artform offer true unfinalizable ambiguity or purposiveness without purpose, or merely the technologically enframed representations of unfinalizable ambiguity or purposiveness without purpose? Finally, todays Internet is trapped behind glass; soon, however, the idea of keyboards and touchscreens will seem as quaint as punch cards. What happens when painting is truly distributed, perhaps by way of augmented everyware systemsdefined by information architect Adam
Additional thoughts on this question can be found in my essay Site/Non-Site/Website: Presence, Absence and Interface in the Online Studio Critique, in the anthology The Art of Critique: Reimagining Art Criticism and the Art School Critique. Ed. Stephen Knudsen. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Print. 12 If much 1960s art favored difficult-to-commodify dematerialization over paintings easily commodified object status, distributed painting allows the commercial artworld to have its cake and eat it too: the work is definableand sellableas painting, but is immaterial and thus inexpensive to transport.
9
11

Painting in the Distributed Field

Greenfield as information processing embedded in the objects and surfaces of everyday life (18)? What would an ambient form of painting look like? In a Heideggerian sense, how would it come-to-be-in-the-world as art? Would such atmospheric, aesthetic and informational diffusion liberate art as form, or will it dilute art into meaninglessness? Conclusion Painting in the distributed field marks the latest stage in a serial decenteringfrom transcendent object to specific object to dematerialized concept; from discursive prompt node to communicable network topology to momentarily-crystallized algorithmic representations of aesthetic experience. Disengaged from static form through a sequence of reterritorializations: from dematerialization to immateriality to virtuality, from centralized to decentralized to distributed such work operates through an inversely-proportionate relationship between materiality and information capability barely held in check by linguistic notions that discursively bind it to earlier forms of two-dimensional image creation. More than a change of the object status of painting itself, however, the transition from the static picture plane to contingent screenspace changes the relationship between artwork and viewer as well, from the ostensibly autonomous artwork of late modernism, through the theatrical spaces of pluralism, to temporary autonomous interzones13 of experiential and discursive flux.

13

Apologies to Hakim Bey, re: temporary autonomous zone.

10

Painting in the Distributed Field

Works Cited Bey, Hakim. TAZ: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia, 1991. Print. Burgin, Victor. Situational Aesthetics. Studio International, vol. 178, no. 915 (October 1969): 118-21. Rpt. in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. 894-896. Print. Galloway, Alexander R. and Eugene Thacker. The Exploit: A Theory of Networks. Minneapolis, MN: U of Minnesota P, 2007. Print. Genette, Grard. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. Print. Greenfield, Adam. Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press, 2006. Print. Groys, Boris. From Image to Image File and Back: Art in the Age of Digitalization. In Art Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. Print. Joselit, David. After Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2013. Print. Kosuth, Joseph. Art after Philosophy. Studio International, vol. 178, no. 915 (1969): 134-137. Rpt. in Art after Philosophy and After: Collected Writings, 1966-1990. Ed. Gabriele Guercio. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991. 13-32. Print. Kristeva, Julia. The System and the Speaking Subject. Times Literary Supplement (October 12, 1973): 1249-1252. Rpt. in The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Moi. New York: Columbia UP, 1986. 24-33. Print. LeWitt, Sol. Paragraphs on Conceptual Art, Artforum, vol. V, no. 10 (1967): 79-83. Rpt. in Art in Theory 1900-2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas. Ed. Charles Harrison and Paul Wood. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003. 846-849. Print. Mayer-Schnberger, Viktor, and Kenneth Cukier. Big Data: A Revolution that will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013. Print. Miller, John H., and Scott E. Page. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2007. Print. Princeton Studies in Complexity. Munster, Anna. An Aesthesia of Networks: Conjunctive Experience in Art and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013. Print. Technologies of Lived Abstraction. Shannon, Claude and Warren Weaver. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Chicago, IL: U of Illinois P, 1949/1998. Print. Steinberg, Leo. Other Criteria: Confrontations with Twentieth Century Art. Chicago, IL: U of Chicago P, 2007. Print. Virilio, Paul, and Sylvre Lotringer. Pure War. Cambridge, MA: Semiotext[e]/MIT Press, 1983/2008. Print.

This draft is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
11