main levels of abstraction (LoAs) will be (a) the computer as an information machine, and (b) the computer as a tool for art. This initial setting will provide the conceptual basis for understanding why computer-generated aesthetic objects, as it is argued in the last chapter, constitute informational systems.
3.6 Conclusions
In this chapter, it has been argued that media theory is by far not the only “pro-gramme of perception” — to borrow Bourdieu’s (1991) expression — capable of providing valuable insight on ICTs. This, however, does not imply that media theory is a “bad” method for understanding computational aesthetic objects. Media theory undoubtedly played a crucial role in raising awareness on the importance of analysing the cultural and social impact of information technologies and, in the process, developed powerful insights not only about ICTs but about technology in general. Namely, the fact that technologies are extensions and, above all, mediators of our experience of the world. However, it is clear that media theory can no longer continue to be the only interface through which we ought to look at ICTs and their sociocultural impact. New forms of philosophy, with their critical outlook and conceptual engineering tools, can offer broader and richer ways of understanding human–technology relations.
Postphenomenology and constructionism complement each other; they both con-ceive their object as complex systems which cannot be engaged without attending to a particular context of use. Postphenomenology focuses on the relationship we establish with technology and shows that technologies cannot be defined in absolute terms. For its part, constructionism offers a more specific, detailed method for developing a multilevel analysis. In the following chapters, we will see how by applying the previously described methods we can gain insights on the various ways we relate to the computer as an information system, as a “media machine” or as a
“metamedium”. However, the first step will be to investigate the computer in the most general sense: as aninformation machine.
Part II
Discussion
Chapter 4
The information machine
Summary
InChapter 2, we saw that technologies might be described as complex systems, that any of such systems whose purpose is to handle information qualifies as a form of IT, and that computers are the quintessential manifestation of this type of technology. We saw computers have been able to incorporate all the functions of IT because both their raw material and instructions are made of the same “stuff”, namely,information. By of-fering an account of the origins and various meanings of this concept, this chapter will provide a first “portrait” of the computer as an information modelling device. It will begin with a short history of computation, from mathematical tables to Alan Turing’s
“Universal Machine”. This is followed by a short account of the concept of informa-tion, from its earliest usage and decline to the development of Claude E. Shannon’s Mathematical Theory of Communication. Next comes a discussion of the philosoph-ical understanding of information, as seen by Floridi’s constructionist epistemology.
Overall, this chapter contends that to grasp the reason why computers can be such ef-fective multipurpose devices requires understanding what the concept of information stands for.
4.1 Introduction
Even though the history of computation is now deeply intertwined with the history of media and communications, computers were not conceived from the outset as the
“media machines” we know today. This is, in fact, a relatively recent state in their devel-opment. Electronic digital computers, like other electronic information technologies, underwent a dramatic evolution in a relatively short timespan. Originally devised as automatic, high-speed number-crunchers, electronic digital computers quickly found a place in the military, financial, scientific, and administrative sectors. Banks, insur-ance companies, aeronautical companies, stock trading; universities, scientific and engineering research centres; government agencies; communication companies; and generally any area and field needing to manipulate large volumes of data were the first to embrace (and spur) the computer revolution.
As is the case with most instruments whose origins lay outside traditional aesthetic practices, the emergence of the computer is usually taken for granted by art schol-arship. And when art scholars discuss the history of this technology their scope is usually limited to the last decades of the twentieth century; i.e., to the emergence of the PC and afterwards. Some media theorists provide more thorough accounts. How-ever, the more granular socio-cultural, economic, and epistemic aspects behind the conception and evolution of computation as we now know it are usually disregarded.
Many contemporary discussions on aesthetic practices — as well as some practices themselves — originatedpreciselybecause computers became capable of simulating vir-tually all previous forms of media, yet most scholars rarely venture on the reasons whycomputers are such multistable devices. It may be argued that such matters fall outside art scholarship’s epistemic responsibility due to their (admittedly) technical nature. Nonetheless, it is only by engaging them that we can begin to understand how and why it is that computers can do what they do. Otherwise, we risk losing sight of the historical and social circumstances, as well as the reasons that brought to life the technology now driving most changes in our world.
This chapter provides the first of the two “portraits” of the computer that compose this dissertation. It shows that, at the most elemental level of abstraction, computers are machines that handle and, more important,generateinformation, but that to un-derstand what this implies, it is necessary to unun-derstand firstwhatinformation is. The chapter begins with a narrative account of the history of modern computation, from mathematical tables to Charles Babbage’s “engines”. Thefollowing sectiondiscusses