Phenomenology and Electronic Feedback: An Analysis and Critique of Practices, Using Ontology as a...

8/6/2019 Phenomenology and Electronic Feedback: An Analysis and Critique of Practices, Using Ontology as a way of Compr…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/phenomenology-and-electronic-feedback-an-analysis-and-critique-of-practices 1/29

Phenomenology and Electronic Feedback:

An Analysis and Critique of Practices, Using Ontology as a way of

Comprehending Electronic Feedback.

Anthony Askew

19/04/2010



Phenomenology and Electronic Feedback:

An Analysis and Critique of Practices, Using Ontology as a way of Comprehending

Electronic Feedback.



Table of Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................................................1

A Brief History of Contemporary Video Manipulation...........................................................................................3

Ontology of Representational Devices......................................................................................................................5

Ontology of the Product...........................................................................................................................................14

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................................17

References..................................................................................................................................................................20

Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................................22

Word Count: 6587



Introduction

This document aims to critique such phenomenological methodologies as breaking conceptual

thought away from a concentration on sensuous relations, and ontology; a way of considering the

world in terms of its raw material composition. As they are related to developing and emerging

practices of creating electronic Feedback situations. In order to fulfil this aim, the investigation will

approach auditory and visual artworks as digital or analogue Feedback phenomena. An example of a

visual feedback situation is prescribed by pointing a video camera with a live feed to a TV on to the

screen of that very same TV; a situation commonly understood to be a Feedback situation.

The critique will develop using a phenomenological perspective, meaning those previously

mentioned methodologies will be consistently present throughout the critique's development. Furthermore

the critique will assume the use of tools characteristic of phenomenology in analysis of Feedback

situations. Such questions, as what is Feedback? How can Feedback be used as a material? And

what does it even mean to use Feedback as a material? Will be put forward as underlying purposes

within this investigation. The nature of Feedback phenomena is explained in the context of its historical

and, juxtaposed with, its contemporary understanding. It will be explained how ontology, as a

proponent of phenomenology, can be used to explore electronic Feedback and explain its functionality

as an informational phenomenon. Additionally, I will attempt to show how Feedback as an artistic

process has progressively developed from a conceptually technical phenomenon into an accepted

material. Phenomenology will be used to rationalize this development and will ultimately pose questions

as to how electronic Feedback may be taken further.

This investigation is split into three chapters. Chapter one, is an introductory chapter entitled,

A Brief History of Contemporary Video Manipulation , that provides a cursory overview on what may be

called unconventional electronic image manipulation. The chapter discusses the recent trend and interest

in electronic and film based image manipulation and notes artist Nam June Paik for his early

explorations into CRT image distortions. Then subjects of electronic feedback and the nature of film

1



are discussed.

Chapter two, Ontology of Representational Devices , continues in the same vein of thought by

discussing the use of film by Tony Conrad. The phenomenological study of ontology, a specific way of

relating to the seen body, is introduced to an analysis of Conrad's feedback situation. Ontological

practice is explored in greater detail and is applied to a variety of situations in order to both explain

the methodology and the contributions that it makes by comprehending artworks. Artists and authors

mentioned here include Choreographer Susan Kozel, Philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Musician

Toshimaru Nakamura. Additionally, the chapter aims to highlight the differing degrees of immersion that

individuals experience whilst in specific contexts of participant or observer. Immersion implies becoming

deeply, sensuously, occupied in the stimulant so that an awareness and a consideration of what is

real/reality can be put to one side. From an awareness of phenomenology the values of immersion in

art can be brought to attention.

The third chapter, Ontology of the Product , attends to the materiality of the feedback product.

Primarily citing Vivian Sobchack, this chapter discusses the visual actuality of feedback phenomena as

a product of light and shadow which is made into something more, something representational. It is

through the deconstruction of the digital image into its primary parts that allows us to see what digital

and electronic feedback really is.

2



A Brief History of Contemporary Video Manipulation

Early video artists such as Nam June Paik attempted to inaugurate a level of control over

what had at the time no equivalent controls. An example of this would be Paik's work with CRT

(Cathode Ray Tube) televisions and magnets which would distort the screen's representation of images

and could also create new lines or forms respective of the magnet's magnetic waves (Phillips, 1988)1.

The notion of manipulating electronic information that is depicted on a TV screen, and not just

sending a predefined signal such as one from a video cassette or DVD, would have been difficult

until more recently. Ease came with the development of inter-compatible electronic components such as

mixing desks, video mixers, channel splitters, video cameras, and a whole range of tools for adapting

plugs and jacks from one type to another. Artists have been able to create visual/auditory signals

using the technology in innovative ways. One such way of generating a signal that can be

manipulated is by creating what is known as a Feedback loop. A dictionary definition of a Feedback

loop is a, 'process in which part of the output of a system is returned to its input' (Princeton, 2007)2.

Feedback as an electronic phenomenon is typically associated with noise, distortion, high pitched tones

or non-representational images and is often auto-recognised as indications of fault and error; perhaps it

is this assimilation with the erroneous that has resulted in the widely held opinion of Feedback being

viewed as undesirable or valueless. Techniques for creating a Feedback loop are at present diverse,

and the results that can be attained are equally varied. By using digital technology, video signals may

be made from audio signals. They may be filtered and passed through a variety of components such

as speakers, microphones, effects pedals, mixing desks, and any number of signal filters and

generators.

An early medium such as Film would have been incapable of passing information through

mixing desks used for music because the mediums were based upon such different material. Despite

being a common term, Film infers an almost completely redundant method of capturing images using

photosensitive gel on transparent celluloid strips. It is interesting to note that the camera 'eye',

3



commonly compared to the human eye in that it captures light and images, functions in a light

sensitive manner. Film cameras create images through a chemical response to light exposure. This is

akin with the human process of capturing light, and ergo images, using our eyes. Early film cameras

were extremely sensitive, so that when they captured the sun, the film inside would be damaged.

Maybe this sun damage, or perhaps actually the film process itself, is cause for and is relative to the

human expression, 'burnt onto my retina.' However digital film no longer creates these physical film

strips and does not fit in with the notion of burning images onto retinas any more either. No physical

output is generated as such, instead the digital camera appears to simply consume the image and

convert it directly into digital information. In my opinion, this consumption is more organic than with

traditional film. We ourselves do not create streams of film or anything like that. We do consume

information and what we capture, through our eyes, ears and skin, is turned into a signal which our

brain can understand.

In many ways the Film era has passed although remnants of its legacy will persevere through

the implementation of film technique and methodologies within digital film practices. However in terms

of sound and visuals, information is increasingly based on digital signals and a sort of technological

homogenisation has occurred. That brings everything into orbit around the computer, the internet, and

virtual experience.

4



Ontology of Representational Devices

As with every material and medium, there are those who wish to de-construct Feedback to its

fundamental parts. Those who put their energy into such explorations often do so to understand what

it is that makes such a material what it is. It is then as a repercussion of this that the artist may

then inform an audience. It was in 1974 when Tony Conrad exhibited a piece of work entitled Film

Feedback. Wherein the entire process of filming, developing and watching was brought together into a

single installation. In this installation a film camera recorded a projection screen. The celluloid film then

passed from the camera into developing fluid and developed “on the fly” as it fed towards, and then

through, a film projector. The resulting projection was recorded and the process would begin again.

This situation is an analogue Feedback loop situation and is a good example of how Feedback may

be used to illustrate a process. It shows an audience what Feedback is; an interpretation of itself.

Simultaneous to this, the work also presents the natural essence of technology being used and asks

this question: What is Feedback and what is the Feedback image representative of?

Itself, would seem to be the answer. Yet this does not seem sufficient enough an answer

because what are the forms of when we see camera lens and screen Feedback loops? Are they

purely of technological incompetence, can't the system replicate perfectly? And why do we see such

things as apparent repetition and even development within images and sounds occurring? Perhaps we

are looking too hard for something which isn't there; Conrad's questions still appear unanswered.

Whilst, like Conrad, we may be able to describe a Feedback situation, the consequent output

often defies classification. One suggestion is that video Feedback is the visualisation of light

information and that information is the key ingredient to all Feedback situations. Without some sort of

information there is nothing to say. This idea may tie in with the developed impression of what

electricity is as it changed during the last century from being solely perceived as energy to being

information and energy.

Conrad's exploration of the notion of Feedback was typical of artists at that time in that he

5



highlights Feedback as a conceptual entity. A perspective that considers Feedback as a display of

pure information. In other words visual and auditory Feedback was, and is, the manifested essence, or

fundamental nature, of the technology in question. It is this idea which serves to bring forward a

perhaps inadvertent parallelism between the development of Feedback phenomena, as created

technologically, and the philosophical methodology of seeing called Phenomenology. There are two core

ideas to explore in relation to this parallelism which are the sensory basis of informational

communications and the ontological nature of Feedback.

An compressed description of ontology would follow that: humans can only perceive the world

as permitted by the senses, touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. Furthermore, the senses are limited

to the superficial in accordance with the properties of each of these senses. Consequently, there can

be no 'inside', inner being or essence, that can be perceived by the gestalt*of human sensory

perception. Which is to say, the 'inner being' cannot be different to the “outer being” or the superficial

body represents what is inside of it as a part of its whole or its comprehensible being. For example

our personalities are expressed through our bodies and outward physical and sensuous contributions to

the 'outside' world are the expression of our “inner” being. We know people by knowing what they

look like and the mannerisms which they display. These things make people who they are. The

essence, or fundamental nature, of anything is manifested in its superficial and apparent being.

On a basic level the parallelism, noted between phenomenology and Feedback, is in that

awareness of an overtly exposed “inner being”. Ontologically speaking there is no difference between

“inner” and “outer”, we perceive both simultaneously as a unified whole. In Feedback situations the

“inner” is exposed, the process of having seen and seeing is forced into a paradoxical state of self-

sensing-sense. Normally this process would be masked by the other idea of informational transfer, or

that of compressed distance, when viewing or hearing that which was observed elsewhere. The use of

communications technologies mean we perceive a reality wherein, to use Virilio's words, 'all distances

are reduced to nothing.' (Virilio, 2007, p.34-35)3In a sense the outside world can no longer exist

because it is compressed into our homes in the form of communications technologies. However, this

* 'Gestalt' in this context refers to the unification of all the senses as they function to inform the mind/conscious of the environment surrounding the body.

6



opinion appears to negate concepts of distance. In a Feedback situation the “outer” of the technology

and its process can be juxtaposed with the “inner” product and purpose. The observed Feedback

situation is therefore indisputably ontological. Localization of the entire process of seeing and being

seen, as it is with a video camera and television screen, creates a converse sensation of infinitely

great distance. The camera will never see a horizon as it looks into the infinity of its own vision.

There is no quantifiable distance or end to this visual phenomena.

We have to consider that the camera lens is not looking at itself as an expressive body but

is looking at its expression which is then reiterated time and time again. Maurice Merleau-Ponty, who

writes on the subject of phenomenology, ascribes something similar when he writes about

phenomenological paradoxes and the impact these have on the practice itself:

That which looks at all things can also look at itself and recognise, in what it sees,

the “other side” of its power of looking. It sees itself seeing; it touches itself

touching; it is visible and sensitive for itself.4

(Merleau-Ponty, 1964, cited in Kozel, 2007, p.37)

Merleau-Ponty's Feedback situation is organic but the concept also is true for inorganic

Feedback loops. The information, the expression or appearance of, undergoes a process of analysis

which is both additive and de-constructive. The information is amplified and abstracted in a visual

Feedback loop as the visuals are exponentially driven away from their initial state. Becoming enlarged

and additively layered through the cameras' focusing on the screen. Rather than creating itself, this

engrossed image brings forward the existing essence of what the digital image is and what the screen

represents. Feedback can only be the nature of the digital visual image, it can only be so because it

is the vision of the lens multiplied by itself. It is the artificial space that light passes through, it is a

study of light and light emission. In the next chapter an ontological perspective is applied to

technological light emission and Feedback phenomena.

It is in this difference that the apparent contradiction appears to exist. Feedback only occurs

7



when sensory devices turn in on themselves. In every other situation the device will process

information and provide outputs considered “proper”. If an individual were to apply a phenomenological

or ontological thought process to the devices as they are arranged in this conventional situation. One

would have to conclude that representational, pictorial, or structured sequences, are part of the

fundamental nature of this technology. Displaying or representing the “elsewhere” is integral to

communications technology. Accordingly televisions represent reality or representational images to the

best of their ability and speakers represent speech and music to the best of its ability. Then when a

Feedback back loop is examined it becomes apparent that the devices interpret and represent the

incoming signal as accurately as they can. What does this mean for Feedback situations? On one

level it means that the process of creating information within a Feedback loop is a process which

conceptualises the information flow into a visual product. Through a process of selective viewing, i.e.

the camera perspective that concentrates on isolating portions of reality for the TV screen which

represents it within a set space, and ergo conceptualising that image for further consideration. On

another level it means the technology being utilised is clearly capable of creating material independent

of the outside world. Through an amalgam of technological errors in perception and representation and

sensitivity to subtle changes in the Feedback image new images may arise.*

There is an undeniable difference between these states of being and it seems appropriate to

consider the role of technology within each situation. This means considering levels of preconceived

knowledge about situations, a supposition of knowledge widely seen to be in conflict with

phenomenology's basis in sensory perception. The reason for this is that phenomenology, with its

emphasis on the values of sensing the world and ontologically perceiving the world as being what it

appears to be, ought to shy away from, or condemn, the technological as being both sensationally

valueless and false in terms of experiential value. As it happens being valueless doesn't mean

worthless, as there is a material worth, and being false is actually phenomenologically intriguing. As

technology is often in an interplay with the human body as with the human senses, it is appropriate

* As an aside, such an observation is compelling as it suggests that the ability to sense, be able to sense ones-self, and be erroneous plays a part

in development, change, and even evolution.

8



to consider the technology's relationship with the senses from a more anthropological perspective.

Susan Kozel's knowledge of the body and its sensual relationship with technology is of particular value

as she is a choreographer who often works within the fields of the virtual, simulative, and

phenomenological. Kozel makes a point of noticing her context as an artist using technology and

particularly her use of information communications technologies. One particular word which Kozel uses

in describing her use of technology, which is borrowed from Maurice Merleau-Ponty, is the word

dehiscence.5

Dehiscence is a biological term for a rupturing of organs or tissue but which is used by Kozel

to describe technology's ability to extend and extract the senses or sensory information from one

discreet or veiled location to another comprehensible one. Dehiscence is a way of describing how

technology may make the invisible visible or nothing into something. For example the unseen baby in

a mother’s womb is seen using ultrasound. Dehiscence is a word which appropriately describes

technological and informational transfer. However its most accurate use may well be in describing the

Feedback situation that, whilst acquiring the status of an inner essence, has persistently evaded

qualification.

In any Feedback situation a signal, or information, is repeatedly ingested and regurgitated and

the information is represented appropriate to whatever output device is attached to the circuit. Both the

source and the output are the same thing. This means that the inside, or what is generated and

processed, is literally outside. What is input is output. What this would suggest is that electronic

Feedback is indeed the fundamental essence of communications technologies.

Our second parallelism is to do with Phenomenology's and communications technology's primary

focus on the senses. In a way the two subjects are perfect partners. Phenomenology is a study of

the senses as they perceive, and communications technologies are largely concerned with perception

and being perceived.

Kozel's book, Closer, discusses her practice in regards to phenomenological experience and

discusses issues surrounding what she does and the way in which members of the public may view

her work. In doing so Kozel draws on existing criticisms and arguments surrounding contemporary and

9



technological art and the use of phenomenology as a way of working. In reference of

human/technological relationships, Kozel makes an observation on technology's ability to define what is

perceived as real or true.

In Cytowic's words, “to approach the judgement of a machine” approaches a distorted

version of what Merleau-Ponty calls perceptual faith, distorted because instead of faith

being based in the thickness of our own sensory experience, it is transposed onto

the results of the computational processes and the assumptions behind the algorithms

that control them.6(Kozel, 2007, p.11)

It would so follow from this statement that experience is increasingly transposed from reality to

digital media and back again. Our exposure to simulated reality is increasingly prevalent in our lives

and the way that we experience the world. The value in Kozel's observation is that it is made in

relation to technological immersion and is made at the level of creative technological immersion. If

technology can simulate stimuli for the senses then the concept of having “new sensations” is credible.

One may consider that phenomenology is an experience which requires a sensory acknowledgement of

the world. Additionally, the world is sensory, in that everything develops a response to everything else,

everything in it perceives and interacts by sensory means. Phenomenology accounts for everything and

everything is responsive.

Concentration on the senses or sensory stimulation moves the artist away from concerns

surrounding ontology and states of being, towards a practical and engaging relationship with the

material. Established examples of this are in the works of artists such as musician Toshimaru

Nakamura, video artist Billy Roisz, and poet Robert Ashley. Each of these artists draw from Feedback

phenomena to create pieces of work that, whilst still categorically Feedback, are creatively engaging

with the Feedback process. Feedback is not unique in the fact that it entertains our senses because

all forms of art share that characteristic alongside a great deal more in life. However it is the fact

that the technology perceives itself and that we may perceive technology perceiving that is of particular

10



significance. In instances of electronic Feedback an artist may engage with the phenomenon as a

material. Yet this situation is clearly one based within the senses of both humans and technology.

Humans sense technological Feedback through its manifestation in a visual or audible output. The

Feedback is caused by the technology sensing itself and having to reproduce that sense as an output.

Humans contribute to or constrict that level of technological sensory perception to create visual and

auditory phenomena specific to certain rules. The interlaced levels of sensory perception within this

relationship are extraordinary. It is these differing levels of sensory engagement which can be lent

towards creating immersive environments within technological feedback situations.

Immersion is an important concept in two different respects in regards to phenomenology and

the act of creating Feedback. Phenomenologically the body must be permitted to acknowledge and

follow its sensory perception without a loss of such awareness to “higher thought”. “Higher thought” is

characterised by attempts to conceptualise situations and put things into a wider context, and is also

thought which otherwise detracts from an awareness of “being” or self. One must be inclined to

consider one’s own senses and query the what of these senses to take the experience further. This

may mean discarding any notions of pre-scripted response but allowing for responses, which may be

to an extent conditioned, to develop. This methodology has obvious choreographic implications although

it cannot be said to be choreography in a scripted understanding of the practice. An appropriate

analogy may be that we cannot communicate without language. In other words, we rely on

preconceived ideas and mutual understanding to communicate with one another. What is more there

cannot be a new and functional method of communication which is not in some way based upon an

existing method of communication.

Another way in which immersion should be seen as critical is in the act of manipulating

Feedback instances or in the making of the Feedback art piece. If we are to consider the

phenomenological experience as one of sensory immersion, then we must consider the art environment.

A painting in a gallery of paintings may or may not draw the attention of the phenomenological

viewer. Often with a painting, the viewer is attracted to things of mutual appreciation such the

depiction of a certain object or the technique used. An awareness of technique would constitute higher

11



thought, and, equally requisites the use of protocol. A protocol which follows that paintings are to be

looked at and then considered in a thoughtful subjective way. Logic would seem to follow that

paintings cannot apply to a phenomenological viewing if they are not sensuously arousing. The routine

of approaching a painting and observing it is arguably not phenomenologically conducive. As an

experience, it relies too strongly on the tenacity of the observer to stand in attention before the

painting. The experience is solely visual, and the other senses are repressed. If the observer had no

choice but to observe a space with a painting within it then the experience would then be more

appropriate for phenomenological viewing. An awareness of the entire space and the impact an

environment makes on the viewer and the reception of the painting would then be appropriate. It is

with this awareness that we encounter our first problem with phenomenology within art, or, more so,

the importance of interactivity and immersion within the art piece.

Installations and engaging pieces of art are logical partners for phenomenology. A mixture of

visual, haptic, and auditory stimuli would mean that a large percentage of an audiences' sensory

experience could result from the artwork rather than being a sort of background noise as the white

gallery space has become. By utilising technology it is possible to create environments which are

increasingly personal and increasingly involved with the audience. Kozel draws these ideas together

and suggests that a new sort of materiality that has emerged from this state of informational

transaction. Recognising in one way the paintings entanglement within the white gallery space and then

in another the importance of all the senses as they combine to inform the individual of their

environment, Kozel writes:

Language and the channels between people are material. They are like connective

tissue – tensile fibres. Material and immaterial, imaginary and real, connecting and

separating people, and connecting and separating meaning from itself.7

(Kozel, 2007, p.30)

Everything is effectively connected to everything else, and these connections are all sensory. It

12



is through our senses that we recognise the world around us. In fact we are immersed within this

world and art is only a part of this world, as equally connected as everything else. The art work

which acknowledges this should seek to be a part of the world. Internet or digital work has a global

context which means as it is accessible anywhere and the situation it finds itself in could be anything

from a MacDonald's toilet cubicle at lunchtime to a third story flat apartment close to the midnight

hour to the auditory accompaniment of the neighbours indulging in coitus in the room above. Context

infers the situation in which something lies, and this is itself variable. The individual visiting a gallery

or performance is in a different context to the individual performing.

The difficulty of immersion for the audience within an art piece is in contrast to the immersion

the performer must feel. If we take Toshimaru Nakamura's mixing desk performances as example we

notice two things. Instantly we are aware of the fact that Feedback is not self-supporting as a subject

as it was in the 1970's as it appears with Tony Conrad's Film Feedback . Instead, the concept of

Feedback has since become redefined as a versatile and malleable material of artistic merit. We must

also be aware of the fact that the artist achieves the fullest phenomenological experience from being

the active protagonist. Across improvisational music this must be true, but in this instance Nakamura

uses the mixing desk which has no scales or established methodology for playing. It can only be

played in response to the sounds that are made rather than through any notion of structure or rules.

The artist is called upon to interact and be immersed in following the subtleties and flow of the

Feedback sound and as such Nakamura has no choice but to experience the work phenomenologically.

On the other hand an observer is nothing more than an observer. It is clear that the concept of

immersion is imperative in the making process yet the experience of the process is not mutually

inclusive nor mutually immersive.

13



Ontology of the Product

If we are to look at visual Feedback phenomena typically displayed on the television screen,

then we must approach the conventional use of such a medium to display conventional media. If we

are to look at how 'representative' or intentional video and cinema is received by an audience, then

we are also able to broach how Feedback is experienced by the viewer. This is because the

phenomenological method is orientated around the senses and around perception. It is towards these

apparent constants, sense and perception through sense, that all experience must be directed and

through which experience is understood. On one level of understanding it makes no sense to

distinguish televised (that which is displayed on screen) images into whether they are intentionally

representative or Feedback derived. This is due to the act that they both represent something even if

it is difficult to qualify what it is they are representative of. We have to bring forward both the

knowledge and the phenomenological truth, the being, when we make an observation, as writer Vivian

Sobchack does. That digital and film images are fundamentally, 'the play of light and shadow and

color... its brute materiality.' (Sobchack, 1992, p.6)8

It is what composes the representation that is of

importance. It is this “brute materiality” which ought to be realised.

In relation to the Feedback process and the idea of a developing language or discourse

through repetition and approximate reiteration, sociologist, Paul Carter makes some interesting comments

on the nature of spoken language. Although Carter may not mean to create a parallel with Feedback

phenomena as he does, his proposition is conveniently in conjunction with Sobchack's observations on

film as a breakdown of shadow and light. Carter proposes that: 'In its most radical form, echoic

memory is communication in the absence of anything to say.' (Carter, 2004, p.46)9By opining that

repetition, in this apparently educational sense, may be valueless Carter seems to be attacking an

entire plane of existence. However his point may be better interpreted as such that one can recognise

the basic elements of all languages through a process of deconstruction. By that I mean to say

Carter is proposing that, similar to a Feedback loop situation, the available raw information, whether it

14



is light and shadow or tone and pitch, is what is reiterated. These are raw materials and alone they

mean nothing, they are building blocks from which communication, information and language are

formed. In a Feedback situation this passing of raw materials, from itself to itself, can appear to be

meaningful but it is inevitably meaningless. Rather meaning is attributed to it and hence higher thought

and recognition of patterns is necessary as a secondary process for communication.

We know that the television, the camera, and film, can only represent reality. But such devices

also paradoxically reinforce an ontological idea of truth in two conflicting ways, the real and the

unreal. The way that ontology enforces the representation of reality, or more so the unreal, through

film is also commented upon by Sobchack. She writes, 'to the mature viewing subject, the film is

always more than its material presence.' (1992, p.6)10

In other words the material reality is overlooked

and the representative qualities of the media are enforced. A person who is represented on screen is

a person and their humanity is present through the visualization of their humanity. However the

paradox of an ontological truth within the representational image is that such ontology is also true to,

and synonymous with, Sobchack's observation on cinema's materiality. It may be said that whilst

ontology as a way of seeing may be encompassed by phenomenology in some respects. Ontology is

a practice that is on its own and stands with one foot in the raw materiality of phenomenology and

another foot in the encoded world of representation. Furthermore it may be proposed that

phenomenological experience is ineffable, it cannot be put into any language other than the language

of what it is. Whereupon we discover it is a battery of sensations to attain a knowing of self and

material reality. Conceptualisation of experience may be possible through the introduction of language,

and it is at this juncture that ontology finds a place within phenomenology.

Feedback phenomena displayed through the television screen is curiously adept at providing an

ontological image. What this means is, ontologically, any televised image is a 'play of brute light and

shadow' (Sobchack, 1992, p.19)11. Feedback, when created using a video camera and television screen

particularly, is exactly this. An exacerbated play of light emission and light sensitivity, two devices

locked in a dialogical interplay of send and receive. It is through this ontological light that Feedback

is qualified as a material and its affiliation with phenomenological sensibilities is made. The confusion

15



with Feedback derived image and sound seems to stem from film theory and established

presuppositions. In a statement carrying these convictions, Sobchack says that, 'a film is intelligible as

the imaging and expression of experience... and has a particular kind of significance,' (1992, p.19)12

above its raw materiality of light and shadow. The actual composition and the raw materials of the

medium and media are abandoned and devalued. This means that visual Feedback would not make

any sense to anyone following film theory presuppositions, as visual Feedback cannot follow the form

that conventional and traditional, formal digital image representation, and film representation, takes. It

also means that visual Feedback is in the unusual position of being what it is; the visualization of its

fundamental components which are in turn visual components fundamental to the image.

Quoting Sobchack, the breakdown of representational, or intentional, film is observed as being

one of 'all viewers viewing '(1992, p.5)13. What is perceived constitutes what is known as experience. In

an intentional film the camera captures a scene, 'the perception of experience' (Sobchack, 1992, p.5)14,

the editor may alter that footage to make an 'expression of perception' (Sobchack, 1992, p.5)15, an

audience of the film then receive that expression, “the perception of expression ” of expression . In the

case of all Feedback situations an autonomous perception of expression and expression of perception

takes place regardless of the inclusion of a human mediator. A human mediator may be introduced as

Toshimaru Nakamura is introduced as a mediator to the mixing desk Feedback loop or as Billy Roisz

is a mediator of visual Feedback loops. Any audience to these works would experience a perception

of expression of expression. However they are not involved in the work and may not be immersed

within this experience of the Feedback loop. Unlike the artist who has a greater opportunity for

immersion.

16



Conclusion

This investigation has brought forward and enforced the value of a material understanding when

faced by feedback phenomena. By doing so we can recognise the processes being undertook and the

materiality of the process and consider applications in response to this knowledge. Psychoanalyst

Sigmund Freud provides a poignant quote to summarize the human capacity to seek understanding

through sensory perception. Freud states: 'life's defenceless against the excitations of the senses.'

(Freud, 1940, cited in Henry, 2008, p.130)16

Which can be cited in relation to the potential power of

immersing an artist or observer within a given situation. Considering the potential for the senses to be

manipulated or incensed by experience itself. In particular within the context of phenomenological

experience.

The immersive potential of feedback is in its future as a responsive material based upon the

senses. However the results of this study do not place phenomenology and feedback on pinnacles of

greatness. Flaws exist on many different levels, Kozel highlights one particular problem with the scale

of immersion. Virtual experiences are neither complete, as an audience is outside the simulation, nor

completely immersive, not all senses are catered for by the simulation; the senses of others are not

not considered. Responding to the second point, the artist is best positioned to view, hear, and

interact, with Feedback phenomena, an extra level of haptic sensory stimulation and responsive

engagement adds to the artist’s experience. In example, a live musician like Toshimaru Nakamura has

the extra tactile stimulation of playing the instrument that the audience does not have. Drawing on

these observations, a general criticism of performance art would be with the balances of sensory

occupation. Such an imbalance could result in the audience being left in-satiated.

Returning to the question posed at the beginning of the study, what is feedback, two answers

have been revealed. Under a phenomenological light feedback is ontologically technology's “inner being”

exposed and exhibited as the “outer”, and is also the epitomization of what Merleau-Ponty might call

the sensing sensed. This notion of sensing-sensed is conducive with the nature of feedback as a

17



dialogical flow of communications. One could also suggest that technological artworks and those

artworks in particular which utilise feedback as a material are integrally entwined with notions of

sensory provocation. What's more is that it is conclusively important for technology to be able to

sense the user. The user needs to be able to both sense and be sensed technologically, just as in

reality the local environment responds to the human body moving through it. Additionally, the idea of

sensing-sensed fortifies the actual value of finding feedback situations within both simulated and real

life.

Another feature of electronic feedback as it is brought forward through ontological analysis is

the nature of the image. Such analyses help establish the fact that visual Feedback cannot pretend to

be something that it is not. Which means to say, it cannot, as Sobchack observes, pretend to be

anything other than a representation and an actualisation of the “brute” materials that compose it.

However difficulties appear to be raised when trying to acknowledge the raw material. Specifically it

may be that a strong reliance on film theory's pre-suppositions of intelligible images and formal

representation contributes to this difficulty. Sobchack's references to film theory's ethics and its basis in

pre-suppositions does seem to note an established delusion about technology's representative

materiality. Perhaps this situation wasn't as prevalent previous to the era of hi-definition images and

conceptions of the hyper-real as proposed by social-philosophers like Jean Baudrillard.

An implication of these findings is that both feedback's materiality and its conception should be

taken into account. The widely accepted view of film theory's representative and meaningful imagery

may be replaced by the ontological viewing of film as its brute materials. This perspective lends itself

to the realised nature of Feedback as a self-proclaimed raw material which in turn leads to the uses

being made by contemporary artists such as Billy Roisz, Toshimaru Nakamura, and many others. Raw

materials are things to be experimented with and refined. Such developments as Drone music within

the 'Noise' genre of music, that encompasses Feedback generated sounds, are a sign of this

materials' recognition. And on a whole, contemporary audio/visual Feedback uses, are a turn away

from metaphors for infinity, questions of informational representation, and 'the film... [as] more than its

material presence.' (Sobchack, 1992, p.6)17 Now phenomenology is being lent to a greater

18



understanding of what information means to us and what the world is to us. Phenomenology supports

the material exploration of media and mediums, and seeks to explain the “what” of these things

instead of complicating them. For example we have established that Feedback is the epiphany of the

what of itself. In that realisation that it is its own self-evident and ontological reality. As a material,

Feedback can cause things we do not instantly understand and yet we can impact how it is formed

and is shaped.

The disclosures developed in this document have been made despite neglecting discussions

surrounding analogue feedback instances such as video tape loops and the omission of a discussion

on aesthetics. These two avenues of thought would have proven valuable to this study however huge

achievements in exploring feedback have been made in spite of this.

Finally, this eventuality of Feedback being used as a material is not because of

phenomenology, it would have, and has, been realised anyway. Instead phenomenology provides a way

of understanding what is happening in terms of being able to see, comprehend, and manipulate the

material. Phenomenology in relation to feedback ultimately draws attention to how experience may be

developed and enhanced through the integration of increasingly immersive technology.

19



References

1. Decker-Phillips, E. (1988) Paik Video. New York: Barrytown, LTD.

2. Princeton Wordnet (2007) Programmed by Princeton University [Digital Resource]. New Jersey:

Princeton University.

3. Virilio, P. (2007) Paul Virilio; The Original Accident [Translated by Rose. J.,]. S.l.: Polity Press.

Pp.34-35

4. Kozel, S. (2007) Closer: Performance, Technologies, Phenomenology. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

The MIT Press. p.37.


The MIT Press.





8. Sobchack, V. (1992) The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience. New

Jersey: Princeton University Press. Princeton. p.6.

9. Erlmann, V. (2004) Hearing Cultures: Essays on Sound, Listening and Modernity. Oxford: Berg.

p.46.






Jersey: Princeton University Press. Princeton. p.19

20









16. Henry, M. (2008) 'Pathos with...', Davidson, S. (trans.) & Caputo, J. D. (ed.) Material

Phenomenology. New York: Fordham University Press. p.130.



21



Bibliography

Arthur C Clarke’s Colours of Infinity (2004) A Nigel Lesmoir-Gordon Film [DVD]. Singapore: CB Clear

Books.

Arts-Humanities.net (2008) Forum Interview with Sean Eisenstein [Online] (Updated 14thFebruary 2008).

Available at: http://www.arts-humanities.net/forumtopic/interview_sean_eisenstein [Accessed 16th February

2010]

Ashley, R., (1966) Wolfman [CD]. S.l.: S.n.

Ashley, R., (1996) Automatic Writing [CD]. S.l.: S.n.

BBC (2005) Cut and Splice 2005 – The Wolfman [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/cutandsplice/wolfman.shtml [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Carolina Environmental Diversity Explorations (No date) Hurricanes on sandy shorelines: by Dirk

Frankenberg [Online] (No date). Available at: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/cede_hurricanes/glossary

[Accessed 13thFebruary 2010]

Clarke, A. C. (2004) The Colours of Infinity: The Beauty and Power of Fractals [Book]. Singapore: CB

Clear Books.

Decker-Phillips, E. (1988) Paik Video [Book]. New York: Barrytown, LTD.

Dews, P. (1987) Logics of Disintegration: Post-Structuralist Thought and the Claims of Critical Theory

[Book]. New York: Verso.

Doki, D., (No date) Feedback Joy [CD]. S.l.: Archive.org.

Dunsmuir, C., (2004) Feedback Monitor Episode 10 [Pod cast]. S.l.: Archive.org.

Dunsmuir, C., (2004) Feedback Monitor Episode 8 [Pod cast]. S.l.: Archive.org.

Eisenstein, S., (No date) Eisenstein Feedback [Essay]. S.l: S.n

Erlmann, V. (2004) Hearing Cultures: Essays on Sound, Listening and Modernity [Book]. Oxford: Berg.

Flint, R., (2005) Performance, Feedback, Noise, and Moving Pictures [Journal]. S.l: Resonance journal.

Hatfield, J. (2006) Experimental Film and Video [Book]. UK: John Libbey Publishing.

22

http://www.arts-humanities.net/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/cede_hurricanes/glossary

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/cede_hurricanes/glossary

http://www.arts-humanities.net/



Hendrix, J., (1998) Experience Hendrix: The Best of Jimi Hendrix [CD]. S.l.: Sony.

Henry, M. (2008) Material Phenomenology [Book]. New York: Fordham University Press.

Infinit (2004) A Nigel Lesmoir-Gordon Film [DVD]. Singapore: CB Clear Books.

Internet Archive (2007) Dyad-Feedback_EPdsound-2007 [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.archive.org/details/DyadFeedbackEP-dsound-2007 [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Internet Archive (No date) A loop controlled by varying delay, Feedback and level, post output

01..mp3 [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.archive.org/details/aloopcontrolledbyvaryingdelay,Feedbackandlevel,postoutput01__mp3 [Accessed

21stFebruary 2010]

Internet Archive (No date) Fb_eight [Online] (No date). Available at: http://www.archive.org/details/fb_eight

[Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Internet Archive (No date) Fb_nine [Online] (No date). Available at: http://www.archive.org/details/fb_nine


Internet Archive (No date) Fb_one [Online] (No date). Available at: http://www.archive.org/details/fb_one


Internet Archive (No date) Feedback Joy [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.archive.org/details/FeedbackJoy [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Internet Archive (No date) Feedback Monitor Episode 08 [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.archive.org/details/FeedbackMonitorEpisode8 [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Internet Archive (No date) Ground Noise Static Music [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.archive.org/details/GroundNoiseStaticMusic [Accessed 21

st

February 2010]

Internet Archive (No date) Monitor Episode 10 [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.archive.org/details/MonitorEpisode10 [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Jameson, F. (1974) The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian

Formalism [Book]. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

Jones Thought (2008) 2008 September: Monthly Archive [Online] (Updated 10thSeptember 2008).

Available at: http://jonesthought.wordpress.com/2008/09/ [Accessed 22nd February 2010)

23

http://www.archive.org/details/DyadFeedbackEP-dsound-2007

http://www.archive.org/details/aloopcontrolledbyvaryingdelay,Feedbackandlevel,postoutput01__mp3

http://www.archive.org/details/fb_eight

http://www.archive.org/details/fb_nine

http://www.archive.org/details/fb_one

http://www.archive.org/details/FeedbackJoy

http://www.archive.org/details/FeedbackMonitorEpisode8

http://www.archive.org/details/GroundNoiseStaticMusic

http://www.archive.org/details/MonitorEpisode10

http://jonesthought.wordpress.com/2008/09/

http://www.archive.org/details/DyadFeedbackEP-dsound-2007

http://www.archive.org/details/aloopcontrolledbyvaryingdelay,Feedbackandlevel,postoutput01__mp3

http://www.archive.org/details/fb_eight

http://www.archive.org/details/fb_nine

http://www.archive.org/details/fb_one

http://www.archive.org/details/FeedbackJoy

http://www.archive.org/details/FeedbackMonitorEpisode8

http://www.archive.org/details/GroundNoiseStaticMusic

http://www.archive.org/details/MonitorEpisode10

http://jonesthought.wordpress.com/2008/09/



Kelly, K. (1995) Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines [Book]. London: Forth Estate.

Kozel, S. (2007) Closer: Performance, Technologies, Phenomenology [Book]. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

The MIT Press.

Lavers, K., and Thompson, M. (1998) Episode 12: The Zwillinge Project [Book]. Cambridge: Object

Books.

Mandelbrot, B. B. (1983) The Fractal Geometry of Nature [Book]. New York: W. H. Freeman &

Company.

Nakamura, T., (2001) No-Input Mixing Board 2 [CD]. S.l.: S.n.

Nakamura, T., (2006) Weather Sky [CD]. S.l.: S.n.

Optics (No date) Fractal Video Feedback Research [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/play/fractalVideoFeedback/ [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Peitgen, H. O., and Saupe, D. (1988) The Science of Fractal Images [Book]. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Princeton Wordnet (2007) Programmed by Princeton University [Digital Resource]. New Jersey: Princeton

University.

Rahim, A. (2006) Catalytic Formations: Architecture and Digital Design [Book]. London: Taylor & Francis

Group.

Ravenal, J. B. (2002) Outer and Inner Space: Pipilotti Rist, Shirin Neshat, Jane and Louise Wilson,

and the History of Video Art [Book]. Richmond, USA: Virginia Museum of Fine Arts.

Rewind_Play_ an anthology of early British video art (2009) Various Directors [DVD]. London: BFI.

Sartre, J.P. (1998) Being and Nothingness [Book]. New York: Routledge.

SFX Machine (No date) SFX Machine Online Documentation: GLOSSARY [Online] (No date). Available

at: http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/sfx_machine_glossaryhtml#frequencyresponse [Accessed 13thFebruary

2010]

Sobchack, V. (1992) The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience [Book]. New

Jersey: Princeton University Press. Princeton.

24

http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/play/fractalVideoFeedback/

http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/sfx_machine_glossaryhtml#frequencyresponse

http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/Optics/play/fractalVideoFeedback/

http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/sfx_machine_glossaryhtml#frequencyresponse



Sontag, S. (1990) Dancers on a Plane: Cage – Cunningham – Johns [Book]. London: Thames and

Hudson.

Sorensen, V., (1975) On Video and Conceptual Video [Essay]. Buffalo: Buffalo University.

Swearengin, J., (2007) Dyad: Feedback EP [CD]. S.l.: Archive.org.

Systems Theory (No date) Glossary of Systems Theory Terms [Online] (No date). Available at:

http://science.csumb.edu/esse21/glossary.php [Accessed 13thFebruary 2010]

Thomas, G., (2008) The Title Is The Score [Online Sound]. S.l.: Archive.org.

TRNmag (2001) Environment may dictate intelligence [Online] (Updated 5thDecember 2001). Available

at: http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2001/120501/Environment_may_dictate_intelligence_120501.html [Accessed

21stFebruary]

TRNmag (2002) Pixel Feedback forms fractals [Online] (Updated 2nd

January 2002). Available at:

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2002/010202/Pixel_Feedback_forms_fractals_010202.html [Accessed 21st

February 2010]

Various Artists., (2001) Improvised Music From Japan, Disc 1 [CD]. S.l.: S.n.










Virilio, P. (2007) Paul Virilio; The Original Accident [Translated by Rose. J.,]. S.l.: Polity Press.

Wikipedia (2010) Audio Feedback [Online] (Updated 20thFebruary 2010). Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Feedback [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

25

http://science.csumb.edu/esse21/glossary.php

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2001/120501/Environment_may_dictate_intelligence_120501.html

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2002/010202/Pixel_Feedback_forms_fractals_010202.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Feedback

http://science.csumb.edu/esse21/glossary.php

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2001/120501/Environment_may_dictate_intelligence_120501.html

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2002/010202/Pixel_Feedback_forms_fractals_010202.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Feedback



Wikipedia (2010) Optical Feedback [Online] (Updated 27thJanuary 2010). Available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Feedback [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Youtube (2007) Feedback [Online] (updated 16thApril 2007). Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=Toh5xhB [Accessed 22

nd

February 2010]

Youtube (2007) Jackson five-Blame it on the boogie [Online] (Updated 27thJune 2007). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW1iq4IO2k [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Youtube (2007) pollute, passive Feedback looper pedal by properboy [Online] (Updated 27thMay 2009).

Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x4HZZAkog8 [Accessed 22ndFebruary 2010]

Youtube (2008) Amii Stewart - Knock on Wood [Online] (Updated 02nd

July 2008). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hm08f5b8tc [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Youtube (2008) Klaxons - Gravitys Rainbow [Online] (Updated 07thJanuary 2008). Available at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrctb2BzLg [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

Youtube (2009) Smashing Pumpkins - Ava Adore (Video) [Online] (Updated 27thFebruary 2009).

Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtee6c [Accessed 21stFebruary 2010]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Feedback

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Toh5xhB


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW1iq4IO2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x4HZZAkog8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hm08f5b8tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrctb2BzLg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtee6c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_Feedback



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjW1iq4IO2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x4HZZAkog8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Hm08f5b8tc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrctb2BzLg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTtee6c

Phenomenology and Electronic Feedback: An Analysis and Critique of Practices, Using Ontology as a...

Documents

Transcript of Phenomenology and Electronic Feedback: An Analysis and Critique of Practices, Using Ontology as a...