Simulation

I just started the research for my “Meisterschueler” Project at the UDK (University of the
Arts Berlin). My Thesis is circling around the Term of Simulation, and what shift
happened lately in the field of visual representation. A Friend of mine Christopher
Warnow
is using the Term “Post-Simulation”. Peter Weibel described it in a Lecture last
week at Isea2010 in Dortmund as a shift from “simulation of our sensory Perception to a
Synthesis of our sensory Perception”. What is important for me is the transformation of
just looking at a Screen turning into a more tactile reception of visual impressions.

Lets start to think about Sensory Perception. What we perceive as we follow Heinz von
Foerster a Simulation of our Brain interprets different impulses of our Sensory organs. So
from the beginning there is an interface – between our brain and the real world, simulating
a world (our subjective world) that we call real. But if our perception is a simulation of the
world surrounding us, it can’t be real, its only real before the brain starts to manipulate,
reinterpret and interpolate the chaos our Senses perceive. Empedokles’ “Porentheorie”
describes this context without an interface, the different Sences are connected with the
matching impulses through the right size of their pores. This Connection is mutual
meeting half way. There is no interface needed, the connections are established if the right
senses and impulses are clashing. What if we, with the new tecnologies, can, in an abstract
way, differ the size of our pores to perceive the impulses meant to be for a specific Sence
with a ubiquitous recorder and convert the signal for every sense we want. The perception
would be much more real in a common Sense, because the recorder would be software
callibrated and in conclusion not subjective. (29.11.2010)

During my research today I read a book by Siegfried Zielinski (“Archälogie der Medien” –
engl. “The Deep Time of Media”) and made a significant discovery for my project. Two
german Scientists in the late 19th century collected Data of the Human gait with an
specific construction. Christian Wilhelm Braune and Otto Fischer took Photos from two
different perspectives of a person connected to (we would say today) sensors – Lights that
flash at a constant rate. The Result was a picture with graphical data of the Human
walking cycle like the ones we know from Marey or Muybridge, yet in a more abstract way.
But what is really interesting for me is the fact that they converted the Data of Movement
and Time back to a sculpture in real space, to be perceived in another way than is typical
for visual Data.
“Das intreresse Braunes und Fischer erschoepfte sich nicht in der zweidimensionalen
Rekonstruktion der Bewegungen eines gehenden Mannes. Sie wussten, dass Bewegung
nicht nur zeitliche sondern auch raeumliche Dimensionen hat. Aus den graphischen
Daten zweier Ansichten ein und derselben Bewegung aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven
machten sie Entwuerfe fuer dreidimensionale Figuren. um diese aus den physiologischen
Daten gewonnenen Skulpturen sollte man regelrecht herumgehen und so den Koerper in
Bewegung genaustens Studieren koennen. (Braune/Fischer 1895)”
– Zielinski S. 285
(30.11.2010)

They used data of Photos and convert them back in the real world as a 3d Sculpture to
make movement and time perceivable in a way a common Pictures wouldn’t allow. The
Translation of the Data opens new ways in representation and in conclusion perception.
They left the Interface – the sample rate in which our brain records the surrounding world
(about 100Hz) and consequently our Sense of Time – behind. Braune and Fischer collected
data from the “real” world that our eyes cant see in the short frame of perception and thus
fixed a process of time in single Moment.
With the Theorie of Empedokles in mind one can say Mediatechnics are used to resize the
pores of Movement and Time to make them perceivable for other Sences.
(01.12.2010)