Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
It is a pleasure to host this event.
This time it was designed.
The course of digital communication
promotes the Alabeta project,
which was born from a discipline
of one of our courses.
And today it receives,
especially in terms of design,
in addition to our three courses
of digital communication.
In recent years,
we have had the opportunity
to talk directly
with what we produce,
which is a communication
aimed at the new environments,
digital media,
which is a different communication
and which invites
to consider
the relevance,
the reputation
and the interaction of the users
with the new media.
This year we have a very plural table
and we have three
panelists
who will address
our author
of the 2009 edition,
which is Lev Manovich.
We chose the software culture
to be the stage
of this discussion
about digital communication
or a look at digital communication
that we should take into consideration.
So we will be here
this morning,
listening to all the people
who are watching us.
We have the professor Gustavo Fischer,
Sonia Montanho,
Dr. Anda, from the PPG
of communication here at Unicinos
and the professor Leticia Rosa.
Just to give you some information
so you can get to know
a little more about Lev Manovich,
he was born in Russia and is critical
as a professor and researcher
in the area of new media,
digital media, design and software studies
with the term software studies.
In 1980
Manovich moved to the United States
where he made his studies in cinema and computer.
He is the author of
different books, including
Software Takes Common, which is from last year,
Black Box, White Cube,
which is from 2005,
and The Language of New Media,
which is from 2001.
Today, Manovich is the professor
of the Department of Visual Arts
at the University of California, San Diego
and the whole laboratory for cultural analysis
at the University of California
for telecommunications
and information technologies.
We have the pleasure
to have
the company of Cicero Silva,
who is the director
of Software Studies in Brazil,
who will
proceed to talk to our panelists.
He
ended up
participating in our project,
in a way that we understand
that communication should be done
in digital environments.
Cicero took the knowledge
that digital communication
promoted this event
from a post published
on the course site,
came into contact with us,
saw that the theme was relevant
and today he is
participating with us,
will tell a little about the history of
Software Studies in Brazil
for some polemics
that Manovich made
here in Brazil in July and August.
So, it's a pleasure Cicero Silva
to tell you about the support.
Let's hope that Skype works well
and we can hear you well.
Thank you.
Hello?
We can.
We can.
I don't know if you can hear me well,
but I would like to thank Daniel
for the invitation.
I thought it was cool to be able to participate
in this event
with you
in the finals.
At the same time,
they are used in a sense
that we still have
many exceptions
of spaces and places that are
discussing
and
as well as cultural analysis.
I am very happy to
be able to meet
the three people
who are coming today,
who will talk to you.
They are involved
directly in the work
and in a certain way
a person is working
with them.
I sent this to Leve
and we are very happy
and we are also ready
to collaborate.
I am very happy
to be able to meet
the three people
who are coming today.
I am very happy
to be able to meet
the three people
who are coming today.
I am very happy
to be able to meet
the four people
who are coming today.
I am very happy
to be able to meet
the three people
who are coming today.
Thank you very much.
We are waiting for the next
minute,
when we are going to
sign the signing of the
opening presentation
because
They made a scenario in their own Goldsmith College about what they called software study.
In short, the cultural impact that software has.
So you can think about how much you use in the streets, how much you think about the air traffic control and all that.
Even when we are talking here, I am talking about a place where I am using software and we are doing it professionally.
It is an idea to think about how this process can be understood in a cultural field.
This software will bring culture and the music will end up happening in the culture.
A series of situations that we do not realize.
So the Metropiler proposes this subject.
And then in 2007, in the University of California, San Diego, where Manubit works.
And I accompanied him in a way, I was there doing post-tourism in an area with a person who is Noah Hardwick-Fruit.
He wrote about games, I want to see the book first.
And we were in a debate context.
About the research groups and we decided to open a group in the University of California about this topic.
So the group is led by Noah Hardwick-Fruit, Manubit.
And then we went to the group in Brazil, trying to think about the impacts of this culture of software in Brazil.
So obviously, people started to study and had a great acceptance from the country for the free software.
So Brazil is a leading country in the world today in this area.
And this brought several impacts to the issue of the significance of the Brazilian role outside the country.
We have it all around the world.
We have more countries today recognizing the role of the leader of Brazil in this area.
So this is important.
We will go into this theme.
And a group in Brazil is dedicated to look at this.
There is a book written in the field of software.
In the second moment of the cultural study group of software,
Noah Hardwick-Fruit started.
From the provocation of a center director in California,
there are two things that I would like to share with you.
There is a great technology center called Larry's Mock.
A person who can go through a lot of discussions.
He is a video player, a free computer.
He is a very well-known person in the area.
And he came one day to Manubit and proposed to him.
Well, what could we do with supercomputation in the area of humanity?
And he asked Manubit to track the senses of the computation
that use the great machine that is stationary.
You have it like this.
You have a processor.
You have a processor called supercomputing.
But you can't do that.
So, Manubit and I agreed.
So we thought what to do.
Then he came up with this proposal.
To analyze everything in a certain way.
To culture through supercomputing.
Or to the supercomputing.
So, it is important to think about this.
Manubit did this.
Because those who work in the area of humanity
know that it suffers a lot with the support of the research project.
Because you know that if you work in the area of physics,
chemistry, computation,
it is much easier for you to be able to comment on your research.
Obviously, because you will work with engineering.
What he wanted to do was introduce the cultural question
in the area and start demonstrating that culture
can make use of this supercomputing.
And the most important.
What is this media culture?
This connected culture that we live in today
will generate some configurations
that are related to the aspects of coexistence
and representation of images.
This is the most interesting.
Inside the aspects of coexistence,
there is a project that we also participate in.
And it has to do with the generation of our people.
That is, from what we will start to see
or get used to see
to the questions of information.
That is what we think.
What we can imagine the new questions
of cultural analytics.
So he analyzes the film.
We will talk about it.
I would like to talk about the topics
related to the controversial questions
that he started to talk about in a short time.
This person is cultured
and he will try to dialogue
with the issues that have already been dealt with
in the past,
because we have already lived in a digital culture.
So it is important that we live in another moment.
This is a proposal.
I would like to thank you again.
I hope you have a great debate.
I will follow you through the network.
Anything.
And the group is in a position for other collaborations
and partnerships with the course of you.
And I would like to thank you again.
What?
A hug.
A hug.
Thank you for the participation.
The journalism of us putting someone in São Paulo
and participating in the class has these issues.
So the traffic makes the conversation
have some interruptions,
and we managed to follow up a large part of what Cicero said.
And we greatly appreciate his interest
and the commitment to participate with us.
You made a comment, Cicero.
Thank you once again.
And just remembering, Cicero,
all the content that we generate here at Alabeta,
it will be at alabeta.com.info,
available to the public.
And it will be, it is already being shared
by Creative Commons license.
We will now move on to the debate here at the table.
We have three debaters, Gustavo Fischer.
He will open our debate,
making an exhibition,
a cut on the work of Marovite Afatida,
the research that he developed in his PhD.
Gustavo, today, is the coordinator
of the Unicinos School of Design.
He is a professor of design courses
and digital communication here at Unicinos,
as well as master and PhD here at the university.
We have decided, founder, creator of the Unicinos School of Communication,
coordinator until last year.
Gustavo, it is a pleasure to welcome you on the table,
not as a mediator, but as a debater.
We will be careful here to see these considerations.
Thank you.
Thank you, Daniel.
Good morning, everyone.
Good morning to my students of design,
digital communication,
to my colleagues and teachers
of several days in the course and outside of it.
Daniel, we would like to thank you
once again for the invitation,
for us to discuss Manovite.
In fact, not only him,
but fundamentally the ideas that he provoked us.
We would like to thank Cicero for the presentations.
And as it was possible to realize,
Manovite is an author
who has a beautiful combination
of a theoretical production
and experimentation initiatives.
We enter his curriculum,
he realizes that initiatives are at the level of publications,
and that publications that show the own evolution
of how he perceives the issue of the software
and the new media,
in combination with the initiatives
applied in the sense of developing
through experimentation,
as Cicero was putting in relation to cultural analytics,
which is particularly a very cool result,
thinking about this contemporary internet
that can map a series of information
and this connection between data
and cultural production,
I think it is always present in Manovite's work,
through his own training,
through his own interest that he shows
and what he will theoretically develop.
Well, this, for me,
demonstrates that we already have to start
thinking much more about what is happening
with the new media than simply speculating.
The speculation as an initial tool
to awaken curiosity is relevant,
but perhaps Manovite's criticism
in relation to the issue of cyber culture
is to start looking at the concrete of the objects
that are being generated in the new media
and that this generation of these objects
is a result of an evolution
in the form of representation,
an evolution in the way we think about the screens
and also in a perception of the role
and how to work on the concept of software
to read these cultural objects.
He does not defend a theory of programming code,
but he thinks, fundamentally,
of the cultural importance of software
and how it can tell us things
about how we organize cultural production
and, in this sense, it would include
media production.
For us to get a little closer
to some initial aspects of the software
that we are talking about,
which is his last publication,
I would like to resume
two concepts,
two ideas that he works
in the language of new media.
One of them is about the matter
of the interface, more specifically,
and then a search that he does
around finding a genealogy of the screen,
which I think is also very interesting
for us to get to this contemporary stage
of looking at the interfaces
and thinking about what is going on with them
and the processes that are linked to them,
of how we got to this situation,
what influences and properties
this evolution of screens and interfaces
that are present.
The language of new media
is a work that, according to the author,
analyzes the language of the new media,
putting this analysis into a story
of modern visual and media culture.
Manovich asks questions in this book
about what forms the new media
depends on cultural forms and previous languages
and what are the forms with which
it breaks the previous forms.
These are the questions that he puts.
What is unique about the form
with which the new objects of media
create an illusion of reality,
direct themselves to the viewer
and represent time and space.
As conventions and techniques of the old media,
such as the rectangular frame,
the point of view of the mobile and the assembly,
operate on the new media.
If we had to build an archaeology
that would connect these new media creation techniques
based on computation,
with previous techniques of representation
and simulation,
where we can find the great changes,
the breaks and the transformations.
These are questions that Manovich
puts in the language of new media.
And in that sense,
he even brings a little
some discussions that,
in communication,
were already perceived with the work of McLuhan
and, furthermore,
with the work of Boultery Grusen
in the discussion about remediation.
With the contribution of Manovich
to bring the concrete of the software
and the devices not directly connected
to the representation via the evolution of the computation,
I think it brings a new ingredient
in this perspective.
Manovich then sees
the language of new media,
the idea of a construction of a new media
based on the representation
given by the media or by previous representations.
However, he mentions in a more explicit way
the computation of the culture,
which not only would emerge
new forms of culture
such as games or virtual worlds,
but it would also redefine
old forms, such as cinema and photography.
With this, he advances
to more complex questions.
How does a change
for a media based on computers
redefine the nature of static
and mobile images?
What are the new aesthetic possibilities
that become available to us?
Again, these are questions
about the place where
these processes take place,
where we can ask these questions
initially for those who think
from the point of view of communication
and design, this question is about the interface.
This discussion of influences
of the new, in the old and vice versa.
Manovich will talk about the cultural interface.
Because he understands
that the cultural interface
would be the human-computer-culture interface.
The forms in which
computers are presented
and allow us to interact
with cultural data.
Cultural data,
which also has some translations,
I think we still have to advance
in relation to some expressions
and concepts in Manovich.
The cultural interfaces include the interfaces
used by websites, DVDs,
computer games and other cultural objects
of the new media.
Here, if I am correct
in my observation,
there is a question
that is very interesting
if not a little bit
to be thought of.
Manovich seems to say that the interfaces
of the software that run
process of construction
of media objects
should be considered together
as a cultural interface
of the one we put in other analysis
as a result of an evolution
of the media, websites for example.
In other words,
we, the spectators
and the media creator
are in front of the same cultural interfaces
of the computational screen.
Word, Photoshop, CorelDRAW
are new media
both the AllGlob.com
and Serium.
I think this is a discussion
that we should try to
advance.
Because if the cultural interface is a representation
of the human-computer-culture
I see that
there is a challenge
to think of the concept of media
in relation to the software that
produces media
and the concept of media
in relation to the media cultural products
that navigate there.
In other words, the software
tools versus
the fusion software.
But of course
we live a moment where the fusion software
contains tools
and the software tools
contain relevant media characteristics.
In terms of information
and so on.
What language is this
of the cultural interfaces?
Manu Witte affirms that the language
of the cultural interfaces
is linked to elements of other cultural forms
devoted to the printed
word, the cinema
and the human-computer interfaces.
Manu Witte
believes that the print, the cinema
and the human-computer interface
HCI
includes its specific modalities
to organize information, structuring
the human experience, correlating
space-time.
So the immediate understanding
of the interface language would result
from the fact that this would be based
on previous and familiar cultural forms.
We understand the interface
because we have
the understanding of the previous
representations
that took their properties
towards the interface.
According to Manu Witte
there is a physical liberation of
the elements of the print of the cinema
through which a digital designer
can manipulate with pages
and videos.
Not as concrete elements
as they were in the print of the cinema
but as digitalized elements
in the data banks.
Therefore, the software would arrive
in the interfaces.
The elements of the print of the cinema
or audiovisual would coexist
with the user of the computer
with other elements of the human-computer interface.
Regarding the influence of the cinema
the author creates a reduction
of the importance of the tradition
written in the consolidation of the interfaces
while the role played
by the cinematographic elements
would gradually become stronger.
The biggest influence of the cinema
on the interface would be the camera
notably in the navigation
and third-dimension environments
or model estimulations.
In terms of panoramic, zoom,
dolly, track,
Manu Witte would have a triumph
of the Lumière principles
on those of the Gutenberg galaxy.
Let's make a small parenthesis
to think about the following.
The moment the language of oatmeal media is published
the idea of virtual reality
is very present.
The objects of virtual reality
the idea of putting the light, the capacity
to enter this 3D simulation
is extremely
present at that moment.
So it seems to me that Manu Witte
looks a lot at these digital objects
at this moment
in relation to
if we think about
our more media look
where we end up looking more
at the collaboration sites
at this moment Web 2.0
where it seems to me that this ascendance
of the cinema movement
about the printer
is perhaps more relatable
we think in the environments of virtual reality
that he was
especially commenting at that moment
this ascension
cinema about the printer.
Also given the cinema is the idea of the rectangular frame
representation of reality
that sometimes comes from western painting
in which since the Renaissance
brings the notion of perspective
strongly raised in the search for the evolution
of the forms of representation
origin of the considerations of Bolter and Gruzen
in the Opera Remediation
briefly in the Comercian Software.
Even if Manu Witte
brings a perception of multiple inheritance
in the construction of the interfaces
the author sees that the role of the printer
presents itself in the idea of ​​pagina
and in the pre-visible sequence
however the author creates another logic
from the web and from the hypertersuality
in which the space
is privileged over time
which equally brings some
relation to the idea of overposition
in the sense that
cinema works with more movement
works with temporality
but if we think about the influence of the printer
it is working on a logical sequence
at the same time that the idea of hypermedia
retains
a spatiality
over linear time
Flusser is another author who will talk about this
when we discuss lines and surfaces
well
in fact there is a space
for us to think of the triangulation
of cinema in human interaction
computer
when Manu Witte says that the chronological
or sequential accumulation
would be replaced by the idea of accumulation
or archiving and random access
if there is a new ret...
now I'm quoting Manu Witte directly
if there is a new retoric or aesthetic
possible here it has less to do
with the time management
by an orator or writer and more with
spatial devaneo
the hypertext reader follows an object
to another
well
if I'm saying that through Manu Witte
channeling Manu Witte
cultural interfaces are the result of a triangulation
in press, cinema
human interaction
they give us cultural objects
if the interfaces are the result of this
we see this on the screen
therefore
for Manu Witte to make more genealogy
of the screen helps us to respond
that continuity breaks
and the computer presents
in relation to the tradition of the screen
its strength
that even takes Manu Witte to the UN
to say that we live in the society of the screen
Manu Witte proposes
four models that crystallize
certain ideas and types of screens
even though he makes a historical recovery
he shows that these types
of screens are accumulating
are influencing
the first screen
is the classic screen
seeing that the visual culture of the modern period
is characterized by an intriguing phenomenon
the existence of another virtual space
another three-dimensional world
closed by a mold
and located inside our
normal space
this mold that he calls
frame
sets two completely different spaces
and that somehow coexist
this mold
is also the mold of pictorial canvas
when Manu Witte remembers that we should think
about the proportions of the nomenclatures
like portrait and landscape
are used today in our softwares
vertical and horizontal
of positioning the page
the classic screen is also the one
that houses the static and molding image
this discussion about
the moldings
should also be thought
from the point of view of creation in a sense
what the moldings
keep and how they dialogue
is also present in the work
of our colleague Susana Kilpe
who is working on the aesthetic
chairs here
in the digital communication
and a dynamic screen
finds the mold
for Manu Witte
finds the idea of mold
and the frame of the static image
it will say that we move on
to a dynamic screen
the screen that the image
changes over time
is the cinema screen
of the video
it is the screen that imposes
a new visualization protocol
a new relationship
between the viewer and the content
the best between the viewer and the image
that already appeared in the classic screen
but now increases the notion
of complete fill of the screen
by the image
the immersion proposed by the image
of the dynamic screen
cuts the crystal around
the experience that we have in the cinema
or the experience that we may have
suddenly playing
this new visualization protocol
is challenged
with the arrival of the screen
of the computer
and this screen of the human computer
Manu Witte will defend that there is one of its origins
in the development of the radar
the radar is an innovation
linked to control technologies
mapping, mapping, monitoring
we realize how the technology
is always in dialogue
with these concrete needs
linked to control
monitoring
in a way the internet is a test
of a
paradox between sharing
and the need to
ensure the control of the information
returning to the real-time screen
where it symbolizes it
in the appearance of the radar
unlike the photography of the cinema
static images or static images in sequence
we see for the first time
that the image can change in real-time
showing changes in the
reference, the position of the object
in the radar
or the idea of the living
of the TV
or even what I see
through the interface
are changes in the data that the computer is informing me
that is, I do some kind of
action in relation to my computer
and I can see there
if I deleted bytes
if I added bytes
to the interface
finally
the radar
returning to the real-time screen
the radar originates from the type of interface
that allows us to consider the existence of windows
coexisting
in a single image
so the radar has the point, the information
about the location of the plane and so on
more information than
the only information house
the interactive screen is the one
where the information
can be represented on the real-time screen
the place to insert and remove
the computer's information
when changing something on the screen
we change something in the computer's memory
or even to be more coherent
with the ideas of the software takes command
what we are saying is that with the interactive screen
which is an accumulation of the static and dynamic screens
of real-time
we are watching the performance of the software
via interface
this idea of performance is also very interesting
when the human being thinks
about the software
is to think about the software as a performance
that brings important characteristics
for how the digital interfaces are made
and
quickly to close
about software takes command
the last book of it
printed by each of us
if we want to
read it on the computer's dynamic screen
I would like to add some points
about this book
in the introduction
that we talked about the interfaces
and the genealogy of the screens
I think it is important to think
that literally
behind this we have
the question of the software
maybe more in the future
than what we would think in the first movement
Manovit understands the software
as a layer
as a layer that permeates all areas
of the contemporary society
and then there was this author
that Cicero mentioned
the software would be a new object
of study that should be placed
at the brink of already existing disciplines
and that could be studied by already existing methods
among these methods
he quotes the archaeology
of the media
the software should be studied
in the most expanded way possible
although Manovit's concern
is specifically with what they call
cultural software, references to programs
that are used
to create and access
and development environments
he is not working
with a more complex
type of software
in the sense of
thinking about the software
that makes the load
of the various data
but he likes to refer to
cultural software as this software
that generates objects
or that allows us to access them
or both
Manovit does not want to study
but the relation of the software
with something that remodels all that
it is applied to
by adding the software to the culture
we are making an important movement
as well as adding a new dimension
in the spatiality
he made a brief comparison
in the idea of a third, a fourth, a fifth dimension
in the moment that you are seeing
a reference
thinking of adding the software
the culture would add a dimension
of this level
therefore a matter of studying the code
such as we study a lack
to understand what the musician plays
but in order to demonstrate
that we need to go beyond
the criticism of the content
or the experience of media visualization
as the classic academic criticism
mainly in communication
ends up doing
watching the movie, reading the book
interpreting the reportage
that is why the exam of the premises
concepts and history
of the cultural software
including the theories of its designers
and here I think he understands the designer
as the designer of the software
the system can be clarified later
are essential for us to understand
the contemporary culture
so
on the one hand we discuss
the issue of this idea of media tool
understanding the genealogy of the screen
as a fundamental condition
for us to
deal
with what the screens
are telling us today
and finally
find ways
to insert the software
as a concept
and having certain premises
how are we going to work this layer
of software
when thinking of the digital objects
oriented
of communication and design production
mainly
I think it is
a small and humble introduction
so that we
can expand the debate
for now, thank you.
