experimental systems

Reprint from Experimental Systems - ISBN 978 90 5867 973 4 - Leuven University Press, 2013

Experimental SystemsFuture Knowledge in Artistic Research

Leuven University Press

Edited by Michael Schwab


Table of Contents

5 IntroductionMichael Schwab

15 ATheoryofExperimentationinArt?ReadingKublersHistoryofArtafterRheinbergersExperimentalSystemsStefanie Stallschus

26 ElectricalImages:SnapshotsofanExplorationHannes Rickli

41 MaterialExperiments:Phenomeno-TechnologyintheArtoftheNewMaterialistsSusanne Witzgall

55 WhateverRemains,HoweverImprobable:BritishExperimentalMusicandExperimentalSystemsVirginia Anderson

68 OfArnoldSchoenbergsKlavierstckop.33a,aGameofChess,andtheEmergenceofNewEpistemicThingsDarla M. Crispin

87 ResearchOrgansasExperimentalSystems:ConstructivistNotionsofExperimentationinArtisticResearchPeter Peters

102 ALaboratoryViewofArtGabriele Gramelsberger

112 ArtisticPracticesandEpistemicThingsHenk Borgdorff

121 ArtisticExperimentsasResearchElke Bippus

135 TowardaPracticeofNovelEpistemicArtefactsStephen A. R. Scrivener

151 EpistemicComplexityandExperimentalSystemsinMusicPerformancePaulo de Assis

166 CriticismandExperimentalSystemsPaolo Giudici

188 EpistemicEventsNeal White

198 FormingandBeingInformedHans-Jrg Rheinberger in conversation with Michael Schwab

220 Personalia225 Index


The research leading to these results has received fund-ing from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme ([FP7/2007-2013] [FP7/2007-2011]) under grant agreement n 313419.

2013byLeuvenUniversityPress/UniversitairePersLeuven/PressesUniversitairesdeLouvain.Minderbroedersstraat4B3000Leuven(Belgium)

Allrightsreserved.Exceptinthosecasesexpresslydeterminedbylaw,nopartofthispublicationmaybemultiplied,savedinautomateddatafileormadepublicinanywaywhatsoeverwithouttheexpresspriorwrittenconsentofthepublishers.

isbn9789058679734d/2013/1869/43nur:664

This book is published in the Orpheus Institute Series.

EditorMichaelSchwab

AuthorsVirginiaAndersonPaulodeAssisElkeBippusHenkBorgdorffDarlaM.CrispinPaoloGiudiciGabrieleGramelsbergerPeterPetersHannesRickliMichaelSchwabStephenA.R.ScrivenerStefanieStallschusSusanneWitzgallNealWhite

Copy editorEdwardCrooks

Series editorWilliamBrooks

Lay-outStudioLucDerycke

Cover imageEvanGrant,Cymatics in water.www.evangrant.com/www.cymatics.co.uk


151

EpistemicComplexityandExperimentalSystemsinMusicPerformance

Paulo de AssisOrpheus Institute, Ghent

introduction

Inaprocessthatwasparticularlyenhancedinthetwentiethcentury,theper-formanceofmusicalworksbecameacomplexarticulationofdifferenttypesofdata, information,andknowledge, retraceable indiversematerialsources(includingsketches,instruments,editions,recordings),inreflectivediscourses(in,on,andaboutmusic),andinmultifariousperformancestyles.Thecontin-uousaccumulationandsedimentationofsuchkindsofknowledgerepresentsanexponentialgrowthofcomplexitythatinvolvestechnical,artistic,aesthetic,and epistemic components. Such complexitymight be labelledborrow-ing a concept from the sciences (Dasgupta 1997;Kovc [2000] 2013;Kovc2007)epistemiccomplexity.Consideringmusicalworksashighlyelaboratedsemioticartefacts,Iwillsit-

uatedifferentelements(suchassketches,manuscripts,editions, recordings,andarticles)involvedinmusicperformanceintermsofepistemiccomplex-ity.Bydeconstructingworks in thisway, the tokensof their respective andvariablecomplexityemergeasboundaryobjects(StarandGriesemer1989),objects thatchange theirontologicalandepistemologicalnaturedependingonthecontextinwhichtheyareused.1Thedismantlingofmusicalworksintotheirgraspableconstitutiveelements

revealsthemascomplexaccumulationsofsingularities,asmulti-layeredamal-gamationsofthings(Kubler[1962]2008;Brown2001),disclosingopen-endedpossibilities for infinite new assemblagesraising questions of traceability,control,andcriticalassessmentoftheresults.Hans-JrgRheinbergersnotion

1 Ontheconceptofboundaryobjectinthecontextofartisticresearch,seeHenkBorgdorff sinterviewwithMichaelSchwab(Borgdorff2012,17483,particularly177).BorgdorffattributestheconceptofboundaryobjecttoThomasF.Gieryn.However,Gierynsconceptisthatofboundarywork,whichhasadifferentmeaning,referringtoinstancesinwhichfrontiers,boundaries,limits,anddemar-cationsbetweenfieldsofknowledgearecreated,established,advocated,orreinforced(seeGieryn1983).Borgdorff suseofthenotionappearstobesituatedsomewherebetweenboundaryworkandboundaryobjectinthewayIusethetermhere,whichfollowsStarandGriesemer(1989).


Paulo de Assis

152

ofexperimentalsystemsseemstobeapromisingconceptualandmethodolog-icalframeworkfortheconcretepracticeofsuchnewaesthetic-epistemicassem-blages.InthecentralpartofthischapterIwilldescribeRheinbergersthinking,preparingthereaderfortheapplicationofthistheorytomusicperformance.Beyondthemere(re)creationor(re)productionofaworkthroughperfor-

mance,atstakeinthischapterareprocessesthatconstitutemusicalthingsas objects for thought through performative devices. From this perspectivethenotionofepistemiccomplexityisjustoneelementamongmanythatcon-tributetoanewmodeofexposingmusicalobjects.Methodologicallythisnewmode is organisedbydifferent but interrelated approaches: identifying andscrutinisingmusicalthingsthatdefineagivenmusicalwork(inthesenseofanarchaeology);studyingtheirepistemiccomplexity;extractingthemoutof their traditionalUmwelt and inserting themwithin theconfinesofexper-imental systems; and, finally, exposing them anew, in previously unheardreconfigurationsofmaterials.

epistemic complexity

InhisessayExperimentalComplexity inBiology:SomeEpistemologicalandHistoricalRemarks,Rheinberger(1997a,S245)statesthatreductionofcom-plexityisaprerequisiteforexperimentalresearch.Inotherwords,theoverallcontextofresearchischaracterisedbycomplexconfigurationsandarrangementsofcomplexthingsthatmustbefilteredandpreciselyselectedtobecomepartoftheexperimentalsetup.Avastnumberofcomponents,interactions,behav-iours,andembeddedknowledgesprecedetheexperimentalresearchitself.Inordertodoresearchandtoarriveatsomekindofresult,theonticcomplexityoftheresearchobjecthastobereducedwhileretaining its fundamentalandspecific epistemic complexity. Despite the title of his article, Rheinbergerdoesnotreallyaddressthetopicofcomplexity,sincehiscentralconcerniswiththeexperimentalsituation.Evenwhenhewritesthatexperimentalsys-temsaremachinesforreducingcomplexity(ibid.,S247),hedoesnotenterintoadiscussionofexactlywhatcharacterisesthiscomplexity,acharacterisationthatwouldinformtheepistemichorizonthatenablestheresearchinthefirstplace.Furtherelaborationofthenotionofcomplexitythusseemspertinent.BiologistLadislavKovcandthephilosopherSubrataDasguptaworking

separatelyandindifferentdisciplineshaveproducedstimulatingreflectionsonthetopicofepistemiccomplexity.AccordingtoKovc(2007,65),bio-logicalevolutionisaprogressingprocessofknowledgeacquisition(cognition)and,correspondingly,ofgrowthofcomplexity.Theacquiredknowledgerep-resents epistemic complexity. Dasgupta (addressing technology and com-plexity)usesthesameterminrelationtoartificial(i.e.,human-made)things,definingcomplexityastherichnessoftheknowledgethatisembeddedinanartefact(Dasgupta1997,116).InspiredbyHansKuhnsunderstandingoflifeasanunceasingprocessof

accumulationofknowledgethatstartswithself-copyingnucleicacids(Kuhn1972, 1988), Ladislav Kovc (1986) developed a bottom-up approach to


Epistemic Complexity and Experimental Systems

153

epistemologicalproblemsanapproachthatmaybeassociatedwithcogni-tivebiology2andthatconceiveslifeasepistemicunfoldingoftheuniverse(Kovc[2000]2013,1).Biologicalevolution,basedonalogicofself-replicat-ingentities,isacontinualgrowthofknowledgethatinvolvesthecreationofsubjectswithevergreaterembodiedknowledge(ibid.,18,emphasisadded).Thisprinciplepresupposesthattherearelevelsofcomplexityinthelivingworldandthat,inthecourseofbiologicalevolution,therehasbeenacontin-uousgrowthofcomplexity(ibid.,14).ThistendencytowardtheepistemicunfoldingoftheuniverseconstituteswhatKovccallstheepistemicprin-ciple(ibid.,1420).Accordingtothis,butomittingthenormativeconno-tationofthewordprogress,thereisageneraltendencytowardevermorecomplexorganisms.However,thereisnoteleologyandnoguidingprinciplewith a clear end.What areobservable are several teleonomic processes thatsimplyproducecomplexproductswithoutanyguiding foresight.The sim-plest teleonomicsystem(aself-copyingmolecule, forexample) isalreadyasubjectfacingtheworldasanobject.Asystem(inthiscaseabiologicalspe-cies)issituatedinagivenenvironmentwith(a)surroundings(thepartoftheenvironmentthat interactswiththesystemandhasadetectable influenceonit),and(b)anUmwelt(thespecificpartofthesurroundingsthatinteractswiththesensorsofthesystem).3However,onlythatpartoftheUmweltthatisexperiencedbythesubject(HusserlsLebenswelt)iseffectivelyinternalisedasthebasisforconstruction(s)andoperationallyusedastheinitialinputforsolvingproblems(cf.Kovc2007,66).AsKovcsays:Atalllevels,fromthesimplest to themost complex, theoverall constructionof the subject, theembodimentof the achievedknowledge, represents its epistemic complexity.Itistheepistemiccomplexitywhichcontinuallyincreasesinbiologicalevo-lution,andalsoinculturalevolution,andgivestheevolutionitsdirection(Kovc[2000]2013,17).Coming from a completely different field of inquiry, with a background

in computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive sciences, SubrataDasguptastheoriesonsystemicandepistemiccomplexityopenupnewave-nues for understanding human creativity and its tendency to continuouslygeneratenew artefacts.WhereasKovc is focusedonbiological species andentities,Dasguptasinterestsrevolvearoundhuman-madeartefactsandtheirorigins,evolution,andepistemiccontent.AccordingtoDasgupta,artefactsareusefulthingsthatareproducedorconsciouslyconceivedinresponsetosomepracticalneed,wantordesire(Dasgupta1996,9).Butartefactspossessanother

2 AccordingtoBodenandZaw(1980,25),acognitivebiologywouldbeoneinwhichbiologicalphenom-enawereconceptualizedfortheoreticalpurposesintermsofcategorieswhoseprimaryapplicationisinthedomainofknowledge.Moreover,accordingtoKovc([2000]2013,1)knowledgeisembodiedinconstructionsoforganismsandthestructuralcomplexityofthoseconstructionswhichcarryembod-iedknowledgecorrespondstotheirepistemiccomplexity(Kovc[2000]2013,1).

3 ThesubtledifferentiationbetweensurroundingsandUmweltgoesbacktotheworkofJakobvonUexkll(cf.Uexkll1982).JesperHoffmeyer(2012)describesthisdifferenceasfollows:IneverydayGerman,Umweltmeanssimplysurroundingsorenvironment,butthroughtheworkoftheGermanbiologistJakobvonUexkll(18641944)theterm,atleastinscientificliteraturehasacquiredmorespecificsemioticmeaningsastheecologicalnicheasananimalperceivesit;theexperiencedworld,phenomenalworld,orsubjectiveuniverse;andthecognitivemapormind-set.


Paulo de Assis

154

fundamentalandinterestingproperty,onethatrelatestoKovc:likeorgan-isms,theymanifestevolution(Dasgupta1997,114).Theproductionofthingsandtheirevolutionovertimeare,therefore,centraltopicsofhisreflections.Inapproachingthesetopics,Dasguptadistinguishessystemic complexityfromepis-temic complexity.ReferringtoHerbertSimons(1962)articleTheArchitectureofComplexity,Dasguptaarguesthatasystemissaidtobecomplexifitiscomposedofalargenumberofpartsorcomponentsthatinteractinnontrivialways(Dasgupta1997,113).Complexitydepends,then,onquantitativechar-acteristicsandonintricateoperationalbehavioursaspectsthattelluswhatthenatureofanartefact is.Dasguptacalls thiskindofcomplexity systemic complexity.Itdoesnottellushowthatartefactassumedtheformitdid,nordoesitgiveusanycluesaboutwhatitmightproduceinthefuture.ThecrucialclaimofDasguptaisthatbeyondsystemic complexitythereisanother,deeperkindofcomplexityintheuniverseofhuman-madethings:the richness of the knowledge that is embedded in an artifact.Ishallcallthisepistemic complexity.Itconsistsoftheknowledge thatbothcontributes to, and isgeneratedby, thecreationof anartifact(Dasgupta1997,116).Anyartefactis,therefore,surroundedbyknowl-edgethat isprior to itsemergenceandalsobyknowledgethatappearsonlyaftertheartefactwasmade.Inadditiontotheseex-anteandex-postmoments,thespecificmomentofinventionordesignisitselfaknowledge-rich,cogni-tiveprocess.Furthermore,artefacts themselvesarealsoknowledge:adesignembodiesandencapsulatesoneormoreoperationalprinciples,tostartwith.And, in the case of true invention, when the artifactual form is original insomesignificantsense,theoperationalprinciplesitencodesconstitutegenu-inelynewknowledge(ibid.,117).Whereasthesystemic complexityofanartefactrequiresittobemadeupofalargenumberofpartsorcomponentsthatinter-act incomplicated,non-trivialways,epistemic complexityaddsto it twowhollynewdimensions:theartefactscapacityforproducingunexpectedbehaviour;andtheamount, variety,andnoveltyof theknowledgeembedded in it. It isthisembeddedknowledgethatDasguptacallstheepistemiccomplexityofanartefact(cf.ibid.,118).Epistemiccomplexity,inthesenseexposedbyDasgupta,isalsolinkedtocre-

ativityandoriginalthinking.Evenifsystemicandepistemiccomplexityarenotnecessarilycoupled,epistemiccomplexityisentirelyrelatedtotheoriginalityofartifactsand,hence,tothecreativityoftheartificer(Dasgupta1997,130).Someonedoingnormaldesignorworkingwithinamaturetechnologyiscertainly creating artefacts of potentially considerable systemic complexity;but if that system isanexercise innormaldesign, itwillnotbeoriginalbutwill be simple, epistemically speaking.Epistemic complexity is also avoidedwhenthedesignertakesrecourseinwell-establishedstylesorwhenachosenstyleisadaptedtothespecificneedsofthetechnologicalproblemathand.Ontheotherhand,whenthedesignerrejectsseveraltraditionalsolutions,strivingfortrulyoriginalconfigurations,knowledgemayemergeinwhollysurprisingcontexts.Insuchcases,epistemiccomplexityis,then,ameasureofthemak-erscreativity(ibid.,131).However,thequestionofhowsuchcomplexitycanbeassessedisnotsufficientlyaddressed.



155

Dasgupta proposes the identification and enumeration of the significantknowledgetokensthatconstituteanartefactasafirststeptowardanevalu-ationofitsepistemiccomplexity.However,ashesays,theriskisthatsuchanenumerationwillstaywithinthelimitsoftheartefactssystemic complexity,con-veyingnothingoftheintricacyoftheinteractionsoftheseknowledgetokens,northemannerinwhichtheycametoparticipateinthecognitiveact,nor(inthecaseofoldknowledge)whytheywereinvokedatall(ibid.,136).AndhereiswhereRheinbergersexperimentalsystems(andhisproposedmethodolog-icalreductionofsystemiccomplexity)mightbeextremelyuseful,helpingtosituatebetterthesignificantknowledgetokensathand.Inturn,thiswouldallowprecisecalibrationofthediverseobjects/thingsinvolvedintheexperi-mentalsetupandtoproducegraphematicoutputsthatallowfortraceabilityand for theconstitutionofnewtokens (involvingepistemicgain).However,before describing Rheinbergers experimental systems, and to facilitate theunderstandingofitsuseinmusicperformance,itisnecessarytoturnfirsttotheexplorationofepistemiccomplexityin music.

epistemic complexity in music

Musicalworksarehighlyelaborated,complexsemioticartefactswithintricateoperational functions. They are made of a variable, though normally large,numberofconstitutivepartsthatinteractinnon-trivialways.Thisgivesthem,in thefirstplace, systemic complexity.But theyarealso theproductsof inven-tionandembedaricharrayofinterconnectedknowledgeencapsulatingoneormoreoperationalprinciples.Theirconception,creation,andconcretemak-ing(and/orperforming)inherently involvepre-andpost-knowledge,aswellasavastcombinationofrefinedcognitiveprocesses.Likeorganisms,theyalsomanifestevolution(butnotnecessarilyprogress),doingthisinthreeways:(1)intermsofpurecreation,thatis,new,originalcompositions;(2)intermsofre-creation,thatis,theperformanceofpastmusicalworks;(3)inthesophis-ticatedprocessoftheirpreservationovertime(editions,recordings,theoret-ical reflections, etc.).Taking a closer look at thehistoryofmusical things(withoutadheringtotraditionalvisionsofmusichistory,compartmentalisedin styles and periods) and adaptingGeorge Kublers statement regarding ahistoryofthings,ahistoryofmusicalthingswouldincludebothmaterialartefacts and aesthetic positions, both replicas and unique examples, bothtoolsandexpressionsinshortallmaterialsworkedbyhumanhandsundertheguidanceofconnectedideasdevelopedintemporalsequence(cf.Kubler[1962]2008,8).Newpiecesareacombinationofoldknowledgewithnewcog-nitiveextensions,andinthemost interestingcaseswithunexpectedandsurprisingelements.Inadditiontotheirsystemiccomplexity,musicthingsaimatproducingunprecedentedeventsembodyingnewknowledge.Inthissense,throughtheamount,variety,newness,andrichnessoftheknowledgethattheyembed,theyhaveaconsiderableepistemiccomplexity,beingartisticexamplesofwhatRheinberger(talkingaboutexperimentationandfollowingFranoisJacob)designatesasamachinetomakethefuture(Rheinberger1997b,33).


Paulo de Assis

156

AsDasguptawrites:Paintings,sculptures,novels,poemsandplays,sympho-nies,fuguesandragasareallinfusedwithepistemiccomplexity,especiallyinthe intricatewaystheircreatorssummonthepastandintegrate it intotheirworks(Dasgupta1997,137).Justliketechnologicalartefacts,musicalartefactsarecharacterisedbysystemicandepistemiccomplexity.Musicalworksaresurroundedbyandencapsulatedinspecificepistemicset-

tings,whicharemadeofelaboratedcollectionsofhistoricallyproduced(andinherited)things,suchassketches,drafts,firsteditions,recordings,oressaysconcerningagivenmusicalwork.Aftertwocenturiesinwhichthework-con-ceptdominated(see,amongothers,Goehr [1992]2007), in recentdecadesattentionhasturnedtowhatmaybecalledanextended work-conceptthattakesintoconsideration thedeconstructionofmusicalworks into theirgraspableconstitutiveelements,revealingthemascomplexaccumulationsofsingulari-tiesandasmulti-layeredconglomeratesofthingswiththeutmostdiversity(cf.Kramer2011,chapters11and14).Thecloseronegetstosuchconstitutivethings, the clearer the epistemic complexity of musical works and perfor-mancesbecomes.Fromtheperspectiveofaperformerdealingwithamusicalworkfromthe

past(whichmightalsobeaveryrecentpast),typesofrelevantobjectsloadedwithvariabledegreesofepistemiccomplexityinclude:

1 Materialsgeneratedbythecomposer(sketches,drafts,manuscripts,firstprints, revisionsofprints,etc.)2 Editionsofapiecethroughouttime3Recordingsofworks4Thereflectiveandconceptual(musicological,philosophical,analytical,etc.) apparatusaroundmusicalworks(includingthesis,articles,books,etc.)5 Theorganologicaldiversity;thatis,themusicalinstrumentsinuse(forexample, historicalversuscontemporary)6Theperformative/aestheticorientationoftheperformer(historicallyinformed practice,Romanticinterpretation,newobjectivity,modernisingapproach,etc.)7 Arrangementsofworks8Thepractitionersownbody,whichisbiologically,technically,andculturally organised

Oneimportantobservationisthatuntilquiterecentlymanyoftheitemsinthislistwerenotgenerallyavailablesincetheywerethepropertyofanexclusivegroupofexperts.Inthecurrent,increasinglydemocratisedknowledge-societymoreandmorepeoplehaveaccesstothem.Theitemsonthelistarejustthemaintokensofamusicalworksepistemiccomplexityandmaybeextendedbypotentially infinitefurthersub-tokens.Theybuildacomplicatednetworkofthingswithembeddedknowledge.Atsomepoint,theyallwerereificationsorsedimentationofaspecificcreativeorreflectivesituation.Now,theymightfunctionas(1)objectsofinquiry(Whatarethey?Howmanypartsdotheyhave?Howdotheyfunction?)oras(2)thingsforfurtherinquiries(Howcantheybecomeproductive again?Howcan theybuild reconfigurationsof theworktheybelongto?Whatfuturesdotheyenhance?).Thefirstapproachhastodowithaworkssystemiccomplexity,thesecondwithitsepistemiccomplexity.



157

Moreover,makingexplicit theepistemiccomplexityofmusicalworksallowsus to understandworks asmade up of amyriad of boundary objects (seealsoStarandGriesemer1989).Tomakeperformancesusingselectionsofsuchboundaryobjects is anact thatdisclosesopen-endedpossibilities fornewassemblages. Crucial to these new assemblagesand necessary to enhancetheir epistemic complexityis the inclusionof aproductive not-yet-know-ing,thecreationofroomforwhatisyetunthoughtandunexpected.Underthis light, processes of becoming appear asmoreproductive than statementsofbeing.Works,justlikeobjectsofknowledge,ingeneralremainessentiallyopen.The fundamental incompletenessofanyattempttocloseornarrowdown a human-made invention becomes the starting point for epistemicgames.AsKnorrCetina (2001,181) states: Iwant tocharacterizeobjectsofknowledge (epistemicobjects) in termsof a lack in completenessofbeingthattakesawaymuchofthewholeness,solidity,andthething-likecharactertheyhaveinoureverydayconception.Intheplaceofaclear-cutontologyoftheartwork,wefindanunfoldingbecoming,whereexperimentationandtheconcreteproductionofnewincompleteassemblagesbecomethecentralartis-ticactivity.

hans-jrg rheinbergers experimental systems

Rheinberger developed his theory of experimental systems in relation tothe empirical sciences, particularly to molecular biology. However, it wasRheinberger himself who opened the door for other potential uses of thistheory, specifically, for example, in relation to the activity of writing: DasSchreiben,sobehaupteich, istselbsteinExperimentalsystem(Rheinberger2007,mytranslation;Writing,soIclaim,isanexperimentalsysteminitsownright). That Rheinberger mentions writing [Das Schreiben] as a poten-tial field for applications of his theory has certainly to dowith his concep-tionoftheexperimentalspaceandofthescientificobjectitselfasacomplexbundleof inscriptions (Rheinberger 1997b, 111).The ideaof inscriptionmightbetracedbacktoDerrida,whoseseminalbookDe la grammatologie[Of Grammatology]RheinbergertranslatedintoGerman(withHannsZischler)in1983.Takinghisownsuggestions further, Ipropose toextend theuseofhistheoryalsototheperformanceofpastmusicalworks.IntheprologuetohisbookToward a History of Epistemic Things,Rheinberger

stressesthatinapost-Kuhnianmoveawayfromthehegemonyoftheory,histo-riansandphilosophersofsciencehavegivenexperimentationmoreattentioninrecentyears(Rheinberger1997b,1).Reflectingthat,Rheinbergersessayisanattemptat anepistemologyof contemporaryexperimentationbasedonthenotionofexperimentalsystem(ibid.).Originallytakenfromtheeverydaypracticeandvernacularofmid-twentieth-centurylifescientists,theconceptofexperimentalsystemisfrequentlyused,asinRheinberger,tocharacterisethespaceandscopeof theresearchactivitiesconductedbyresearchers inthosesciences(particularlyinbiochemistryandmolecularbiology).Importantly,thisis,inthefirstplace,apractitionersnotion,notanobservers(seeRheinberger


Paulo de Assis

158

1997b,19).Inhismostsuccinctformulation,Rheinbergerstatesthatexperi-mentalsystemsarearrangementsthatallowustocreatecognitive,spatiotem-poralsingularities(ibid.,23).AndinalaterpublicationRheinbergerwrites,Itisonlyatthebeginningofthe1990sandinthecontextofanongoingreplace-mentoftheory-dominatedperspectivesofscientificchangebypractice-drivenviewsonresearchthattheconceptofexperimentalsystemshasfoundentranceintothehistoricalandphilosophicalliteratureonscience(Rheinberger1992,RheinbergerandHagner1993,Rheinberger1997[b])(Rheinberger2004,2).Rheinberger,himselfamolecularbiologistandaphilosopher,developeda

frameworkinwhichexperimentationtakesmeaningasasetofepistemicprac-ticesthatconstituteaspecifickindofmaterialculture(Rheinberger1997b,19). On several occasionsnotably in the Prologue to the bookToward a History of Epistemic ThingsandintheonlineessayExperimentalSystems:EntryEncyclopediafortheHistoryofLife(Rheinberger2004)Rheinbergergivesathoroughdescriptionofthefourbasicfeaturesofanexperimentalsystem.Thesefeaturesaresummarisedintable1.

(a) Working units of con-temporary research

Experimental systems are the genuine working units of contemporary research in which the scientific objects and the technical conditions of their production are inextricably intercon-nected. They are, inseparably and at one and the same time, local, individual, social, institutional, technical, instrumental, and, above all, epistemic units. Experimental systems are thus impure, hybrid settings (Rheinberger 1997b, 2).

(b) Differential reproduction

Experimental systems must be capable of differential reproduc-tion in order to behave as devices for producing scientific nov-elties that are beyond our present knowledge, that is, to behave as generator[s] of surprises. To be productive, experimental systems have to be organized in such a way that the generation of differences becomes the reproductive driving force of the whole experimental machinery (Rheinberger 1997b, 3).

Differential reproduction conveys a peculiar kind of historicity to experimental systems. They can acquire, to speak with Ian Hacking a life of their own (Rheinberger 2004, 5, including cita-tion of Hacking 1983, 215).

(c) Graphematicity Experimental systems are the units within which the signifiers of science are generated. They display their meanings within spaces of representation in which graphemes, that is, material traces are produced, articulated, and disconnected and are placed, displaced, and replaced. scientists create spaces of rep-resentation through graphematic concatenations that represent their epistemic traces as engravings, that is, generalized forms of writing (Rheinberger 1997b, 3).

(d) Experimental cultures

conjunctures bifurcations hybridisations

Experimental systems get linked into experimental ensembles, or experimental cultures [through] conjunctures and bifurca-tions (Rheinberger 1997b, 3).

Finally, conjunctures and ramifications of experimental systems can lead to ensembles of such systems, or experimental cultures. (Rheinberger 2004, 6).

Table 1: The four basic features of experimental systems.



159

In short, an experimental system is a specific unit of research, spatiotempo-rallypreciselylocated,whereintwokindsofthingsinteract:technicalobjectsand epistemic things (whose difference is functional and not ontological).Withinsuchasystem,mechanismsofreproductionandrepetitionaimatthegenerationofdifferences.Furthermore,anexperimental system isa spaceofrepresentationwhereinscriptionsaremadeinordertogenerateandpreservetraces.Finally,experimentalsystemsmightestablishlinkstootherexperimentalsystems(conjunctures),bedividedintoseveralexperimentalsystems(bifurca-tions),ormergewithotherexperimentalsystems(hybridisation).Atsomepointanarticulationofensemblesofexperimentalsystemsmightemerge,generatingwhatRheinbergercallsexperimentalculture(cf.Rheinberger1997b,3).RheinbergersuseofthetermsystemhasnothingtodowithLuhmanns

systems-theory,norwithotherhermeticorclosedsystemssuchasMaturanaandVarelas autopoeisis.AsRheinberger states: Systemmeanshere sim-plyakindofloosecoherencebothsynchronicallywithrespecttothetechnical[objects]andorganic[epistemic]elementsthatenterintoanexperimentalsys-temanddiachronicallywithrespecttoitspersistenceovertime(Rheinberger2004,3).Astheuseofthetermstechnicalobjectandepistemicelementsreveals,technicity andepistemicityformanintricaterelationattheinnercoreofanexperimentalsystem.Epistemicthingsaretheentitieswhoseunknowncharacteristicsarethetargetofanexperimentalinquiry(Rheinberger1997b,238), paradoxically embodying what one does not yet know (cf. ibid., 28).Technicalobjects(sedimentationsofearlierepistemicthings)arescientificobjectsthatembodytheknowledgeofagivenresearchfieldatagiventime(ibid.,245);theymightbeinstruments,apparatus,anddeviceswhichboundand confine the assessmentof the epistemic things (Rheinberger 2004, 4).Epistemicthingsarenecessarilyunderdetermined,whiletechnicalobjectsarecharacteristicallydetermined.Technicalobjectsandepistemicthingscoexistsimultaneouslywithintheexperimentalsystem,andwhetheranobjectfunc-tionsasanepistemicora technicalentitydependson theplaceor node itoccupiesintheexperimentalcontext(Rheinberger1997b,30);withinapar-ticularresearchprocess,epistemicthingscaneventuallybeturnedintotech-nical things and become incorporated into the technical conditions of thesystem(Rheinberger2004,4).Betweenthetwoextremes,thereisroomfora gradient scale, fordiversedegreesofhybrid things and for vaguematerialentitieswhose function in the experimental systemchanges.Anexampleofsuchanentity,whenapplyingthesenotionstomusic,isthescore,thematerialinscriptionofacomplexsetofsignsandsymbolsthatmightbeconsideredaseitheranepistemicthingoratechnicalobjectdependingontheroleitplaysatanyparticularpointduringaperformance.

experimentation in music performance: how to make the future?

The application of Rheinbergers terminology and research architecture tomusic performance is an attempt to establish a wider common ground for


Paulo de Assis

160

artisticresearchinmusicperformance.Thisapplicationisnotobvious,norisit straightforward.Rheinbergerdevelopedhis theories inaveryspecificfieldof inquiry. In transferringthese theories tootherfields (especially toartisticandcreativeareas),onemustproceedcautiously.Thissaid,however,thereareseveralmusicalentitiesthatmightbeconsideredasbeingtechnicalobjectsand/orepistemicthings,dependingonthespecificuseandcontextoftheirpresentation.AcceptingtheriskincurredinapplyingRheinbergerstheoriestomusic,onemightsaythatscores,instruments,ortuningsystems,forinstance,maybeseenastechnicalobjectsthatarebroughtintoparticularconstellations(suchastheconcertoraCDrecording), toproduceart.Thesameentitiesmay,however,operateasepistemicthings,whosequalitiescanbedividedintotwomaingroups:thosealreadyknownandthosestilltobeknown(discovered).Musicalworks participate, therefore, in twodifferentworlds: one related totheirpast(whatconstitutesthemasrecognisableobjects),anotherrelatedtotheirfuture(whattheymightbecome).Ifwerequiretheperformancetobeanidealisedactofinterpretation(beithermeneuticorperformative4)andifwereduceittotherepetitionofthescore(understoodasaninstrumentaltechnicalobject),wetakeawaythepossibilityforepistemicthingstoemergeortounfoldintounforeseendimensions.Wewouldbedealingmainlywiththeworkspast.Ifwewanttogivecredibilitytoperformanceasaninstance,amongothers,ofepistemicactivity,weneedaconceptsuchasexperimentationthatcreatesspaceinrelationtothescore(whichwouldotherwiseoverdetermineandclosedowntheepistemicpotentialofperformancepractice),allowingunpredictablefuturestohappen.AndwealsoneedRheinbergersexperimentalsystemsasabasicmethodologicaltooltoframeourartisticexperimentalapproach.Fromthisperspective,experimentation,methodologicallyconductedthrough

experimental systems, might allow for making the future of past musicalworks,somethingofwhichinterpretationisfarlesscapable.Moreover,artisticexperimentationhasthepotentialtobringtogetherthepastandthefutureofthings,enablingandconcretelybuilding (constructing)newassemblagessomethingthatnon-artisticmodesofknowledgeproductioncannotdo.But how can such new assemblages appear? Under what conditions and

respondingtowhichcriteria?Howtoevaluatetheirquality?Howtoassesstheirconstitutivepartsanddefinethemascontributionstoknowledge?TosuggestpossiblelinesofanswertothesequestionsabriefsummaryoftheconceptsandpracticesexposedsofarinthischapteraswellasareferencetotheFoucauldianconceptsofarchaeologyandproblematisationwillhelpbettersituateandexplainnotonlytheconceptofexperimentationinuse inthischapterbutalsomyownconceptionofartisticresearchanditsroleinourknowledgesociety.

Thefirstfundamentalconceptpresentedinthischapterwasthatofepistemic complexityasdefinedanddevelopedbyKovcandDasgupta.ForKovcepis-temiccomplexityistheresultoftheepistemicunfoldingoftheuniverse(epis-

4 ForthedistinctionbetweenhermeneuticandperformativeinterpretationseeHermannDanusersentryonInterpretationfortheGermanEncyclopaediaMGG(Danuser2007).



161

temic principle),whileforDasguptaitconcernstherichnessoftheknowledgethatisembeddedinanartefact.Ifwethinkintermsofsimpletimecoordinatessuch as past-present-future these two perspectives share one characteristic:theyboth scrutinise things (biologicalorganismsorhuman-madeartefacts),lookingatandanalysingtheirrespectivepasts.Whatthingsareinthepresentisunderstoodtobeanaccumulationofepistemicfeaturesthroughouttime,fromthepastuntilthepresent.Evenifthisapproachmightinformushowanorganismoranartefactmightbehaveinthenearfuture,themainconcernofthosetwoauthorsisnotwiththefuturebutwithidentifying,articulating,andevaluatingtheevolutionofsuchthings.Second, I presented the concept of things as developed by Rheinberger,

inspiredbyKubler.Thisconceptallowedmetoconsidertheepistemiccom-plexityofthenaturalandhumanworldsasapotentiallyinfinitegalaxyofthings,entitiesthatescapecloseddefinitionsandthatmighthavedifferentfunctionsaccordingtothecontextinwhichtheyaretemporarilyimmersed.Inthesec-ond section Imentioned somegraspableexamplesof things that constitutemusicalworks, things that Idefinedas tokensofamusicalworksepistemiccomplexity.Thisbreakdownoftheepistemiccomplexityofmusicalworksintoitsmanifoldconstitutiveelements(things)iscrucialbecauseitenablesopen-endedpossibilitiesfornewassemblages.Inthisconstellationofpotentiallyinfinitethingstheconceptofarcha eology,

as elaborated by Michel Foucault, becomes a helpful methodological tool.AccordingtoClareOFarrell,ArchaeologyisthetermFoucaultusedduringthe1960stodescribehisapproachtowritinghistory.Archaeologyisaboutexamin-ingthediscursivetracesandordersleftbythepastinordertowriteahistoryofthepresent.Inotherwordsarchaeologyisaboutlookingathistoryasawayofunderstandingtheprocessesthathaveledtowhatwearetoday(OFarrell2007).Inthissense,archaeologyisawaytolookatthepastfromthepresent,withthegoalofbettersituating/understandingthepresent(and,crucially,notthepast).Itdescribesaboomerang-likeroute:fromthepresenttothepast,andbackfromthepasttothepresent.Itdoesnotaimatdisclosinghowthingsreallywerebutratherwhythingsarewhattheyaretoday.InFoucaultswords:

Archaeologydoesnottrytorestorewhathasbeenthought,wished,aimedat,experienced,desiredbymenintheverymomentatwhichtheyexpresseditindiscourseitdoesnottrytorepeatwhathasbeensaidbyreachingitinitsveryidentity.Itdoesnotclaimtoeffaceitselfintheambiguousmodestyofareadingthatwouldbringback,inallitspurity,thedistant,precarious,almosteffacedlightoftheorigin.Itisnothingmorethanarewriting:thatis,inthepreservedformofexteriority,aregulatedtransformationofwhathasalreadybeenwritten.Itisnotareturntotheinnermostsecretoftheorigin;itisthesystematicdescriptionofadiscourse-object.(Foucault1972,13940)

ThelinktoMichelFoucaultisexplicitinRheinbergerandisveryimportanttohis theoriesofexperimentalsystems inseveralregardsbutparticularly tothedefinitionofepistemicthing:[Foucaults] discourse-object iswhatIcallanepistemicthing(Rheinberger1997b,8).ForRheinberger,epistemicthingsare


Paulo de Assis

162

thingsembodyingconceptsthatdeserveasmuchattentionasgenerationsofhistorianshavebestowedondisembodied ideas (ibid.).Togiveepistemicthingstheattentiontheydeserveis(1)toextractthemoutofthechaosofsys-temiccomplexity,and(2)toallowthemtocontributetotheformationofnewentities,newepistemicthingsthat,inturn,willaddnewthingstothearchaeol-ogyofepistemicthings,thatis,toepistemiccomplexity.Fromthisperspective,archaeologyappearsalmostasanecessaryconsequenceofepistemiccomplexity.ButFoucaultsdiscourse-objectisnotonlytobedescribedbutmustbepro-

ductively resituated, involving problematisation, another Foucauldian conceptthatgainedincreasedrelevanceinFoucaultslateworks:ThenotioncommontoalltheworkthatIhavedonesinceHistoire de la Folieisthatofproblematiza-tion.(Foucault1998,257).WiththisconceptFoucaultreferstotheworkonedoestodirectonesthoughttowardpresentpracticeswhichwereonceseenasstablebutwhichtheresearchershowstobeproblematicinsomecrucialsense.

Problematizationdoesntmeantherepresentationofapre-existentobject,northecreationthroughdiscourseofanobjectthatdoesntexist.Itisthetotalityofdiscursiveornon-discursivepracticesthatintroducessomethingintotheplayofthetrueandfalseandconstitutesitasanobjectforthought.(Foucault1998,257)

Problematisation has, therefore, to do with objects, with things that arearchaeologicallyretracedandtransmutedfromneutralobjectsintoobjectsforthought.Inthecontextofthepresentchapter,archaeologyandproblem-atisation go hand-in-hand, and they both work as problematisation of theaesthetic-epistemic complexitydescribedabove.Epistemic complexity, things, archaeology, problematisationthe concepts pre-

sentedsofarallscrutinisethings(biologicalorganisms,human-madearte-facts, and concepts) by enquiring into their past. The notion of problema-tisationmightbeunderstoodas ahighlyelaborated formof interpretation ofhistoricaldata.Inthissense,lookingbackwardsandappliedtomusic,itisper-fectly recognisable indisciplines suchas, forexample,musicanalysis,musictheory,musichistoriography,organology,andbiographicalstudiesinfactinthemajorityofmusicologicalsub-disciplines.However,theremightbeadifferentmodeofproblematisingthings,amode

that,ratherthanaimingtoretrievewhatthingsare,searchesfornewwaysofproductivelyexposing them.That is to say,amode that, insteadofcriticallylooking into the past, creatively projects things into the future. Such is thefinalproposalofthischapter:toreversetheperspectivefromlookingintothepasttocreativelydesigningthefutureofpastmusicalworks.Inmyviewthisispreciselywhatartisticresearchcouldbeaboutacreativemodethatbringstogetherthepastandthefutureofthingsinwaysthatnon-artisticmodescan-notdo. Indoing this, artistic researchmustbe able to include archaeology,problematisation,andexperimentationinitsinnerfabric.Themakingofartis-ticexperimentationthroughRheinbergersexperimental systemsbecomesacreativeformofproblematisation,wherebythroughdifferential repetition newassemblagesofthingsaremateriallyhandcraftedandconstructed.



163

Inadeepersenseexperimentationisnottheactofconductingexperiments(andevenlessofmakingtests).Aestheticexperimentationrelatesprimarilytoacompletelyneworientationofthesensesandofthereason,aimingtorecon-figurethesensible.AsphrasedbyLudgerSchwarteintheopeningspeechofaconferenceonexperimentalaestheticsheldinDsseldorfin2011:Aestheticexperimentation starts when the parameters of a given aesthetic praxis arebroken, suspended, or transcended, inorder toworkout aparticularmodeofappearancethatreconfiguresthefieldof thevisibleandof theutterable(Schwarte2012,187,mytranslation).5

Thatsuchreconfigurationsareonlypossibleafteraprofoundconsiderationoftheepistemiccomplexityofaestheticthingsistheinevitableandnecessarycondition for creative problematisation; that is to say: for artistic research.Fromthisperspective,artisticresearchthereforehappenswhen:(1)Theepis-temiccomplexityofagivenobjectofinquiryisscrutinised;(2)theconstitutivethingsofsuchobjectsofinquiryareidentifiedandisolated;(3)anarchaeologyofsuchthingsisexplored;(4)theresultsofthisexplorationareproblematisedwiththepurposeofenablingtheirprojectionintothefuture;(5)theproblem-atisationhappensinpreciselycalibratedframeworks(experimentalsystems);(6)insideanexperimentalsystemdifferential repetitionisstimulated,enhanced,andachieved;(7)newassemblagesofthingsemergeastheresultofaconstruc-tive(andnotonlytheoretical)endeavour.

5 DassthetischeExperimentierenbeginntdort,wodieParametereinergegebenensthetischenPraxisunterbrochen,suspendiertoderberschrittenwerden,umeinespezifischeErscheinnungsformherauszuarbeiten,diedasFelddesSichtbarenundSagbarenrekonfiguriert.


Paulo de Assis

164

references

Boden,MargaretA.,andSusanKhinZaw.1980.TheCaseforaCognitiveBiology.Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes54:2549+5171.

Borgdorff,Henk.2012.BoundaryWork:AnInterview.Chapter8inThe Conflict of the Faculties: Perspectives on Artistic Research and Academia,17483.Leiden:LeidenUniversityPress.

Brown,Bill.2001.ThingTheory.Critical Inquiry28(1):122.

Danuser,Hermann.2007.Interpretation.InMusik in der Geschichte und Gegenwart: Allgemeine Enzyklopdie der Musik,editedbyFriedrichBlumeandLudwigFinscher,2nded.,21vols.,19942007,3:105369.Kassel:Brenreiter;Stuttgart:Metzler.

Dasgupta,Subrata.1996.Technology and Creativity.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

.1997.TechnologyandComplexity.Philosophica59:11339.

Derrida,Jacques.1976.Of Grammatology.TranslatedbyGayatriChakravortySpivak.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Firstpublished1967asDe la grammatologie(Paris:ditionsdeMinuit).

Foucault,Michel.1972.The Archaeology of Knowledge.TranslatedbyA.M.SheridanSmith.NewYork:PantheonBooks.Firstpublished1969asLarchologie du savoir(Paris:Gallimard).

.1998.Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and other Writings, 19771984.EditedbyLawrenceD.Kritzman,translatedbyAlanSheridanetal.London:Routledge.

Gieryn,ThomasF.1983.Boundary-WorkandtheDemarcationofSciencefromNon-Science:StrainsandInterestsinProfessionalIdeologiesofScientists.American Sociological Review48(6):78195.

Goehr,Lydia.(1992)2007.The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works: An Essay in the Philosophy of Music.Rev.ed.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hacking,Ian.1983.Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hoffmeyer,Jesper.2012.Umwelt.InEncyclopedia of Semiotics,editedbyPaulBouissac.OxfordUniversityPress,

2007.Articlepublished15June.Accessed10June2013.http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195120905.001.0001/acref-9780195120905-e-290?rskey=DbH3VO&result=290&q=.

KnorrCetina,Karin,2001.ObjectualPractice.InThe Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory,editedbyTheodoreR.Schatzki,KarinKnorrCetina,andEikevonSavigny,17588.London:Routledge

Kovc,Ladislav(1986).voddokognitvnejbiolgie[Introductiontocognitivebiology].Biologick listy51:17290;includesanabstractinEnglish.

.(2000)2013.FundamentalPrinciplesofCognitiveBiology.Evolution and Cognition6:5169.RepublishedonlinebyBratislavaBiocenter,nodate.Accessed21May2013.www.biocenter.sk/lkpubcogbiol_files/c-7.pdf.PagereferencesaretotheBratislavaBiocenteredition.

.2007.InformationandKnowledgeinBiology:TimeforReappraisal.Plant Signaling & Behavior2(2):6573.

Kramer,Lawrence.2011.Interpreting Music.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Kubler,George.(1962)2008.The Shape of Time: Remarks on the History of Things.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

Kuhn,Hans.1972.SelbstorganisationmolekularerSystemeunddieEvolutiondesgenetischenApparats.Angewandte Chemie84(18):83862.

Kuhn,Hans.1988.OriginofLifeandPhysics:DiversifiedMicrostructureInducementtoFormInformation-CarryingandKnowledge-AccumulatingSystems.Journal of Research and Development32(1):3746.

OFarrell,Clare.2007.KeyConcepts.Michel-Foucault.com.Accessed22April2013.http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/.

Rheinberger,Hans-Jrg.1992.Experiment, Differenz, Schrift: Zur Geschichte epistemicher Dinge.MarburganderLahn:Basilisken-Presse.

.1997a.ExperimentalComplexityinBiology:SomeEpistemologicalandHistoricalRemarks.InProceedingsofthe1996BiennialMeetingsofthe



165

PhilosophyofScienceAssociation;Part2:SymposiaPapers,supplement,Philosophy of Science64:S245S254.

.1997b.Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

.2004.ExperimentalSystems:EntryEncyclopediafortheHistoryoftheLifeSciences.The Virtual Laboratory: Essays and Resources on the Experimentalization of Life,MaxPlanckInstitutefortheHistoryofScience,Berlin.Accessed09May2013.http://vlp.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/essays/data/enc19?p=1.

.2007.Manweissnichtgenau,wasmannichtweiss:berdieKunst,dasUnbekanntezuerforschen.Neue Zrcher Zeitung,5May.Accessed5December2012.http://www.nzz.ch/aktuell/startseite/articleELG88-1.354487.

Rheinberger,Hans-Jrg,andMichaelHagner.1993.Experimentalsysteme.InDie Experimentalisierung des Lebens: Experimentalsysteme in den biologischen Wissenschaften, 1850 / 1950,editedby

Hans-JrgRheinbergerandMichaelHagner,727.Berlin:Akademie.

Schwarte,Ludger.2012.Experimentellesthetik:ArbeitandenGrenzendesSinns.Zeitschrift fur sthetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft57(2):18595.

Simon,HerbertA.1962.TheArchitectureofComplexity.Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society106(6):46782.Reprinted1996inHerbertA.Simon,The Sciences of the Artificial,3rded.,183216(Cambridge,MA:MITPress).

Star,SusanLeigh,andJamesGriesemer.1989.InstitutionalEcology,TranslationsandBoundaryObjects:AmateursandProfessionalsinBerkeleysMuseumofVertebrateZoology,190739.Social Studies of Science19(3):387420.

Uexkll,Jakobvon.1982.TheTheoryofMeaning.Inanuntitledspecialissue,editedbyThurevonUexkll,translatedbyBarryStoneandHerbertWeiner,Semiotica42(1):2582.SpecialissuedevotedtoJ.vonUexkllsBedeutungslehre(Leipzig:Barth,1940).


voorwerkvoorplatvoorwerkcolofon

Experimental Systems - de Assis

experimental systems

Documents

experimental systems

michael schwabreprint

introductionmichael

assisorpheus institute

orpheus institute series

framework programme

epistemiceventsneal

personalia225 indexreprint