Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research; V. 1, N. 1, 2, & 3

by Roy Ascott (Ed.)
Intellect Books, Bristol, UK, 2004
232 pp. Subscription rate: £30 (ind.), £90 pounds (inst.)
ISSN: 1477 965X.

Reviewed by Jan Baetens
KU Leuven, Fac. of Arts, Blijde Inkomst 21, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium

jan.baetens@arts.kuleuven.ac.be

Edited by Roy Ascott, whose unconventional yet seminal work on cybernetics and telematic media had exerted a strong influence on the interdisciplinary research on man and machine, this new journal is a very ambitious attempt to institutionalize Ascott’s online "Planetary Collegium". Although interdisciplinarity is now being welcomed and fostered, not to say imposed, by many research organizations, not only within the humanities, but also between the humanities and the sciences, the work by Ascott and his collaborators distinguishes itself by its visionary aspect. What is gathered in these essays is not just speculative thinking (despite the subtitle of the publication) on human consciousness and technology (this is what the rather ambiguous title of the journal refers to), but what I would like to call "pure" or "free" thinking. Not in the sense of thinking unhampered by life’s contingencies——if that were the case, this journal would be nothing else than an updated form of philosophy——but in the sense of a pragmatism capable of putting aside any current state of affairs whatsoever——and this is what puts it definitely beyond philosophy. The thinking really wants to make a difference, i.e. a real change in the world.

It may be worthwhile to fully quote here the journal’s policy. First, because it summarizes so clearly what is at stake. Second, because it does so in a way——neat, simple, elegant——that is part of Technoetic Arts’s program:

"The journal aims to provide a forum for the presentation of new ideas, project and practices arising from the confluence of art, science, technology and consciousness research. It has a special interest in matters of mind and the extension of the senses through technologies of cognition and perception. It will document accounts of transdisciplinary research collaboration and innovation in the design, theory and production of new systems and structures for life in the twenty-first century, while inviting a re-evaluation of older world views, esoteric knowledge and arcane cultural practise. Artificial life, the promise of nanotechnology, the ecology of mixed reality environments, the reach of telematic media, and the effect generally of a post-biological cultural on human values and identity, are issues central to the journal’s focus. It welcomes speculative and anticipatory approaches to research, and the unorthodox expression of ideas whenever the topic justifies such innovation. It aims to communicate to an international non-specialist readership."

The result is over-all exciting as well as (still) a bit unequal. In general, one might say (but I’ll have to come back on this "one") that the more precise and concrete the articles are, the more rewarding they are also for the general reader. The journal proposes a good mix of strictly object- and corpus-oriented contributions on the one hand and more abstract, almost philosophical, articles on the other hand, and the former are undoubtedly more stimulating than the latter, some of which might have appeared in other journals.

One of the most surprising (and enjoying) aspects of Technoetic Arts is to reveal the incredible diversity of the research that can be labelled——retroactively of course- as "technoetic". The range of subjects covered by the journal is breathtaking, yet at the same time a strong unity and coherence emerges form the bewildering juxtaposition of elements. For the reader, this diversity may be the cause of some real panic, since no "one", I assume, is capable of grasping what is really going on in all these fields. But panic’s adrenaline may become here a positive feeling; it has not to be confused with mere fear. The very fact that "one" feels that he or she is not "many" enough to grasp the full comprehension of all the texts, does not discourage the reader from feeling curious of what Technoetic Arts would have to say on the field of subfield(s) one is more familiar with.

Another wonderful achievement of the three first issues of the journal is indeed to convince its readership that the specific type of interdisciplinary speculation defended by Technoetic Arts really matters for all of us and that no one can feel "safe" from the shockwaves produced by this type of thinking.

Finally, I would like to stress also the great efforts made by the editorial staff to establish and maintain high standards of readability. It would of course be unreasonable to pursue absolute transparency——and quite unfair also, since in most sciences readability for non-specialists is considered a weakness, not a strength-, but in this case a workable marriage is occurring between advanced technical precision and the opening towards the general discussion of broad topics.