The Art, the Man and the Habitat[1] How to One Construct the World
“The Man lives in
the poet”
(Hölderlin)
Department of Comunicação e Semiótica, Pontifícia Universidade Católica
(PUC/SP)
e-mail: heloisaleao@globo.com
Abstract
This paper aims to illustrate
how men and art are constructing the world. The men and the different artistic
manifestation represent the vision of the contemporary world they see, the men
and their relations as a web of interactions where changes never occur
isolated. This situation has the purpose to construct a world to habitat, in
which the interaction will generate a web that has no beginning or end. This is
an understanding of the world in which sub-systems change the information
between themselves, contributing to increase the diversity and complexity. The
theoretical fundament of the work is linked to Charles Sanders Peirce, Ilya
Prigogine, in the habitat notion by Martin Heidegger and some other artists.
Heidegger’s vision is related to the work because it’s reinforcing the human
understanding of the world as habitants of one sole location. In this same
thinking process, Ilya Prigogine says that creativity is what constructs the
future once you cannot define the future through the past. Charles Sanders
Peirce defends the notion of semeiosis where the function of the signs directs
to an evolution in search of the latest ideal driven by esthetics. Besides
these thinkers, some artists are worried with the construction of the world.
Among these artists, Lygia Clark proposes that men should search again for the
senses that have been lost during the evolutive process and on the other hand,
Gilbertto Prado is utilizing the network to provoke the need to be in the
world.
Key-words: Semeiosis,
habitat, construct, network
1. Introduction
This essay intends to
demonstrate that artistic or scientific creativity is one of the main factors
to the options in the evolutionary processes of man. Under this intuition,
theoretic basis has as focus on research over sysstems away from balance of
Ilya Prigogine, the esthetyc and semiosys of Charles Sanders Peirce, a notion
of habitar from Martin Heidegger and some artists worried in building the
world. The vision of Heidegger of
constructing is pertinent to the work because it reinforces the understanding
of man and the world as co-habitants in one sole space. In this same direction
Prigogine argues that it is creativity that builds the future, once we cannot
define the future through it’s past as wished by the traditional science. Charles Sanders
Peirce defends the notion of semiosys
as an action of the sign which points to the evolution of the sign in
search of a final ideal which is directed by esthetic. Besides these thinkers some artists are worried with
the construction of the world by means of their work. Among them, Lygia Clark
proposes that man reincounters it’s senses that were lost along the evolutive
path and Gilbertto Prado that utilizes the web to provoke the encounter of man
with the world.
2.Charles Sanders Peirce, Martin Heidegger and Ilya Prigogine
2.1
Charles Sanders Peirce
The presence of Peirce is
important to this work due to its esthetic and of his systematic vision of the
world. The esthetyc of Peirce is not a
philosophy of the beauty but a form of directing a life to reach the admirable[2],
being this admirable the end of the action directing to where human strenght
should be directed to in order to increase creative reasoning of the world. As
a result, art arises as a force to solve the problems of being in the world.
Lucia Santaella explains that:
The art is called to answer
the calling of the admirable, it is called to increase the reasoning in the
breast of life. (...) When the artist intervenes in
the bioscience arena, not the art work to be exposed to the contemplative looks
that we should expect from him but a inoculation of the admirable and of
creative reasoning in the spirit of science since it is a militance of the
admirable that the work of the artist engages
itself. (Santaella.2004:113)
Peirce also explains that the
universe is composed of two actions: “the diatic action, which is mechanical or
dynamic, and the triádica action, which is intelligent or sígnica”.
(Santaella.2000:229) The first action is an efficient cause and can also be
defined as brutal, while the second action is the final cause, that directs
towards an ultimate ideal. Lucia
Santaella argues about the actions of the universe: “These two unseparable ways
of action are those that characterizes the semiosys. (...) They work as physical means, as vehicles where information
travels”. (Santaella.2000:230)
Peirce proposes, under his
evolutionary vision, the existence of semiosys[3] as an action the
sign, as the tendency is do signo to grow. As a result, Santaella clarifies:
No science, no knowledge
area or knowledge can never be complete or self suficient. But it is only in the confrontation that partiality of each field is
capable of revealing itself. (...) The self conscious hunt criticism and
self-alert of truth is what Peirce calls science. (...) Every autogenerative process is a semiosys process. (Santaella.1992:113)
In order to understand the concept of semiosys it is fundamental to
understand semiosys as being the action of sign being interpreted in another
sign. The action of interpreting is translate a sign in to another one,
being as a result the meaning of a sign, of another sign. It can be understood
that the semiosys is responsible for the development of a sign chain once
Peirce shows that there are no thoughts without sign. It is exactly like this
that the signs have the function to multiply itself. Maria de Lourdes Bacha
utilizes these words from Peirce to explain the growth of sign: “The typical way of action of the sign is the
auto growth through the self generation. The sign, by its’ own constitution is
meant to germinate, grow.” (CP 2.230 apud Bacha 2003)
It’s important to explain
that the process of semiosys is responsible for the growth of the sign and the
action the do sign is composed at the same time by:
The theological process can fail for being theological, the sign
projects itself in a continuous prospection to the future represented by his
interpreter; it can fail due to the relation existing of incompleteness in the
impossibility of total apprehension of dynamic object by immediate object.
Besides that, it can also fail because as occurrances of fate, always
potentially present, can revert the continuous altering, therefore, the
informative content driven to semiosys. (Souza.1996:258)
On
semiosys in Peirce, Lauro da Silveira explains: “We are taken to check the
meaning to the phenomenon and when we take a path where we can interact in the
future with it. (...) Under this interpretation at this time that
best explains what Peirce denominated semiosys” (Silveira 2003:5)
Man as being sign it is
mutant and shares it’s existance among the moments of belief, the cause of an
acquired habit with those of doubts that are the moments of intranquilities and
that tend by this unsatisfaction to a change of habits. On the moment that a doubt arises in a mind there is
a rupture in credibility of a determined belief and the habit that was
consolidated goes into crisis needing as a result to be changed. The search for a
new habit is a result of necessity to enjoy again of tranquility provoqued by a
new belief. The search for new habits is the finality of sign, once, as being
dynamic, tends to a change of habit to reach as a result its’ growth, its’
evolution. Santaella explains:
(...) There is a tendency of all living things
and even non living to acquire habits is not only a law, but a law ruling all
laws. The overall laws that turn the regular and intelligent phenomena the most
real phenomena in the universe. (...) The Summum bonum of human species. As
evolution advances, the human intelligence will fulfill a role everytime bigger
in the growth of reality by means of its’ most peculiar characteristic and inalienable, the self-control. (Santaella
apud Bacha 2003).
Semiosys as
responsible for the human evolution is important cause it shows the necessity
of the acquisition of habits to push the evolutionary process. In the peirceana
theory the phenomena acts on us, interfeering in our habits and changing them.
As habits passes by our lives we are forced to make decisions and these
decisions are responsible for the maintenance of certain acquired habits and
also for the refusal of them when put in doubt. This
way, the sign chain works: first for the necessity of acquisition of habits and
afterwards for the contingency to
change them.
As a result, the being in the world, the construction depends on the relation in between man, machines and the
environment. A semiosys that occurred in between them is fundamental to the
understanding of the work, since it points to the environment as a
construction. Besides that, the esthetyc
as responsible for the growth of creative reason in the world has an important
function on the construction of the world.
2.2
Martin Heidegger
On
the other hand, Martin Heidegger understands that it is not possible to reach
towards environment if it doesn’t go through construction. The philosopher
argues that there could have a construction that does not have the
characteristic of an environment. On the moment that a construction does not
take in consideration the creation, the new her is a simple construction and
functions as a mechanical form. Heidegger does not consider na environment as
constructions that does not have an identity. Heidegger argues that:
Habitar will be then, in this case, the objective that
presides over all construction. Environment and construction are one another
related to the end and the middle.(...) To be a man is: being on earth as
mortals and that means: environment. (...) the construction while production
(hervorbringen). (...) In being and in it’s things, thought while place,
resides a relation of place and space, resides also a relation of place with
man. Produce is construct. That’s why true constructions leave their mark over
an environment”. (Heidegger.1958:184,190)
Heidegger
utilizes of a poem from Hölderlin: “...Man habita in the poet...” to explain
his idea of environment. The environment does not refer to the simple living
and the poetry should not appear only as a decoration of space. The important
to the philosopher is the construction as to cultivate a creation, to reach the
environment. Heidegger wishes that poetry makes of an environment a real
environment and to reach its’ finality, a poetry needs to be a construction.
Heidegger (1958:225) argues: “If we go towards the essence of poetry, we will
reach the essence of the environment”.
Like Heidegger, Vinicius de Moraes argues that the
environment the world is linked to poetry and to love and these are the
elements that construct the world is linked to poetry and to love and. Vinicius
explains poetry as a comparison to a real construction. If the worker, the
constructor, the arquictect and the engineer are doing the job in a
disconnected manner, only a stack of bricks won’t bring beauty to the
construction. But if on the other hand, houver entre eles uma cumplicidade and
a structure, the construction will be beautiful. Vinicius uses a metaphor of
construction with the objective to explain poetry and advices to substitute the
bricks by words. And, to obtain a good poetry, the poet should assume, at the
same time, the position of a worker, constructor, arquitect and of the engineer
to build the poem. Since the poet has the function to create, he ends up being
the responsible for the structuring of language and of civilizations. Vinicius
is firm on the position of the poet in society, saying that: “The material of a
poet is life, solely life, with all that she has as sordid and sublime”.
(Moraes,1991:102)
Vinicius shows in the metaphor of the construction that the
vision as a whole is that determines the construction. As a result, it is
impossible that a habitar is built on fragments. It is necessary, as a result,
to visualize the world and man with inseparable parts of a sole system. In this
paragraph is included a systemic notion and a preocupation of building a
future along the evolutive path.
2.3
Ilya Prigogine
“Reality is
only one of the
realizations of the possible.
Future is included there.
Future is one of the
possible futures.”
(Ilya
Prigogine)
On the same direction of a
construction, of an environment the world find themselves Ilya
Prigogine. The researches of Prigogine
points to a new vision of the world that goes against traditional visions that
understood the world in a reversible constant and determined matter. To
Prigogine the world is not given and yes under constant construction which does
not allow to project the future through the past. It is necessary, as a result,
to look the world through the unstable, chaotyc and irreversible side. This
way, creativity that is in nature is amplified in humans where art has a
relevant function in the construction of the future.
In addition, Prigogine cites Paul Valéry, when he says that: “(...) the unexpected is my essence, the anguish my true occupation, nobody expresses pain could express the strangeness of existance. Why is that so and not as another way?”. The intention of Prigogine is to call attention to the happening, to something that seem to be unexpected, the contingency, the unpredictable. The chemyst shows the impossibility to include creativity in a world already determined and affirms that shares the vision of Valéry, “that associates creativity to everything that resists to thoughts.” (Valéry apud Prigogine. 2004:21-22) Prigogine argues that like art and science are ruled by creativity.
Prigogine goes beyond and emphatizes that creativity is
present in all human activities being part of all happenings:
(...) the idea that a happenning and creativity would be human feats, seem to
to me as argueable. Man is not the father of time nor evolution. He is its’
product. (...) We know today that creativity is
linked to irreversible, break of temporary symmetry, through which o future and
past fulfill different roles. Chemical or nuclear reactions are irreversible.
Dissipate energy. (Prigogine.2004:23-24)
Due to creativity
and of occurrance that fulfill an important function in today’s world is that
you can affirm that the future is under constant construction. We don’t live
anymore in a period of equilibrium as intended in classic physics. We currently live in a system that finds itself far
from equilibrium and as a result subject to disturbances. It is known today
that we live in a complex world and that this complexity means multiplicity and
conducts life to another form of rationality that is different from that
inherited from Illuminism.
Prigogine’s researches
explain that this new rationality is a result from a notion of open systems and
of the non equilibrium physics. In order
to explain this change, it is necessary to understand that a system when is
near equilibrium although it suffers fluctuations and its’ equilibrium stay
momentarily shaken, he gets to go back to its’ stable position. A stable system
is similar to a pendulum that always returns to its’ position after it suffers
a shake.
For
Prigogine, in a system far from equilibrium, unlike of what happens to a linear
system, the system does not return to its’ normal position. In the system far
from equilibrium, instabilities and fluctuations are responsible for its’
growth. In this system, the process to return to equilibrium requires an
adaptation, a restructuring or a mutation in relation to factors that provoqued
its’ instability.
In order to understand how the systems act, it is important to know that they are connected internally and externally. The entire systemic is the responsible of the restructuring of the system for having certain elements and rules.
To
occur a new organization in the system, after a disturbance, there is a need
for auto-organization. The process of reorganization of the system is
responsible for the arising of something new or if auto-organization does not
occur its’ death. Can be concluded that the active element in the systemic
organization can be said as to stay. As
defined by Vieira: “All things tend to stay”. (Vieira.2000:5)
It
is important to remember that classic thermodynamic is responsible for the
explanations of structures in equilibrium that operate under isolated systems
and in a relative specific long space of time. The structures of equilibrium
characterizes the closed systems. However, the moment that the system is not
isolated and becomes open, it changes matter and energy with the environment
and starts to be understood by its’ dissipative structures. The dissipative
structures does not have an order
defended by Ludwig Boltzmann[4] in the classic
thermodynamic, on the contrary, are linked to an organization by means of fluctuation.
The dissipative structure is
the result of the amplified fluctuation that connects a function and a
structure. In comparison to an arrangement of Boltzmann, where fluctuations
have the function reduced to a simple link, the fluctuations in the dissipative
structures are essential, because it allows the arising of a new organization
and of the new. As a result, Prigogine
affirms:
The most important point is that away from equilibrium, there is no guarantee that the system would
go back to its’ initial state after being disturbed. On the contrary, the
system begins to explore new structures, new types of organizations space-time,
that I denominate dissipative structures. (...) Several times I described this behavior saying
that the material near equilibrium is blind; each molecule can only see their
neighbors. Far from equilibrium, although we have long reach correlations that
are essential to the construction of new structures. Life would be impossible
without these processes in non-equilibrium state. (Prigogine 2001:70)
This way, instabilities, from
the aspect of a system that finds itself far from equilibrium allows the
discovery of something new. The search for the new is an eternal environment,
an eternal construction. On the other hand, linear system can be seen as a
construction that is not an environment, once you dispose the possibility of
creativity. In the first system dialogue happens in between all their elements
and in the second happens a pathe previously determined.
3. Artists concerned in changing the
world into a habitat
Several contemporary artists reflect in their work worries with the
human being. In this work enphasys falls over Lygia Clark and Gilbertto Prado.
Lygia represents art of “real” space, while Prado works with digital space.
It is important to recall that in the artistic process
it is possible to notice a great change in doing and receiving the work of art.
In the moment that the artistic object does not portarit nature the focus
becomes fixed on the language of art and the artistic procedure aquired a value
preponderant. From this moment onwards it is the process that is important and
the a ephemeral of work becomes constant. The artist utilizes space around and his body as elements of
creation and support.
As a result, surfaces a body art and the happening
that has as an objective unfetishism human body in order to break the idea of
beauty originated from classic art. The intention is to bring the body to its’ real function of
“instrument of man where man is dependent. (...) The usage of the body as a way
of artistic tends today to relocate the research of arts in the way of basic
human necessities going back to practices prior to history of art,
belonging to our own origin of art”. (Glusberg.1987:43,51)
One example in brazilian art is the work of Lygia
Clark that uses the body to provoque sensations. In this sense, Lygia in the
last stage of her artistic path proposes a therapy by means of humans senses.
3.1. Lygia
Clark[5]
Brazil was the pionner to
utilize the body as an object of art under Lygia Clark and of Helio Oiticica.
Since 1976 Lygia proposes that the human beings free their sensibilities and
that live the present: “The living of the present, the art without
art.”(Milliet,1992:100) Lygia was moved by the idea to free the individual from
its’ ropes and advices: “modern man should disregard this excess of rationalism
that is in the heart of our thoughts.”(Milliet,1992:102)
The vanguard work of Lygia is
recognized internationally and represents the looks of individual towards
himself, provoquing its’ rebirth through the rediscovery of lost sensations. This search for new meanings of myself is a path to a
body poetry. Lygia’s vision shows the actual preocupation in looking the body
not as something internal and closed but as a dialogue with the world where a
defined inside and outside does not exist. “In the sensorial phase of my work,
I denominated ‘Nostalgia do Corpo’,
the object was still an indispensable way in between sensation and
participant. Man find its’ own body through the touch sensations done in
objects outside themselves”(Milliet,1992:119)
The “Relational Objects” of Lygia, cannot be admired as exposed
objects in museums, because outside the most important function that was to
promote an encounter of the individual with himself, lost its’ reason. Lygia notice that art is not tied or minimized itself
to to an object of art, on the contrary, has the power to act as an experience
and participate to modify the world. The contemporary esthetyc practice
understands life as a creative potential, where an artistic production only
represents one of the dimensions of the work. The first intention of current
art is the creation and the multiplication of signos, to promote the encounter
of the individual with reality. Being like that, contemporary art work
provoques an exchange and a game in beween what is visible and what is not
visible.
Lygia, by inserting
creativity on the breast of science (psychology), antecipates the
interdisciplinary vision and goes to encounter of the theorysts cited in this
work.
3.2.
Tecnology Art
The path of change in the space of art, knows a speed
with no limits in history on the twentieth century. Today space in art does not
exists “it is a space with no space, a nomad space, a space clear of webs, a
dispersão in waves of the tradicional picture in the electronic flow. (...) The
representation is never an innocent copy of reality, but a choice of a
reconstructed space”. (Bardonnèche.1997:195,196)
Some artists are observing the body in its’ totality and utilizes the interfaces with the objective of “connections in ciberspace as extensions of conscience”. (Venturelli,2001:53) Gilbertto Prado is among the brazilian artists that explore the body in its’ relation with machines and the tele presence possibilities.
3.3.
Gilberto Prado
Gilberto Prado afirms that the universe is connected
in webas a result of Ciberespace and
that this space above all a space of perception and of information.
Prado
worries with the possibility of interactivity offered by electronic means,
arguing that contemporary work have the characteristics that were not present
in the traditional work. Prado is worried with the possibility of getting some feed-back from machines, objects or
current instruments. Machines respond from its’ own actions, showing that
interactivity have peculiar characteristics that did not exist in the past.
In
electronic art, the artist creates, also needs to create some interfaces to
provoque the spectator to intervene and enrichens the artistic work. The
relation of an artistic work with the receptor is different in the electronic
universe because when an environment or space is created, where people meet,
the answer depends only on the group and each group is unique. In this case
preliminary possible data does not exist to the artist because random factors
are too big, which makes the basis of work be open and umpredictable.
Prado
in “Desertesejo”[6] creates a virtual interactive multiuser environment to
internet. In this work the artist gives options to the participants in order to
choose how to get into the web space. There are three possibilities of
navegating: the first one as a serpent - visualizing the world from the dirt
and crawling way. The second one, as a panther by having a vision of the world
from an intermediate position and the third option as an eagle – visualizing
the world from space. The participant can travesty of the figure that wishes
the most, taking advantage of the potential of electronic means that allows
simulations and dissimulations.
On space in electronic art, Prado cites Roy Ascott:
“Art in this space of data, under continuous flow from electronic
telecomunication is always incomplete, undetermined, a current flow. In the
telematic art does not exist creation without participation and does not exist
participation without distribution, interactivity in art as art: culture as
connection”. (Ascott apud Prado.1997:300)
Lygia and Prado provoque sensations and utilizes several artistic forms to establish esthetyc propositions in the encounter of man with the world. The intention of these artists is to emphatize the changes that happens, the relation of the individual with the group, the passage of biological body to robot and on the other hand from robot to biological. For Lygia the relation of the artist with the receptor is direct because it doesn’t need a machine although Lygia utilizes the “Relational Objects”. Prado focuses on the effects and the possibilities that technology can provoque sensations.
4.
Conclusion
The
artists shown in this essay are compelled in transforming a simple living of
man in a environment by construction. All the considerations taken here have
the objective of understanding world as a system of conections where a dialogue
in between man and the world happens. Art arises as a power to meet one of the
possible paths and goes into the encounter of Peirce making grow the creative
reasoning of the universe.
If we understand man as an
unquiet and mutant being, we need to insert him in a world that follows him. More than that, it is needed to aggregate them,
because it is impossible to visualize man and the world as two independent
pieces of a same game. On the contrary, we should imagine them as one unit,
siamese brothers with a job of constructing themselves. Therefore, it is not
man that builds the world nor the world that builds man, they build themselves
simultaneously. It is an eternal build up, an eternal environment.
Some
contemporaneous artists have in mind that through the body it is possible to
instinct what is happening in the world and how this world is being received by
the body. In addition, it is possible to create other worlds, let flow
imaginations and dreams that were limited to the most intimate wishes. Today it
is possible to experience sensations without leaving a spot.
From what was exposed in this
work the notions of construction, environment, esthetic and semiosys points to
the need to visualize the world as a dialogue system and bring to discussion
creativity as the building of a possible future. As a result, man, as said by Villaça is: “an undone
being, incomplete. This is the advantage of man and it’s objectives that is to
reach perfection. From body building to body modification, from fashion to
urban tribe creations, the human being builds it’s identity after interventions
with themselves and in nature”. (Villaça.1998:capa) To end the words of Lucia
Santaella and of Edmond Couchot. Santaella explains the function of art in the
construction of life. Couchot argues about interactivity on artistic work that
utilizes new technology:
When the own design of life is
in game and put on hands of humans, the high sensibility of the artist cannot
interfeer this design. That is why,
com o faro sensível de que dispõe, the artist today has a vital role to fulfill
issues of life. The peircean esthetic help us to think about this role. (Santaella.2004:112)
Find themselves,
artificial intelligence and life. On the basis of neural webs and of genetic
algorithms prevail the same principle: that of a a high level of interactivity
of complexity in between constitutive elements of life or of artificial
intelligence (genes and neurons) that thanks to its’ configuration interact to
produce emerging phenomena. Interactivity reach a superior stage in complexity
and autonomy. In this sense, she follows a cibernetyc evolution. While the “first cibernetyc” was asked more over
notions of control and communication (in animals and in machines) and of
information, the “second cibernetyc” preferrebly questioned about self
organization notions over emerging structures, webs, adaptation and evolution
inquiries. In an analogue matter, while the first interactivity interested of
its’ interactions in between computer and man in a answer-stimulation model or
action-reaction, the second interested more for the action while guided by
perception embodied, by sensor-motor processes and by autonomy (or by
“autopoïèse”). (Couchot.2003:31-32)
5. Bibliography
Bairon, Sergio. Princípios teóricos. metodológicos da hipermídia.
Bardonnèche, Dominique de. Espécies de Espaços. In: Domingues, Diana (org.). A arte no século XXI a humanização das tecnologias. São
Paulo: UNESP, 1997
Costa, Mario. Corpo e Rede. In: Domingues, Diana (org.). A arte no século XXI a humanização das tecnologias. São
Paulo: UNESP, 1997
Costa, Rogério da. In:
Domingues, Diana (org.).
A arte no século XXI a humanização
das tecnologias. São Paulo: UNESP, 1997
COUCHOT, Edmond,
TRAMUS, Marie-Hélène, BRET, Michel. A
segunda interatividade. Em direção a novas práticas artísticas. In: DOMINGUES,
Diana. Arte e vida no século XXI – Tecnologia, ciência e criatividade. São Paulo: UNESP, 2003
Deacon, Terrence W. The symbolic species
the co-evolution of language and brain. New York e Londres: W. w. Norton &
Company
Heidegger, Martin. Essais et conférences. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1958
Houis, Jacques; Mieli, Paola; Stafford,
Mark. Being humain the tecnological
extensions of the body. New York: Agincourt/Marsilio,1999
Ibri, Ivo Assad. Kósmos noétós. São Paulo: Perspectiva,1992
_______. Pragmatismo e
técnica. Revista. HYPNOE. nº 4. pg. 149
– 155. SP: Educ, 1998.
Lebrun, jean-Pierre. When science remarkes the body in Being
Human. New York:
Agincourt/Marsilio, 1999
Machado, Arlindo. O quarto
iconoclasmo e outros ensaios hereges.
Rio de Janeiro: Marca d’Agua Editora, 2001
McLuhan,
Marshall. Os meios de comunicação como
extensões do homem. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1964
Milliet, Maria Alice. Lygia Clark: obra – trajeto. São
Paulo: EDUSP, 1992
Moraes, Vinicius. Para viver um grande amor. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 1991
___________. Antologia
poética. São Paulo:
Companhia das Letras, 1992
Marrach, Sonia Alem. A arte do encontro de Vinicius de Moraes.
São Paulo: Escuta, 2000
Peirce, Charles Sanders. Semiótica e filosofia. São
Paulo: Cultrix, 1993
Prado, Gilbertto. Dispositivos interativos: imagens em redes
telemáticas. In: Domingues,
Diana (org.). A arte no século
XXI - a humanização das tecnologias. São Paulo: UNESP, 1997
_________. Ambientes
virtuais multiusuário. In: Domingues, Diana (org.). A arte e vida no século XXI. São Paulo: UNESP, 2003
Rodin, Auguste. A arte conversas com Paul Gsell. Rio
de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1990. 1a.Edição:
Paris, 1911
Santaella, Lucia. Cultura tecnológica & corpo
biocibernético. In: Revista Margem. No. 8. Tecnologia e Cultura.
São Paulo: dez. 1998
______. O homem e as máquinas. In: Domingues, Diana (org.). A arte no século XXI a humanização das tecnologias. São
Paulo: UNESP, 1997
________.
A assinatura das coisas Peirce e a
literatura. Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1992
________.
Cultura das mídias. São Paulo:
Experimento, 2000
________. A teoria geral dos
signos. São Paulo: Ed. Pioneira, 2000.
________. Caos, acaso e lei em
Peirce. pg. 26-37 In: Caos e ordem na filosofia e nas ciências. Edição especial
no. 2 da revista Face, 1999
________. Corpo e comunicação
sintoma da cultura. São Paulo: Paulus, 2004
Silva, Tomaz Tadeu da. Antropologia do ciborgue. Belo
Horizonte: Autêntica, 2000
SILVEIRA, Lauro
Frederico Barbosa da. Observe-se o
fenômeno: forma e realidade na semiótica de Peirce. Apresentado no 1º. Encontro Internacional de Semiótica,
Araraquara, outubro de 2003.
________. Diagramas e
hábito interação entre diagrama e hábito na concepção peirceana de
conhecimento. In: GARCIA, Jose Wagner. Amazing Amazon estética evolucionária.
São Paulo: Lemos Editorial, 2002
SOUZA, Maria Luiza Feitosa.
A Cientificidade contemporânea - estruturas dissipativas: um caso – estudo
sobre a ótica peirceana. Tese de doutorado apresentada na Pontifícia
Universidade Católica de São Paulo, 1996
Wahl, François. O copo
de dados do sentido em Gilles Deleuze: uma vida filosófica: São
Paulo: Editora 34, 2000
Venturelli, Suzete. Considerações
sobre interfaces homem/máquina na realidade virtual e no ciberespaço. In:
Revista Compôs. No.11. vol. 2. Interação e sentidos no Ciberespaço e na
sociedade. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2001
VIEIRA, Jorge de Albuquerque. Semiótica, sistemas e sinais. Tese de
doutorado apresentada na Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, 1994.
____________. Ciência, arte e o
conceito de Umwelt. In: MEDEIROS, Maria Beatriz de (Org.). Arte e tecnologia na
cultura contemporânea. Brasília: Dupligráfica, 2002.
____________. Sistemas e significação. In: FELTES, Heloísa Pedroso
de Moraes (org.). Produção de sentido estudos transdisciplinares. São Paulo:
Annablume, 2003
_________. Integralidade,
organização e gramática. Pg. 153-160. In: Caos e ordem na filosofia e nas
ciências. Edição especial no. 2 da revista Face, 1999
Villaça, Nízia e Góes, Fred. Em nome do corpo. Rio
de Janeiro: Rocco, 1998
Wiener,
Nobert. Cibernética e sociedade.
São Paulo: Cultrix, 1954
[1] Environment in this essay is linked to Heideggeriana
notion, that assumes a construction of space and not only a simple living.
[2] “The
ideal of the ideals, the summum bonum,
that does not require any justification and explanation”. (Santaella. 1994:126)
[3] Semeiosis: “By ‘semiosys’ I understand an action or influence that consists of or involves a cooperation of three subjects, the sign, the object and the interpreter, tri-relative influence this one that cannot, in any way, be solved in actions in between pairs. Semeiosis, during greek or roman period, during Cícero time already, if I can I recall, meant the action of pratically any species of signs; and my definition applies to everything that behaves to the denomination of ‘sign”. (Peirce. C.P5.484 apud Santaella 2000:29)
[4] Boltzmann (1844-1906) Austrian Phycist, established
the basis of Classic Physics statistics, and related cinetic to thermodynamic theory. Theoretic Physics suffered
important changes during the 1860’s thru the 1870’s, after the establishment of
the Second Law of Thermodynamics done by Clausius e Kelvin; the cinetic theory
of gases by Clausius and Maxwell and of the eletromagnetic theory by Maxwell. (http://www.fem.unicamp.br/~em313/paginas/person/boltz.htm)
[5]
Images of Lygia Clark work can be found in the following addresses:
http://www.echonyc.com/~trans/lygia/clark3.html
http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/isast/spec.projects/osthoff/osthoff.html
http://www.mac.usp.br/projetos/seculoxx/modulo3/frente/clark/#
[6]The
work of Gilbertto Prado can be seen under the address: http://wawrwt.iar.unicamp.br/gilbertto/