Reproducibility in Art and Science

Marking the beginning of a new partnership between Rhizome and the Google Cultural Institute, the Rhizome blog recently published a conversation between Dragan Espenschied, Rhizome’s preservation director, and Vint Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist. In addition to bringing together two people with among the coolest job titles ever, it got me thinking about some similarities between art and science when it comes to the issue of reproduction.

The main thrust of the conversation is about the difficulty of preserving internet art. In particular, works such as The Web Stalker were often made in a particular context, intended to be performances of a sort, and which depended on the existence of a certain technical infrastructure, including a particular operating system, a particular input device, an internet connection, and accompanying protocols. Part of the conversation relates to the fact that it’s actually very difficult to maintain or recreate every single thing that is required in order for a modern viewer to have the exact same experience as when it was first created. Nevertheless, Dragan argues, there is still value in preserving part of the experience.

The Self-Archiving machine

What lies in store for this post? As I write this, it exists in a strange space — not yet public, yet already part of an archive, of a kind. Perhaps it cannot yet even be properly called a post, (since it has not yet been posted), and yet it is there for me to read and edit, part of my collection of unpublished stubs, stored on the Medium servers along with who knows what metadata.

Elbow Room

Daniel Dennett is one of the most fascinating philosophers currently living. Although he pursued a traditional (but nonetheless exceptional) course of education, over time he seems to have moved farther and farther away from traditional philosophical methods and styles, and more toward a form of engagement that is simultaneously rigorous, original, and accessible. Not only is he prolific, he is far better informed on scientific topics than any other philosopher I can think of, and seems to have quite intentionally pursued a course through the relevant fields of inquiry in order to develop a sophisticated understanding of what we are as human beings.