beeoff.se
The jungle of time by: Mikael Scherdin
" Real time in the way of my thinking is to be concidered as “now”
and, ”now”, has a neutral and tabula rasa feeling. In my thinking
it can not be anything else than that ".
the jungle of time.
By definition the term “real-time” contains of two parts, and
at first glance should have the meaning “true time”. In daily
conversation however, the term is understood more in the sense of ”right
now”.
In dictionary the word ”real” have the meaning of ”thing,
based on facts, actual, reality”, real time system - with computer processed
in-data for more or less immediate use of out-data”.
The part ”real”, can for time being in this paper be excluded
since it is a further definition of the second word in the term real-time
- ”time”.
A necessary ethymologic research is however needed of the term ”time” - with the help from tools from philosophy in general and the tool of analysis in particular, the term ”time” can be divided into three different theoretical directions:
1. A mathematical model for time.
2. Physical time.
3. Perceived time.
Those three directions have in itself a number of subcontexts, own philosophical rooms of understanding or directions. To be able to extract what is important for me, or my choice of theoretical tool for my art works, a discussion in this jungle is needed to be able to make a clear choice of definitions.
The mathematical model for time often has a linear form or is considered as a sequence of numbers, but other forms are also possible, such as a, hyperbola and a circle.
All three models include an idea of birth and death and a continuum in-between, especially in the linear direction. In the hyperbola variation one could state that it could exist two parallel flows of time. And finally in the case of the circle, it is an infinite numbers of points of time that can re-occur or does not have any starting point nor does it have any end.
A further development of those three different types leads to the fact that time can be dividable, which in turn leads to the interesting philosophical problem of how it can be divided and what is between the fragments?
Or is the time infinitely dividable,
And if so, which density does the time have?
And further - do time have different densities over time?
Leibniz perhaps has the most interesting theory, since it fits in his general
Monad theory. He states that time consist of elements that in it have a type
of relation between many courses of events. Einstein have further developed
(?) this thinking into the idea of time as a number of events occurring simultaneously
and continuously - as a natural consequence of his general principle of relativity.
In this perspective one can abandon the Newtonian idea of time as something
absolute.
In the case of circular time, there is no direction. In the hyperbola case one could say that there is a direction but in plurals. In the case of linear time as we are most familiar with here in Europe, one could start asking oneself; if time has a direction, which is then the direction? A perfect line does not, per definition, have any direction, but it can be added. If it is added however the next problem occur - causality.
In the tradition of analytical philosophy it is often stated that time is a number of events to be considered as ”before and after”. The question of time could therefore be seen in a different light - namely as a concept tied to a persons conscious and the question of time will be reduced to - ”existing in itself”. In the ray of this direction - we will get closer to the ideas of Bergsson and his concept of time as physical-able to quantify and the possibility of perception of time.
The most interesting thing for me, being an artist, is to act within a field
of (art) context and to perceive time as such and to exclude Bergssons two
first definitions to be within other disciplines rather than the artfield.
Then to the essence - according to my mind. Being in the contemporary art field in general and to have this opinion in particular, concerning time, is my ”research area” the perceived-time-area.
The perceived time is the most interesting for me. But again there is of course sub divisions in this field as well:
1: Past
2: Now
3: Then (later on)
1 - 3 has different types of values, meanings and is constantly reshaped by our daily use of language(s). ”Past” could be refereed to as history, sentimentality, nostalgia, and is per definition coloured of different values. ”Then” is refereed to as futurism, unknown, often dystopian and vagueness. In between those two there is the most important thing for me - ”Now”.
What can be said about - now? What kind of values etc are attached to ”now”?
Now - in the way of my thinking, ”now”, has a neutral and tabula rasa feeling. In my thinking it can not be anything else than that. With this statement the concept of ”real-time” is connected to the ”values” attached to it. Or more precise - why the percepted time is considered ”now” - has to do which which values there are being attached to it. This implies that the concept of real-time, or in my precise way - ”now” - leads to the philosophical stand-point in its very extreme end;
• complete neutral
• complete zero attachments of values
• complete zero
• non- commenting
This is therefore my playground of what to have as in-put in my real-time-art-pieces.
Based on this standpoint, what the art-pieces would be perceived as - is a complete other issue. I suppose the pieces would be perceived as empty, without content, ”bad” - since it does not ”say” anything to the audience (after years and years of provocative pieces smacked in the faces of the audience), surface and boring.
What I would like the pieces to be perceived as is again a complete other issue. If my statement of ”now” is zero, neutral etc., I guess I want the audience to get bored etc and perhaps then start to ask themselves - why?
I am ONE of the artists at Beeoff and this is ONE of the views of the concept
of ”real-time” which is completely central to all what we do.
Mikael Scherdin