This talk has been *rescheduled* -- it's now happening on April 25 at 5pm Pacific (8pm Eastern). I'll be focusing specifically on building/rebuilding things (based on material from Uncomputable).

Please join the Critical Making Collaborative at Stanford for a presentation titled "Crystals, Genes, and Wool: Three Case Studies in Algorithmic Re-enactment" by Alexander R. Galloway, Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University. This free event will take place on Zoom on Tuesday, April 25th, from 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm PDT.

An algebraic textile pattern from 1947, a cellular automata simulation from 1953, a tabletop game from 1977 – in this online workshop, we will explore three lost or otherwise overlooked pieces of code from the deep history of computational culture. Using an experimental method dubbed "algorithmic re-enactment," we will study these artifacts in their own historical context, while also bringing them to life again using current tools.

This event is co-sponsored by the Department of Art and Art History at Stanford. Please see the flyer and brief bio below for more information, and RSVP here to receive a Zoom link by email.

Launch Event -- Zoom Registration

Please join us on April 10 to launch the Being & Event Podcast. Over nine episodes, Andrew Culp & Alexander R. Galloway offer a close reading of philosopher Alain Badiou's major treatise Being and Event (1988) followed by special guest interviews.

Listen to the first two episodes via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and other platforms.

New episodes will be released weekly during Spring 2023.

What does it mean to think and act “on the bias”? Inherently formal and spatial, if not also graphical, the diagonal line has played any number of important roles: from the diagonal of the unit square (which nearly destroyed Pythagoreanism and, later, played an important role in Plato’s Meno), to the modern intervention of Georg Cantor’s diagonal argument (where in 1891 he demonstrated that the real numbers are uncountable), to the structuralism of A.J. Greimas and Jacques Lacan, to Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s postmodern machine, defined as a diagonal that cuts through an assemblage. More recently Sara Ahmed has used what she called “oblique or diagonal lines” to characterize queerness, and indeed the diagonal—whether alone or via synonyms like the oblique, the slanted or askew, the non-orthogonal—has come to indicate differences and deviations of all kinds. (Continue reading at ASAP/Journal)

Read a recent dialogue I had with artist Andrew Woolbright, just published in the March edition of The Brooklyn Rail.

On Andrew's prompting, I made a new Barricelli image of cellular automata to illustrate the piece. Andrew gave me a custom color palette to use, and I tweaked the parameters to better sync with the conversation (particularly the bit about smooth vs. striated).

This was recorded in person straight to tape, so please excuse all my disorganized grammar!

Announcing my Spring graduate seminar on The Digital and the Analog. The course is open to all graduate students at NYU, plus consortium students in the NYC area. Contact me if you have questions.

I gave a two-person talk with Nan Z. Da last fall at U. Michigan on the theme of "Digitality and Intent." Here is my text for the talk, slightly revised and expanded.

In prepping for this event, Nan and I decided on the theme of "Digitality and Intent" as a way to address one of the hard problems in computational approaches to literary study, namely the relationship between measured textual features and human intentionality. So let me begin by adopting the naive posture: what does "intent" mean? I propose to think about intent along three different lines.

In the context of digital inscription, intent might first appear as measurable qualities of users. One might pose the question "what is a user's intent?" And the answer typically revolves around the notion of features. A feature is simply some differential that is measurable. And the assumption among engineers is that these features inscribe user intent; the features are authorship in some basic sense. I stress that features really are any kind of differential whatsoever -- provided the differential can be positively measured. In mathematical terms, intent might be inscribed as a vector (or set of vectors), given that vectors are a simple way to register a differential. (Vectors are taught in school as having "a direction and a magnitude," although most computer languages store vectors simply as a pair of two points, starting point and ending point, which accomplishes the same thing.) And I still think McKenzie Wark wrote the definitive theoretical book on this, with her A Hacker Manifesto (2004), which elaborates the concepts of vector and vectoralist.

Given these features captured as measurement vectors, data science is often described as a "multidimensional" science. After all, a dimension is just an axis on which to measure. So if you have 17 measurement axes, you have 17 vectors, and you have a 17-dimensional space. This might not make much intuitive sense to everyday human experience, but a 17-dimensional space is completely normal in data science, just as an 88-dimensional space is normal in piano sheet music. The recent success of AI has a lot to do with these kinds of high-dimensional spaces (and the Linear Algebra necessary to calculate and transform them). Of course there are many problems with this approach, which I will merely hint at without attempting to resolve: Are you measuring accurately? Is your measurement model distorted by unwanted biases? Do measurements (no matter how complex and nuanced) effectively capture users' intent? Continue reading →

It's a great book, worthy of all the attention it's getting. I don't have a coherent assessment or review, but here are some disorganized thoughts about the book, in no particular order...

Despite never discussing Heidegger, this is essentially a Heidegger book. The themes are all there: finitude; an ethics of care; the human being as the one who questions after its own being; our relation to death; an orientation toward time ("the secular"). Surprisingly there are only two or three references to Heidegger, all in footnotes, one note divulging that Hägglund's next book will explicitly address Heidegger's Being and Time. Continue reading →

A prediction... we're entering a new phase of normal science. I expect this to last a decade or more.

To understand "normal science" we return to Thomas Kuhn's influential 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In that text--devoted to the history of science although we might extrapolate outward to other domains as well--Kuhn differentiated between historical periods of relative equilibrium, punctuated periodically by "paradigm shifts," during which entire schools and traditions are overturned and reinvented. During the periods of "normal" equilibrium, scientists are mostly intent on probing the local, internal inconsistencies in their theories, toward the ultimate goal of grounding their work in a series of more consistent claims. Yet, at certain points, there emerge observations (or theories) that can't be subsumed within the existing paradigm of knowledge. These new claims are first judged to be inexplicable, perhaps even impossible, yet slowly gain adherents resulting in the realization of a "scientific revolution" within knowledge. It might grow gradually, then seem to break all of a sudden. Other thinkers have proffered similar lenses through which to view intellectual history and the mechanics of how history changes. The French scene around Gaston Bachelard and Louis Althusser was keen to talk about "epistemological breaks." More recently Alain Badiou has theorized conditions of consistency or stasis, which he terms "natural" or "normal," periodically punctuated by transformative "events." Continue reading →

UPDATE: UAW Local 7902 has reached a tentative agreement with New School management. Ed workers in California have also voted and ratified a new contract. 

Strikes are ongoing at the New School in New York, as well as a massive strike in the University of California system. I stand with the striking workers, and will be respecting these picket lines both physically and virtually.

Please consider signing a pledge not to cross the picket line at the New School, including not appearing or participating in events (virtual or in-person).

For contingent faculty in the NYC area, please also consider signing the pledge not to scab for the New School.

You can contribute to the UC strike fund here.

If you are a UC faculty member, please consider signing the pledge of solidarity indicating that you will both honor the picket line in full and not replace struck labor.

When Shoshana Zuboff published The Age of Surveillance Capitalism four years ago, I remember feeling skeptical and slightly guarded. You're telling me the Harvard Business School hates Facebook now too? Okay, sure, welcome comrade...better late than never. Zuboff's book is big and bold. It makes a clear argument, and, most importantly, it makes that argument in a broad public arena that very few media scholars (like me) have access to. If Zuboff's in the New York Times, good on her.

At least that's what I used to think. Having recently read Stephanie Sherman's essay "The Polyopticon: A Diagram for Urban Artificial Intelligences," I was reminded of the problems in Zuboff's project. According to Sherman, "Zuboff’s interpretation...is drastically limited by her vision of the liberal subject."

I agree; and I'll add another shortcoming: "surveillance" is entirely the wrong word and the wrong concept. The persistence of surveillance as a model for power -- including the larger system of panopticism it suggests -- is simply an incorrect description of the current conjuncture. But how exactly?

Continue reading →