Mnemic Causation
I am currently quite absorbed by varying things at present. It’s the great thing about having less work on at present, you can devote more time to reading and research – albeit financially less endowed. I am developing some new work after discussions with Hannah Fray and Keiron Finnetty. We are planning to exhibit together shortly and working on Keiron’s idea of Trace. I personally am quite engaged with this…looking up on Google for ‘Trace’ takes you to this website, including most wanted art thefts: http://www.trace.com/MostWanted.aspx.
I am interested at exploring the term ‘engram’ - A physical alteration thought to occur in living neural tissue in response to stimuli, posited as an explanation for memory.
Internet searches.
They have become a huge part of how I gather information and work on a project. The ease and access of information, which, crucially, doesn’t immediately guarantee accuracy is massively impacting on the way we consume artwork in my opinion. The first page of a Google search practically dictates what we find and see when we search for something. It presents to us a hierarchy based on rankings and other code, but is this system flawed? Of course it is. That is why I love it. Google images are even better. A great way to start off work sometimes is to work with page one of a search. How many images are illegally copied each day? I should stop asking rhetorical internet based questions really.
Mnemic Causation.
The causal relation existing between an earlier event and a subsequent episode of remembering it. The term was used by Russell but is not current, because there may be such a relation without the causation being of a special type, for instance if we suppose the memory to be carried by traces in the brain. The relation between the content of the memory and the early event is what is so special.
Not current. But I am working with it and the idea of the object and it’s relationship with memory. Update soon.
Jack
