Skip to main content

Phatic Objects

Image
By Semiophrenic
So I finally stumbled upon something that reinforces the alternative etymological interpretation of "phatic", specifically in the sense "to show":
During a performance in front of an audience, 3D printers often produce useless objects that serve as pretexts for operating the machines [Figure 3(c and d)]. Usually, these samples are downloaded from the Internet. Known as “crapjects”, a contraction of “crappy” and “objects”, they are printed to make up for a lack of inspiration; the idea that we can print anything petrifies people far more than it liberates them. These objects, created by default, should be referred to as phatic objects from the ancient Greek word phanein meaning “to show”. They represent a ready-made lyophilised version of the possibilities of personal production. The Russian linguist Jakobson (1963) defined the phatic function of language as language for the sake of interaction. In the technical situation imposed by 3D printing, this means maintaining active contact between the operator and the printer. Phatic objects are objects that are printed with no real purpose, a sort of cheat sheet that hides a lack of ideas (Figure 4).
From: Bosqué, Camille 2015. "What are you printing? Ambivalent emancipation by 3D printing. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21(5): 572-581.

Comments

  1. aridedFebruary 2, 2016 at 11:41 AM

    Great! It reminds me of the "printer test page" from 2D printing, or the various "polling" methods used for communication between software systems, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartbeat_(computing)

    ReplyDelete
  2. aridedFebruary 2, 2016 at 1:31 PM

    And not unrelated to my new post on "transitional objects"...

    ReplyDelete
  3. aridedFebruary 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM

    https://youtu.be/CvLQJReDhic - 15 minute video about composition in film. One of the key issues there is the "focal element." Given our etymological toolkit, it seems that things like "focus" or "harmony" within an image might give us a snapshot of phatics or a "social field" at work. Some interesting examples of the way this in that video, e.g. framing a character in the center (artificial control of the viewer's gaze) versus putting the character off to one side (primal control of the character by other forces). In this way phatic studies might be something similar to composition-in-the-wild.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Metacommunicative cues

By Semiophrenic
In the previous post on Extra channels I finished with a distinction between diachronic and synchronic metacommunication. In this post I'd like to respond to some comments by the co-author of this blog, Joe, in some of his previous posts, by invoking Jurgen Ruesch's concept of metacommunication . Gregory Bateson was interested in thinking about cybernetics, but didn't seem to feel constrained to think about it using a strictly computational or information-theoretic paradigm, while still being informed by the ideas. This gave him the freedom to talk about ideas like "context", "relationship", "learning", and "communication" without needing to define them in precise computational terms. Nevertheless, he handles the ideas fairly rigorously. (Joe, Phatic Workshop: towards a μ-calculus ) Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch, among many other notable thinkers, were part of the Palo Alto Group of researchers tasked to apply new methods (a
7 comments
Read more

Extra channels

By Semiophrenic
In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model.
3 comments
Read more