Bioinformatic Alignments


Jordan Crandall

"How can I tell what I think until I see what I say?"


"With this system you don't need to know a thing in advance about where you're going." So states Dr. Roberta Klatzky, a psychologist at Carnegie-Mellon University who is developing a "navigation system for the blind" along with Dr. Reginald College, a geographer, and Dr. Jack Loomis, a perceptual psychologist, both at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Wearing a set of stereo earphones linked to a computer in a backpack, which links to the military's network of global positioning satellites, blind persons are able to embark on a stroll, however aimless, as places and impediments in their paths call out their names "library here, library here," "bench here, bench here"" guiding them "through a Disney-esque landscape of talking objects."[1] The system operates through the computer's interpretation of a triangulation of signals from the Global Positioning System satellites, integrated with the computer's stored maps of immediate surroundings and calibrated to an electronic compass on the blind person's head, telling the computer the exact position of the ears. The information is then transmitted via sound to the ears with a precise timing and volume to mimic the exact distance and position of the objects, as if the objects themselves were suddenly able to speak their names. The blind person then interprets this information and acts accordingly, his or her world suddenly animated through strategic, surgically- precise intervention of sound pitch and timing.

Difficulties are many, of course, such as the precise phraseologies of the objects (if an object suddenly has agency and speaks to you in order to identify itself, what does it say?), the points at which objects should begin to announce themselves, and the number of objects that should talk at a given time. A greater problem also presents itself, unwittingly indicated by Dr. Michael Oberdorfer, a representative of the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, which is financing the research, in his statement that a "blind person could walk down the street and know not just that he was at 80th and Broadway, but what stores are around, and that Zabar's delicatessen was up ahead"[2]-such a scenario prompts the disturbing image of ambulatory blind persons being shuttled about from store to store in a play of competing market interests (as accurate a vision of our own condition as this might be). On the other hand, as walks with this navigating device may also be previewed, rehearsed, or simulated from one's home, allowing an imaginary walk to be taken from one's armchair, an earlier walk replayed, a backyard stroll to be taken in place of an actual walk through the city, or a combination of all three, one wonders if it would be necessary to leave home at all.

Indeed the possibilities for the interweaving of these "real" and "virtual" situations become endless, especially as such systems become part of interconnected telecommunicational environments. In this regard, the navigation system for the blind provides an interesting model for our increasingly networked society: it speaks of the shape that this networking is assuming as communications technology is increasingly dismantled from its mainframe and dispersed into the space of daily life, and it prompts an exploration of how this in turn augments and effects body and sensorium in this case allowing a kind of prosthetic sight, not centralized in the brain but dispersed in space, prompting an alteration of the contours of the body. Such an intermingling of the physical and the telecommunicational is already quite visible when one considers television and other media as sets of techniques of the body, which include strategies of mobilization and immobilization, methods "for the production and disciplining of attention, for the fixing and narrowing of the range of consciousness" one can regard body and sociality as partially controlled through their interlocking mechanisms and effects.[3] More obvious examples are provided in news publications, where amidst the cyberspatial gold rush one can find tidbits such as "The Long Arm of the Net," which announces that anthropologists and computer scientists at USC have attached a robotic arm on campus to the World Wide Web, allowing Internet users throughout the world to manipulate its movements.[4]

While such systems, spaces, and phenomena are frequently divided into "virtual" and "real," such binary classifications (along with real/telecommunicational, or the old standby real/artificial) become increasingly problematic. So, too, with the distinctions between movement and simulation, or viewer and viewed, and the direct correspondences so implicated. In the above example, where is the line of sight of the formerly blind person? Where is the place of sight and of that which is seen? Does a distinction between "real sight" and "virtual sight" matter? Is the reality in which benches can speak real or virtual for the blind person? Such divisive barriers and causal connections cede to a play of interrelations; the relations between, for example, walking, speech, and geography, between movement and interdiction, between embodiments, systems of codes, and the economies that produce and are produced by them, intertwine and complicate each other. Barriers are repositioned as porous and actively configurative, structured through relations both trans-spatial and trans-actional. Lines of sight are transformed from vectors (eye --> object) to circulatory trajectories that disrupt polarities and interweave themselves into body, language, and landscape, shifting the nature of performativity. No longer a mirror of the body, language as such arises out of a complex of circuitries, which connect biological/synaptic processes to social processes to those of multlayered spaces of code, prompting active alterations of bodily contours and actively configurative processes of bodily sedimentation. The concept of language as a mirror or reflective surface, staging a separation, a differentiality, and a sequentiality, is augmented with a conception of language as production, circulation, circuitry, and interfaciality. Narrativizations and divisions, problematized and disrupted, stand as temporary demarcations within circulatory constructs. The body and subject, then, do not precede or stand outside of these networks of signification but are rather at all points enmeshed within them. The emphasis turns to a study of the increasingly complex webs of signification within which and in relation to which we construct such transactive relations fueled by the economies of information as living, ambulatory entities. That techne [5] that allows us to visualize and materialize these extended or alternate relations of subjectivity, body, and sociality is the interface. It is an interface, however, whose structure, following the logic traced above, is dismantled from its most familiar Cartesian incarnations such as the "picture plane" of the computer monitor and swept out into the networks of everyday life, a soft and permeable element, actively configurational, that does not divide viewer from viewed or real from virtual, but rather which interweaves fields of action.

Thus the logics with which to articulate this situation are those that map not only the differential relations within coded structures but the passages traversing them. To view the networked computer screen, for example, is to simultaneously order its surface and to look through it, in a disruption and transformation of the "place" of sight and of speech: through the mediation of the interface, subjectivity is extended and relocated, embodiment repositioned, object and environment re-potentialized, allowing communication to arise out of a new social dynamic that produces and is produced by shifting patterns of subject, embodiment, object, and environment. Through social representation-schemes, built of shared language and assumptions, these patterns become meaningful. Communication in this situation, then, is built in the transformation of data flow across the interface, and in the patterns that it assumes on its interfacial surface. Embodiments and environments are built precariously upon the patterns of these activated codes, which spin circulatory systems across the interface extended biofeedback connections between bodies, bodies of codes, and the economies and technologies that produce and are produced by bodies and codes [6] that make visible the interconnections between biosocial dynamic and spatial form. From the interaction of these placeless sites, subjectivity and agency emerge: an interstitial parole speaks from an informational elsewhere. Here we conceptualize not only in terms of difference embodied by this interstitiality but in terms of mediated, circulatory flow. The surfaces or systems that mediate this flow, through which social energies circulate and around which they mobilize, become new objects of study.

The dialogical context of art provides a vital arena for the study of such surfaces and systems, as it historically and self-consciously foregrounds its own surface or structure of mediation in line with these concerns. In its historicized focus upon the signifier, its conditions of existence and possibility, its placement and displacement in narrativization and circulatory flow which extends into and disrupts its own substantiality, while maintaining its own materiality, art has staked out a territory separate from, but intertwined with, other discourses engaging this situation (although it has clearly ceded much of its critical influence to them). In its study of the constitutive relationships between subject, object, and context, and the social production of meaning, art differs from these discourses in this historicized play of signification which, again, points outward into the world and inward into its own corporeality, although not dualistically but in the sense of mediated, circulatory flow which holds its body in dynamic tension as a mediatory surface, situation, or contextual space that prompts a meditation on its own existence. The challenge, then, is to embody this dynamic structurally while critically engaging the pictoriality of art a dialectic visible, for example, in the artwork of Rainer Ganahl, who structurally reconfigures the interface while drawing analogies to modernistic enframements.[7] If this challenge can be met within the new sets of conditions that present themselves in this historical moment which might be seen in terms of the rise of "informatics" art can assume a substantial role in emerging informatic discourses (as, perhaps, an "informatic art"). Here, then, is where the artwork and the interface meet, each addressing urgent concerns of the other and allowing a vital interchange. Thus embodied, they are not absorbed into one another but stand in productive dialectical relation, in the charged, hybrid exchange-fields that are weaving new modes of sociality. Facing this challenge is crucial at a time when painting appears once again as the answer to the art world's crisis, and on the other hand, when technological spectacle or "computer art" stands as its high-tech analogue: it becomes ever more crucial to contest these emerging expressionisms that threaten to seal off art's critical value in the information economy.

Defined by Katherine Hayles, following Donna Haraway, as "the technologies of information as well as the biological, social, linguistic, and cultural changes that initiate, accompany, and complicate their development,"[8] informatics clearly marks a complexified and hybridized sociocultural environment whose powerful textualities spin whirlwinds around earlier modes of signification. To employ this term in relation to art allows us, in response to this condition, to not only to posit the artwork as a kind of interface but to revisit historical work in terms of that interfaciality, opening the channels of circulation. The art-interface can be understood, then, following the diagrams traced above, as both a play of surface allowing logical ordering (language) and as a medium of exchange, a negotiational space that mediates traffic across the border (economy). Such an interface, then, is one that stands in dynamic tension, simultaneously located and blurred: located through the textual surface (the page, the picture plane, or the computer window) as well as through its constitutive exchange-relations, which dissolve the translational surface, manifesting those on its "other side," foregrounding its constitutive social relations and its modes of production. In this sense it reveals the societal mechanisms that are masked by the fetishized object or technology, whose reification it resists, following Marx, shifting attention to the relations within which it is produced. However, again, this is not dualistic, as its "objectness" fetish or not is, correspondingly, carefully considered, particularly in its role as agent. Endowing objects with agency, in this sense, is powerful currency in the newly constructed situations enabled by communications technologies (visible in the navigation system for the blind described above and within the object-oriented structure of the MOO); however on the other hand objects and technologies do not themselves "do" anything so much as mask power interests and narratives of control, in whose benefit it is to productize relation. This masking or obscuring is not only founded on a dialectic of appearance and disappearance, as implied by Baudrillard, for example, in his observation that objects "are secretly irradiating from what disappears behind" them.[9] It is also founded on an interfaciality whose "irradiation" marks its actively circuitous traversal. The object, in this case, can be said to interface its own disappearance, bringing its interfaciality to the fore and subsuming its existence as representation or mimesis. Such a dynamic is visible in, for example, the artwork of Jeffrey Schulz, whose constructed objects and systems dissolve within nets of linkage, operating as dynamic interfaces for the navigotiation of bioinformatic space. Such a dynamic is also embodied in the artwork of Ben Kinmont, whose work employs objects, texts, and systems as mediating elements that allow a situation to coalesce, but then which dissolve to allow for the ongoing mechanics of that situation, and other situations that it sets in play, to be foregrounded. The artwork, embodying this dynamic, is located in social space and in the relations of production, allowing for its constitutive socialities to become actively visible and resisting their reification as the "art object" which no longer stands in for, or occludes, such relation. In this sense it constitutes an economy of resistance a staging of alternate currencies and transactionalities as art.

The artwork-interface relation is, again, contradictory and tensional. The interface as techne alone, of course, is not art. Art itself is arguably a techne, although only in the analytical side of the playing field. Art movements have introduced new relations similar to those that interfacial technologies such as the printing press and the telephone have wrought; however, again, art does so continually and historically self-aware of its own conditions of existence, marking an appearance and disappearance, a struggle of interior and exterior a self- consciousness that technology, alone, does not maintain. The artwork and the interface, on the other hand, are both interstitial and unstable, enmeshed in the networks between sociality and spatiality, positioned on the brink, as it were. Both mediate new communities of awareness between the physical space of the present and that "alternate" reality that is not contiguous with it. The artwork was once equated with the picture plane and marked a dualistic separation between author and viewer; likewise, the interface, and the picture plane of the telecommunicational environment, both overwhelmingly Cartesian, mark a similar structure and dualistic separation of phenomena. As the interfacial structure is today brought down off the wall, so to speak, dismantled into the space of sociality, it is perhaps illuminating to draw an analogy to certain periods in art when such a deconstruction occurred, such as in the late 1950s, when artists reacted against the rigidity of modernist painting and geography. Perhaps connecting to this situation, not only in a linear, historicized mode, but in a more circulatory, negotiatory, and transactive one, can provide powerful insight into the dynamics of the interface and the possibilities at its intersection with art in this current period of the informatic. Such a technique of historicization might itself constitute a kind of interface, as might the Cartesian paradigm itself: the latter could constitute a vital stage in the construction of space, employed in order to narrate a displacement (for example, Cartesianism figures interfacially in Gibsonian cyberspace in order to allow the otherwise unimaginable complexity of this last to be articulated and understood); the interface as such exists as a tool for ordering self, space, and sociality, and which contains the seeds of its own undoing.

The late Brazilian artist Helio Oiticica's gradual reaction, in the late 1950s, against geometric abstraction and the rationality of art concret then prominent in Brazil provides an interesting correspondence. Oiticica sought to "organicize" the mechanistic objectivity of art, animating its surface elements, its structure, its space of interaction, and its modes of construction in a dynamic interplay of corporeal, social, and spatial relation. Beginning with a "nuclear" exploration of color-structure, he began to "dynamize" the geometric elements within his paintings, adding movement and time to their structuralities; these elements then broke off on their own to become their own structural planes; these planes advanced out from the wall and into the space of exhibition in suspended, configurative arrangements; viewers were then prompted to walk among these complex arrangements of planes which could fill a small room in order to "view" the work. As viewers entered the work as an active element of the work, thus implicating themselves within its labyrinthine structure, they could no longer view it from afar, capturing its entirety in their gaze, producing it in a mastering, encapsulating line of sight from subject to object. Such a situation disrupts and frustrates the detached, masculinist, controlling gaze similar to that which stands on one side of the computer interface and which orders surface, space, and sociality accordingly. However not only does Oiticica's development narrate an analogous breakdown of the distinctions between the constructs of the computer screen on one side and their viewer/masterer on the other, but, with his creation of the Parangolé [10] in 1964, it further "softens" these elements such that they are always in a process of materialization, always co- formed in circulatory relation to active bodies or processes of embodiment.

The Parangolé developed as a "softening" of the structural planes of the work; as Oiticica writes, "everything which before was either background or support for the act and the structure of painting, transforms itself into a live element."[11] The viewer/participant, enveloped within an artwork whose structure was deepened in a dynamic play of spatial and social relation, was now prompted to wear its structural planes on the body, or view others doing so, such that the elements of the work were always created by direct bodily action. The Parangolé took the form of a soft, wearable vesture that resembles a cloak or cape, made of one or more layers of brightly-colored (following Oiticica's related spatialization of color-structure) material that requires direct movement of the body and reveals itself in this act. The artwork, no longer something in relation to which one stands, became something in which one is immersed: a "cycle of participation" in which viewer and viewed, "watcher" and "wearer," are enmeshed in circulatory, changing patterns. Like the flat surface of the computer interface, the Parangolé is softened and deepened through interaction: it draws the participant into the space of the artwork similar to the way the interface draws the participant into an alternate, hybrid space or situation. To "put on" the Parangolé or the computer interface (or the environment that seemingly lies behind it) is to merge body and technology, in order to alter or extend body and sociality and to integrate subjects, bodies, and social formations in a process of constructing and inhabiting space.

Formerly the material of the picture plane metaphorically and literally the Parangolé unfolds and interweaves itself within the social and spatial environment, disrupting and agitating the conditioned situation of the artistic experience, instigating alternate relations while, accordingly, making such relations visible. However such visibility is, again, not covetous and controlling, not oriented to ocular possession; as Lygia Clark, a contemporary of Oiticica's, writes, it addresses itself to the "eye-body" not the "eye-machine," and is always in a process of becoming.[12] It thus escapes the totalizations of the eye and its binary, vector relationships, and instead results in a kind of circuitous, interstitial seeing closer to that induced by the navigation system for the blind outlined earlier. Such a seeing opens the channels between body and environment such that "sight" is not originary, Cartesian, and linear, but rather a phenomenon arising within a transactional network: a decentralized, configurative site of ongoing negotiation where bodies, bodies of codes, and environments are actively interlinked. When linked with the economies and technologies that produce and are produced by bodies and bodies of codes, such phenomena become enmeshed in a dialectic between biosociality and spatial form and mark a hybridized and intensified social spatiality a restless social geography whose "windowing" or parcelling out can be contested and whose mechanics and power interests can be uncovered.

Such was a concern of the Situationists in the late 1950s in Europe, whose work constitutes an urban parallel to Oiticica's reaction against modernist totalizations. The Situationists began to disrupt, animate, and actively spatialize the rigid geometry of the modernist urban map in an analogous mode to Oiticica's disruption and spatialization of the elements of geometric abstraction, and Situationist techniques of the derivé resemble Oiticica's establishing of "'perceptive-structural relations' between what grows in the structural grid of the Parangolé..." and what is 'found' in the spatial environmental world [13]. Consider Oiticica's description of the favela, a structure that for him has an implicit Parangolé character: "The structural organicity of its constituent elements and the internal circulation and external dismemberment of these constructions mean that there are no abrupt transitions from 'room' to 'living room' to 'kitchen,' only the essential, which defines each part connecting to the other in a continuity." Such orders "are not established 'a priori,' but create themselves according to creative necessity as it is born." Appropriating its "objective-constituent elements upon embodying itself, upon forming itself in its realization,"[14] such a structure forms itself contingently through the path and actions of the ambulatory subject, who engages in a process of inhabiting space. In this sense both the Parangolé and the derivé constitute interfacial techniques of resistance against a totalizing geography a landscape of segmentation, homogenization, commodification and instead fuel what Michel de Certeau calls a "mobile organicity" in the environment, a kind of pedestrian speech that weaves "sequence[s] of phatic topoi."[15] The totalized construct, whose relations are reflected in the gloss of its factory sheen, dissolves to that of an interface. Through such fissures, alternate sites of agency and speech erupt.

Ivan Chtcheglov, a founding Situationist who derived to such extent that he wound up in a psychiatric clinic, wrote, while institutionalized, how the derivé (with its flow of acts, its gestures, its strolls, its encounters) was to the totality exactly what psychoanalysis (in the best sense) is to language.
If it is true that a spatial order organizes an ensemble of possibilities (e.g., by a place in which one can move) and interdictions (e.g., by a wall that prevents one from going further), then the walker actualizes some of these possibilities. In that way, s/he makes them exist as well as emerge. But s/he also moves them about and...invents others, since the crossing, drifting away, or improvisation of walking privilege, transform, or abandon spatial elements...In the framework of enunciation, the walker constitutes, in relation to his/her position, both a near and a far, a here and a there. To the fact that the adverbs here and there are the indicators of the locutionary seat in verbal communication...we must add that this location (here-there) (necessarily implied by walking and indicative of a present appropriation of space by an "I") also has the function of introducing an other in relation to this "I" and of thus establishing a conjunctive and disjunctive articulation of places.[17]

The derivé, as "going with the flow," requires a mediatory system or surface to transform it from endless babble to meaning, and it requires an interdiction in order to dialectize it and integrate a body. Michel de Certeau shifts Chtcheglov's analogy somewhat in stating that the "act of walking is to the environmental system what the speech act is to language or to the statements uttered." Just as the speaker appropriates the language, the pedestrian appropriates the topographical system; just as the speech act is "an acoustic acting-out of language," the walker engages in a "spatial acting-out of place." Walking, then, is a "space of enunciation."

Let yourself go with the flow of words, says the analyst. He listens until the moment he rejects or modifies (one could say detourns) a word, an expression or a definition. The derivé is certainly a technique, almost a therapeutic one. But just as analysis without anything else is almost always contraindicated, so the continual derivé is dangerous to the extent that the individual, having gone too far (not without bases, but...) without defenses, is threatened with explosion, dissolution, dissociation, disintegration.[16]

In such a diagram it appears as if the "I" who speaks brings the object of its speech into existence through an intentional act -that is, it gives birth to its referent, its "other," the there to its here, by intending it. The "I" appears to stand prior to discourse and generates, through the eruptive power of its will, an object through language. (Picture this "I" as sitting at its computer monitor and penetrating through the screen to generate a "virtual 'I'" in cyberspace, then logging off, secured in its primacy). However, as Judith Butler indicates, the "I" is enmeshed within language, not prior to informative speech, arising within discursive flux: it is an assumed position within the nets of discourse, a citation of its place in speech. To posit an originary or primary subject outside of language or outside of the telecommunicational environment, or on the "real" side of the computer screen is to encircle it with signification, thereby subsuming it within the networks of signification. The discourse that allows for the place of the "I" to be opened up and assumed co-forms its path through language and environment-its intentionality. No longer a mirror of the body, language as such is "productive, constitutive, one might even argue performative, inasmuch as this signifying act delimits and contours the body" which it can then claim lies outside of such construction.[18] Thus the performative is not a singular or deliberate "act" by which a subject brings into existence that which it names, but rather the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces (regulates, constrains) the effects that it names.[19] Its productive power is to be found not in subjectivity or intentionality then but "in the citational legacy by which a contemporary 'act' emerges in the context of a chain of binding conventions."[20] Such binding conventions may arise, as Jeffrey Schulz indicates, through rhizomatous, transactional networks, another productive citationality, intertwined with and arguably prior to the discursive.[21]

The point is not to call forth the disturbing image sketched out earlier of the networked, ambulatory blind person shuttled about in a play of competing market interests, but rather to augment vector diagrams like those employed in performative acts of speech and sight with a more configurative, circulatory, networked arcology. For not only is sight produced in the blind person through the networked construct of the navigational system, but de Certeau's pedestrian is produced through a power of citational convention, which not only introduces an other in relation to an "I," but which forms the "I" through its significatory construct. The here and the there are points plotted in a network of discourse; the extent to which they refer to subjects and objects is contingent upon the reiterative biofeedback loops that link them to bodies, bodies that constitute and are constitutive of such a body of codes. Thus the links between signification and materiality are biological and hypertextual; each forms the other in complex webs of circulation and signification, and the matter of materializing a body and subject is one of alignment and reiterative power, or production. It is as if the interfaces, stacked or aligned to offer translated or transformed "viewing," produce a kind of sedimentation, an organic process of materialization that builds a body, often in line with some or other regulatory norm. (In this sense, to be "on line" is rather to be "in line" or "aligned.") This sedimentation is however actively unstable and unfixed, contoured as much by its constitutive outside hat which it has cast out to fortify itself as much as by transformative passage through its interfacial alignments. Such a process of materialization, then, is enmeshed in a biological-informational dialectic, where the informational is not only a product of the biological but at the same time rebounds back to shape biological relations. These relations are social, standing in dialectical relation to the production of space. The dividing or parcelling out of this last is, then, in its instrumentalization through language or information ("real," "virtual," "cyber-," etc.), part of a mechanism of productive power, which proceeds through the organization, segmentation, enclosure, and control of individuals and social formations in space. The currency through which this productive power is instrumentalized is generated through a particular colonization of informatics, marking a change in the organic composition of capital which, as Henri Lefebvre writes, achieves "growth" by occupying space, by producing a space.[22] Thus the new spaces that we align ourselves with, willingly separate, or blindly embrace as techno-utopias, are those "occupied" or produced "by an advancing capitalism, fragmented into parcels, homogenized into discrete commodities, organized into locations of control, and extended to the global scale."[23] The challenge, then, is to see how our concrete abstractions--our objects, spaces, and technologies, mystified and fetishized--constitute and are constituted by social relations of production; in other words, the challenge is to see them in their interfaciality. Subjects and objects, as nodal entities, become sites of bioinformatically transformative activity through the mediation of the interface--not parcelled out by it. Interstitiality, intercorporeality, and transactionality, in info-biotic systems, as structured and structuring relations, are mapped through the dynamics of the interface, which mediates their traversals. Its unified surface is made disjunct, cascading in folds like Benjamin's royal robe,[24] spilling out into the cloth of the *Parangole*, while simultaneously whisked back in, held in dynamic tension, allowing passage while foregrounding the hybridity and contradictoriness of same. As Homi Bhabha suggests, after Benjamin, such a situation involves not the metonymic fragmentation of the "original," but foregrounds the "'foreign' element that reveals the interstitial": it "insists in the textile superfluity of folds and wrinkles, and becomes the 'unstable element of linkage,' the indeterminate temporality of the in-between, that has to be engaged in creating the conditions through which 'newness comes into the world.'"[25] The *Parangole*, as such, arises as a model for such interfaciality: one always part of the formation of bodies, an active instigator of relation and sedimentation that makes embodiment visible and material, like the cloak that momentarily contours the invisible man and which instigates a condition of seeing.

1. Daniel Goleman, "Sonic Device for Blind May Aid Navigation," _The New York Times_, September 6, 1994.
2. Ibid.
3. Jonathan Crary, "Critical Reflections," _Artforum_, February 1994, p. 59. Julia Scher's work is exemplary for its engagement of these techniques.
4. George Hackett, "Cyberscope," _Newsweek_, September 26, 1994.
5. The Greek root of technology, roughly meaning "a system for making or doing."
6. I owe this insight to N. Katherine Hayles.
7. In a paper presented at a panel discussion at Here, New York City, Ganahl introduces the idea of the interface as an analytical category--that is, as "a set of descriptions and projections which explains, abstracts, or represents a segment of the world."
8. N. Katherine Hayles, "Virtual Bodies and Flickering Signifiers," _October_ 66, Fall 1993, p. 73.
9. Jean Baudrillard, interview by Nicholas Zurbrugg, _World Art_, November 1994, p. 79.
10. Slang for "animated situation" or "sudden confusion and/or agitation between people."
11. Helio Oiticica, "A transicao da cor do quatro para a espaco e o sentido de constructividade," _Revista Habitat_ 70, Sao Paulo, 1962, p. 50.
12. Lygia Clark, "Nostalgia of the Body," _October_ 69, Summer 1994, p. 94.
13. Helio Oiticica, "Fundamental Bases for the Definition of the Parangole," in _Helio Oiticica_ (exhibition catalogue), organized by Guy Brett, Catherine David, Chris Dercon, Luciano Figueiredo, and Lygia Pape. Galerie Nationale du Jeu de Paume, Paris; Projeto Helio Oiticica, Rio de Janeiro; and Witte de With, Rotterdam; 1992. p. 87.
14. Ibid.
15. Michel de Certeau, _The Practice of Everyday Life_. Translated by Steven F. Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984, pp. 97-99. Reproduced in Laura Trippi, ed., "The Pocket Dictionary of Spatial Drives," a digital hypertext in _Blast: The Spatial Drive_, New York: The X-Art Foundation and The New Museum of Contemporary Art, 1992.
16. Ivan Chtcheglov, "Letters from Afar," _Internationale Situationniste_ #9, 1964, p. 38.
17. de Certeau, pp. 97-99. Feminine pronouns added in this citation.
18. Judith Butler, _Bodies That Matter_, London: Routledge, 1993, p. 30.
19. Ibid, p. 2
20. Ibid, p. 225.
21. See Jeffrey Schulz, "Synergistics 1.1: Bioinformatic Surfeits," text accompanying exhibition at White Columns, New York, 1994.
22. Henri Lefebvre, _The Survival of Capitalism_, London: Allison and Busby, 1976, p. 21.
23. Edward W. Soja, _Postmodern Geographies_, London and New York: Verso, 1989, p. 92.
24. See Walter Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator," _Illuminations_, New York: Shocken Books, 1969, p. 75.
25. Homi K. Bhabha, _The Location of Culture_, London and New York: Routledge, 1994, p. 227.