Italiano [English below]
Sono stato invitato a tenere il keynote alla XIII edizione della “Beyond Humanism Conference. Crises and the Posthuman: Post- Trans- and Metahumanist Reflections on Contemporary Challenges“, che si è tenuta ai primi di Luglio a Mitilene, capoluogo dell’Isola di Lesbo, presso l’Università dell’Egeo. A invitarmi è stata Evi Sampanikou, docente e ricercatrice in questa università nonché membro del Comitato Organizzativo dell’evento. Come recitava la presentazione dell’evento:
Two years after the outbreak of the pandemic and the distance or hybridity it forced our lives into, the 13th Beyond Humanism Conference is taking place as a live event, returning to one of the crucial places for the development of the several Posthuman routes of thinking, the University of the Aegean, Mytilini, Greece. It was there where in the 2nd BHC in 2010 the Metahuman Manifesto was for the first time presented and an emphasis to the Audiovisual was given. It was also there in the 6th BHC in 2014 where the emphasis to the Political was underlined. It’s now, after the pandemic and the two online forums (2020 and 2021) plus the hybrid form 1st Methuman Futures Forum in September – October 2022, that we turn to a new, hybrid, but with an emphasis to the live presentations event underlining the need for new reflections and new ideas on the Posthuman.
Seguiva poi una lunga lista di argomenti che spaziavano dalla filosofia all’economia, dalle discipline di cura alle disabilità, dall’ecologia alle tecnologie, dalle discipline scientifiche alla letteratura e all’arte, dalla sociologia alla politica… E in effetti gli interventi, svoltisi in parte in presenza e in parte in remoto, sono stati numerosi (qui il programma completo) e su argomenti molto vari. Devo dire che l’invito mi ha colto di sorpresa perché sono sempre stato piuttosto tiepido nei confronti di movimenti, come il transumanesimo, il postumanesimo e il metaumanesimo, di cui peraltro conosco molti dei fondatori e dei sostenitori. Mi sembra infatti che il proliferare di prefissi proiettivi dell’umanesimo come “trans-“, “post-” e più recentemente “meta-“, configuri filosofie e movimenti di pensiero certamente interessanti, diversi tra loro, che tuttavia spesso sembrano più interessati alla comunicazione e al tempo presente, pervasi da quell’umanesimo che invece si propongono di superare, piuttosto che fondati su evidenze scientifiche e motivazioni storiche, su uno sguardo libero e ampio.
Anche per ragioni di sovrapposizione delle sessioni non ho assistito a tutte le presentazioni, ma posso dire che l’insieme degli eventi è risultato interessante e ricco di stimoli. Anche se mio keynote, intitolato “Life in distance, simulation, relativisation, externalisation, art. Notes about the decline of humanism”, non ha adottato nessuno dei prefissi sopra menzionati, ha avuto ottimi riscontri. Di seguito la parte conclusiva.
The externalization process
The Third Life perfectly fits inside the relativization process, humanity is gradually outsourcing a growing number of functions, delegating them outside the body to increasingly powerful, sophisticated and autonomous devices.
The relativization process is also consistent with the progressive externalisation outside the body of human functions and activities. In the beginning of human culture, body parts are replaced with tools and weapons; then, knowledge and memory are recorded and fixed outside the body through pictures and writing; then, activities and labour are carried on by machines and more or less automatic devices; and recently, with Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Artificial Life, some narrow reasoning and automatic operations can be delegated to autonomous external entities. If this trend goes on in the future, more and more human activities could be externalised, and, thanks to many organic and inorganic disciplines and technologies, the outcomes of the human culture could become increasingly independent simulating, emulating or creating the living, evolving into Third Life.What will happen next?
Let’s avoid simplifications: the externalisation process does not implies that the previous cultural modes are destined to disappear, but it gives birth to new possibilities. Images and writing have not made indexical signs and oral language disappear; audiovisual communication in real time between continents has not made direct dialogue among people disappear; images created with video and computers have not eliminated brushes… Even if some applications could be replaced, the new tools and devices will side the old ones: humanity will increase its operational, communicative, expressive, visionary opportunities. In the arts, the externalisation process through autonomous systems based on generative Artificial Intelligence has revived the issue of an “art made by machines” and, albeit in different ways than in the past, the topic of authorship.
Art is often the first one to pose nodal questions and critiques to contemporaneity. In the artistic field the externalization process does not deprive human presence and responsibility, at most it limits human action in the creation of the work. Is it possible to extrapolate the externalisation process to expression forms that are not intended for humans but for the techno-scientific devices, to an “art of machines for machines”? Could any kind of an aesthetic sensibility exist in the techno-scientific devices? Can we recognize to the techno-scientific devices a more complete existential dimension, a fuller Third Life? Can art for the “non-human” exist? What issues will emerge in the future?
These questions are deeply involved in the provocative installation Ars for Nons (art for non-humans), that invites us to take a seat in the waiting room while our cell phones participate in an art installation made up of sounds, vibrations and images (1).“The installation Ars for Nons creates art for technology – which essentially is a part of society already. Art is not made by nonhuman technology for humans, but with technology for nonhumans.
It asks why and how to create art for other-than-human beings. Ars for Nons creates a space for nonhumans, Nons, to immerse in Ars, an interactive art piece.”Art is a profoundly human dimension, does it still make sense if it is not intended for human enjoyment? How will it be created, recognised, evaluated and disseminated? Will there still be anything human in this extreme externalization?
The progressive relativization and externalization processes basically mark some sort of retreat of humanism: the relativization process makes humanity aware of its limited relevance inside an immense context in time and space that pervades us. The externalization process expands the human culture, but in a direction that goes beyond humanity as we intend it now. In front of the difficulties, humans have always created and used sciences and technologies, the COVID-19 pandemic is an example, and this is also happening now in order to contrast or adapt to the climate crisis. Will all this be enough to avoid our species’ extinction? The 3.8 billion years long history of life on Earth is an history of evolution and extinction, why should this be different for humans? How technologies will affect further human evolution? Will it still be driven by humanity, or, at least, by the human culture? Will there remain anything human in the end? Is it possible to go beyond humanism remaining human?
1. Lea Luka Sikau (ed.), Ars for Nons. Welcome to the waiting room, Linz, Ars Electronica, 2022.
I was invited to give the keynote at the XIII edition of the “Beyond Humanism Conference. Crises and the Posthuman: Post- Trans- and Metahumanist Reflections on Contemporary Challenges“, held in early July in Mytilene, the capital of Lesvos Island, at the University of the Aegean. I was invited by Professor Evi Sampanikou, professor and researcher at this university as well as member of the Organizing Committee of the event. As the presentation of the event stated:
Two years after the outbreak of the pandemic and the distance or hybridity it forced our lives into, the 13th Beyond Humanism Conference is taking place as a live event, returning to one of the crucial places for the development of the several Posthuman routes of thinking, the University of the Aegean, Mytilini, Greece. It was there where in the 2nd BHC in 2010 the Metahuman Manifesto was for the first time presented and an emphasis to the Audiovisual was given. It was also there in the 6th BHC in 2014 where the emphasis to the Political was underlined. It’s now, after the pandemic and the two online forums (2020 and 2021) plus the hybrid form 1st Methuman Futures Forum in September – October 2022, that we turn to a new, hybrid, but with an emphasis to the live presentations event underlining the need for new reflections and new ideas on the Posthuman.
Then followed a long list of topics ranging from philosophy to economics, from care disciplines to disabilities, from ecology to technologies, from scientific disciplines to literature and art, from sociology to politics… And in fact the presentations, held partly in presence and partly remotely, were many (here the complete programme) and on very varied topics. I must say that the invitation surprised me a bit, since I have always been rather lukewarm regards to movements such as transhumanism, posthumanism and metahumanism, of which I know many of the founders and supporters. In fact, it seems to me that the proliferation of projective prefixes about humanism, such as “trans-“, “post-” and more recently “meta-“, configures philosophies and movements that are certainly interesting, different from each other, albeit they seem often more interested in communication and in the present time, pervaded by that humanism that instead they want to overcome, rather than based on scientific evidence and historical motivations, on a free and broad gaze.
Also for reasons of sessions’ overlapping I was not able to attend all presentations, but I can say that all events were interesting and stimulatimg. Although my keynote, entitled “Life in distance, simulation, relativisation, externalisation, art. Notes about the decline of humanism”, did not adopt any of the above mentioned prefixes, it received excellent feedback. Below is the final part.
The externalization process
The Third Life perfectly fits inside the relativization process, humanity is gradually outsourcing a growing number of functions, delegating them outside the body to increasingly powerful, sophisticated and autonomous devices.
The relativization process is also consistent with the progressive externalisation outside the body of human functions and activities. In the beginning of human culture, body parts are replaced with tools and weapons; then, knowledge and memory are recorded and fixed outside the body through pictures and writing; then, activities and labour are carried on by machines and more or less automatic devices; and recently, with Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Artificial Life, some narrow reasoning and automatic operations can be delegated to autonomous external entities. If this trend goes on in the future, more and more human activities could be externalised, and, thanks to many organic and inorganic disciplines and technologies, the outcomes of the human culture could become increasingly independent simulating, emulating or creating the living, evolving into Third Life.What will happen next?
Let’s avoid simplifications: the externalisation process does not implies that the previous cultural modes are destined to disappear, but it gives birth to new possibilities. Images and writing have not made indexical signs and oral language disappear; audiovisual communication in real time between continents has not made direct dialogue among people disappear; images created with video and computers have not eliminated brushes… Even if some applications could be replaced, the new tools and devices will side the old ones: humanity will increase its operational, communicative, expressive, visionary opportunities. In the arts, the externalisation process through autonomous systems based on generative Artificial Intelligence has revived the issue of an “art made by machines” and, albeit in different ways than in the past, the topic of authorship.
Art is often the first one to pose nodal questions and critiques to contemporaneity. In the artistic field the externalization process does not deprive human presence and responsibility, at most it limits human action in the creation of the work. Is it possible to extrapolate the externalisation process to expression forms that are not intended for humans but for the techno-scientific devices, to an “art of machines for machines”? Could any kind of an aesthetic sensibility exist in the techno-scientific devices? Can we recognize to the techno-scientific devices a more complete existential dimension, a fuller Third Life? Can art for the “non-human” exist? What issues will emerge in the future?
These questions are deeply involved in the provocative installation Ars for Nons (art for non-humans), that invites us to take a seat in the waiting room while our cell phones participate in an art installation made up of sounds, vibrations and images (1).“The installation Ars for Nons creates art for technology – which essentially is a part of society already. Art is not made by nonhuman technology for humans, but with technology for nonhumans.
It asks why and how to create art for other-than-human beings. Ars for Nons creates a space for nonhumans, Nons, to immerse in Ars, an interactive art piece.”Art is a profoundly human dimension, does it still make sense if it is not intended for human enjoyment? How will it be created, recognised, evaluated and disseminated? Will there still be anything human in this extreme externalization?
The progressive relativization and externalization processes basically mark some sort of retreat of humanism: the relativization process makes humanity aware of its limited relevance inside an immense context in time and space that pervades us. The externalization process expands the human culture, but in a direction that goes beyond humanity as we intend it now. In front of the difficulties, humans have always created and used sciences and technologies, the COVID-19 pandemic is an example, and this is also happening now in order to contrast or adapt to the climate crisis. Will all this be enough to avoid our species’ extinction? The 3.8 billion years long history of life on Earth is an history of evolution and extinction, why should this be different for humans? How technologies will affect further human evolution? Will it still be driven by humanity, or, at least, by the human culture? Will there remain anything human in the end? Is it possible to go beyond humanism remaining human?
1. Lea Luka Sikau (ed.), Ars for Nons. Welcome to the waiting room, Linz, Ars Electronica, 2022.
