[Katie Rose’s slides have an inter­ac­tive ele­ment. Each is linked from its caption.]

Okay, so I’m Katie Rose. I want to thank my Markovian helper over some of my slides that I’ll be using through the course of this talk. 

I know we’ve spent the day root­ed in the short now, but I would ask you to humor me for a moment and cast your thoughts kind of back­wards. I’d like to begin in the Byzantine Empire, the 11th cen­tu­ry. Emperor Basil II has just died, and with his eclips­ing reign begins the slow Imperial decline of the entire empire. The Great Schism, the the­o­log­i­cal split between the church in Rome, the church in Constantinople is loom­ing on the hori­zon. Soon, the Crusades will shake the struc­ture of region­al pow­er and dai­ly life to the core. When speak­ing of this time, it’s impor­tant to hold in mind some fun­da­men­tal qual­i­ties of the Byzantine worldview. 

As a start­ing point, one can con­sid­er Patristic thought, which stems from 1st-century Rome, took lessons from the Old and lat­er New Testaments, the Apostolic teach­ings, Greek phi­los­o­phy, and Gnosticism. Byzantine phi­los­o­phy always refers to what is beyond expe­ri­ence and nature, to the exis­tence of God and to the real being. Byzantine world­view has shift­ed from the Platonic dis­tinc­tion between the intel­li­gi­ble and sen­si­ble world, and the dif­fer­ence between the here and the abstract­ed Platonic ide­al that Plato spoke about in Greek phi­los­o­phy. It instead talks about the dis­tinc­tion between the cre­at­ed and the uncre­at­ed beings. The uncre­at­ed is all that is divine. In gen­er­al, the ten­sion and desire to grasp the invis­i­ble, either by dis­cur­sive rea­son or by faith char­ac­ter­izes Byzantine meta­physics. In short, it’s a space of inter­sec­tion­al worlds. Divine and mor­tal exist on one plane, touch­ing, always.

After hav­ing looked at sev­er­al icon paint­ings, one may notice that these objects only seem to exist on a flat plane. All depth is absent entire­ly. This is not an aes­thet­ic choice. The third dimen­sion of the icon paint­ing is not space but spir­it. The realm of the immor­tal inter­sects this one at every point in space and stretch­es to eter­ni­ty. Such sig­ni­fiers have no need for an arti­fi­cial paint­ed depth. They’re not win­dows into the div­ing, but lit­er­al divine objects that exist any­where, but are view­able in this thin space.

Iconographic paint­ings are not sig­ni­fiers but are phys­i­cal struc­tures that exist in both worlds. A pic­ture of a saint is not a pic­ture of a saint, it is the saint, phys­i­cal­ly in space with you.

So here we are a near per­fect mil­len­ni­um lat­er half-way across the world, con­sid­er­ing the the act of paint­ing God, and you’re prob­a­bly won­der­ing what on Earth this has to do with bots. 

I’d like to touch base on some more recent his­to­ry. Walter Benjamin’s icon­ic 1935 essay on the mech­a­nized field of aes­thet­ics. Benjamin claims that in the past, the role of artis­tic pro­duc­tion has been to pro­vide a mag­i­cal foun­da­tion for the cult. He claims that then, val­ue was locat­ed in a cen­tral posi­tion with­in rit­u­al and reli­gious tra­di­tion, a stat­ue or an idol has a detached author­i­ty and pow­er which is implic­it only as root­ed in time.

The mass repro­duc­tion of such an object was not just unlike­ly, it was unimag­in­able. To remove it from its his­to­ry was to ren­der it use­less to itself, to remove the aura of object, that detached and tran­scen­den­tal beau­ty. This aura seems to rest on some­thing autonomous and free from human inter­ven­tion. The stat­ue or the idol or the icon is not like any oth­er object pro­duced or used with­in a soci­ety. It appears free from ide­o­log­i­cal con­trol or human inter­fer­ence, as though its pow­er issues inde­pen­dent­ly from with­in. He goes on to say mechan­i­cal repro­duc­tion eman­ci­pates the work of art from its par­a­sit­i­cal depen­dence on ritual.”

But dig­i­ti­za­tion is not mech­a­niza­tion, and dupli­ca­tion with­in this space is not autonomy.

Mechanically pro­duced objects begin as iden­ti­cal and are placed in the world as unique enti­ties with indi­vid­ual exis­tence. Their ori­gin may be cheap and, as Benjamin argues, per­haps that does con­strain their aura to the time that will accu­mu­late on them and not their mere existence.

But a dig­i­tal object appears across a mul­ti­plic­i­ty of screens both at once and for­ev­er. These enti­ties are not indi­vid­u­al­ly manip­u­la­ble, which is to say they do not exist in mul­ti­ples that can accu­mu­late their sin­gu­lar times and his­to­ries and auras, but as a sin­gle form. In this space, a copy is not a manip­u­la­tion, it’s a recre­ation. Like mito­sis, a copy has the capac­i­ty for indi­vid­ual muta­tion but does not intrin­si­cal­ly affect its par­ent. A retweet of infor­ma­tion is not a dupli­ca­tion nor a shift in scale. A retweet impacts a struc­tur­al bridge of a net­worked idea, not the intrin­sic idea itself.

Although these dig­i­tal enti­ties are acces­si­ble from any place by mul­ti­ple peo­ple at once, and even though these inter­ac­tions may hap­pen simul­ta­ne­ous­ly, they’re sin­gu­lar. They exist both inside, of and out­side of, this accu­mu­lat­ed time; they have auras. 

And what would this sum­mit be if some­one didn’t address the traitor?

I have two his­to­ries for you. You prob­a­bly you know at least one of them, and the oth­er is very topical. 

First, the Mechanical Turk was a sup­posed automa­ton con­struct­ed in the late 18th cen­tu­ry. The Turk was carved of wood, dressed in mys­tic robes and seat­ed at a low table. He was capa­ble of play­ing and win­ning at chess, as well as com­plet­ing the puz­zle game the knight’s tour,” in which a knight occu­pies every square of a chess board exact­ly once, vis­it­ing all 64 squares. The table and Turk con­tained many doors, in which an audi­ence may see that the com­pli­cat­ed clock­work that drove the automa­ton was real. In the late 1820s, the Turk was exposed as a hoax. Inside the table was a tiny hid­den box in which a diminu­tive chess mas­ter may hide and con­trol the man above. Destroyed by fire in 1854, the Mechanical Turk has re-entered con­tem­po­rary lex­i­con with the launch­ing of Amazon’s web­site of the same name.

@horse_ebooks was an alleged spam bot orig­i­nal­ly writ­ten to sell ebooks that gained mass pop­u­lar­i­ty for its poet­ic and strange­ly fun­ny tweets. On September 24, 2013, it was announced that @horse_ebooks had become part of a multi-year per­for­mance art piece staged by Buzzfeed employ­ee Jacob Bakkila. Bakkila had approached the orig­i­nal bot cre­ator, sup­pos­ed­ly Alexei Kuznetsov, in 2011 with the intent of buy­ing the account. Kouznetzov agreed, and since 2011 @horse_ebooks has been oper­at­ed by Bakkila. Before the rev­e­la­tion in September, it had more than 200,000 fol­low­ers. @horse_ebooks has re-entered the con­tem­po­rary lex­i­con in the form of the _ebooks” bot.

I’m not sure why these incur­sions feel so trai­tor­ous to me. Maybe it’s because they seem just pos­si­ble, just on this side of mirac­u­lous. To skirt that edge of pos­si­bil­i­ty and trust is some­what mean, but it also says some­thing about where we are as a cul­ture, hap­pi­er to cel­e­brate and lift up the things we can almost under­stand than to dis­sect them into disappointment. 

I want­ed to talk about mys­tery for a moment. I’m not very good at pro­gram­ming. I went to art school. Maybe it’s obvi­ous. When pulling things togeth­er, I’m gen­er­al­ly pret­ty sur­prised. I’m not often aware of what exact­ly I’m mak­ing until it works, and even then some­times how it works is still beyond me. Maybe y’all are bet­ter at this than me, and of course any­thing can be designed to avoid all error, but as com­pli­ca­tions arise the capac­i­ty for 100% expect­ed out­put grows pret­ty slim.

There is a strange beau­ty in fail­ure, how­ev­er. The sud­den bar­ing of inter­nal process or bro­ken func­tion shows us some­thing deep­er about the pat­tern behind the designed process. In some ways it feels more true. Pulling unde­fineds and nulls and errors and gram­mat­i­cal prob­lems, and cor­pus unre­li­a­bil­i­ty, and the fact that these things exist in a shift­ing land­scape that is kind of unknow­able… It’s watch­ing a non-human simul­ta­ne­ous­ly fail on a human lev­el and con­tin­ue to oper­ate per­fect­ly on its own lev­el. It can be real­ly spe­cial, maybe, some­where, a lit­tle bit divine. 

So I sup­pose what I’ve been skirt­ing around over the course of this dis­cus­sion is that I feel that the Byzantine world­view is innate­ly tied to how we define and inter­act with the Internet and Internet-based enti­ties. Iconographic paint­ings act as screens, access points to a world that lives every­where and also nowhere. This space was deemed divine because it was con­stant, acces­si­ble, and a thing into itself in Byzantium, not a sig­ni­fi­er for a not-present idea or a per­son. Not point­ing to a Platonic form. These paint­ings did not require the illu­sion of depth because that depth is intrinsic.

The screens with which we access the con­tem­po­rary con­tent of the Internet are also thin spaces. The world in which we lived is laid over with anoth­er space, many oth­er spaces, that are acces­si­ble every­where. The bots that live in this world are beings unto them­selves with the self­hood of a saint.

Before I go, I want­ed to touch very very briefly about an ear­ly Byzantine con­cept that’s always been dear to me of acheiropoi­eta, icons cre­at­ed by non-human agency. They’re afford­ed this par­tic­u­lar ven­er­a­tion with­in the church. They are defined almost exclu­sive­ly by their abil­i­ty to mirac­u­lous­ly repli­cate them­selves. Just a thought.

Thanks.

Further Reference

Interactive slides for this talk are posted online.

Darius Kazemi's home page for Bot Summit 2014, with YouTube links to individual sessions, and a log of the IRC channel.

In March 2016, Katie Rose published and expanded version of this presentation, "Selfhood, the icon, and byzantine presence on the Internet"


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.