{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","title":"Bodies in code  interfaces with digital media","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0415970164","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","id":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","uuid":"4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","title":"Bodies in code  interfaces with digital media","normalized_title":"bodiesincodeinterfaceswithdigitalmedia","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"0415970164","isbns":["0415970164","0415970156","9780415970167","9780415970150"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":348,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Bodies%20in%20code%20%20interfaces%20with%20digital%20media","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4f7053d9-6508-49c8-9dd8-ec4dc5dadd53/search"},"page":{"printed_page":38,"pdf_page":51,"physical_index":51,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"ef903e40f79a43f6aa5cbd862bfe91aadfb610807f28c9ececbc6adfd331b504"},"chapter":"bodies in code","content":"We are now in a position to see why Krueger's work, perhaps more than the work of any other digital artist, exemplifies the twofold movement informing the concept of the \"body-in-code.\" Although Krueger's environments subordinate computer code to the more supple codings of human interaction, thus introducing a significant element of flexibility, they also deploy computer code to trigger or catalyze expansions of embodied agency. On this exemplary model, a body-in-code can be defined as a body whose (still primary) constructive or creative power is expanded through new interactional possibilities offered by the coded programs of“artificial reality.\"\n\nBecause of the way in which it challenges our received conceptions of embodiment-most significantly, by refusing to oppose embodiment to technics and by conjoining the two in a highly productive, functional manner—Krueger's work not only exemplifies the way in which technologies support the world-constituting function of embodiment in the world today, but also urges a fundamental reassessment of phenomenology in light of technics. In so doing, Krueger's work does not so much stand against phenomenology as guide us in the task of assessing the radically creative scope of embodiment in our highly technologized world. Like the art it inspired (directly and indirectly) Krueger's environments give us impetus to challenge the more conservative assumptions informing phenomenology and in this way help to bring out its more radical promise for thinking what I elsewhere call “technical life.\"\n\n2. BODY SCHEMA AS POTENTIALITY\n\nNotwithstanding the truly disastrous mistranslation of schema corporel by \"body image,\" Merleau-Ponty's chapter on \"The Spatiality of One's Own Body and Motility\" from The Phenomenology of Perception offers an account of the body schema as a flexible, plastic, systemic form of distributed agency encompassing what takes place within the boundaries of the body proper (the skin) as well as the entirety of the spatiality of embodied motility. In so doing, as we shall see, Merleau-Ponty opens the possibility of categorically distinguishing the body schema from the body image and thus of putting the former-hitherto a mere object of scientific exploration—to properly philosophical work.\n\nThe distinction runs as follows: Whereas the body image characterizes and is generated from a primarily visual apprehension of the body as an external object, the body schema emerges from what, with autopoietic theory, we have called the operational perspective of the embodied organism. As such, it encompasses an “originary,\" preobjective process of world constitution that, by giving priority to the internal perspective of the organism, paradoxically includes what is outside its body proper, what lies in the interactional domain specified by embodied enaction. Three important consequences follow from this distinction: first, the body is always in excess over itself; second, this excess involves the body's coupling to an external environment; and third, because such coupling is increasingly accomplished through technical means, this excess (which has certainly always been potentially technical) can increasingly be actualized only with the explicit aid of technics.\n\nBODIES IN CODE\n\n38","previous_page":37,"next_page":39}