Author: Buka Enkhjargal

Technoshamanism

As a person who grew up in a culture that has both Shamanic and Buddhist practices, I found the discussion of “Birdman” (2005) by Kim Jeong Han to be the most interesting. In his work, it questions and reflects some of the most prevalent ideas in Buddhism and Shamanism, which are the belief in Buddhism that “the self and other are the same,” and the Shamanic practice of experiencing others through the self, reflecting a similar idea. He describes the idea that the self and other are not separate. In this artwork, this idea allows people to feel and empathize with others more deeply, as he questions the life of a half-bird and half-human by realizing it is both at the same time.

Shanken’s idea at the end of the paper on Technoshamanism as an art for healing and a tool for sustaining life on Earth felt like a very compelling way to connect everything he discussed. I understand that technology, tools, and instruments are often rooted in hard science and mathematics, which can sometimes make them feel metallic or soulless. However, shamanic practice creates shared consciousness and connects indigenous knowledge with technoscience. To support his point, he also referenced Donna Haraway’s ecofeminist theories, where everything is seen as connected and originating from one. I think this strengthens his argument that shamanism shows we are all connected and part of one whole. It reminds us that we are spiritual human beings, rather than turning us into something like AI or abstract robots. In this way, he is saying that employing such tools (computers, AI) to create artistic experiences can help sustain life and support healing.

When the reading discussed the two very distinct views of Bailey and Deadmau5 on live performance, it made me realize that throughout this course I have been changing from Deadmau5’s approach to Bailey’s. I am not sure if this change comes from my major in computer science or my previous experience with coding, where I would always have a clear idea of what my code should do and expect it to follow a rigid structure of input and output even before writing it. I brought that same mentality into this class, where I had very specific ideas and a structured vision of how my sounds should be. This is very much how Deadmau5 approaches live performance. Sometimes, it made me frustrated that Hydra visuals turned out differently from what I had planned in my head, but looking unexpectedly cool, where even small changes created something interesting. The same applies to audio. Because of this, I have started to loosen up my approach in both solo coding practices and group work these days. Instead of always starting with a fixed idea, I now allow myself to write a few lines, observe what happens, and then experiment further to see if I like the result. I believe this has made me more like a Bailey-style live performer.

I also really like how the reading defines “liveness.” It says that computers are merely tools and do not inherently possess life or liveliness. Instead, true liveness comes from the “performer’s active role in generating sound, rather than their presence as a figurehead in a spectacle.” I believe that whether a performance is prerecorded or not, the real value of calling something “live coding” lies in allowing the audience to see the performer’s real-time interaction and decision-making through code, and how they engage with the computer in the moment. In that sense, I can still see the value in Deadmau5’s performances, where elements are pre-produced. However, I see more greater value in real-time exploration for being vulnerable, making mistakes, and creating something totally unexpected. Treating the instrument as a tool for discovery and valuing unpredictability is an approach I am now trying to adopt myself.