Maybe because I was tired, but at times some of the articles explanations, and syntax confused me. I tried to make sense of this particular sentence which I presume attempts to summarize the explanation of the “virtual”. “To change into something new the machine must enter into the field of the potential, and within this reality of change Deleuze’s virtual, as the entirely real but not actual conditions of these potentialities, is always implicated.”
The way in which Barker explains Deleuze’s philosophy of the “virtual” leads me to believe that it is similar to the way in which an artist, for example, Munari, creates art that must be acted upon from outside forces in order to produce a final piece, or how Scott and Casro design creative systems by predisposing a certain amount of degrees of freedom. In other words parameters are set for a potential product that cannot be particularly guessed before hand. In order to have a final product or final art piece whether it is a physical one, or technologically inclined one, there must be a type of “field” or phase that drives and facilitates a final unforeseen outcome.
This type of art, or at least the idea of it reminded me of the webpage of the artist Nick Briz, one of the ones that can be found on the courses “Glitch Art Resource” tab. I the website give an illusion of errors displayed by jumbled up texts and characters which rearrange themselves to produce links to other parts of the website.
I also liked how Barker related these concepts with society stating that “Following in the line of thought we can understand diverse things like cities, societies, and people as well as technology and art not by their appearance or their role but rather by the invisible set of organizational structures, rules, laws, and protocols and their interaction with other individuals that directs their becoming.” It is interesting idea that made me view criminals and social misfits as “errors” or “glitches” in the system of predisposed laws, regulations, and social norms of society.