Over several weeks in October 2007, I exchanged emails with Eric Capper, a writer from Trader Monthly Magazine. The majority of our exchange did not make it to press, though we were mentioned in the November 2007 Issue as a sidebar. I thought our dialog might be of interest to our members because Eric asked questions that addressed important issues.
—Marta Lyall, Founder/Director

Unpublished excerpts from an interview, occurring over email, with Eric Capper, a writer from Trader Monthly Magazine during October, 2007.

M:
Since there are 2 types of objects we offer, I am assuming you are asking about System Objects, (those which are user generated(?). So my replies refer to these objects, unless specified.

E:
What exactly dictates what the physical objects will look like? I assume you have set parameters ["volume, time in the market, and profit or loss"] as to what [will be translated] when creating the physical objects, and I was wondering if you were able to speak about that? Or, is it more random?

M:
With System Objects, a determination is made about what part of the form will change by a particular dataset. With the current form, we decided to choose a circular form as the frame work, because it was easy to model the cycles of the market. If you look at all the charting forms used in technical analysis, they are mostly cross-sections of cyclical forms. We then made decisions as to how the trading data could best be applied to create a form that would be readable as information, (if you looked at it and were aware of the system you could get a quick read on the trade including the time in the market, the gain or loss, the number of shares, and number of round trips). We hoped to be able to offer something which would bring the data into real space, and fill that space if desired.

Since this first form was designed, we have begun to work with the idea of information "density", as a useful translation of market data. It became apparent to us, that this metaphor had the possibility of visually translating other layers of information which is always better. Since the goal is to relay data out into architectural space, we wanted this to be something which could happen faster for participants and have the optimum amount of meaning attached to it.

We are currently working on these new system object parameters, which should be out within the next 2 weeks. Entering trading data will generate linear porcelain forms, [...] which will have variations in their density, meaning their ability to transmit light, based on profit or loss, (more light [transmitted equals more] profit), [...] (I can send rough hand sketches of these plans as they have been developed)

E:
Is it more or less an artistic translation of trading performance and market shifts?

M:
System Objects, and the whole WRLDs System, is a kind of gaming or playful approach to reconsidering the information one works with, in a given field. It is inspired by things such as pervasive gaming, (aka Blast Theory), but it has a different type of outcome.

E:
Are the physical objects readable once produced? Can a trader have his particular performance via a certain stock translated into a physical object and then can he read it/understand what the physical object indicates, or is it entirely metaphorical based on the WRLDS’ model?

M:
With System Objects, a trader can absolutely read the objects and the objects of others in the Foyer, as trades, and get a sense of the others trading methods, without using language, but instead a codified visual system. This is an example of what Derrida might call an "expanded form of writing".

It is also important to point out that beauty is the carrier of meaning here, instead of language. Objects generated through WRLDs have an aesthetic value, because in the world of information beauty becomes a carrier of meaning. Unlike science, it does not investigate the causes of an object or event. Where the sciences seek to explain; beauty only identifies. But identification within a complex stream of words and symbols provides new directions and indicators, and opens up fresh possibilities.

The Library objects, are more closely aligned with traditional art objects, as the research and metaphors are encapsulated within a static object. This makes them easier to place into an established market. With System Objects, we are playing with the idea of generating a new market based on markets. It is more complicated, and experimental.

I want to clarify that with System Objects, we will be offering multiple object parameters, so that a user can choose what form he/she wishes their data to take. The new form will not replace the older form.

E:
Over what period of time do the system objects generally pertain to/represent? Is it for a year’s worth of trading performance, a month, what?

M:
The standard time frame is a several hours, a few days or a week.

E:
Would you mind terribly sending over the rough hand sketches of the new system objects that transmit light?

M:
I can do this but not until later today, (after the market closes).

E:
What kind of trading, i.e. Options, ETF’s, commodities, etc. is what markets have you seen translated so far? Just wondering if you had a few examples?

M:
We are only designed to work with equities; individual stocks, at this time.

E:
What was the goal, if you don’t mind my asking, in creating WRLDS’s for the particular venue which you have created, if you don’t mind my asking. What was the motivation to translate trading performance data into an artistically purposed physical object. Considering art and finance to be at relatively opposite ends of the spectrum, I was just wondering what initially prompted this project? I understand the sentence you gave in closing, "playing with the idea of generating a new market based on the market," was that essentially the goal or was there something else?

M:
When I was on the faculty at Carnegie Mellon, my research and teaching involved working with information from the sciences; primarily biology, biotechnology, and computer science. Later, at the University of Washington, I co-wrote a successful grant to develop a unique course with a theoretician of science from the Comparative History of Ideas, (Phillip Thurtle), and a genetics researcher from the School of Medicine, (Elizabeth Rutledge). The course, (In Vivo: Traversing Scientific and Artistic Observations of Life), included direct observation of scientific processes (genetics in this case), across disciplines. A unique part of this course involved a laboratory component, where students worked directly with tissue culture. I also taught courses on Interdisciplinary Studies, where undergraduate students worked with ideas from fields outside the humanities.

I often had students from the School of Business, and during one quarter, we talked extensively about the stock market, as this was an area of their interest. Through these discussions it became apparent that the market was also an encoded living system, very similar to the biological systems we had studied. Later, I taught a graduate seminar: $: A Cultural Sign, which examined the cultural symbols inherent in money and economic systems. After teaching this course, I wanted more direct experience in the financial sector, and worked as a retail broker for a short time at RBC Dain Rauscher. At RBC Dain Rauscher, I researched methods for integrating PRI’s, (Program Related Investments) and hybrid business models for organizations in the arts and sciences. I realized from these experiences, that the creation and dissolution of markets impacted the type of research carried out in the non-profit sector, (experimental work in both the arts and the sciences). The integration of experimental work and finance was particularly influenced through discussions with Lee Hood, who is the founder of Systems Biology and responsible for the technology which made the Human Genome Project possible, and Carl Weissman the CEO of the Accelerator Corp, which funds new biotech ventures; both in Seattle. It was clear after talking with them about their work, that experimental work needed to be, and could be structured to fit within a system of markets.