Friday, February 26, 2010
Things I don't understand: the iPad
Despite the ongoing progress of modern technology, we may still create a few flops.A few days ago in the college cafeteria, I was having a conversation with a friend about the iPad that Apple has recently come out with. Being slightly less tech savy than the average college student, I had absolutely no idea at first what an iPad did--besides function as a rather large iPod. The friend explained to me that that was exactly what it was--a big iPod with the ability to surf the web and download videos and music. He believes that it will be a flop because it can everything that an iPod can already do--and it's less functionable--and more expensive than a standard laptop or notebook. It also doesn't sound very practical. The main version can only store 16 gigabytes on it. I may not know how much 16 gigabytes can store, but I'm certain that it's less than how much my standard regular non-iTouch iPod can store--and that thing is relatively inexpensive. On the otherhand, while we are in an economic depression this iPad runs at about $500, it really doesn't seem worth it. I agree with my friend--this thing probably makes a better hat than for what it was originally intended to do. This link sums up my thoughts nicely.
Vandalism or Art? Another look at Graffiti
It's not uncommon to see graffiti spray painted upon the walls of buildings--especially in cities. Generally graffiti is frowned upon in society--but not for the reasons you'd expect. Contrary to popular belief, it has nothing to do with the concept of tagging on walls to begin with, nor does it have to do with the content. Sure people generally spray paint curse words and graphic images--yet I bet somebody could paint an accurate replica of the Mona Lisa on one of those buildings and it would still be looked upon as negatively.The main reason graffiti is looked down upon is because it steps out of the code--that is to say it strays from a particular logical system that is operating throughout our society--a sort of limited algorhythm to be exact. Thus to the overall logic of society, and the logic social order, graffiti is seen as a "gross" disruptive display. Yet at the same time graffiti can be looked upon as a way of stepping out of this logic system. If one is unsatisfied with their system, instead of trying to merely change it through the system itself, one would be far more successful if he or she were to step outside of the system altogether--hence why we have graffiti. It is a way of challenging our system--by doing something outside of the system--not from within it. In other words, we can't challenge the game by playing it but rather by making a new game to play instead.
While not exactly,"graffiti" this picture of a monster made out of traffic cones has caused a major dispute over whether its artist should be arrested for vandalism. While the monster is definately awesome, the main concern is that the artist stole and chopped up some traffic cones in order to create the monster.
Here's a link to the full story
Friday, February 19, 2010
Maxist Analysis of New Media and What it Means
Vulgar Marxism is an analysis of industrial capitalism--it is an 18th-19th century mode of production. Technological development is industrialization in its concrete form. It is a mechanical innovation and forever transformed labor. Originally labor came through humans and animals--such as workers operating the textile industry or horse drawn ploughs. Basically these sources of labor used the body and muscle power. Yet through technological development labor is liberated and the efficiency of labor is thus increased. Yet mechanical labor is not free, it costs money and the cost is generally coming from someone else. In a way, we are literally living off the backs of dead animals and their stored labor. In other words, the heat used to warm our homes comes from fossil fuel, which is technically composed from the remains of dead dinosaurs and other once living creatures.
As mechanical labor began to gradually replace human labor, thus people became less central to the production process.
Additonally, in class we learned about use value and exchange value. Use value is what something is worth to you. Exchange value on the other hand is the idea that everything has a value and the result is that it determines how much you can sell something for, such as one's house.
Here is a link further discussing exchange value
As mechanical labor began to gradually replace human labor, thus people became less central to the production process.
Additonally, in class we learned about use value and exchange value. Use value is what something is worth to you. Exchange value on the other hand is the idea that everything has a value and the result is that it determines how much you can sell something for, such as one's house.
Here is a link further discussing exchange value
Marshall McLuhan's Four Epochs of History
According to Marshall McLuhan history can be understood through technology. He then divides history into four parts or epochs. The first epoch he calls the oral tribe culture. In general oral makes knowledge living,and is subject to change, interpretation, and embellishment. Sadly, the oral tribe culture is dead--or at least almost dead. Where it still exists is in small areas where native, indiginous people dwell. However this culture generally dies out when technology colonizes and assimilates various countries. Generally this technology manages to culturally embed itself whether it's wanted or not.In the oral tribe culture, everything is preliterate and depends upon the art of memory. Thus an entire work must be memorized word for word.
The second epoch is known as manuscript culture. At this point in history, writing came into being around 4000 or 3000 bc. Basically instead of memorizing an entire work like in oral tribe culture now someone would dictate what to write to you. To a certain degree, manuscript culture is tied to oral culture. Social resodance came into being awell which is a type of social thinking. The manuscript culture was hierarchial. As mentioned earlier things were dictated and then written down. Most noted for this were the monestaries of the dark ages.
The third epoch is called the Gutenberg Galaxy. Basically around this time, the printing press came into being--the Gutenberg press to be exact. With one press, many books could be created--many different books thus revolutionizing the basis of knowledge. The Gutenberg Galaxy transformed society entirely due to the printing press' great speed, it was able to reduce the labor that was originally neccesary to produce knowledge, and it had movable type. A fragmentated process of our world was able to occur. This fragment process produces flexibility while at the same time is fixed. While the process of the printing press was flexible, the product it produced was no longer flexible causing a cognitive shift. Through the Gutenberg Galaxy things had to now be ordered and make sense.Everything thrives upon rationality in which everything is ordered and linear. Rationality is responsible for producing major structures of society such as countries and nation states. The printing press itself produces books which in turn produced citizens. In order for nations to be formed, through the emergence of the novel, national subject bonds were created through specific imaginary, natinal mythology--sort of like our history of the founding of the United States of America as an independent nation from that of England. These national subject bonds resulted in people becoming uniform because they shared similar knowledge, and thus became close.
The final epoch is known as the electronic digital age which is today's society. New technology includes such things as the alphabet, radio and printing press because they totalized change in society. The electronic digigital age is also known as automation. It frees us from mundane labor. Here is futher information on these epochs.
The second epoch is known as manuscript culture. At this point in history, writing came into being around 4000 or 3000 bc. Basically instead of memorizing an entire work like in oral tribe culture now someone would dictate what to write to you. To a certain degree, manuscript culture is tied to oral culture. Social resodance came into being awell which is a type of social thinking. The manuscript culture was hierarchial. As mentioned earlier things were dictated and then written down. Most noted for this were the monestaries of the dark ages.
The third epoch is called the Gutenberg Galaxy. Basically around this time, the printing press came into being--the Gutenberg press to be exact. With one press, many books could be created--many different books thus revolutionizing the basis of knowledge. The Gutenberg Galaxy transformed society entirely due to the printing press' great speed, it was able to reduce the labor that was originally neccesary to produce knowledge, and it had movable type. A fragmentated process of our world was able to occur. This fragment process produces flexibility while at the same time is fixed. While the process of the printing press was flexible, the product it produced was no longer flexible causing a cognitive shift. Through the Gutenberg Galaxy things had to now be ordered and make sense.Everything thrives upon rationality in which everything is ordered and linear. Rationality is responsible for producing major structures of society such as countries and nation states. The printing press itself produces books which in turn produced citizens. In order for nations to be formed, through the emergence of the novel, national subject bonds were created through specific imaginary, natinal mythology--sort of like our history of the founding of the United States of America as an independent nation from that of England. These national subject bonds resulted in people becoming uniform because they shared similar knowledge, and thus became close.
The final epoch is known as the electronic digital age which is today's society. New technology includes such things as the alphabet, radio and printing press because they totalized change in society. The electronic digigital age is also known as automation. It frees us from mundane labor. Here is futher information on these epochs.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Happenings according to Allan Kaprow
In the previous post, I described in my own words what a happening is. Here I will quote Allan Kaprow from my textbook The New Media Reader edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort.The following passages are from
"Happenings" in the New York Scene
In the words of Allan Kaprow "Happenings are events that, put simply happen. Though the best of them have a decided impact-- that is, how we feel, "here is something important" -- They appear to go nowhere and do not make any particular literary point. In contrast to the arts of the past, they have no structured beginning, middle, or end. Their form is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won, except the certainty of a number of occurrences to which we are more than normally attentive. They exist for a single performance, or only a few, and are gone forever as new ones take their place" (Kaprow 85).
Kaprow continues by explaining how happenings are different from traditional theatrical performances. "First there is the context , the place of conception and enactment. The most intense and essential Happenings have been spawned in old lofts, basements, vacant stores, natural surroundings, and the street, where very small audiences, or groups of visitors, are commingled in some way with the event, flowing in and among its parts. There is no separation of audience and play (as there is even in round or pit theaters); the elevated picture-window view of most playhouses is gone, as are the expectations of curtain openings and tableaux vivantsand curtain closings..." (85).
Another key difference is "...that a Hapenning has no plot, no obvious "philosophy," and is materialized in an improviastory fashion, like jazz, and like much contemporary painting, where we do not know exactly what is going to happen next. The action leads itself any way it wishes, and the artist controls it only to the degree that it keeps on "shaking" right. A mmodern play rarely has such an impromtu basis, for plays are still first written. A Happening is generated in action by a headful of ideas or a flimsily jotted-down score of "root" directions" (86).
Lastly, Kaprow makes mention of the impermanence of Happenings. "Composed so that a premium is placed on the unforeseen, a Happening cnannot be reproduced. The few performances given of each work differ considerably from one another; and the work is over before habits begin to set in. The physical materials used to create the environment of Happenings are the most perishable kind: newspapers, junk, rags, old wooden crates knocked together, cardboard cartons cut up, real trees, food, borrowed machines, etc. They cannot last for long in whatever arrangement they are put. A Happening is thus fresh, while it lasts, for better or worse" (86).
I guess I wanted to quote specifically from my textbook in order to compare my mundane, slightly fuzzy version of what a Happening is in my own words to a clearer version, obviously composed by someone who knew what he was talking about.
In addition, I have provided a link to an article about recreation of some of Kaprow's most famous Happenings through an "art show" of sorts in a museum of all places. Link
"Happenings" in the New York Scene
In the words of Allan Kaprow "Happenings are events that, put simply happen. Though the best of them have a decided impact-- that is, how we feel, "here is something important" -- They appear to go nowhere and do not make any particular literary point. In contrast to the arts of the past, they have no structured beginning, middle, or end. Their form is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won, except the certainty of a number of occurrences to which we are more than normally attentive. They exist for a single performance, or only a few, and are gone forever as new ones take their place" (Kaprow 85).
Kaprow continues by explaining how happenings are different from traditional theatrical performances. "First there is the context , the place of conception and enactment. The most intense and essential Happenings have been spawned in old lofts, basements, vacant stores, natural surroundings, and the street, where very small audiences, or groups of visitors, are commingled in some way with the event, flowing in and among its parts. There is no separation of audience and play (as there is even in round or pit theaters); the elevated picture-window view of most playhouses is gone, as are the expectations of curtain openings and tableaux vivantsand curtain closings..." (85).
Another key difference is "...that a Hapenning has no plot, no obvious "philosophy," and is materialized in an improviastory fashion, like jazz, and like much contemporary painting, where we do not know exactly what is going to happen next. The action leads itself any way it wishes, and the artist controls it only to the degree that it keeps on "shaking" right. A mmodern play rarely has such an impromtu basis, for plays are still first written. A Happening is generated in action by a headful of ideas or a flimsily jotted-down score of "root" directions" (86).
Lastly, Kaprow makes mention of the impermanence of Happenings. "Composed so that a premium is placed on the unforeseen, a Happening cnannot be reproduced. The few performances given of each work differ considerably from one another; and the work is over before habits begin to set in. The physical materials used to create the environment of Happenings are the most perishable kind: newspapers, junk, rags, old wooden crates knocked together, cardboard cartons cut up, real trees, food, borrowed machines, etc. They cannot last for long in whatever arrangement they are put. A Happening is thus fresh, while it lasts, for better or worse" (86).
I guess I wanted to quote specifically from my textbook in order to compare my mundane, slightly fuzzy version of what a Happening is in my own words to a clearer version, obviously composed by someone who knew what he was talking about.
In addition, I have provided a link to an article about recreation of some of Kaprow's most famous Happenings through an "art show" of sorts in a museum of all places. Link
The Happening--Not the M. Night Shyamalan film
A happening is a particular type of art form. It emerged from performance art and was at its prime during the 1950s and 60s. The term was coined by Allan Kaprow who apparently was responsible for organizing some of these abstract, interactive performances and events.In a happening, there is no purpose, and no control--unlike that of traditional art and authority which contains both a purpose and a degree of control in both the individual artist and the viewer.
Yet a happening is not an individual form of art or occurance. It is collective,a group, social. It is indeterminate, created by whim, chance, or fancy. The happening is impermenence. In other words, it is not static. On the contrary, there is flux, change. If a particular happening (performance) is repeated, chances are that it will never be exactly the same. In a way, it's like improv where anything can happen and does. In addition, happenings are dependent upon context, it matters where it is held, and all depends upon the space it is held within--be it physical, mental, social or political. The Happening is a counter rationality, as it is different to what most humans are use to. For instance, there is no permenece--humans (myself included) generally do not like change. Humans also prefer controland purpose as well as success as oposed to failure--chance--which is basically what the happening is all about. It is about chance or failure, as well as the idea of embracing the idea of failure as a possibility and even as a sort of success. Hence it has the ability to envoke, and provoke fear.
Here is an example of a Happening that occured in 1963.
Yet a happening is not an individual form of art or occurance. It is collective,a group, social. It is indeterminate, created by whim, chance, or fancy. The happening is impermenence. In other words, it is not static. On the contrary, there is flux, change. If a particular happening (performance) is repeated, chances are that it will never be exactly the same. In a way, it's like improv where anything can happen and does. In addition, happenings are dependent upon context, it matters where it is held, and all depends upon the space it is held within--be it physical, mental, social or political. The Happening is a counter rationality, as it is different to what most humans are use to. For instance, there is no permenece--humans (myself included) generally do not like change. Humans also prefer controland purpose as well as success as oposed to failure--chance--which is basically what the happening is all about. It is about chance or failure, as well as the idea of embracing the idea of failure as a possibility and even as a sort of success. Hence it has the ability to envoke, and provoke fear.
Here is an example of a Happening that occured in 1963.
Friday, February 5, 2010
We can rebuild grandma--and make her better
The idea of a cyborg being is slowly revealing itself to be more fact than fiction. Of course, that does not mean that the world is going to become a dystopia where machines attempt to destroy all humans because they are deemed "obsolete." No, I highly doubt that humans can become "Terminators." However, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon computers and technology--resulting in a symbiosis of sorts. Symbiosis is a interaction between two different organisms who hav a beneficial codependency upon one another. In other words, one cannot survive without the other. A cyborg is the result of a mutual beneficience between technology and a human. However, we are not entirely dependent upon machines just yet, and humanity can survive without technology. Therefore, there should be no fear of a distopia in which humans are entirely enslaved by technology--not yet anyway.
However,while we are not entirely dependent upon machines. Some machines can not exist without a person who has a condition. Vice-versa, a person with a condition may not survive or last as long in ease without a machine attached to him or her. In other words, the machine helps the person with a condition live more comfortably--and more freely. I tend to joke with my mother that my grandmother is slowly becoming a cyborg. Now this doesn't mean that grandma's eyes glow bright red when she looks upon us, nor does she constantly scan for information. What I mean is that my grandmother has had to get knee replacements and a hip replacement because she (thankfully) has managed to live longer than her own body parts. Grandma even had a chance to try out a microchip that if it worked successfully with her body, would be implanted inside her in order to lessen her arthritic pain. The device I believe is remote controllable and instead of feeling pain, grandma would simply feel a tingling sensation. Unfortunately, this new technology was found to be incompatible with grandma. In other words, it did not lessen grandma's pain--so that's one less piece of technology inside of grandma.Apparently cyborg technology isn't so far away--or as impossible as we once imagined.
However,while we are not entirely dependent upon machines. Some machines can not exist without a person who has a condition. Vice-versa, a person with a condition may not survive or last as long in ease without a machine attached to him or her. In other words, the machine helps the person with a condition live more comfortably--and more freely. I tend to joke with my mother that my grandmother is slowly becoming a cyborg. Now this doesn't mean that grandma's eyes glow bright red when she looks upon us, nor does she constantly scan for information. What I mean is that my grandmother has had to get knee replacements and a hip replacement because she (thankfully) has managed to live longer than her own body parts. Grandma even had a chance to try out a microchip that if it worked successfully with her body, would be implanted inside her in order to lessen her arthritic pain. The device I believe is remote controllable and instead of feeling pain, grandma would simply feel a tingling sensation. Unfortunately, this new technology was found to be incompatible with grandma. In other words, it did not lessen grandma's pain--so that's one less piece of technology inside of grandma.Apparently cyborg technology isn't so far away--or as impossible as we once imagined.
The brain is NOT a computer
To be honest, when I was younger, I use to compare my brain to a computer. Afterall, it was a complex piece of "machinery" capable of infinite memory storage. Anything I thought of could appear within a matter of seconds--almost like a search engine. The only problem is that this comparison doesn't actually work. Apparently my brain is NOT a computer--nor is a computer an exact replica of the mind--an electric brain so to speak. Apparently the brain relies upon association--the minute one item appears in the mind--at the vey next second another item can appear suddenly through the suggestion of that association of thoughts.
What especially makes the brain different from the computer is that it's not just a storage box--it's an archive--an association box. Computers do not work through association. Instead they work through identification. In addition, Bush's vision of the memex--a brain-like storage device appeared at first to me as little more than a primative version of a computer. However, it's not at all like that. In fact, it's much more complex than a computer because it would be an association box--not merely a storage box. It would be able to remember notes, and the order in which they were placed. Most importantly it would work through the linking of associations. To this day, a computer can't even do that. The memory of a computer--especially when it comes to the internet is merely short-termed, while a memex would have been able to recall data that it had been given several years ago.
Here is a link that explains why the brain is NOT a computer.Link
What especially makes the brain different from the computer is that it's not just a storage box--it's an archive--an association box. Computers do not work through association. Instead they work through identification. In addition, Bush's vision of the memex--a brain-like storage device appeared at first to me as little more than a primative version of a computer. However, it's not at all like that. In fact, it's much more complex than a computer because it would be an association box--not merely a storage box. It would be able to remember notes, and the order in which they were placed. Most importantly it would work through the linking of associations. To this day, a computer can't even do that. The memory of a computer--especially when it comes to the internet is merely short-termed, while a memex would have been able to recall data that it had been given several years ago.
Here is a link that explains why the brain is NOT a computer.Link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)