Cyborgs exist only in the imagination of writers and artists. Comment
Another dictionary quote (New Oxford American dictionary/Apple Dictionary): a fictional or hypothetical person whose physical abilities are extended beyond normal human limitations by mechanical elements built into the body.
By that definition, there does not need to be a significant transformation, but merely an implant. Completely possible. It seems unnecessary though. What is gained by building into the body? The body is weak and prone to high failure rates. Wireless transmission and monitoring would accomplish the same tasks.
@Melissa: I'm not sure I totally agree with your point about technology and free will.
"For example, if you know about surveillance camera locations and purposely avoid routes that would encounter these devices, then you limit your experience of your environment."
Is this really a limitation of the environment that is only relative with technology and free will? I would argue that this is a reaction of participants to their environment. Reacting to an object in the environment occurs with analog and digital objects. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this, as my view is assuming that analog and digital elements are of equal importance in said environment.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Comment on ways that the film Blade Runner predicted the future.
I agree with what Jonathan said about the societal views portrayed in the movie Blade Runner. I would like to take it a step further though, and look at the portrayal of the future in most film.
In Bladrunner, we saw a run down environment. There were the super wealthy (aka the creator) who lived above the pollution and had sunlight, and the common people who had spotlights and rain. There was a strict industrialized theme throughout the city, similar to the big city stereotype. This movie was made in 1982.
Prior to Blade Runner was Metropolis, a film made in 1927. Although made 55 years prior, the two share very similar characteristics. Again we see a strong class system. This is represented symbolically via the upper class living above ground, and the worker class living in the catacombs below. The future is represented as dependency to technology. For example, if someone were not to operate the clock underground, then the machines would fail and horrible things would happen. We see this dependency to technology fear appear time and time again. Again we have a movie where the antagonist is a computer agent, but represented under the guise of flesh. Is the fear representational of technology, or of ubiquitous/ambient technology.
In modern day we see Pixar Studio's animation Wall•E. In this movie we see the aftermath of non-sustainable societal practices. In this film the technology is represented inversely to the established prescience. In prior films, technological agents resembled human form, but lacked emotion. In Wall•E, the characters exhibit emotional attributes while retaining a technological appearance. In this movie we see the human characters being assisted by robot technology to create a nirvana state, but eventually the established fear is realized when the technology gains control of the humans and develops individual rationale.
The underlying plot is technology taking over mankind, mankind fighting back to once again hold administrative position. Is this a media fear or an actual scientific fear? At what point do everyday technological components become competitors instead of utilities? Is it the actual technology or the idea of artificial knowledge/reasoning that induces fear?
In terms of artificial knowledge, the primary barrier used is to develop human implemented limitations to technology. Whether it's life spans, or kill switches (most robots in movies media have kill switches/self destruct codes) there seems to be some limitation to the technology. What makes this technology so dangerous? Is it the fear that we might create something smarter than us? If that's the case, what makes us so sure they can't reverse engineer itself through recursive analysis to counteract the limitations? If humans can reverse engineer software/restrictions (see CCS and DRM algorithms), how hard would it be to create a synthetic date at runtime to overwrite age value checks? Or simulate communication between components to spoof data transactions?
I agree with what Jonathan said about the societal views portrayed in the movie Blade Runner. I would like to take it a step further though, and look at the portrayal of the future in most film.
In Bladrunner, we saw a run down environment. There were the super wealthy (aka the creator) who lived above the pollution and had sunlight, and the common people who had spotlights and rain. There was a strict industrialized theme throughout the city, similar to the big city stereotype. This movie was made in 1982.
Prior to Blade Runner was Metropolis, a film made in 1927. Although made 55 years prior, the two share very similar characteristics. Again we see a strong class system. This is represented symbolically via the upper class living above ground, and the worker class living in the catacombs below. The future is represented as dependency to technology. For example, if someone were not to operate the clock underground, then the machines would fail and horrible things would happen. We see this dependency to technology fear appear time and time again. Again we have a movie where the antagonist is a computer agent, but represented under the guise of flesh. Is the fear representational of technology, or of ubiquitous/ambient technology.
In modern day we see Pixar Studio's animation Wall•E. In this movie we see the aftermath of non-sustainable societal practices. In this film the technology is represented inversely to the established prescience. In prior films, technological agents resembled human form, but lacked emotion. In Wall•E, the characters exhibit emotional attributes while retaining a technological appearance. In this movie we see the human characters being assisted by robot technology to create a nirvana state, but eventually the established fear is realized when the technology gains control of the humans and develops individual rationale.
The underlying plot is technology taking over mankind, mankind fighting back to once again hold administrative position. Is this a media fear or an actual scientific fear? At what point do everyday technological components become competitors instead of utilities? Is it the actual technology or the idea of artificial knowledge/reasoning that induces fear?
In terms of artificial knowledge, the primary barrier used is to develop human implemented limitations to technology. Whether it's life spans, or kill switches (most robots in movies media have kill switches/self destruct codes) there seems to be some limitation to the technology. What makes this technology so dangerous? Is it the fear that we might create something smarter than us? If that's the case, what makes us so sure they can't reverse engineer itself through recursive analysis to counteract the limitations? If humans can reverse engineer software/restrictions (see CCS and DRM algorithms), how hard would it be to create a synthetic date at runtime to overwrite age value checks? Or simulate communication between components to spoof data transactions?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Response: Week 6 Performance Art
The idea of interaction associated with performance art has had a direct effect on new media art, comment.
This story had police and a chimpanzee. What more could you ask for?
After watching this storytelling, I question the actual interaction @ happenings. A happening does not have to have interaction from the crowd, but how important is an audience to performance art? Can there be passive happenings as well as active? The way the event was described portrayed several artists working at the same time, but with mutually exclusive intentions. Were happenings done to this degree with a more collaborate goal?
In response to Melissa's post about the audience. What does the audience contribute/limit with it's presence/absence in terms of new media art? It seems that because of interactive technologies (CAVE environments, spatial sound, gesture/haptic devices) that the audience is able to take on a more active, and more spontaneous role.
This story had police and a chimpanzee. What more could you ask for?
After watching this storytelling, I question the actual interaction @ happenings. A happening does not have to have interaction from the crowd, but how important is an audience to performance art? Can there be passive happenings as well as active? The way the event was described portrayed several artists working at the same time, but with mutually exclusive intentions. Were happenings done to this degree with a more collaborate goal?
In response to Melissa's post about the audience. What does the audience contribute/limit with it's presence/absence in terms of new media art? It seems that because of interactive technologies (CAVE environments, spatial sound, gesture/haptic devices) that the audience is able to take on a more active, and more spontaneous role.
Presentation Response:Happenings
what would kaprow have thought about recreations of the happenings? keep in mind the d.i.y. attitude with directions so that anyone can create the art piece, versus the spontaneity and impermanence of happenings.
also, what are the consequences of merging life and art? if everything we did was perceived as art, would value of art in our world diminish or grow?
I think it's safe to assume Kaprow would have been very proud. The idea of happenings being scripted seemed to invite reenactment. I think that recreation would have been favorable as well, because it could be viewed as a variant or evolution of the original happening. Later on it seemed that Kaprow was more concerned with the intricacies of life, "And the work itself, the action, the kind of participation, was as remote from anything artistic as the site was."-Kaprow.
I don't know how the Kaprow concerned with small parts would have felt about these being recreated. It seemed that the concept of space was important to Kaprow's work. Very few of his Happenings were actually recorded. They exist only in that specific moment. This is different from other art, say a painting, where the space and emotion are tied to a tangible artifact.
In terms of merging art and life, I don't think the two are separate to begin with. There are distinct ties between the two that offer symbiotic assistance. In the "what-if" scenario of everything being art, it is hard to say what would happen. The initial answer is everything would be diminished, but is that true? Value isn't assigned to art in a specific way, so it's hard to say that value would drop because of a certain thing. Humans crave unique and individual "things." There was an episode of a Nickelodeon TV show called "Fairly Odd Parents" in which everyone was turned into monochrome blobs, completely indistinguishable from each other visually. Even then, characters in the show defined themselves as being "the grayest" or "slightly less gray." I can not imagine a scenario where every thing created is valued at the same level as "art." Not to say that everything doesn't have value, but even now within the classification of "art" there are different dimensions and facets to each piece.
also, what are the consequences of merging life and art? if everything we did was perceived as art, would value of art in our world diminish or grow?
I think it's safe to assume Kaprow would have been very proud. The idea of happenings being scripted seemed to invite reenactment. I think that recreation would have been favorable as well, because it could be viewed as a variant or evolution of the original happening. Later on it seemed that Kaprow was more concerned with the intricacies of life, "And the work itself, the action, the kind of participation, was as remote from anything artistic as the site was."-Kaprow.
I don't know how the Kaprow concerned with small parts would have felt about these being recreated. It seemed that the concept of space was important to Kaprow's work. Very few of his Happenings were actually recorded. They exist only in that specific moment. This is different from other art, say a painting, where the space and emotion are tied to a tangible artifact.
In terms of merging art and life, I don't think the two are separate to begin with. There are distinct ties between the two that offer symbiotic assistance. In the "what-if" scenario of everything being art, it is hard to say what would happen. The initial answer is everything would be diminished, but is that true? Value isn't assigned to art in a specific way, so it's hard to say that value would drop because of a certain thing. Humans crave unique and individual "things." There was an episode of a Nickelodeon TV show called "Fairly Odd Parents" in which everyone was turned into monochrome blobs, completely indistinguishable from each other visually. Even then, characters in the show defined themselves as being "the grayest" or "slightly less gray." I can not imagine a scenario where every thing created is valued at the same level as "art." Not to say that everything doesn't have value, but even now within the classification of "art" there are different dimensions and facets to each piece.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Week 5
Unfortunately I was not able to attend the class viewing of the new Digital Art Research Collective (no more acronyms!!). From what experience I do have with the project though I think I can still offer insight. At first sight the name is cyclical. Very important to realize, as well as the slash distinction. "Revo / Over" notice the direction of the slash. In musical notation this represents an increase in tone, or a resetting of bass tone. For example, E / F could be taken as increasing from E to F, but in chordal terms E/F refers to an E chord with an F in the bass. At the same time the term "over" is at the end. Is this representing a terminal point? I doubt this is the intention of the title, but one take could be a redefinition of art with a terminal state. More likely though is the symbolism of the palindrome, Revo & Over. Notice the ordering though. Revo is garbage in terms of an english word, but Over is a strong term. Does this relate to the creative process? Does inspiration of art come from the unformed section pre-fixing termination?
In terms of questions to the artist: What inspired the use of technology for your exhibit? Was technology a limiting factor? An inspiring factor? Was technology just a a utility or was it an active medium?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)