ARTS3091

[emelie3091]

Week 9 - Social organization - Transversally

I believe that the video ‘The coalition of the willing’ made by Knife Party has a lot of good points when it comes to discussing transversal forms of collaborations. The Internet is an incredible tool and it can be used for so much more than Facebooking, trailer watching and fashion blogging. The video discusses Internet’s endless possibilities when it comes to engaging and creating together, and participating in the “new era of global collaborative culture”. The idea of open source culture, where thousands of individuals can contribute towards creating something spectacular (like Wikipedia), is a fantastic example of the type of work which completed by using the web as a platform. 

The video continues by saying how the world is networked like never before, and we can use the Internet to kickstart a revolution. It explains an imaginative social network with the purpose of connecting individuals with different projects, not just locally or nationally, but even globally. I do however believe that Reddit.com can be classified as this type of social network. Reddit is an incredible tool frequently used to spread news and stories, and engage people into issues, both political and simple human compassion. 

Jellis briefly argues how micropolitics requires an openness to being experimental. I think this is obvious in Reddit as well, as it is a great platform for experimenting with, and researching, people’s beliefs and behaviors. It can act as a base for testing people’s engagement and reactions to certain issues.

Douglas Rushkoff (2011) addresses the issues with the evolving web and its rapid increase in size and reach. I definitely think he has a point, but that he also underestimates the current power of the web. I think it would be impossible to start over and create something new in order to escape the interference from governments, we just can’t avoid the control they have over us. That's why we should optimise the use of the already existing networks, like Twitter and Reddit, and even Facebook.

Maybe the Internet isn't the best tool for organising, but it is definitely the best tool ever created in terms of spreading and sharing information and creating incredible awareness.

Knife Party and Rayner, Tim and Robson, Simon (2010) Coalition of the Willing < http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/ >.

Rushkoff, Douglas (2011) ‘The Evolution Will Be Socialized’, Shareable: Science and Tech < http://www.shareable.net/blog/the-evolution-will-be-socialized >

Jellis, Thomas (2009) ‘Disorientation and micropolitics: a response’, spacesof[aesthetic]experimentation, < http://www.spacesofexperimentation.net/montreal/disorientation-and-micropolitics-a-response/ >

[emelie3091]

Week 11 - The Future, again - Hauntology

“How much, though, can we really know the future, especially with so much disruption brought to us by new media, cultural and social change?” The first thing I think of, is if new media, cultural and social change really are disrupting what we know. I actually consider these three concepts and theories to be contributing tools to how well we can know, and get to know, the future. 

At the very beginning, media was nothing but news reporting and advertisements. It is almost difficult to even begin to understand how much media has developed just over the last decade, and how much it has been influenced by evolving cultures and societies. 

Wikipedia describes the term ‘ubiquitous computing’ as technology/computing which has been created to fit right into our environment, rather than making us to adapt to theirs. It is technology that interacts with us, everywhere at all times, and works as assistants in our everyday lives. The first things I come to think of are obviously smart phones, smart TVs and Google Glass, technology that more or less knows us better than we do ourselves, and how they’ve become so integrated into our lives that we can’t picture a life without them. ‘What did people do before Google??’ is probably asked thousands of times every day, as someone whips out their iPhone to Google the most basic and ridiculous facts. But what is Google? Dictionaries and encyclopedias are solid, tangible items created and constructed by humans. Google on the other hand is an infinite database that somehow consists of everything that’s ever been written, posted, shared and uploaded online. But it’s intangible, it just exists as an asset that can be used, but not touched.

Easterling (2011) takes this discussion one step further as he discusses ubiquitous information and the “idea of space as a technology or medium of information—undeclared information that is not parsed as text or code”. This to me is a very abstract idea, and I assume that he refers to information similar to brain activity and electrical currents. It’s the type of “data” and information which is carried and transmitted in space, rather than through technological devices. I guess one point is that we are losing this type of unique activity and agency as tangible devices and new media are becoming smarter than us, and it’s so easy for us to rely on them to our thinking for us. 

Another view of how new media, cultures and society can affect our future is Jane McGonigal’s idea of how increased gaming can save the world. McGonigal explains in her TED Talk ‘Gaming can make a better world’, how she wants gamers’ ‘can do’ attitude and feeling of being invincible to be transferred into real life moments and struggles. I think that this is a brilliant example of how new media, technology and societies can help us improve our future. McGonigal’s online game ‘World Without Oil’ is a simulation of what a global oil shortage would be like. The game allows players to interact with different scenarios and actually learn how to handle this type of situation if it would ever arise in the future. It is a great way of combining the positive and forward attitudes of gamers with real life issues, in order to research and understand how behaviour affects how well we perform in life.

I believe that new media, cultures and societies will mostly affect the future in a positive way. I think it opens up more possibilities for us to develop and evolve as both individuals and new ecologies. More information and more ways of learning makes it easier for us to understand the world we live in, and it can help us prepare for whatever future we might be faced with.

Keller Easterling (2011) ‘An Internet of Things’, e-flux journal, <http://www.e-flux.com/journal/an-internet-of-things/ >

McGonigal, Jane (2010) TED Talks, ‘Gaming can make a better world’ <http://www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html>

‘Ubiquitous Computing’ Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing>

[emelie3091]

Week 12 - But is it art? - Generative

I believe that Jeremijenko's very first sentence in her speech is really interesting as she explains how she learned that 'new technologies were an opportunity for social transformation'. This is definitely obvious when discussing media and new art. Technology and the Internet have made it possible to explore completely new ways of both creating and sharing art. Art does not have to viewed at a museum anymore, in fact, the artworks are probably likely to be seen, enjoyed and shared a countless number of more times if they are published online. Take Instagram for example, where a huge amount of photographers and artists can spread their work and ideas globally with minimal resources.

It has also almost become impossible to not incorporate some form of technology into artworks nowadays, especially with photography. Very few photographs are displayed in their original form, they have almost always been altered in Photoshop, even if it’s as simple as brightness and contrast.

Mori Mariko’s artwork is however an example of how technology and media can enhance art and contribute to a new art form. I personally do not enjoy that type as I consider it to be a bit too altered and the digitally added features do not appeal to me. I do however find the concept of her interactive sculpture ‘Oneness’ very interesting. The sculpture consists of six models of “aliens” holding hands and when the viewer hugs one of the models, its eyes lit up and the heart starts beating. My interpretation is that the sculpture do not only symbolise actual “aliens” from outer space, but anything that we classify as “the unknown”, and just things we are unfamiliar with. The way that technology has been incorporated into this artwork makes it more relatable and he technological features highlights the purpose of the sculpture as it provides important reactions to the viewers’ interaction. 

This idea of minimizing the void between the familiar and the unfamiliar might also relate to Armstrong’s (2005) term ‘ecosophical’. This term involves a discussion regarding how we connect and identify with the world, and the possibilities of changing behavior in order to become more connected with our surroundings. Armstrong explains how “our long history of dominance and oppression of ‘the other’ parallels our history of dominance and oppression of biophysical systems”. I simply believe that one of the benefits of combining art with new media is how it allows the viewer to interact with the artwork on a more physical level. 

Generative design is a form of art and design which I find very interesting as it is more or less work entirely done by a computer program. The results are stunning and it is almost fascinating how human beings and computers can work together and create such impressive designs. Enzo Henze created the artwork Red Ambush by teaching a computer how to draw like a human, how is that even possible?

Involving new media and technology into art both has its advantages and disadvantages. I believe that it opens up a new world of possibilities and creates opportunities for humans to understand the world and our surroundings on a deeper level. It also makes it possible for us to explore the concept of ‘art’ as it allows us to go far beyond the standard use of brushes and paint to create an artwork. 

Armstrong, Keith (2005) ‘Intimate Transactions: The Evolution of an Ecosophical Networked Practice’, the Fibreculture Journal 7, <http://seven.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-047-intimate-transactions-the-evolution-of-an-ecosophical-networked-practice/ >

Jeremijenko, Natalie (2010) ‘The art of the eco-mindshift’, Ted: ideas worth sharing, <http://www.ted.com/talks/natalie_jeremijenko_the_art_of_the_eco_mindshift.html >

Lanks, Belinda '9 Groundbreaking examples of Generative Design' <http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670547/9-groundbreaking-examples-of-generative-design#1>

Mori, Mariko (2011) Tida Dome, Adobe Museum of Digital Media, <http://www.adobemuseum.com/#/exhibit/tidaDome >

[emelie3091]

Week 10 - The generosity of new media - Social organisation

I believe that there are two sides of this topic, which Pisani makes clear in her article, the side of the public and the side of the researchers. When reading the first half of Pisani’s article, sharing research data and results over the web seems genius. Why isn’t every researcher on the planet doing this?? The last part of her article makes you understand why. Because of good ol’ competition and a dash of narcissism.

It seems to me that the way researchers are rewarded is a very outdated system that doesn’t really benefit the researchers themselves, and certainly not the public. Imagine how much faster we could see results and discover new things if researchers’ data was published online on a daily basis. They say that two heads are smarter than one, so imagine if hundreds, if not thousands, of scientist heads were put together.

Wilbanks states that ‘science publishing isn’t just an industry. It’s also the core factory for knowledge in the world.’ Knowledge should be shared, especially when it comes to science and even more when it comes to medicine. Science should be about solving global problems, not about who gets published where and when and how many times, ‘we need, in short, to think beyond the idea of knowledge as paper. We need to think about its consumption, not just its production’ (Wilbanks).

So I guess this is a question about who has the right to access this type of information, and who that owns it. Do just one person have to be thanked for a discovery? Can’t we just thank all the scientists?

At the same time, one of the largest issues with the web is the fact that it is so easy to spread false information and alter reality. One example is all the images of “aliens” that people claim to have found, but later turn out to be dressed up chicken carcasses. Another one is how Photoshop is ruining reality, it’s impossible to know if a photo posted online is 100% real, slightly enhanced or 100% fake. It’s becoming more and more difficult to believe what see and read online. If this happens to science, then we’re all doomed.

Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing >

Wilbanks, John (2011) ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, < http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing >

[emelie3091]

Week 8 - The fate of the state - Data

The thing with social media, or media today in general, is it’s ability to spread information at a ridiculous rate. There’s very little control over what’s being shared, and significant news are somehow increasingly being discovered first by social media sites rather than actual news outlets. How did Twitter know that Osama bin Laden had been killed hours before President Obama appeared live and announced it? How was it possible for users on Reddit to start a large scale witch hunt in order to find the people who were responsible of the Boston bombings?

Paul Mason discusses why the use of social media has exploded over the past years. He makes some great points including ‘truth moves faster than lies’. Politics and governments concern everyone on some level, people care about who’s ruling their country and what those ‘rulers’ are doing in order to improve their lives. With so many recent critical incidents, including the financial crisis, it’s becoming more difficult for civilians to trust and rely on their governments. People all around the world are angry and frustrated so there’s no wonder why their opinions go viral when they’re able to share them globally at the touch of a button. Social media made us realize that we’re not alone, there’s always someone, somewhere, who agrees with us.  

Paul Mason furthermore discusses how 'They all seem to know each other: not only is the network more powerful than the hierarchy - but the ad-hoc network has become easier to form.' With the endless amount of ways to communicate and share information, there's no need to keep your network local. The bigger the better, and if there are more dedicated people in the U.S. than here in Australia, then why not bring your opinion over there? 

Nikki Usher observed how a political issue in Egypt suddenly got the whole world engaged. She talks about the term "i-event" and how people were able to follow the events in Egypt through live-streaming and social media websites, something that would've been impossible not too long ago. 

I believe that people today know more than ever, or at least have more ways of learning and discovering. Is this a problem for governments? I would say both yes and no. President Obama used Reddit to reach out to a young and highly significant demographic before the election last year, a brilliant move that hasn't even been considered earlier years. The negative side would be the amount of lies and wrongful information that can cause uprisings beyond the control of governments. Just look at Kony 2012 and the witch hunt that took place online after the Boston bombings. 

Mason, Paul (2011) ‘Twenty reasons why it’s kicking off everywhere’, Idle Scrawls BBC, < http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2011/02/twenty_reasons_why_its_kicking.html >

Usher, Nikki (2011), ‘How Egypt’s uprising is helping redefine the idea of a “media event”’, The Nieman Lab <http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/02/how-egypts-uprising-is-helping-redefine-the-idea-of-a-media-event/ >

[emelie3091]

Week 5 - Reality - Experience

Virtual and augmented reality are fascinating phenomenons. We can see it, hear it, believe it and live in it, but is it really reality? 

Wikipedia describes virtual reality as 'computer simulated environments', where physical presence both in the real world and in imaginary worlds is simulated. So with the help of displays and screens, and even additional devices affecting other senses like hearing or touching, we can create scenes or worlds reflecting real life, or experiences within worlds beyond our imagination. Such a modern form of technology can be used to recreate history and help us understand the past and how reality has changed drastically over time. 

Augmented reality (AR) is, according to Wikipedia, viewing the physical environment but using technology to augment elements within it. Lauren Drell describes it as placing a virtual layer over the real world, so I guess you can say that it's reality, with a few changes. Drell mentions seven ways in how augmented reality will improve everyday life. They are all impressive ways, but I found urban exploration, shopping and safety and rescue operations extra interesting. It would be incredible to be guided through a city with your hands free and technology that adapts exactly to your needs. Shopping and augmented reality, and Drell's mentioning of the switch from e-commerce to v-commerce, is a fascinating and intimidating idea. Being able to shop wherever you go will make people's credit card bills go through the roof, but it will definitely make waiting for buses and trains less painful. AR will probably be most useful for safety and rescue operations as it would make it possible for rescue teams to be guided more efficiently through harsh conditions.

In contrast to this, John Haven looks at how augmented reality can have negative consequences on social situations. Haven argues how AR “is not just a technology. It’s a shortcut” and how only encountering a world we want is likely to affect human behavior. We replace facts with technology, and I believe that this is more likely to create a more fake environment, rather than improving the existing one. For example, I believe that Google Glass will be excellent for assistance in the environment, but I think it’s going to have a negative effect on natural human interactions and behavior. Having technology assisting you with things that should come naturally just feels wrong.

The 3D immersion technology video is a good example of how virtual reality can effect us and make us believe that whatever is displayed in-front-of us is real, even though we are fully aware of that we’re playing with technology. The man in the video is wearing glasses and he is surrounded by screens projecting an environment. He is clearly aware of the usage of technology, but what he sees sets him off to such a degree that he loses his balance, on a flat, still surface. Is this what happens when the virtual reality becomes too real?

Virtual and augmented reality create endless opportunities for making everyday life easier and more enjoyable. However, what happens when we become even more dependant on technology, and start to ignore our natural instincts and interpretations of the environment and actual reality?

References:

‘Virtual Reality’, Wikipedia < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality >

‘Augmented Reality’, Wikipedia < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augmented_reality >

Drell, Lauren (2012) ‘7 Ways Augmented Reality Will Improve Your Life’, Mashable, December 20, <http://mashable.com/2012/12/19/augmented-reality-city/ >

Havens, John (2013) ‘The Impending Social Consequences of Augmented Reality’, Mashable, February 8, <http://mashable.com/2013/02/08/augmented-reality-future/ >

immersivetech (2010) ‘IDEO Labs – Amazing 3D Immersion Technology”, YouTube.com, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ7QJwcdJmM >

[emelie3091]

Week 4 - The extended mind - metacommunication

During a few minutes after my iphone was stolen over the summer I felt completely lost and stranded. I couldn't call anyone, I couldn't message, I couldn't check bus timetables and I couldn't transfer money. Even though I was standing right on Campbell Parade in front of Bondi Beach together with my friend, I suddenly felt like I was all alone in the middle of the outback. I had no idea how to do anything because I was so extremely used to using my phone for even the smallest things. I had to catch a cab from Bondi Junction to home just because a bus ride without headphones and music felt impossible. 

My point with this relates to what Stiegler discusses, how ‘cognitive technologies, to which we confide a greater and greater part of our memory cause us to lose and ever-greater part of our knowledge’. We are basically getting dumber because we rely on our iPhones, iPads, remotes, TiVos, GPS and endless more technologies that constantly pop up in the market, to do the thinking for us. It’s a terrifying thought, how did we end up in an era where we feel more comfortable about trusting technology rather than our own brains?

Our dependency on technology may be getting a bit extreme, but if you live in a modern society today it is almost impossible to keep up with life unless you have a smartphone. Smartphones make it possible for the user to access everything everywhere. We no longer need a TV, a radio or a newspaper to get the news, we don’t need a laptop to send emails, the Yellow/White Pages are a waste of paper and retail stores will soon be considered to be a waste of space. It would be impossible for the human brain to store the enormous amounts of information which is more or less expected to be carried around and be accessible at any time. Like Alva Noë writes, ‘the brain is necessary for our life, but it's hardly sufficient’.

Stiegler also mentions ‘the control societies’, how adding cognitive features to technology can make it possible for industries to take control and ‘delegate knowledge’. This definitely applies to society today, just look at Google and Facebook. It took a while before users realized that everything they posted on Facebook automatically became possessions of the company. Before they were forced to change their Terms and Agreements, Facebook were in ownership of a huge library of information and photos of millions of people from all around the globe, and to some extent, they still do. Another example is Google who has developed Google Analytics, a tool companies can use to see exactly how visitors to their websites move around, what they click on, how long they spend on each page, what page they move on to, when they return to the page etc. This information can then be used to build websites that make customers act exactly like the company  wants. 

Wikipedia includes ideas from Clark and Chalmers, who discuss the concept of ‘active externalism’. They suggest that external objects found in the environment can assist cognitive processes, in they way that they can work together and complement each other. ‘The mind is extended into the external world’ so the brain basically adopts the external tools in order to use them to its advantage, and as a part of the body rather than a separate item. This furthermore relates to the video by Alan Kay, where it is demonstrated how easily a person can learn how to play tennis when it is about making it natural and involving as little thinking and trying as possible. ‘The racket is part of your arm’, so rather than seeing the racket as an additional tool, the individual was encouraged to think of it as an actual body part. 

Kay, Alan 'Alan Kay on Learning' < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50L44hEtVos 

Noë, A 2010, ‘Does thinking happen in the brain?’, 13:7 Cosmos and Culture,December 10, accessed 27 March 2013, <http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/10/131945848/does-thinking-happen-in-the-brain >

Stiegler, B (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’, acessed 27 March 2013, <http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis >

Wikipedia, 'Extended Mind' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Mind

[emelie3091]

Week 3 - Media ecologies - machinic

I have to admit that the concept of ‘media ecology’ makes way more sense than I first thought it would. It’s highly applicable to everything that is going on in the media and technology world and I believe that it’s actually a good way to describe the increasing involvement of media in our everyday lives. 

The Media Ecology Association simply describes media ecology as ‘the study of media as environments’ and how different forms of media more or less control and structure our lives and influence roles in society and human behaviour.  This is very obvious when you look at how a lot of people put on an act, rearranges the actual situation and structure their environment just to be able to post an “impressive” status update on Facebook or a “life-is-awesome” photo on Instagram.

Neil Postman argues that media ecology also involves the investigation of how our interactions with media affects our chances of survival. This might sound a bit dramatic but it actually makes sense when you think about everyday situations and how media affects them. My iPhone is my third arm and I use it for absolutely everything, which I realized even more when it was stolen over the summer break. So from a personal perspective I would say that my phone definitely facilitates my survival, but from a wider perspective I would argue that my extreme dependency on this little device do more harm than good. New media controls everything we do, how we do it and when we do it. Just looking at the hundreds of thousands of apps for mobile phones, it does not matter what you search for, there is always at least one app that will relate to your search topic. McLuhan describes how traditional media can be viewed as an extension of the human body, but new media take things even further and can be considered as an extension of the human nervous system. New media affects us on a deeper level and has the power to alter our opinions, values and emotions. New media together with technology have developed into something so much more complicated than tools to simplify communication.

McLuhan also looks at media ecology in the sense of how different mediums are arranged and connected in order for them to work as a system and avoid overtaking each other. An example from real life is how every single networking and social media website is connected with each other. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, YouTube, Google+ and many more are all connected, not just through the ‘share’ buttons but through actual owners. Instead of being overruled by YouTube, Google bought the video platform and Facebook did the same when the photo app Instagram exploded in popularity. Working together will simply provide more success (happy users -> more money) compared to competing. It’s a massive network and an environment that has been constructed for users to live and engage in.

Another interesting point from this week’s readings is from Paul Levinson who writes about the concept of ‘monopolies of knowledge’ and how it’s losing its meaning. The monopolies do not exist anymore with the  widespread access to technology and the Internet. Every question can be answered and every point can be proven within seconds. Today, practical experience is usually valued higher than knowledge, as it proves the actual capability of the individual. The whole digital environment makes it easy to not only fake excessively happy moments to post on Facebook or Instagram, but also knowledge. I personally believe that the modern human being is becoming dumber as we rely on media and technology to provide us with answers rather than actually learning and relying on the capabilities of our brains.

Levinson, Paul (1997) ‘The First Digital Medium’ in Soft Edge; a natural history and future of the information revolution London: Routledge:11-20

Media Ecology Association ‘What is Media Ecology’, http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/

‘Media Ecology’, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology