Wrt the previous post, I received a few replies from my course mates. It would be interesting to keep track of them here:
Kee An
I think it's interesting that you're venturing out of glitches and noise distortions to create an expression of a "failure" in technology. And the Revell's piece on fungal outbreak on buildings as a positive matter is indeed refreshing. I guess when it comes to technology, there would be some sort of anticipation and expectations as to how certain technologies would and should work. For example, we would expect cold air to be blown out of an air con, or a moving image to appear on the TV screen just by hitting the power button. My interpretation of "failure" in technology would be the failure in meeting consumer's needs and expectations, like how the technology works in another way that you expected it to be. In relation to Revell's work, the genetic modification of fungal samples created something which is not expected at all, and it is also considered a "failure" in technology. So probably you could come up with a series of animation/drawings/model to illustrate how certain technologies perform in a way that we would least expect it to be. Regarding your last question, I think technological failures often lead to undesirable outcomes, especially in those that concern the safety of people like failure of the car brake, failure of the rocket booster to propel the orbiter out of Earth's gravity etc. But of course they have been cases of technological failures and accidents which lead to desirable outcomes such as the discovery of microwave, which it quite common in households now, and also the discovery of penicillin due to the carelessness of a lab technician. All in all, I guess it is still safer and better not to rely on technological failures to result in something good because we would never know what good (or bad) would befall on us if that happens.
Rachel
Hi Yan Yi! Another way we could think about technological failure is hardware failure. Glitches in terms of sounds/pictures are often errors in software code and failure however what about failure in terms of hardware, such as broken keys on your macbook or a crack on your iPhone that results in a glitch. Many a times the technological failure is not because of the system itself but because of human interaction with it. How do we cause technological failure? Personally I don't think all failure is bad, some do lead to success as Kee An mentioned, however I do think most are unpleasant hahahha.
Geraldine
Hi Yan Yi! As you explore glitch artwork, you may also like to think about the various methods of glitching, like how each effect has its implications. For instance, a "System Failure" effect, or "Coding Error", to "Data Moshing". From Rosa Menkman's glitch works, you may want to further think about how glitch artworks is related to social commentary, not just merely an aesthetics. This topic I think can evoke further issues or controversies such as whether humans have control over the technology or human are just slaves to technology today. This is also an analogy to how whether artists today have absolute control over their artworks. Like for glitches, the core element is its unpredictability. As for your question on whether technological failures lead to unpleasant outcomes or experiences, I think that the main idea that glitch art portrays is something that goes wrong, and yet the imperfection often ends with a beautiful result. To answer your question on 'how do you think the “failure” of technology can be expressed,' I think that from the microcosm of glitch art to the world at large, wider security issues faced in the digital era can also be invoked. Hacktivism, cyber espionage and warfare, increase in malware, and even invasion of privacy. I guess the main thing is to try doing away with the thought that glitch art is merely a simple distortion! So probably you may want to explore wider areas like what I have suggested? Hope it helps though! (:
Jasper
Hey! I apricate you question of the outcome of technological failure, and if it is indeed always a negative outcome. There is this idea of a Turing Loop which strongly encapsulate the ability of computing technology to self-improve, that is when the computer recognises a mistake or a failed algorithm, it will record and remember so as to never go through that same route again. This loop of self-correction done at machine level precision has been the main pushing factor for technology in computing and artificial intelligence to have a constant level of self-improvement. In this perspective, technological failures would also enable the improvement of future technologies, bettering itself. Hence, it is in my opinion that failures are should not always be perceived as a negative output.
Hope that helps :D
Zachary
Hi Yan Yi (:Technological 'failure' is definitely quite large an issue that could take an entire essay to answer. These perceived failures are often seen to be obstructive and even detrimental to society, and it is thus no wonder that the whole branch of postmodernity and man's apprehension about the future developed. Perhaps it is worth considering taking up a position on the cause(s) of technological failure at the start, which goes back to the two different camps of technological determinism vs. social determinism as your position on this issue has an impact on your very own definition of a technological failure. For example, holding the reductionist view of technological determinism could mean positing that technological failures would severely impact a particular group of society. In contrast, by being socially deterministic, such a failure could actually translate into a positive outcome when the failure of one form of technology prompts man to develop alternative forms of technology to make up for the loss and to continue to improve living standards.
In terms of representation, perhaps you could even consider digital performance art or a video of the performance itself that synergises computer technologies with live performance techniques such that the narrative of portraying a failure may be two-pronged, i.e. being able to rely on two mediums instead of just one? Just a thought :)
Sharmaine
Hey Yan Yi,Nice references, I think the question about failures and successes of a technology leaves a lot of space for experimentation, especially pertaining to how you are going to represent this concept! Revell's work is interesting in the sense that it challenges our notions of what technology is and can or should become. Samson and Anderson (2013) experiement called Tassophonics explores how nanotechnology as a "magical unknown" affects our relationships to objects and our memories, and one of the conclusion was that the secret behind the technology is often imagined and made visible onto the object exterior. In other words, designers of the technology are actually, in a way, projecting their ways of seeing the world, onto the technological object itself. Similarly, seeing failure in technology is just a matter of perspective, and having fixed ideas of what the technology should do or can become actually clouds our vision of the endless possibilities that exist in the object itself. Also speaking of failure and succeses of technology, check out Simone Giertz's works i.e. "Queen of Shitty Robots".
Short version of what she does:
Queen of Shitty robotsand a longer interview (about 7 minutes):
https://www.wired.com/2017/02/tour-simone-giertzs-mad-laboratory-hilariously-awful-robots/She doesn't talk much about the meaning of these technological creations, but the way they've been designed definitely raises some questions about what is considered success and failure of technology. I think her video on the slapping arm alarm became viral a couple of years ago, you can check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLEVuNPzfpUHope this helps. Have fun! References
Samson, A., & Andersen, K. (2013). Tassophonics: Nanotechnology as the Magical Unknown. Design, User Experience, and Usability. User Experience in Novel Technological Environments Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 548-557. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39238-2_60
Johee
Hi Yanyi, I enjoyed your post and find the whole idea of technological failures creating unforeseen successes an interesting one. I think with reference to your last question, technological failures lead to initial unpleasant outcomes and experiences, to have initially invested effort and time to attempt to utilize whatever form of technology but have it fail must seem, in whatever sense of the word, unpleasant. I feel your intent to identify and expose loopholes in our dependence on technology fascinating yet also demanding a level of sensitivity. In what way can a use of something classify as dependence? Does it mean a prolonged and extensive use of something despite an alternative? Or could it also mean a usage of something purely because it is the only available and viable entity for that purpose? The failure of technology I feel can be measured according to a certain level of scientific procedure the technology itself is predicated on. For example, a simple neon light fixture may have become broken or unlightable, in that way unsuccessful. Yet there involves a series of scientific steps to have initiated and processed prior to the actual function and success of that light? One could be the idea that electricity fails to reach the required circuit, another could be the material responsible for photo emission to fail despite a presence of electric current. Yes this topic has its corners and subtle hurdles but I feel in all it will be an interesting one to pursuit, all the best! :)
Might need some time to digest all these goodies.
romaincrisis
turnnoffyourmind
snowghoul
jacobvanloon
