Welcome to ENGL293: Introduction to Digital Media
This site is where you will all be posting your blog assignments. Please log in using a WordPress account to create new posts. The title of each post should be the name of the reading you are choosing to comment on.
In the menu on the left side, you will find the syllabus, as well as a page for prompts, which I will post to before every Monday evening, so make sure to check it!
Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle, “Web Squared: Web 2.0 5 Years On.”
Jay David Bolter, Blair MacIntyre et al, “New Media and the Permanent Crisis of Aura”
Wolfgang Broll et al, “Toward next-gen mobile AR games.”
In identifying the perception altering powers of adding art to environment, Edge brings us into that Post-Modern landscape of subjective reality. Where our notion of the “real” is a kaleidoscope of shifting perspectives, ideologies and concepts adapting moment to moment. Stability is an illusion created by our own constantly adapting viewpoint – if everything is in motion, it seems to be standing still. However, I’m getting ahead of myself. As enjoyable as it is to revel in the post-modern maelstrom of reality-as-perception, I’d like to focus on what Edge means when he speaks of codified locations, the church as an idea made manifest which we enter mentally as much as physically.
Churches, temples, holy sites of every description are filled with sense-based triggers associated culturally to larger ideas or concepts. In a Catholic church, the stained glass windows stimulate the visual, the censers of incense the olfactory, the chanting and hymns the auditory, the physicality of the bible and the pews for touch, and the consumption of the communion completing the spectrum. Each is tied to an element of the overarching ideology, to an element of the religion’s story or teachings. Its function, to overwrite or supersede our conventional reality, to allow us to approach the divine. So it is in all religious ceremonies, from the fire shrines of the Zoroastrians, to the colorful festivals of the many Hindu holidays. Indeed, for many of these traditions, the original inspiration was an even more complete virtual reality experience. In the Vedas, the substance known as Soma is repeatedly referred to, likely a psychoactive drug which altered the perceptions of the individual in an all consuming virtual experience. References to psychoactive drugs can be found in almost all of the most ancient belief systems, from Peyote in the south American first nations, to the hallucinatory gasses of the Oracle at Delphi. That holy places should seek to be a virtual reality, or a hyperreal experience, should then come as no surprise.
At its core, religious experience has always been about seeking a deeper engagement with reality, and with humans, that typically involves experimentation and control. Religions were a natural, necessary evolution in our own consciousness, and continue to guide and sculpt our perceptions. That technology continues to allow for new avenues of this to blossom seems very human indeed.
In Eliott Edge’s article “How VR Gaming Will Wake Us Up to our Fake Worlds,” Edge discusses the aspects of virtual reality that inhabit our everyday lives. He argues that everything — down to the individual body and mind — is a form of virtual reality. His discussion of thoughts as simulation bears resemblance to the psychological analogy as the human mind working as a computer through memory stores and other processes. Everything as virtual reality seems similar, also, to epistemological theories of reality, specifically those that question the authority of the senses. Throughout my reading of this article I didn’t buy it. I thought that Edge was testifying to this epistemological viewpoint — which is heavily debated — until halfway through the article where he states his discussion as “virtual reality metaphor.”
The virtual reality metaphor states that we are all in our own worlds. We are formed by our individual biology, experiences, and perceptions, which is a stance that I do agree with. The bubble of a culture, formed by prescribed ideals and enforced by propaganda is a world that we live in. Edge mentions the concept of the hyperreality, which again is analogous to virtual reality. He mentions Baudrillard’s idea of Disney World as the ultimate virtual or hyper reality, and I think that Baudrillard’s example of a town made to resemble the ultimate suburban American dream, with fake flowers, snow, and leaves when appropriate is a worthy example of virtual reality as well. Perhaps I view Edge’s virtual reality as an idealized, performative reality. Cultures are built upon strong ideological rhetorics, enforced by subliminal rhetorics. Judith Butler, as mentioned in Edge’s article, believes in the performative nature of gender and the societal rhetoric that creates gender roles. The human body creates one perspective through which to see the world (or virtual reality), but the idea of the ideal man or the ideal woman creates another lens. We live in a perspective based society, which is indeed similar to a personalized virtual reality.
In relation to the following reading on “How VR Gaming Will Wake Us Up to Our Fake Worlds” Elliot Edges, main object of inquiry pertains to the notion that “human civilization has always been a virtual reality, that acts in accordance with what is referred to as the virtual reality metaphor” (Edge, Ethical Technology, 2016). Furthermore, those notions pertaining to the concepts of virtual reality as stated above pre-date back centuries in accordance to Elliot Edge. Thus forth the origin of virtual reality, linked to the onset of culture is recognized through the “proto-media of “cave paintings, the talking drum, music, fetish art making, oral tradition” that has been fashioned throughout history (Edge, Ethical Technology, 2016). In fact proto-media such as cave-paintings from our past has been defined as the first formation of animation technology to exist amongst humanity. As those images constructed upon the inner cave walls influence what is referred to as “virtual travel”. This notion of “virtual travel” pertains to a specific environments ability to stimulate one’s mind and mentally produce an entirely different environment outside of the physical form. Moreover, as technology advances throughout history, leading into what we refer to as the electric age, which is the age in which we presently exist. The object of virtual reality has simultaneously advanced alongside that of animation technology so as to produce VR headsets and rooms for are amusement.
However, as we discussed in class Elliot Edge believed that in between these alternate notions of VR, sometime down the line we developed the notion that all of humanity already exist in VR through the hyperrealities of cultural signifiers, such as the church. In fact Elliot Edge specifically argues that these hyperrealities such as Starbucks and McDonalds that exist within the present day are due to “the codification of certain places of warship and the belief systems that joined them” (Edge, Ethical Technology, 2016). Meaning that according to Elliot Edge the origin of are more complex virtual realities such as those defined as hyperrealities can be acknowledged in the temple or the church. For instance the inside of the church portrays various objects of signification which allow the mind to wonder and fantasise about a secondary environment outside of the physical form that is embodied inside the temple. Objects such as are beliefs and visual representations of said beliefs, when placed together produce a sign which represent the meaning behind the structure itself. Thus are notion of VR pertaining to the church symbolizes a structure of faith and community. That is then cast upon everyone’s interpretation of said structure; much like the everyday franchise is now. Consequently, without these representations which make up are perceptions of VR pertaining specific structure, the building becomes nothing more than a mere signifier without a meaning.
Has the IoT really become a way of transmitting information we already have access to, or making computing more visible to us, instead of invisible and ubiquitous? Does it enclose regular life into a computational casing?
I definitely feel as though Ian Bogost makes a very valid point in that that IoT has become a highway of transmitting information we already had access to, while making the computing of all things – or as much things as possible – more obvious. In regards to computational casing, I believe that is exactly what is happening with society.
Bogost makes an excellent point, that we’ve always been able to do these things that have so recently become digitalized. However, the interest that society shows, in the present, is one that is lusting for technological innovation. How can I light my gas fireplace without getting up? how can I turn of this light switch without getting up? How can I get up without getting up ? Whether one wants to attribute this technological desire to laziness or not, the reality is that we want to be able to do things as efficiently as possible and the number one way to do that is through our computational devices, almost specifically our smartphones.
I don’t believe that there is an active agenda to make the computation of things less invisible and more ubiquitous, it just happens to be the direction that we are inevitably headed towards, as our ability to fuse internet with technology grows. I believe that computational casing is a thing that will happen because of it’s ultimate purpose, and that purpose is simple. Efficiency. If everything is connected, if everything is accessible from our specific location, then the hassle of moving about is completely eliminated. The hassle of exuding unnecessary energy becomes obsolete. Call it lazy if you want, I call it innovative and convenient. I am all for IoT.
Blog #3- A Cyborg Maifesto
Donna Haraway’s “A Cyborg Manifesto” helped me to realize that cyborgs are being integrated into our society at a rapid rate. We must learn about the advantages and disadvantages of their implementation because they will soon be a reality for all of us. Cyborgs can help us to break free of Western masculinist values. Cyborgs cannot remember the cosmos, instead they can be produced without the need for sexual intercourse; it does not expect its father to save it. Cyborgs change what counts as women’s experience, they skip the textualization of human sexes.
The trance state experienced by some users of technology may be attributed to the constant use of tools. Since we have learned to cope using technology to achieve our goals, when we try to do tasks without tools, it is much more difficult. For some handicapped individuals, technology becomes a part of the body, and those who use it may never wish to go without it. Not only does the cyborg close the gap between sexes, but it allows disabled people to compensate for their differences.
Cyborg imagery helps us to get rid of dualisms in multiple ways. For one, Women are subjects to the dualism of being objects, while at the same time having their own consciousness; having nothing to do with the desires of others. Since cyborgs do not require mates, the dualism is eliminated; they are simply meant to do their task. Second, we cannot say that machines will take over humanity, because machines are a part of our agenda, they extend our will. We must careful to not be too drawn in by technology’s advantages. The true evil of technology is what we allow it to do to our own productivity; for example, playing too many videogames can cause disconnect form reality, or a lack of social interaction.
The TED talk by Amber Case makes the claim that in the past every tool humans have created has been something that benefited us physically. Something that helped advance our abilities to do things physically and what she says is about technology now is that for the first time we have something to extend our mental self. Technology allows us to share information and communicate much faster and more frequently than ever before. She talks about how in this modern age we have a second self; which is our digital identities on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. Amber brings up the point that nowadays when we grow up we leave memories on the internet so there is always a record of it and this creates what she calls “panic architecture” which basically means we are always searching for our things online.
In my opinion, Amber is very true in what she says. We are constantly connected to our phones or computers nowadays that we become consumed by it. We often panic and think we have to deal with so many things on our social media outlets and are always being influenced by the chatter of others. She brings up the point of how kids growing up now will not be able to grow because of the addiction to their technology. I completely agree with her closing statement when she says that technology ends up being more human because these connections are still done between humans but just done in a different way. In my opinion, it is quite true that we are all “cyborgs” but it does not mean it is necessarily a bad thing. Being able to connect and interact with people all around the world with just the click of a button has helped the world advance far beyond what we could have envisioned 20 years ago. This is what I believed Amber Case is trying to convey in her TED talk and I understand and agree with what she had to say. The last point I would like to touch on would be her case about children and technology. I agree that since children are so dependent on their phones and such nowadays it makes it very hard for them to grow their first identity; their identity that does not reside in the digital realm. I guess only time will tell if technology is truly limiting us or not.
In his article “The Internet of Things You Don’t Really Need” Ian Bogost discusses the growing trends of crowdfunding and IoT. He introduces the IoT through the wonderfully superfluous Bluetooth enabled gas tank scale, GasWatch, just one of the many products which take an already perfected product, sticks a networking chip into it, and raises the price for the “convenience”. This wondrous product is not simply offered, no, first it went through the crowdfunding platform IndieGoGo, where 361 people decided this was a valuable enough product to fund with no guarantee of actually receiving the product.
Bogost proceeds to lambast various other IoT devices from a “smart” thermostat to a bike lock unlocked by your phone. He criticizes these devices for giving the illusion of efficiency while not actually providing it. While his points are very valid, he misses one of the largest problems caused by smart devices, security. These devices are often slapped together products with no thought given to the potential security risks. As such many of them have large security flaws allowing attackers to gain control for a variety of purposes, including overloading your insulin pump, hijacking control of your car while you’re driving, and causing massive disruptions to the internet. This has become a large enough problem to gain the attention of the US government, which is notoriously slow in relation to technology. And unfortunately, this continues and will continue to be a problem as more companies jump onto the IoT bandwagon with little or no thought to protection.
It should, however, be noted that there can be benefits to IoT devices, Nest, for example, may not quickly repay its cost, it does help the environment through reduced heating, or Dot a braille smartwatch for those with visual impairments, providing an easier and more affordable braille reader. These devices should not be dismissed out of hand simply for being atypical smart devices.
(This Twitter account posts many terrible IoT devices, otherwise known as Internet of Shit)
Within the article, Fear of Screens by Nathan Jurgenson (Jurgenson), he argues that the digital devices connecting human beings to the internet is creating a digital intoxication which is keeping people submissive and in an elusive control. This form of control people believe that they have is actually held with outside parties, arguably they have the control. The processes that human beings have made via social media and operating systems on devices have a desire that in a way manipulates humans without the human programmers (sometimes) intending them to do so. The processes on devices are defusing human contact and conversation or are making people dedicated towards their technology more so than they are to human affection. The problem is the discussion of a digital detox being associated with “turning off” as if we aren’t on unless we are on media devices/technology. I disagree with the article at this point that people are always turned on in the sense that we cannot stop absorbing information. Depending on what humans are doing the scope or dial is according to what task is currently at hand. If the task is more demanding and contains complex material then the scope will be focused more so than watching TV, talking to friends and having YouTube running simultaneously. This focus of attention changes the reality of focus you put into each scenario. The problem is that people are sponges and want to be bombarded constantly with information. Most peoples innate instinct is to learn however which way that will benefit them in the future. In this era, people are discovering that it’s survival of the technologist. If you are not up to date, you’re basically considered obsolete by other human beings and seen as an out group. Once the information and channels are closed people aren’t receiving information quite as quick as they would with media devices, they are on a cool down period or a detox as stated by Jurgenson. This detox period is considered boredom for most because they are actually aware of their surroundings and more so their thought process. This time to think allows the person to realize that they would be numbing their brain right now with pointless memes instead of being alone with their own thoughts. As stated in class being isolated is a grueling torment.
ENGL293: Intro to Digital Media 