The genius of invention

by on January 24, 2013 in Week 2

Frankenstein's monsterSeveral of the authors that we’ve read on this programme have felt the need to remind us that humans invented all this technology. It’s a theme that struck me again in the wonderful meat scene, but which I think permeates a lot of this discourse. There is certainly the Frankensteinian fear of the created overpowering the creator (this week it’s been Blade Runner, last week 2001, and there are countless others). But there also seem to be further, less obvious worries…the preoccupation with creating something that is human, only then to react with repulsion when it’s too human (see…just about every movie, not for children, pertaining to robots), or with the ironic disregard shown to the humanoid/nonhuman’s origins in Gumdrop…the projection of invention onto others (Sian mentioned a few good ones in her response to my week 1 summary), thus absolving humankind of the blame for technology run amok…and ultimately that technology will be able to reproduce–or better-produce–itself, and truly trump the human role as creator (Bendito machine alludes to this, although to slightly more subtle ends than the Terminator films).

But this BBC show to which I refer seems to engender the chirpy optimism around invention that (at least since 1820, according to the show itself) has surrounded technological innovation. It seems that the schadenfreude in which we like to wallow with regards to digital dystopia may be more of a response to gushing rather than reactionism. As Hand makes very clear, it is difficult to find an opinion in the middle of the u-/dys-topia debate–and yet I would argue that the two sides have something in common: the treatment of technology as an existential entity with little attention paid to the people (and communities and cultures) from which the technology springs.

Comments Off ,

Google report reveals continued rise in US government requests for data

by on January 23, 2013 in Week 2

a la Hand…although it’s interesting that Google reports this information regularly…

Comments Off ,

Murder She Wrote: from typewriter to VR

by on January 22, 2013 in Week 2

And once in a while, VR has been assumed to be a bit more ubiquitous than it is…

Comments Off

Back to Reality

by on January 22, 2013 in Week 2

Red Dwarf seems to be good at presenting futuristic technology as ubiquitous rather than something to examine, question or fight. (In this episode, the technology is accepted; it’s a natural substance that tricks their minds.) Better than Life is perhaps a more straightforward example–VR is just a game; it only falls apart because of Rimmer’s psychological issues.

Comments Off

Where material and symbolic collide?

by on January 22, 2013 in Week 2

Tim Berners-Lee and the Olympic salute to pop culture (a nice Barlovian union?)

Comments Off ,

Wall-E

by on January 22, 2013 in Week 2

Amy mentioned Wall-E on her blog, and I had been thinking about this scene as well. It suggests that ‘virtual reality’ might not be limited to the extremes of The Matrix or The Lawnmower Man, but simply constant distraction and preoccupation, like Orwell’s 1984 proles who are fed pop songs by the government to keep them happy.

Hand certainly alludes to this sort of consumerist virtual world, ‘ the digital panopticon produces docile minds’ (p. 30), bombarded by infinite information and (meaningless) choice: ‘blue is the new red!’ Needless to say, this isn’t a million miles from my earlier post totalling up brand names (and various other attention-competitors) on a single webpage.

This also interests me in reference to my theory that we’re happy with virtual experiences if 1) we are aware that the experience we’re having is virtual, and to what degree it is and 2) we have chosen to experience it and can choose to leave (while the opposite would be the dystopian perspective). On the one hand, it doesn’t look like the human of the future have much of a choice about their situation, but they do have a choice about whether to engage with the ‘virtual’ elements (the advertisements, communications tools, etc.); this is clear when Wall-E distracts a woman who stops her conversation and looks around her [this is also interesting as it gives the viewer the impression that she really doesn't know where she is], gets out of her chair and responds to Wall-E. Moreover the illusion of choice is heaped upon them within a set of boundaries (i.e. the buttons on the chair). Likewise, it isn’t a secret that they are being presented with more information than they could take in all the time, mostly marketing, but the problem is in their (willful or otherwise) ignorance of its effect on themselves.
The description of this clip given on YouTube is also quite interesting: ‘This is a clip from Wall-E. It illustrates the future dystopia we’re headed to.’ In proper web 2.0 fashion, a commenter comes along with some bait, which is duly taken. Another commenter is just happy they didn’t have to watch the whole movie themselves. A philosophical debate then ensues, interspersed with farms and pools…

Comments Off ,

Song Meanings

by on January 21, 2013 in Week 2

Found this site while looking for ‘Splitting the atom’ lyrics. I like the uneasiness around discussing lyrics versus getting the ‘right answer’, i.e. the meaning. It’s more the social construction of information than the social construction of knowledge (or meaning!). But then again to see the wiki I would have had to create an account…

Comments Off

Week 1 summary

by on January 20, 2013 in summary, Week 1

This week I’ve been reflecting on a few ideas, and while thinking about things (particularly films) that pertained to these ideas, also about what does and doesn’t qualify as ‘digital culture’.

Especially when looking at film, I was interested in the prevalence of dystopian views of technology in general, and in particular technologies that had embedded themselves into everyday life to some extent or other. As most of this week’s assigned viewing emphasised, this is particularly focussed on new technologies, real or imagined (i.e. telephones, printing presses, cars, etc. don’t take over the world) and an individual’s (or small group’s) experiences of them going wrong (a kind of micro-dystopia, which may or may not eventually spread)…with the exception of Dr Strangelove, of course. But even in stories where the humans have been taken over by machines (or via the use of machines), one person is often singled out (e.g. Capt. Mandrake in Dr Strangelove, Neo in The Matrix , Del in I, Robot or–ahem–Lewis in Meet the Robinsons fighting a very bad hat with a time machine).

This seems to connect in some way to the individual-group segmentation found in discourse about Web 2.0. The promise of ‘personalisation‘ versus the potential of groups interacting, connecting, expanding each other’s horizons… The purpose of an individual in the narratives above is perhaps not so much a statement about ‘the way things are’ in itself, but rather the way we might experience things in tech-mediated situations…

2 Comments

Dr Strangelove

by on January 20, 2013 in Week 1

Dr Strangelove doesn’t quite fit the bill in the sense that the technology that’s threatening the earth isn’t physically embedded in everyday life, but obviously its existence (i.e. the possibility of a ‘doomsday machine’, or a kill code transmitted to bombers) is accepted, and affects people’s view of their own safety on a grand scale. (Or this would be pure sci fi rather than satire.) The two alternatives posed to us–create a Nazi-esque underground ‘utopia’ or let the surface of the earth be exterminated–are highly dystopian, and direct results of handing control over to computers.

Comments Off

Strange Days

by on January 19, 2013 in Week 1

Strange Days is another one I wouldn’t really recommend, but has a couple interesting features. One would be its determination to date itself by being set merely four years in the future (as the trailer, for some reason, is really keen to highlight).

The other is the idea that you can experience someone else’s life. There are lots of sci fi movies where you can put yourself into a new situation, or play a character, or control an Avatar, but I can’t think of very many where you experience someone else’s life, including physical sensations and emotions. (Maybe Being John Malkovich…but this isn’t really tech-assisted…)

Strange Days also bypasses the ‘this new technology is great’ stage of similar movies and goes straight to the evil underbelly–i.e. it can’t be used to encourage empathy or compassion, but rather to breathe new life into the porn industry and give serial killers a unique way to taunt the police. Still, the idea of technology allowing people to understand better what it’s like to be someone else–along with the misgivings associated with letting people know too much–is certainly present in much discussion surrounding Web 2.0.

Comments Off ,
Older posts
Newer posts