Firstly on a personal note I feel we had some really good discussions together as a elective group that were built on developing each other’s ideas rather than arguing against them. As an evaluation I have just tried to gather up the ideas that struck me the most.
I think I came to this subject with a slightly outsider viewpoint. Unlike perhaps, the majority of my generation, I don’t see digital in terms of a ‘lifestyle’. I certainly don’t use Web 2.0 as much as the average (I don’t have home access to the internet, I don’t download, if I use facebook or blog I feel I use it on my own terms). I am certainly sceptical of whether the Internet is fulfilling its potential or whether it has just become another tool of capitalism. What I found interesting about Lev Manovich’s essay The Practice of Everyday Media Life is although I broadly agreed with his theory that strategies and tactics are merging, I think this is potentially problematic. Yes, strategies will ultimately become redundant in a pre-institutional globalised world but we are not at that stage yet. In allowing the online mapping of personal tactics, which in essence turns them into strategies, we weaken individual choice and expression.
What excited me the most was thinking of the digital as a philosophical space that although perhaps beyond definition, challenges us to ask questions about our future. This is particularly relevant for me as a student of fine art as I believe part the role of the artist is to try to provoke questioning and communicate visually that which is not easily defined. What I think is interesting is the interplay between randomness and control in a digital environment and the inherent interactivity this causes. This paradigm of controlled randomness and the tension between the two concepts seems to lie at the heart of what digital is. There is a tension between the possibility of knowledge (our access to knowledge has become almost infinite) and the recipient’s choice of what to access. It is important that the wonder of the former does not blind us from the importance of the latter and the factors that may inform that choice. In other words we have moved into a world where it is more important to be knowledge-ABLE rather than knowledgeable.
Living in a digital world suggests we should be continually questioning what is real and what is not, but this can easy become futile because the dividing line is a flexible one. The internet builds and organises itself through our interactions with it and the growth of haptic experience will further blur distinctions. Increasingly the internet is becoming ‘dull’ (as according to one of the 5 views of the internet as outlined by Charles Leadbeater) and we will cease to ask these questions. They will become nonsensical as the internet becomes totally ingrained into life. I do not believe we are far away from this point in terms of technology, but we are in terms of mindset. It is the mindset as opposed to the technology that I believe should be to the forefront in our understanding of a digital world. Often in order to solve a problem we must first define it, but through that definition restrictions are imposed which in turn breed more problems as shown when we debated Claude Shannon’s model for digital communication. This is particularity true in regards to the digital where any definition that does exist is usually contradictory. Take the globalising potential which is both a great strength in terms of increasing powers of communication and also a great weakness in that it opens us up to systemic risks.
What struck me about our final debate as an elective group was the positivity we collectively felt about the opportunities of a digital age. I felt that most of the statements we came up with could be argued either way to such an extent that to me they were morally neutral. Technology may be a sign of development but this in itself does not make it good or bad. Moral potentially is something inherent to humankind rather than something that may be applied to technology. Perhaps this is even useful in helping to determine where humanity and the 'real' world diverge from the digital and the virtual world. The moral responsibility lies with us rather than with 'the internet'. We certainly shouldn't blame technology for our moral failings but nor should we blindly walk forward believing all progress to be inherently good. The more we progress, the more we should be on the moral lookout.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Ian Goldin: Navigating our Global Future
This short talk summarises well what we need to be thinking about when approaching the future. There is positivity here but it is not an optimism that clouds judgement. The key point is that inherent in the glory of globalisation is its weaknesses, in bringing people closer together the potential for both good and bad operates on a larger scales. The risk becomes systemic. Also the role of the individual changes manifold - also well as the increased potential for marginalisation (as seen in growing equality) we will reach a point where a single 'globalised' person will weld enough power to destroy the whole world (eg through the creation of a biopathegen.
Friday, 8 January 2010
Digital Environments Create The Possibility For...
What struck me about our final debate as an elective group was the positivity we collectively felt about the opportunities of a digital age. I felt that most of the statements we came up with could be argues either way to such an extent that to me they were morally neutral. Technology may be a sign of development but this in itself does not make it good or bad. Moral potentially is something inherent to humankind rather than something that may be applied to technology. Perhaps this is even useful in helping to determine where humanity and the 'real' world diverge from digitality and the virtual world. The moral responsibility lies with us rather than with 'the internet'. We certainly shouldn't blame technology for our moral failings but nor should we blindly walk forward believing all progress to be inherently good. In a way perhaps the more we progress, the more we should be on the moral lookout. And why did we look at everything with such positivism? It would be nice to think because we have not lost our youthful optimism. Perhaps it is because of the fact that we all chose this subject as an elective so one would surmise that we see it in a positive light. There is also the fact that we are the generation that grew up alongside the internet's decidedly utopian birth. The next generation, growing up with a very different context, might see things in a different way. Finally, if one labels everything as neutral, then things seem to become more boring - an impassable ambiguous boredom of confusion (a boredom reflected in one of Charles Leadbetter's 5 views of the internet).
Notes on Clay Shirky - institutions vs. collaboration
Building on discussions based on Lev Manovich's practice of everyday media life we can see that the digital world, in a perpetual state of revolution is naturally anti-strategic and lends itself in contrast to tactical thinking. The internet, therefore is pre-institutional on a scale never seen before. it is as though the potential for institutions to develop civilisation has reached its limit and now they have begun to hold back progress. Non-institutioned power and potential is now more easily accessed and harnessed (although it is worth noting that this pressure of competition from amateurs is causing professionals to develop faster). What is also important is social capital as opposed to technological. We now live in a world that is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap, as exemplified by services like facebook and twitter. This places different areas of the world on a more equal footing (eg Africa was first to harness the power of text message exit polls and then was copied by the infinitely more technologically developed US. It is the idea that is important rather than the technological capacity). Now we are on an equal enough technological footing for the importance of the nation state to start reducing.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Notes on Digital Noise and the Haptic Aesthetic
- What is communication? This seemed the question at the root of our conversation about digital noise. It is interesting that in trying to overcome a problem, such as that tackled by Claude Shannon, one must first define it and through that definition emerges restrictions and hence problems. In order to removing noise in order to make communication easier, a linear definition of communication was developed, separating sender and receiver and possibly negating the role of receiver. This model therefore begins to hinder true communication which is two-way. The ‘noise’ in essence feedback, is actually essential to communication. So, the digital, initially a process that intended to remove noise has developed feedback, digital noise and this is perhaps why it has such an impact, such possibilities. At the root of a lot of debate about the nature and validity of the digital I think lies this question, what is communication?
- When talking about this noise, it is very seductive to think that this is the interesting part that creates context. The noise of the web is probably both its strength and its weakness and is certainly what makes it so relevant. The noise contains the difference, a sort of peaceful difference where everyone has their voice. Someone compared this with nature (‘variety as the spice of life’) which is an interesting analogy. When there is too much variety in nature, its starts to become self-restrictive through evolution. The essential qualities are therefore not lost. Does/can/will the digital environment do this? The idea that the digital is a noisy space that requires renegotiation to navigate an created through this renegotiation are interest and human qualities, this is very seductive but just because an idea is appealing and we want to believe it doesn’t make it true.
- This haptic aesthetic, when it does succeed is very interesting. ‘Appeel’ is an illustration which although uses no digital media, communicates very well this idea. It succeeds as a project because the stickers hack into instinctive human tactile desires and hence a virus is created. This is something I try and tap into in my own work, the seductiveness of tactility and the potentiality of expanding a tiny motif into chaos. There is also the case of artists who work in digital media feeling the need to build ‘noise’ into their work, such as in the digital spray can that drips. Finally a reference to Very Nervous System, a beautiful work. It poses the question where does dance interpretation and sound creation begin and end, or are they one and the same? This feedback created between music and dance reminds me of a part in the film, the red shoes, where the conductor says he will have the music played at whatever speed the dancer dances, which comes first?
- When talking about this noise, it is very seductive to think that this is the interesting part that creates context. The noise of the web is probably both its strength and its weakness and is certainly what makes it so relevant. The noise contains the difference, a sort of peaceful difference where everyone has their voice. Someone compared this with nature (‘variety as the spice of life’) which is an interesting analogy. When there is too much variety in nature, its starts to become self-restrictive through evolution. The essential qualities are therefore not lost. Does/can/will the digital environment do this? The idea that the digital is a noisy space that requires renegotiation to navigate an created through this renegotiation are interest and human qualities, this is very seductive but just because an idea is appealing and we want to believe it doesn’t make it true.
- This haptic aesthetic, when it does succeed is very interesting. ‘Appeel’ is an illustration which although uses no digital media, communicates very well this idea. It succeeds as a project because the stickers hack into instinctive human tactile desires and hence a virus is created. This is something I try and tap into in my own work, the seductiveness of tactility and the potentiality of expanding a tiny motif into chaos. There is also the case of artists who work in digital media feeling the need to build ‘noise’ into their work, such as in the digital spray can that drips. Finally a reference to Very Nervous System, a beautiful work. It poses the question where does dance interpretation and sound creation begin and end, or are they one and the same? This feedback created between music and dance reminds me of a part in the film, the red shoes, where the conductor says he will have the music played at whatever speed the dancer dances, which comes first?
Monday, 30 November 2009
Views of the Internet
1. How I respond to each of the 5 different views of the internet, how does my own use of the internet fit into this?
I think that although contradictory these views, from experience, manage to be simultaneously valid. Just a tool Probably the way I approach the internet as I relatively occasional user, I see it mostly as a facilitator for I want to do, for example i have a blog for my creative writing but I think if this option was not open to me I might self publish a 'zine in order to get my ideas an audience. I think the creative population has always sort to exploit any medium, the internet opens up a lot of creative opportunities to a wider audience in its ease of use. This could be seen as professionals vs. amateurs but there have always been amateurs who manage to get their voice heard. The internet opens up opportunities to the less determined. Also I believe the internet is becoming increasingly tool-like and in its bid to appeal to all, compared to the early days of the web, the internet is much more user-friendly and requires less technological know-how. For example, myspace was still quite dependant on ones ability or interest in using html, whereas facebook superseded by removing this barrier and hence appealing to more people. The internet in such ways is becoming less unique and more like an imitation of non-virtual life. Big but becoming dull Once the internet is truly 'everyday' it's impact will be more profound but it will also be less tangible. It will be difficult to define where internet and non-internet begin and end and therefore how to measure its impact. Although this sounds a long time in the future, I do not believe we are that far away in terms of technology but we are in terms of mindset. We have yet to have a generation of adults that have grown up with the internet as we know it and certainly there is a great generational gap between people my age and our parents. Once the population is more homogenised in terms of its internet use, this will be the first step in integration. big but BAD Again these are valid points but as the internet continues to grow there comes the interesting concept of self-regulation, not only in terms of ethics but also in terms of contact. Obviously there is a lot of rubbish on the net but because of the number of people going through it, what is worthwhile starts to rise to the top. In fact as the internet grows and more and more people access it, it becomes more refined. Also in terms of myself and my contemporaries, the internet offers the opportunity for the professionals of tomorrow to communicate and develop their ideas. I don't believe the internet erodes independent thought any more than any other media, we just have to be aware of the ways in which this could happen. big and getting bigger FAST The good aspects of the internet are fairly easy to agree on. What is important is making sure they continue as the nature of the web changes. Powerful people such as Rupert Murdoch are seeking to change the nature of the internet, possibly for the worse. As big business becomes more dominant online we need to be aware of changes that may occur. Also will all this social networking, new conversations, actually help in tackling major issues like environmental problems? This is a good question. The positive attributes of the internet should not cloud the importance of governments and big business in truly shaping the world. big, good - could become bad The idea that the internet needs controls similar to conventional media would completely change its nature. Yes, a lot of problems might be removed but a lot of the unique and good aspects would also be removed. It would become difficult to differentiate between the internet and conventional media and this would therefore diminish the power and opportunity of the net.
2. Is Rupert Murdock correct in saying that there is not enough advertising revenue to go round, therefore news papers and other news providers will have to charge for their content?
I do not think it is necessary to simply start charging for content, nor will this necessarily be the answer. However, obviously conventional models for collecting revenue will have to change. Interestingly we have seen since the growth of the internet a greater desire for what is not easily available online ie live experience. Events like Glastonbury have become extremely popular and financially successful. Newspaper may find revenue in tapping into this desire for live and often shared experience. It is worth remembering also that people buy newspapers not only for news - this is easily available for free on the radio or on television - but because they wish to buy into a brand. I buy a physical copy of the Guardian 3-5 times a week. I listen to Radio 4 everyday so have a pretty good idea what is going on but I like to read from my own political viewpoint. I buy a physical copy even though I could read it online for free because I enjoy reading on paper in a way I don't when I read on a screen. Newspaper must look into non-conventional revenue collection. If they simply start charging for online content, they risk alienating a mass of readership and therefore lessening their importance in the media of the new century.
3. What do you think a Murdock shaped internet would look like in the future if his ideas were successful?
As stated before, the internet would be less unique and more like conventional media. I also think it would become less relevant. Whether Murdoch is aware of this or not I am not sure, perhaps he is willing to curtail its potential as long as he is able to have a majority stake in its power. Actually a Murdock shaped internet would be pretty depressing. Regulation would lead to ghettoisation of what is not 'approved' and therefore a split in the internet and in society to which people access what. Ultimately, big business and those with money would be the ones determining content.
I think that although contradictory these views, from experience, manage to be simultaneously valid. Just a tool Probably the way I approach the internet as I relatively occasional user, I see it mostly as a facilitator for I want to do, for example i have a blog for my creative writing but I think if this option was not open to me I might self publish a 'zine in order to get my ideas an audience. I think the creative population has always sort to exploit any medium, the internet opens up a lot of creative opportunities to a wider audience in its ease of use. This could be seen as professionals vs. amateurs but there have always been amateurs who manage to get their voice heard. The internet opens up opportunities to the less determined. Also I believe the internet is becoming increasingly tool-like and in its bid to appeal to all, compared to the early days of the web, the internet is much more user-friendly and requires less technological know-how. For example, myspace was still quite dependant on ones ability or interest in using html, whereas facebook superseded by removing this barrier and hence appealing to more people. The internet in such ways is becoming less unique and more like an imitation of non-virtual life. Big but becoming dull Once the internet is truly 'everyday' it's impact will be more profound but it will also be less tangible. It will be difficult to define where internet and non-internet begin and end and therefore how to measure its impact. Although this sounds a long time in the future, I do not believe we are that far away in terms of technology but we are in terms of mindset. We have yet to have a generation of adults that have grown up with the internet as we know it and certainly there is a great generational gap between people my age and our parents. Once the population is more homogenised in terms of its internet use, this will be the first step in integration. big but BAD Again these are valid points but as the internet continues to grow there comes the interesting concept of self-regulation, not only in terms of ethics but also in terms of contact. Obviously there is a lot of rubbish on the net but because of the number of people going through it, what is worthwhile starts to rise to the top. In fact as the internet grows and more and more people access it, it becomes more refined. Also in terms of myself and my contemporaries, the internet offers the opportunity for the professionals of tomorrow to communicate and develop their ideas. I don't believe the internet erodes independent thought any more than any other media, we just have to be aware of the ways in which this could happen. big and getting bigger FAST The good aspects of the internet are fairly easy to agree on. What is important is making sure they continue as the nature of the web changes. Powerful people such as Rupert Murdoch are seeking to change the nature of the internet, possibly for the worse. As big business becomes more dominant online we need to be aware of changes that may occur. Also will all this social networking, new conversations, actually help in tackling major issues like environmental problems? This is a good question. The positive attributes of the internet should not cloud the importance of governments and big business in truly shaping the world. big, good - could become bad The idea that the internet needs controls similar to conventional media would completely change its nature. Yes, a lot of problems might be removed but a lot of the unique and good aspects would also be removed. It would become difficult to differentiate between the internet and conventional media and this would therefore diminish the power and opportunity of the net.
2. Is Rupert Murdock correct in saying that there is not enough advertising revenue to go round, therefore news papers and other news providers will have to charge for their content?
I do not think it is necessary to simply start charging for content, nor will this necessarily be the answer. However, obviously conventional models for collecting revenue will have to change. Interestingly we have seen since the growth of the internet a greater desire for what is not easily available online ie live experience. Events like Glastonbury have become extremely popular and financially successful. Newspaper may find revenue in tapping into this desire for live and often shared experience. It is worth remembering also that people buy newspapers not only for news - this is easily available for free on the radio or on television - but because they wish to buy into a brand. I buy a physical copy of the Guardian 3-5 times a week. I listen to Radio 4 everyday so have a pretty good idea what is going on but I like to read from my own political viewpoint. I buy a physical copy even though I could read it online for free because I enjoy reading on paper in a way I don't when I read on a screen. Newspaper must look into non-conventional revenue collection. If they simply start charging for online content, they risk alienating a mass of readership and therefore lessening their importance in the media of the new century.
3. What do you think a Murdock shaped internet would look like in the future if his ideas were successful?
As stated before, the internet would be less unique and more like conventional media. I also think it would become less relevant. Whether Murdoch is aware of this or not I am not sure, perhaps he is willing to curtail its potential as long as he is able to have a majority stake in its power. Actually a Murdock shaped internet would be pretty depressing. Regulation would lead to ghettoisation of what is not 'approved' and therefore a split in the internet and in society to which people access what. Ultimately, big business and those with money would be the ones determining content.
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Digital is Dangerous, notes on the art of Keir Williams, Chris Poolman and Jonnet Middleton
- Reflection arising from the ‘democratisation’ caused by digital especially in regards to art and in particular to relational aesthetics or participatory art. Relational aesthetics has always been problematic for me, put in the basest terms I don’t think the act of participation makes the artwork. There is the problem of how to get people to participate and to what extent one should coerce the audience. It seems controlling to determine a certain level of interaction for the viewer. It also questions where the other, physical elements of art fall. Are these really less important? However a social media art seems to fall in more readily with relational aesthetics and is perhaps a way to develop the concept. Social media are by their nature participatory. An art that exists in this space is compelled deal with questions of interactivity. The physicality of this art is also more limited allowing participatory aspects to come to the fore without this seeming contrived. Also perhaps because social media are inherently participatory, it is easier and more natural for the individual user to take part without feeling coerced or placed in an artificial situation.
- A variety of different temporalities are developed through the projects as they exist in multiple forms, and the interesting question arises which will last longer; physical, emotional or technological? The relationships between these are constantly shifting as online and offline share strategies. There is the question to what extent could online communities could exist without the offline? Or where does an online community forge a link with the physical world? Does it require person to person contact or merely the act of say creating a knitting pattern one finds online? There is a feeling that traditional difference between the online and offline are dispersing, for instance most online communities used to be characterised by anonymity and openness, in contrast facebook follows offline protocol in that it uses real names and depends on privacy. Does social media aesthetics play a part in breaking down boundaries between on and offline communities?
- A variety of different temporalities are developed through the projects as they exist in multiple forms, and the interesting question arises which will last longer; physical, emotional or technological? The relationships between these are constantly shifting as online and offline share strategies. There is the question to what extent could online communities could exist without the offline? Or where does an online community forge a link with the physical world? Does it require person to person contact or merely the act of say creating a knitting pattern one finds online? There is a feeling that traditional difference between the online and offline are dispersing, for instance most online communities used to be characterised by anonymity and openness, in contrast facebook follows offline protocol in that it uses real names and depends on privacy. Does social media aesthetics play a part in breaking down boundaries between on and offline communities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)