I must say that this reading is much easier to follow than Manovich's essay. I like Benjamin's theory of the cult basis coming from new medias like graphic design and even more so film; that the aura of the artwork is still mysterious and unfamiliar, changing to a functional basis when the progression of the media itself is revealed. I may not have understood that idea fully but that's the overall gist I got from the theory.
A lot of points like the cult basis and production basis are interesting and I appreciate how Walter Benjamin not only ties in cultural and social aesthetics when analyzing artwork and medias but also the political, economical, and proletariat aspects too. I wish he tied more of his epilogue into the reading because to me it threw me off.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
interface
I agree to some extent with Manovich's commparison of Worf-Sapir hypothesis to the idea that an interface affects how the viewer takes in and assesses the information, but it is a bit extreme. The interface, in my opinion, can only have a minimal affect on how the information is encoded by the viewer. By stating this, is the author suggesting that the creators of these interfaces have possibly an equal or greater influence on the information presented than the creator of the information presented? I don't agree.
Also, I may need to just think about it more, but how can something created with the AL approach possible? If you assume that, for example, if you create a program, such as a Tamagochi, you need to create the almost infinite outcomes for every possible action/reaction, how can that kind of program be considered to be impossible to predict beforehand?
Also, I may need to just think about it more, but how can something created with the AL approach possible? If you assume that, for example, if you create a program, such as a Tamagochi, you need to create the almost infinite outcomes for every possible action/reaction, how can that kind of program be considered to be impossible to predict beforehand?
interface
Is the author saying that modern media is unique in an art sense as well as unique in the way that one pixel could alter the whole semiotic sense of digital art and media.
Is the author saying that the GUI is much like bladerunner because of the way that AI and AL programs evolve depending on the situation they are in much like real life organisms?
Is the author saying that the GUI is much like bladerunner because of the way that AI and AL programs evolve depending on the situation they are in much like real life organisms?
The Interface Questions
If in fact the role of the computer has shifted from being a particular technology to a filter for "all culture, past and present" whats to say that it cannot be manipulated? Considering (as someone has already commented on) that society as a whole are not programmers and do not understand the codes and how computers operate beyond what we see on the screen. Why couldn't a historical event be manipulated, or erased completely, keeping in mind that the computer has "replaced cinema and television screen, the art gallery wall, library and book."?
What was the point of the paragraph explaining how the computer has bridged the gap between work and leisure? I don't understand how that relates to the rest of the chapter.
What was the point of the paragraph explaining how the computer has bridged the gap between work and leisure? I don't understand how that relates to the rest of the chapter.
Interface
If the human body is necessarily a technical being, is technology added to the body simply a prosthesis for an already-prosthetic object?
In a society where computers have grown to hold such a great significance, are computers beginning to change the way we think, communicate, react, create, and live as humans? Have we as humans become codependent on computers?
In a society where computers have grown to hold such a great significance, are computers beginning to change the way we think, communicate, react, create, and live as humans? Have we as humans become codependent on computers?
Monday, September 3, 2007
Interface Correspondance
Do the large number of artists who use popular existing programs for creating their own artwork lose credibility?
Is it possible for computers to become a substitute for all "older cultural forms, languages, and conventions" in the education of a particular society?
Is it possible for computers to become a substitute for all "older cultural forms, languages, and conventions" in the education of a particular society?
Interface Reading
I had I hard time understanding what the author was trying to say. I don’t know if he is trying to compare Blade Runner to the fact that technology is a main part of human life now and that one-day we will be doomed for it!
1. Blade Runner showed the world in the future as a computer run dystopia. The human race is slowly weeding out the extremely human like androids as to purify it of all non-organic entities. In our day and age we seem to be working our way up to this, or at least that’s was the move wants us to see. Today, our world is getting to the point where every thing is computer run; we already have hover cars, and art has left the canvas and is now on the computer screen. My question is even though Blade runner shows a world in decay: our reality is that technology is here to help us or are we blind to the fact that we are making machines more intelligent then humans?
2. “In “meatspace” we have to work to remember, in cyberspace we have to work to forget.” Pg 63 this statement from the text brings up an interesting point: are we as a flawed species just leaning on technology in order to help us remember, or does human nature want the satisfaction of being able to delete and then able to retrieve again. Computers have the ability to delete an item (pictures, files, programs) but unless you erase it from the hard drive its not really gone. In Blade Runner man has created androids to help, but they end up only harming humans, so they send out a “blade runner” to destroy them. But new android models are still being created; the problem is never really resolved. Are humans just to ignorant to see that in order to really get rid of something you have to stop it at its source?
1. Blade Runner showed the world in the future as a computer run dystopia. The human race is slowly weeding out the extremely human like androids as to purify it of all non-organic entities. In our day and age we seem to be working our way up to this, or at least that’s was the move wants us to see. Today, our world is getting to the point where every thing is computer run; we already have hover cars, and art has left the canvas and is now on the computer screen. My question is even though Blade runner shows a world in decay: our reality is that technology is here to help us or are we blind to the fact that we are making machines more intelligent then humans?
2. “In “meatspace” we have to work to remember, in cyberspace we have to work to forget.” Pg 63 this statement from the text brings up an interesting point: are we as a flawed species just leaning on technology in order to help us remember, or does human nature want the satisfaction of being able to delete and then able to retrieve again. Computers have the ability to delete an item (pictures, files, programs) but unless you erase it from the hard drive its not really gone. In Blade Runner man has created androids to help, but they end up only harming humans, so they send out a “blade runner” to destroy them. But new android models are still being created; the problem is never really resolved. Are humans just to ignorant to see that in order to really get rid of something you have to stop it at its source?
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Response to "The Interface"
1. Are not there many similarities between interaction with semiotic content through the human-computer interface and analysis of "classical artwork" through the veil of our own psyche? Presumably, the user, in the former case, has no control over the interface that was designed by a third party. And the viewer, in the latter case, did not choose and cannot change his subconsciously developed mental state.
2. The author discusses and seems greatly intrigued by the effects of variabilty of interface and the fluidity of run time on the integrity of new media content. But what are the artistic implications of merely creating artwork that does not, even at the interface, physically exist?
2. The author discusses and seems greatly intrigued by the effects of variabilty of interface and the fluidity of run time on the integrity of new media content. But what are the artistic implications of merely creating artwork that does not, even at the interface, physically exist?
three sweet websites
www.youtube.com you can find almost anything on here
www.pandora.com this is a good way to listen to music and find out about new artists based on genre
www.freightalicious.com this website has a lot of cool pictures of graffiti on freight trains
www.pandora.com this is a good way to listen to music and find out about new artists based on genre
www.freightalicious.com this website has a lot of cool pictures of graffiti on freight trains
Saturday, September 1, 2007
the interface
1. because technology rules so much of our lives that it can change the way we percieve people, objects, news, etc. in "real" life as well in technology based interactions, why don't we place more control on the orginization on it? we have created a means of transfering information that affects the messages it transmitts and brings its own messages, and by this we have created a being that suddenly has power over us. we, as lay people use computers and technology daily yet, I for one don't understand a bit of what is occuring on the coding level. And this ignorance is so incredibly dangerous, as it affects nearly every aspect of the way we percieve the world. So, why is it that we aren't more informed about the technology? is it simply that humans are lazy and want the convience of technology without the trouble of untangling its coding? is it that we are oblivious and don't realize the potential for distortion and manipulation? is it that the majority of us are too stupid to understand the way it works? is it that we are just apathetic and don't give a shit?
2. can anything exist without the medium to transfer it? doesn't the medium then become part of the information, because it is a) necessary to the transmitting and b) as stated earlier, affects the raw data/art/information? are there millions of ideas and feelings floating about that we aren't even aware of and we have only found mediums to describe a small, small percentage of the total? that doesn't mean that those ideas/feelings/whatever don't exist just because we can see/understand/articulate them? or does it?
2. can anything exist without the medium to transfer it? doesn't the medium then become part of the information, because it is a) necessary to the transmitting and b) as stated earlier, affects the raw data/art/information? are there millions of ideas and feelings floating about that we aren't even aware of and we have only found mediums to describe a small, small percentage of the total? that doesn't mean that those ideas/feelings/whatever don't exist just because we can see/understand/articulate them? or does it?
interface ?'s
after reading through the text i think i see the connection between blade runner and the interface, but Is the article about connecting the two or about the interface itself?
i see the connections that they rule contemporary culture, and both have been built on and concepts have evolved from the originals that creates much of modern day culture but i feel as the author was using it as a connection for and introduction and it was not meant to be dwelled upon throughout the article.
a quote from page 67 ," to change the interface even slightly is to change the work dramatically" this quote struck my memory to a quote from the movie and helped me to make a connection in the text
i found the connection between the "non-transparency of the code" concept and the Whorf- Sapir hypothesis very confusing what point was the author trying to make in this part of the article?
i see the connections that they rule contemporary culture, and both have been built on and concepts have evolved from the originals that creates much of modern day culture but i feel as the author was using it as a connection for and introduction and it was not meant to be dwelled upon throughout the article.
a quote from page 67 ," to change the interface even slightly is to change the work dramatically" this quote struck my memory to a quote from the movie and helped me to make a connection in the text
i found the connection between the "non-transparency of the code" concept and the Whorf- Sapir hypothesis very confusing what point was the author trying to make in this part of the article?
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Interface
i read the entire thing through a number of times and came to different conclusions about certain things whenever i came to the end of the passage. some of my questions remained constant though.
touching on Nechama's query about how to connect this to Blade Runner, i had a hard time keeping that in my mind as his intention past the first page. sure, the title is mentioned a slew of times, but all in the first page; once we plunge further into the passage, where has our comparison gone? is Blade Runner really what he means to focus on? there seems to be a lot more covered and many other subjects that reign supreme in this particular passage (the GUI, which itself is not fully exploited, due to hefty jargon). unless the audience was expected to carry that through with them, which i didn't, so it may not have been as affective as the author intended.
also, i researched Peter Lunenfeld's "permanent present" which is mentioned in the very beginning of the first paragraph. yet, i still don't understand the theory the way i think i should. doesn't it seem like it might contradict the idea of ever evolving culture and media by being deemed the "permanent present"?
touching on Nechama's query about how to connect this to Blade Runner, i had a hard time keeping that in my mind as his intention past the first page. sure, the title is mentioned a slew of times, but all in the first page; once we plunge further into the passage, where has our comparison gone? is Blade Runner really what he means to focus on? there seems to be a lot more covered and many other subjects that reign supreme in this particular passage (the GUI, which itself is not fully exploited, due to hefty jargon). unless the audience was expected to carry that through with them, which i didn't, so it may not have been as affective as the author intended.
also, i researched Peter Lunenfeld's "permanent present" which is mentioned in the very beginning of the first paragraph. yet, i still don't understand the theory the way i think i should. doesn't it seem like it might contradict the idea of ever evolving culture and media by being deemed the "permanent present"?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
"The Interface" Response
I found the text pretty dense as well, but I think I got the main messages of it.
1) I understand how both the Mac and Blade Runner influenced culture, but I wasn't sure if the author trying to imply anything beyond they both influence the look and mark coming in the future. But I wasn't sure if the author was choosing one or the other as the mightier vision, it mentioned in the beginning that they had a similar idea, but then they also had key opposing ideas such as decay.
2) The author compares a film with a computer technology. Doesn't this seem a bit like comparing apples and oranges, as both may have a similar goal. They are so separate in their approach and ways of influencing culture that it seems like it could get messy.
1) I understand how both the Mac and Blade Runner influenced culture, but I wasn't sure if the author trying to imply anything beyond they both influence the look and mark coming in the future. But I wasn't sure if the author was choosing one or the other as the mightier vision, it mentioned in the beginning that they had a similar idea, but then they also had key opposing ideas such as decay.
2) The author compares a film with a computer technology. Doesn't this seem a bit like comparing apples and oranges, as both may have a similar goal. They are so separate in their approach and ways of influencing culture that it seems like it could get messy.
response to "the interface"
That text was pretty confusing and hard to follow. So, naturally, I have questions.
1) Isn't it going a bit far to compare Whorf's theory of linguistic relativity to that of a computer interface? Despite the parallels that this text draws (and yes, I realize that there are parallels), the fact remains that people think very differently than computers (i.e., parallel processing!). So, to say that the interface's thought process is similar to linguistic relativity is a bit of a stretch. It is not that simialr, or at least not comparable enough for what the author is trying to achieve. He even admits, "The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis is an extreme expression of the 'non-transparency of the code' idea.." Couldn't a better comparison have been drawn? Also, if a computer processes cutting and pasting the same way universally, how does that relate to linguistic relativity? Shouldn't it have some boundary that it can't see beyond, a "way of thinking that only works within the pre-ordained framework?" (That was the best way I could phrase linguistic relativity so it related).
2) When he says "new media artists" is he referring to computer programmers, or those who use computer programs to create art (such as a graphic artist)? I became extemely confused around the third paragraph on page 66 due to this; this term needs some clarification! In fact, I am so confused that the entire ending has become a blur to me because of this, no matter how many times I re-read the passage.
1) Isn't it going a bit far to compare Whorf's theory of linguistic relativity to that of a computer interface? Despite the parallels that this text draws (and yes, I realize that there are parallels), the fact remains that people think very differently than computers (i.e., parallel processing!). So, to say that the interface's thought process is similar to linguistic relativity is a bit of a stretch. It is not that simialr, or at least not comparable enough for what the author is trying to achieve. He even admits, "The Whorf-Sapir hypothesis is an extreme expression of the 'non-transparency of the code' idea.." Couldn't a better comparison have been drawn? Also, if a computer processes cutting and pasting the same way universally, how does that relate to linguistic relativity? Shouldn't it have some boundary that it can't see beyond, a "way of thinking that only works within the pre-ordained framework?" (That was the best way I could phrase linguistic relativity so it related).
2) When he says "new media artists" is he referring to computer programmers, or those who use computer programs to create art (such as a graphic artist)? I became extemely confused around the third paragraph on page 66 due to this; this term needs some clarification! In fact, I am so confused that the entire ending has become a blur to me because of this, no matter how many times I re-read the passage.
"Interface" questions
I too found the text difficult but interesting. I believe that he makes several valid points to include the fact that interface can, and does, change the meaning by changing the context. But this does not seem to be something entirely new as the passage would suggest. People have been viewing through filters and changing the context since there has been something to change. Did computers not just make it easier to do this? Such as copy and paste, one could "copy and paste" pretty much anything by re-creating it and re-using it. I also think that he has not fully expressed the connection between current interface and Blade Runner. Is he suggesting that they are connected because they are opposite or involve opposite themes? Or is he saying that they are similar because, in both with current interface and in the movie Blade Runner, something is, or can be, created that is made by both human and computer to the point where neither is solely responsible for it. On the whole I agree and believe he makes very good points and states many interesting facts which I had never considered.
In addition, what exactly is a metatool? My interpretation would be a that facilitates the using of other tools.
In addition, what exactly is a metatool? My interpretation would be a that facilitates the using of other tools.
The interface questions....
i actually found this assignment really hard. I have more opinions than questions after reading this passage.
1) The text mentions about whorf-sapir hypothesis. Exactly how does that relate to the "non-transparency of the code"? What is?
2) The author mentioned a paradox on page 66. I am confused exactly what paradox the author is writting about. Is it the "does art necessarily need to take form in order for it to exist?" or the "art being in an idealized medium free realm"? should'nt the interface be valued as a medium?
1) The text mentions about whorf-sapir hypothesis. Exactly how does that relate to the "non-transparency of the code"? What is?
2) The author mentioned a paradox on page 66. I am confused exactly what paradox the author is writting about. Is it the "does art necessarily need to take form in order for it to exist?" or the "art being in an idealized medium free realm"? should'nt the interface be valued as a medium?
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The Language of New Media Questions
Lots of text on that page, isn't there? I did come up with a couple of things as I read through it, though.
I don't know how exactly to connect "Blade Runner" to what the text is talking about, exactly. The text talks a lot about the validity of art and culture created through the digital interface. Is the comparison between run-down, unacceptable "Blade Runner" and the smooth cool Mac a parallel to that?
Is the ability to "replicate" art through copy and paste throwing originality into question, somehow? Shouldn't the original work put in by the original artist still cound unquestionably as an original piece, even if a file can be copied out digitally pixel by pixel, through a different process?
I don't know how exactly to connect "Blade Runner" to what the text is talking about, exactly. The text talks a lot about the validity of art and culture created through the digital interface. Is the comparison between run-down, unacceptable "Blade Runner" and the smooth cool Mac a parallel to that?
Is the ability to "replicate" art through copy and paste throwing originality into question, somehow? Shouldn't the original work put in by the original artist still cound unquestionably as an original piece, even if a file can be copied out digitally pixel by pixel, through a different process?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Fiery the angels fell...
"Fiery the angels fell; deep thunder rolled around their shores; burning with the fires of Orc"
This quote from Roy (when first addressing the eye maker) struck me as a bit curious, so I decide to look it up. Apparently it is a paraphrase of William Blake excerpt. Here is a link to the full text of "America: a Prophecy."
This quote from Roy (when first addressing the eye maker) struck me as a bit curious, so I decide to look it up. Apparently it is a paraphrase of William Blake excerpt. Here is a link to the full text of "America: a Prophecy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)