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"?
Friday, August 31, 2007
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."
Evelyn's Links
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)