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.

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?

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?

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?

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"?

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?