I found Dibbell’s “A Rape in Cyberspace” both extremely intriguing and unsettling. What is crime in cyberspace? Despite government policing of cyberspace, the (ostensibly) democratic nature of the internet nevertheless allows it to be a space much less legislated than other forms of media. While I am surfing the internet I am bombarded by pop-ups and sidebar advertisements proclaiming things like, “You are the 1000th visitor! Click here to claim your prize!” While such sham advertisements would probably not be tolerated on TV, the threshold of what is acceptable versus what merits public outcry or intervention seems to be much higher online. When can such internet spam be considered fraud?
Also, what distinguishes the rape in LambdaMOO from cyber-bullying, which often carries consequences in the real world (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/10/2842343.htm?section=justin)? Dibbell writes, “He had committed a MOO crime, and his punishment, if any, would be meted out via the MOO”(22). Perhaps one's agreement to participate in cyberspace (and in particular, signing up for LambdaMOO) implies a certain type of contract in which the player is bound to a set of rules. However, as the internet becomes more and more ubiquitous, it becomes rather difficult for people to choose to abstain from it—to what extent can people be held responsible for their actions in a system they have never recognized?
I think it is so very odd how justice in the real world and in cyberspace interact. The following passage touches upon the strange discrepancy which exists between the two spaces:
“Where virtual reality and its conventions would have us believe that exu and Moondreamer were brutally raped in their own living room, here was the victim exu scolding Mr. Bungle for a breach of “civility”. Where real life, on the other hand, insists the incident was only an episode in a free-form version of Dungeons and Dragons, confined to the realm of the symbolic and at no point threatening any player’s life, limb or material well-being, here now was the player exu issuing aggrieved and heartfelt calls for Mr. Bundle’s dismemberment. Ludicrously excessive by RL’s lights, woefully understated by VR’s, the tone of exu’s response made sense only in the buzzing, dissonant gap between them”(16).
In this case, Mr.Bungle’s punishment was a symbolic one. His banishment from LambdaMOO could not be permanently enforced, and yet the members of LambdaMOO accepted this punishment as just. I am also curious about how this might relate to the idea of a disciplinary or a control society.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
S03 - Surveillance and Social Media
Yesterday Thomas Levin, professor of German and a media and cultural theory at Princeton University, gave a lecture about surveillance to my Global Media class. One of the things he was very insistent about was the need for each person to take responsibility for his or her data, that is, all the information about ourselves that we disseminate are that is captured through the Internet or other technologies. Although I believe that he was only trying to awaken us to the same danger that Professor Chun often brings up in lecture, I felt that Levin's lecture definitely had more of a sense of urgency verging on paranoia. According to Levin, most of us are going through our lives unaware of how much information (about the foods or clothes we like and buy, the music we like, etc.) we are giving to those who sell our data and/or use it to market towards us, or simply to keep tabs on us. But even more insidous, perhaps, are those requests for a number when buying a battery at Radio Shack, or being asked to sign on an electronic pad that records the image of your signature when purchasing with a credit card. Levin also asked for us not to be surprised by the fact that the information that we enter into our Facebook profiles does not belong purely to us alone: our data is recorded and often used for commercial purposes. danah boyd touches briefly on the connections between MySpace and the Murdoch News Corporation, but only so far as to state that "not much is known about the long-term effects of corporate participation in social network sites."
In response to those attempts to glean data in physical spaces (as in the Radio Shack example), Levin would have us stage "pedagogical spectacles," protesting loudly that "No, I will not give you my phone number," encouraging others to take responsibility of their information and not give it away thoughtlessly or recklessly. My question is, are we also expected to stage pedagocial spectacles online? Facebook, according to Levin, is essentially a call to "surveill me please!" When danah boyd writes about privacy in the public of MySpace, she focuses mainly on the agony of teens whose parents try to monitor their profiles, or the possibility of college admissions officers having misgivings about content on prospective students' pages. If Levin implies that the government or corporations are surveilling us through Facebook, and if this is a negative thing (which I'm unclear if he feels that it is), then what about the fact that social network sites are becoming important arenas for the negotiation and enactment of social identities, for learning how to engage in public? What about the increasing need to "give oneself over," to immerse into a community, to become real within it?
RAVING!! - BEYOND WONDERLAND
Check it out. i think this videos in a lots of ways connects to what we are thinking about in class.
....California Rave culture....
performing identity,
"music is our only language"
enacting fiction,
Community
Drugs as alternate reality?
More info on the rave can be found at : http://www.beyond-wonderland.com/
enjoy
Fri 11am Section
Windows and vulnerability brought up a couple interesting points. The first of which that the internets rate of growth is proportional to rate at which the world is shrinking. A message that once took days maybe even months to send from say, Europe, to America now takes only seconds. Applications like Skype and companies like Cisco the human network even allow people on completely different sides of the world to communicate as if they were in the same room. The point being that the line between the realm of what is public and what is private is becoming harder to distinguish. As professor Chun showed in lecture (I don't remember when), even when you think you're privately browsing the internet, anyone with the right program can spy on you. This is what Thomas Keenan refers to when he describes these "windows." Applications like skype or even just a simple internet web page, are rendering the users more and more vulnerable as internet use becomes more and more ubiquitous. Another interesting irony is that Microsoft's "Windows" is what many people use to open their "windows of vulnerability."
Ben Trotter
Blog Post #5 [S03]
I was very interested in Danah Boyd’s article, which explored the dichotomy of public and private in relation to the Internet and social networking sites. I was also struck by Professor Chun’s comment that to deny teenagers Facebook is to deny them democracy. The question has come up before, but this week I feel drawn again to the question of the Internet’s democratic qualities; in my opinion, there are many ways in which it might be, in actuality, more anarchic than democratic.
Internet-based applications like LimeWire are entirely anarchic: there are no rules, and everything is fair game. Even on websites such as MySpace or Facebook, in which there do exist some rules (general age requirements, prohibitions against profanity, etc.), these rules are easily worked around: neither site does much to verify age, nor are they likely to notice something “inappropriate” unless someone were to report it. Indeed, the only real rule for social networking sites, should you be moderately resourceful enough to work around the barely-enforced “rules,” is that you have a valid, working email address. Perhaps privacy options might be viewed as preventing the social networking site from being holistically anarchic, but such features only exist if you, the user, change them; while your profile might not initially be open to everyone on the networking site, it is likely viewable to everyone within your “network” (i.e. school, workplace, town, etc.) from the moment you make it, which almost certainly ensures that people you don’t know can see your profile and information from the second you click “Save Changes.”
Thusly I wonder where democracy ends and anarchy begins when it comes to the world of cyberspace. At what point does the democratic freedom that the Internet promises become too much freedom? If democracy (particularly the democratic-republic) is distinguished from anarchy by the role of representative authority, then do the networking sites themselves, as the mediators of public cyberspaces, assume the role of this authority (by setting down rules)? If so, then does the fact that these rules are not strictly enforced mean that the so-called democratic Internet has devolved into anarchy?
The Human Condition and Digital Media
Friday, 11Am Sectio
Going through this weeks readings/page excursions-as I will call them- I found myself thinking more about the human condition in relation to digital media than anything else. In “A Rape in Cyberspace,” I found myself recounting first what we discussed at the commencement of the class, around the first/second week, the idea of what cyberspace was supposed to be and what it actually is. “Dropping me with what seemed a warm electric thud” is reminiscent of the concept of “Jacking on” or uploading oneself-metaphorically in this instance, though literally in the supposed- into the cyber-sphere and having the ability to navigate through the different interfaces by thought, this idea was furthered by, “where I stepped into the persona and appearance of a minor character from a long-gone television sitcom...” I suppose this would be the idea that on the internet you can also be whoever you want to be, like in a chat-room, no one would ever know if you’re telling the truth about who you are because there must be some sense of either gullibility or credibility. I attribute the first to mans addictive nature, regardless of whether we admit it or not we are all addicted to something, it doesn’t have to be negative, per se, but we are all users of some thing or another. The second I give to our innate desires to be who we want, to have the freedom to do what we want, and to imagine that we have the things we want.
Now in terms of the page excursions, I found Jennicam and Anacam to be the most intriguing. With Jennicam, I felt so invasive, so intrigued by her life, which is completely ordinary… I guess I was/am so intrigued by this nothingness; the idea that I could actually see how another person is living their life was simultaneously very boring and very intriguing. I wanted to know what happened or was happening, wanting to see more or know more about this person and if her routines might change or if her life might spark some excitement. I was caught in the “what ifs.” The thoughts of what could be in her life with some outside stressor. There is also the idea of being in control of her life since I didn’t see it in real life so I was able to decide what I was looking at, what I cared about, what I wanted to see, where I wanted to go, etc. And having this control was very liberating, I guess before going through this and having these experiences with the page excursions I never thought about all the control I do have in cyberspace even though it is something that we’ve discussed before. And I never thought of this control as something so necessary for the human condition, the desire to have some sort of control in ones life and do as one pleases without real consequences; in other words, we like hierarchy and equality and want to control others (or other things) while also being controlled. With the anacam, it would turn on then off then on again… after a while it was difficult to try and understand what was happening. Ultimately, I closed it before it opened again; I felt that this was the only way that I was actually in control over the domain. This then goes back to what has been discussed before about one is ultimate drive for control.
Foggy Windows
Blog Post #5
Friday 11 AM Section
It is funny that only a decade ago, Jennifer Ringley was a considered an exhibitionist; that her behavior was deemed extravagant; that critics were quick to judge and say that clearly she is lacking something in her life and is trying to fill that void by broadcasting herself to the world.
In the decade since, the irony is that we have all become exhibitionists. While once, we were appalled by the fact that someone would allow us to enter their "private" world, now it is expected that one has some form of social profile. Your private profile becomes your public forum.
Burgin writes, "The person who violently demanded that Jenni perform a striptease seems blind to the fact that Jenni never does anything else." (86) That is what we are all doing nowadays. We share parts of our lives so that our friends and strangers can demand for more. Thus, I also find it interesting how the focus seems to be on these exhibitionists and understanding the motives behind why they chose to display their lifes. However, perhaps what we should be studying or asking now, is why do we care so much? Why do we feel like we have a right to have access into a person's life? Consider this benign example on Facebook. With the new privacy settings, do you feel frustrated when you do not have access to a person's photos, wall, etc right away? Sure, everything now on the Internet can seem like a window, but why must they necessarily be transparent? A little cloudiness once in a while can't hurt.
Chatroulette
Thoughts on Chatroulette, and why I think it is the most fascinating internet phenomenon:
-Forward motion – Chatroulette’s linearity is exclusively forward. There is no opportunity to go back, no way to ‘trace one’s steps’. Further, there is no archive (as far as we know).
-Screen shots – You may exist on someone’s desktop in Paris – like globalized phenomenon of being in the background of strangers’ photographs.
-Running into people – When will you run into friends? Parents? Celebrities? This possibility creates a more tangible and imaginable idea of cyberspace: a street on which one can ‘run into’ an acquaintance.
-Self esteem – Who ‘nexts’ whom first? And how much time will pass before it’s okay to next someone – how awkward will the conversation get/how will you end it/how will you say bye and why do you feel like you have to? You’ll never see this person again so why is etiquette implied? It’s inevitable that being ‘nexted’ carries an element of pain: my roommates and I have heard everything from ‘you’re beautiful take off your shirts’ to ‘you are the ugliest girls on the planet, why are you even alive?’ Yet why subject ourselves to this? I think it’s because one can learn a lot about oneself from the way one interacts with the site, especially while alone. How weird are you willing to get? Will you perform normal small talk and get to know other users? Will you scream into the camera? How loud will you be? At what angle will you hold the camera? Will you fix your hair or put on makeup? Do you care whether you look attractive on the screen if there is absolutely no social gravity to these interactions?
-Voyeurism as a two way concept – Chatroulette is the perfect forum for fetishizing the gaze of the Other: people have sex with their computers on the site; they know someone will be watching. Has anyone been raped on Chatroulette yet? Killed? Committed suicide? It could constitute the perfect crime: guarantee of being witnessed yet infinitely small possibility of being caught.
-Creating a panoptic society – How does one know that the site isn’t keeping your webcam on, broadcasting even while you think you’ve left the site? If you think about this possibility, does it change the way you act in front of your computer? If a society ‘internalizes the possibility of Chatroulette’s gaze’ our physical and mental interactions with our computers would change.
-How can one use Chatroulette as a creative outlet? – What if one choreographed/scripted a performance and performed it in front of a computer connected to Chatroulette, never pressing ‘next’? It could be broadcast to hundreds of viewers, or to only a couple – the number would depend wholly on the viewers’ opinion of the performance – yet inversely to what we know now: the more a person liked it, the fewer viewers it would reach.
-Two way window – The interface of Chatroulette, and the computer screen itself, can be thought of as a window. A window separates public from private, yet almost everyone on the site is either in their bed, living room or kitchen, private, comfortable, safe spaces. One is rarely seen outside, in a public or even in a crowded space. The interaction is particularly private – creating a two way window that does not separate private from public, but that separates private from other private.
-by Emily Martin for Matt's section
-Forward motion – Chatroulette’s linearity is exclusively forward. There is no opportunity to go back, no way to ‘trace one’s steps’. Further, there is no archive (as far as we know).
-Screen shots – You may exist on someone’s desktop in Paris – like globalized phenomenon of being in the background of strangers’ photographs.
-Running into people – When will you run into friends? Parents? Celebrities? This possibility creates a more tangible and imaginable idea of cyberspace: a street on which one can ‘run into’ an acquaintance.
-Self esteem – Who ‘nexts’ whom first? And how much time will pass before it’s okay to next someone – how awkward will the conversation get/how will you end it/how will you say bye and why do you feel like you have to? You’ll never see this person again so why is etiquette implied? It’s inevitable that being ‘nexted’ carries an element of pain: my roommates and I have heard everything from ‘you’re beautiful take off your shirts’ to ‘you are the ugliest girls on the planet, why are you even alive?’ Yet why subject ourselves to this? I think it’s because one can learn a lot about oneself from the way one interacts with the site, especially while alone. How weird are you willing to get? Will you perform normal small talk and get to know other users? Will you scream into the camera? How loud will you be? At what angle will you hold the camera? Will you fix your hair or put on makeup? Do you care whether you look attractive on the screen if there is absolutely no social gravity to these interactions?
-Voyeurism as a two way concept – Chatroulette is the perfect forum for fetishizing the gaze of the Other: people have sex with their computers on the site; they know someone will be watching. Has anyone been raped on Chatroulette yet? Killed? Committed suicide? It could constitute the perfect crime: guarantee of being witnessed yet infinitely small possibility of being caught.
-Creating a panoptic society – How does one know that the site isn’t keeping your webcam on, broadcasting even while you think you’ve left the site? If you think about this possibility, does it change the way you act in front of your computer? If a society ‘internalizes the possibility of Chatroulette’s gaze’ our physical and mental interactions with our computers would change.
-How can one use Chatroulette as a creative outlet? – What if one choreographed/scripted a performance and performed it in front of a computer connected to Chatroulette, never pressing ‘next’? It could be broadcast to hundreds of viewers, or to only a couple – the number would depend wholly on the viewers’ opinion of the performance – yet inversely to what we know now: the more a person liked it, the fewer viewers it would reach.
-Two way window – The interface of Chatroulette, and the computer screen itself, can be thought of as a window. A window separates public from private, yet almost everyone on the site is either in their bed, living room or kitchen, private, comfortable, safe spaces. One is rarely seen outside, in a public or even in a crowded space. The interaction is particularly private – creating a two way window that does not separate private from public, but that separates private from other private.
-by Emily Martin for Matt's section
Social Networks in everyday life
After reading Danah Boyd's article about social network sites, I found it interesting how she articulates the dependency of teenagers on these sites. The first quote, "If you're not on MySpace, you don't exist", sums it up. Before these social network sites existed, the means of communication among teenagers had become mobile phones either through calling or texting. This brought teenagers away from face-to-face relationships, however, the use of the social network sites have moved teenager communication even further away from any type of verbal or face-to-face relationship.
In addition, teenagers on these sites have the ability to portray themselves to the virtual world in any manner that they choose. In essence, teenagers can directly portray themselves in a profile for the virtual world, or create an entirely different person. If they create a completely new and imaginative person, it's essentially the same as a second virtual life. The basis for communication and a relationship with the majority of "friends" becomes dependent on their virtual world. Instead of responding to something said on a social network site in person or through the use of a phone, the entire dialogue is in the virtual world.
This makes me wonder where the end to this virtual dependency is? The dependency of social networking sites for teenagers is diminishing their ability to verbally communicate their thoughts without delay in everyday situations. So, is the dependency going to evolve into a different form of life? A second life?
In addition, teenagers on these sites have the ability to portray themselves to the virtual world in any manner that they choose. In essence, teenagers can directly portray themselves in a profile for the virtual world, or create an entirely different person. If they create a completely new and imaginative person, it's essentially the same as a second virtual life. The basis for communication and a relationship with the majority of "friends" becomes dependent on their virtual world. Instead of responding to something said on a social network site in person or through the use of a phone, the entire dialogue is in the virtual world.
This makes me wonder where the end to this virtual dependency is? The dependency of social networking sites for teenagers is diminishing their ability to verbally communicate their thoughts without delay in everyday situations. So, is the dependency going to evolve into a different form of life? A second life?
Exhibitionist?
As I was reading Victor Burgin's "Critical Inquiry " about the JenniCam, I was actually quite fascinated by the fact that people thought of her as an exhibitionist. I personally never would have thought of that, simply because I think the exhibitionist would have to know the people that s/he is exposing her/himself to. This doesn't mean that there has to be a solid friendship or even acquaintance but when exposing the body, I think, unless the experience is also visceral and not virtual, it would not constitute true exposure. Without the acknowledgement of this carnal connection, the exhibition would not happen. However, if we look at "the Rape in Cyberspace" piece and the idea that "you have to have cybersex to fully open up to MOO" we see that it might be a sort of an initiation to another place/time/era in her life. Seeing as she is doing this in her college room and that it is a transition between her childnhood and adulthood, this idea seems to fit.
I also found the fact that she found it "lonely" without the camera after she graduates and places another one in her apartment really intriguing. I would have expected the camera to be a nonjudgmental observer, something that doesn't influence her actions or daily life, (although the fact that she "will put on shows occasionally" shows us that this is not entirely true,) and something that she could easily remove from her life; something that she wouldn't get attached to. I guess this shows us the argument that Burgin makes about how Jenni imbibes the webcam with her mother's approving look; by imagining that there is someone there who is constantly standing by her actions, Jenni had the strength to go through this rite of passage of becoming an adult but in the process got attached to an inanimate being she blessed with humane qualities.
Interesting all around.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Freud analysis of the "Jennicam"
The pleasurable expectations of the “Jennicam” rely on the scopophilic instinct, which Freud defined as looking at another person as an erotic object. Scopophilia can be directed in two areas: first, voyeurism, that is scopophilic pleasure linked to sexual attraction, and, second, narcissism, that is scopophilic pleasure linked to identification with the ego ideal. Freud claims that voyeuristic tendencies arise from an irrepressible desire to uncover and explore the private and forbidden. Part of the pleasure derived from voyeurism stems from watching people who are not aware they are being watched. Although Jenni installed the camera in her own room, and was clearly aware of the viewer, she admitted that she did not know when a picture was taken. She did not purposefully change her behavior or censor any material. My question is, did she ever really forget that she was being filmed/being watched? Or is it something that was always at the back of her mind? Does this change the way we examine the footage? For example, the "Real World" is clearly edited for the purposes of entertainment. Did Jenni think twice before entering her room?
Privacy, Again
It seems as if privacy is a recurring theme when it comes to talking about new media. Victor Burgin’s article “Jenni’s Room: Exhibitionism and Solitude” examines the new definitions of privacy in relation to the Internet and the “window” of the computer screen. Most people would never let everyone have access to their lives; however, this was before the digital era. Now people are giving everyone a glimpse of who they are, whether it be on Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Twitter or any other social networking/digital media website. Jennifer Ringley took it to a whole new level with the JenniCam though. While many people would feel as if this opening up of her computer’s window created a loss of privacy, Jenni said, “ I don’t feel I’m giving up my privacy. Just because people can see me doesn’t mean it affects me. I’m still alone in my room, no matter what” (p. 78.) This sense of exhibitionism is made easy on the Internet, and also safer. While she may get stalkers or people who are obsessed with her, she still feels the comfort of the walls that surround her.
Burgin then goes on to state the exhibitionist tendencies of our society and the what’s the point of doing it if no one is going to see it mentality that many people have in our generations. Jenni installed a new camera in her apartment after college because she “felt lonely without the camera” (p. 80.) This sentiment is shared by those in our generation when you take into account the popularity of sites where you can share the minutia of your day or talk to strangers on chatroulette.com or omegle.com. While the privacy aspect is there, it is only there in a very minor sense. I personally don’t give people on the other side of the window a full view into my life, however I know many people who do. The ones who do usually don’t understand that it isn’t as safe as they would like to think it is, but to them it is fun and a good way to show others what is going on in their lives. That’s why I believe that the computer can be a mirror as Burgin states, but more often it is a window to show yourself off, and to oftentimes see what’s happening on the other side.
Blog Post #5
According to Keenan, “window in its structured brilliance works to produce or constitute the human subject, to invent the interiority of the prisoner as something to be attended to and regulated on one's own, in the uncertain absence of the jailor,” (128) and it is “is the opening in the wall constitutive of the distinction between public and private, it is also the breaching of that distinction itself.” (132) I wonder why is it that it is the window which is a frame and an opening, somewhere ambiguously between the public and the private, rather than the public sphere itself that works to constitute the subject? Is it because ultimately, we need to be in somewhere private, at a distance from the public, in order to form the subject in us, which somehow is not just me, but also contains what is not me. And it seems this connect to his statement that “the public is ‘in’ me, but it is all that is not me in me, not reducible to or containable within "me" all that tears me from myself, opens me to the ways I differ from myself and exposes me to that alterity in others.” (133)
If the window is so crucial in the constitution of the subject, then I wonder, in our age, when television and computer open up new kinds of windows into the world, how it changes subjectivity of the new generations. How does television screen which is seemingly one-way, in front of which one can safely watch the new of the day without worrying about being looked back, function as a window. Differing from a traditional window, what the television allows us to see is not the material world but rather a world that is constructed. Maybe it is why it is dangers to look at the television screen the same way as look out of a window. But is this all? How else does the television look back at us? With the computer windows, the power of communication is even stronger. There is the seemingly one-way window behind which data of our computer and thus about us is constantly uploaded to the Internet – the public sphere – without our knowing or worrying about it. There are virtual spaces such as MySpace and Facebook which seem to function as a kind of public spheres. And Danah does argue that it is through MySpace that the youth learn to interact with the outside world. By the norms and conventions governing a virtual space is so different from those of a traditional public sphere, because it is non-physical as well as numerous other reasons. What marks are left on the subject constituted though interaction in such spaces?
By Qian
Anna Fisher session
Cybergovernment
Before reading "A Rape in Cyberspace," I had never given much thought to the idea of differing political affiliations in virtual worlds. The classic stereotype of the technophile's idea political system is that of anarchy, as exemplified by Napster, BitTorrent, ThePirateBay, or any other pirate service that is viewed as the avant-garde of internet technology and ideology, but the discussion of all the differing ideologies present in LambdaMOO made me realize that netizens aren't as one-dimensional as they might seem to be.
In his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow asserts that "property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us," although most of these things, in fact, have emerged in virtual worlds. As Cyberspace becomes closer and closer to reality, the problems of Cyberspace will begin to resemble real life problems.
What phenomena create a need for governance in Cyberspace, and what methods and political apparatus can be used to achieve this goal? What lessons about government have we learned in real life that we can apply so as not to make the same mistakes again in Cyberspace? Is there an intrinsic connection between real life and virtual governments, or is there a possibility to achieve Barlow's online utopia, a land completely independent of the physical world.
In his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, John Perry Barlow asserts that "property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us," although most of these things, in fact, have emerged in virtual worlds. As Cyberspace becomes closer and closer to reality, the problems of Cyberspace will begin to resemble real life problems.
What phenomena create a need for governance in Cyberspace, and what methods and political apparatus can be used to achieve this goal? What lessons about government have we learned in real life that we can apply so as not to make the same mistakes again in Cyberspace? Is there an intrinsic connection between real life and virtual governments, or is there a possibility to achieve Barlow's online utopia, a land completely independent of the physical world.
Sexual Transgression in the Virtual Community
I found the Dibbell reading this week raised a lot of interesting questions about the nature of transgressions on Internet communities. At the surface level, the chat-room antics of Mr_Bungle, however appalling, are nothing like rape or sexual assault in real life. But the truth of this perception is really dependent on the existence of a solid boundary between real life and virtual reality worlds. If the meaning of the events that occur in LambdaMOO really lies “in the gap between” real life and virtual life, then there is an element of reality to the transgressions of Mr_Bungle which helps explain the seriousness of the community’s reaction.
Additionally, I found Dibbell’s perspective on sex as a Foucauldian exchange of symbols – rather than a specific physical act – as a compelling explanation not only of the feelings of violation experienced by other LambdaMOO members. The interpretation of sex as a symbolic exchange also makes it easy to see why cybersex is possible and, to many people, satisfying. Despite the fact that cybersex essentially lacks all of the physical interactivity we usually think of as comprising “sex” in full, it’s an effective and dynamic way of exchanging the kind of symbols that can bring about sexual pleasure and enjoyment.
The Dibbell piece also explored the issue of how to deal with the kind of problems created by the nonconsensual exchange of these symbols. The response of the LambdaMOO community was rapid and heated, but ultimately ineffective. The discussion of whether the real world legal authorities could be brought to bear on the case of Mr_Bungle was extinguished pretty quickly – the question remained on the table who should regulate transgressions on Internet community, and even whether they should be regulated at all. This was the major issue of the text for me. I think Dibbell’s example of LambdaMOO made it clear that the methods available to virtual moderators are very limited, and, at the same time, the image of allowing the legal restraints of the real world into that space would spell the end of a certain kind of freedom and anonymity that so many MOO users would find repellent.
Additionally, I found Dibbell’s perspective on sex as a Foucauldian exchange of symbols – rather than a specific physical act – as a compelling explanation not only of the feelings of violation experienced by other LambdaMOO members. The interpretation of sex as a symbolic exchange also makes it easy to see why cybersex is possible and, to many people, satisfying. Despite the fact that cybersex essentially lacks all of the physical interactivity we usually think of as comprising “sex” in full, it’s an effective and dynamic way of exchanging the kind of symbols that can bring about sexual pleasure and enjoyment.
The Dibbell piece also explored the issue of how to deal with the kind of problems created by the nonconsensual exchange of these symbols. The response of the LambdaMOO community was rapid and heated, but ultimately ineffective. The discussion of whether the real world legal authorities could be brought to bear on the case of Mr_Bungle was extinguished pretty quickly – the question remained on the table who should regulate transgressions on Internet community, and even whether they should be regulated at all. This was the major issue of the text for me. I think Dibbell’s example of LambdaMOO made it clear that the methods available to virtual moderators are very limited, and, at the same time, the image of allowing the legal restraints of the real world into that space would spell the end of a certain kind of freedom and anonymity that so many MOO users would find repellent.
S03 - blog post #5
This week’s concepts of windows and vulnerability really made me think, both about the world of VR and the world of RL, especially in the context of Wednesday’s lecture. When Professor Chun in lecture asked why it is that we feel safe at all behind the window of the internet, I started to wonder the same question with regards to literal windows. I think that the question is in some ways more applicable to RL than to the internet, although in some ways the reverse is true. For some reason, people seem to feel that being in a house or building makes one private, safe, and invisible to those in the “public” realm outside. Yet windows go both ways – just because you are inside doesn’t mean you can’t be seen, and more than that, you can know you are being watched. This is one of the main differences I see between RL windows and internet windows. While you can be just as easily watched on the internet, unless you are using a site like chatroulette that is overtly visible, you can’t see yourself being watched. Even with chatroulette, you can’t see the underlying codes and texts that watch and record your actions. You might feel safer in RL because you can use windows to your advantage to know when you are being watched, but in reality, both RL and VR make people startlingly vulnerable.
I also began thinking about another idea brought up in lecture – the idea of the internet as an ideal space for public democracy to flourish. When the crass nature of internet communication was brought up in comparison to the critical reasoning that took place in the public spaces of the enlightenment, I began to wonder what happened to the role of those RL spaces. The coffee shops that were brought up as the prime example of public space still exist, but if they have been replaced in their role as the space of public democracy by the internet, then what purpose do they serve at this point? One could argue that the type of discourse that occurs in these RL public spaces is no better than what occurs on the internet. Does that mean that the only thing differentiating these spaces from the internet is interface? Maybe it also relates to the window example I discussed above in that there is a distinction between seeing/being seen in RL and seeing/being “hidden” (to some extent) on the internet.
The idea of vulnerability was fresh in my mind when I went onto Second Life after lecture to prepare my avatar. I teleported to a random island where a complete stranger began chatting with me. I don’t know whether it was the fact that this person’s avatar was a child or just the simple fact that I had concepts of vulnerability on the mind, but I felt very exposed and uncomfortable trying to talk with this stranger. I ended up signing off abruptly because it was just too strange of a feeling. I can already sense the irony in the fact that this might be discussed in section this week while in Second Life…
I also began thinking about another idea brought up in lecture – the idea of the internet as an ideal space for public democracy to flourish. When the crass nature of internet communication was brought up in comparison to the critical reasoning that took place in the public spaces of the enlightenment, I began to wonder what happened to the role of those RL spaces. The coffee shops that were brought up as the prime example of public space still exist, but if they have been replaced in their role as the space of public democracy by the internet, then what purpose do they serve at this point? One could argue that the type of discourse that occurs in these RL public spaces is no better than what occurs on the internet. Does that mean that the only thing differentiating these spaces from the internet is interface? Maybe it also relates to the window example I discussed above in that there is a distinction between seeing/being seen in RL and seeing/being “hidden” (to some extent) on the internet.
The idea of vulnerability was fresh in my mind when I went onto Second Life after lecture to prepare my avatar. I teleported to a random island where a complete stranger began chatting with me. I don’t know whether it was the fact that this person’s avatar was a child or just the simple fact that I had concepts of vulnerability on the mind, but I felt very exposed and uncomfortable trying to talk with this stranger. I ended up signing off abruptly because it was just too strange of a feeling. I can already sense the irony in the fact that this might be discussed in section this week while in Second Life…
“Do windows cause narcissism?” Response Thurs 1pm
I agree with Ian’s comments on “the window,” but I do not necessarily see it as a bad thing. At first glance, narcissism did not come to mind when referring to these windows into people’s lives. Instead, I saw it as them taking opportunities to represent themselves. From art, to movies, to autobiographies, to finally a 24/7 real-time video, it feels like another way to showcase oneself to the world. I too looked up Jennifer Ringley, and it seemed like it was just a creative way to showcase her life. It is interesting that her desire to showcase herself is coupled with the viewer’s desire to watch. It is agreed among several theorists the pleasure that comes out of voyeurism. I too am not exactly sure why people would want to watch someone brushing his/her teeth and carrying out his/her activities during the day, but it is the most “real” we can get. While films are shot in scenes and the mundane is left out, these cyber windows (as well as “Time Code”) give us raw material, unmasked and presented. According to Ringley, it was the best way to get to know her. While it’s not exactly the most interesting way, the idea that one can essentially pry into her life is appealing to the viewer – although I do not fully understand why it is appealing to Jenni.
Wed Section: Social Networking
What I found particularly interesting about Danah Boyd's article about social networking was her suggestion that applications like Myspace and Facebook are somehow interwoven into a teenager's existence and become a part of their lives. In some aspects, I tend to disagree with this point of view. I believe that social networking is more like a second life. One has complete control over how one portrays oneself. Even appearance can be changed if one so desires.
I have also found, that what happens on social networking sites is to some extent ignored in real life. For example, if A writes on B's wall, B is more likely to respond via a wall post rather than call A or even reply to A face to face even though they may be neighbours and in the same class in high school. Thus, the point I am trying to make is that I believe that more than being a part of life, social networking sites have created a new life for us which we have much more control over. They are simply less evolved versions of the popular application 'Second Life.'
I have also found, that what happens on social networking sites is to some extent ignored in real life. For example, if A writes on B's wall, B is more likely to respond via a wall post rather than call A or even reply to A face to face even though they may be neighbours and in the same class in high school. Thus, the point I am trying to make is that I believe that more than being a part of life, social networking sites have created a new life for us which we have much more control over. They are simply less evolved versions of the popular application 'Second Life.'
WS: Uncertain about Uncertainty
In Thomas Keenan’s engaging text, “Windows: of vulnerability,” the experience of the public is an alterity that is beyond our control – an other, which is “utterly nonhuman or nonsubjective” (134). What are “others” in Keenan’s argument? If the public is the violent entrance into a system of representation and mediation, then does the public function as the psychoanalytic Other (radical alterity)? How does Keenan see this as full of potential when this encounter (if we make the comparison to the Lacanian Other) is marked by trauma and violence? What are the possibilities and limitations that are opened up with Keenan’s positioning of technology as the blinding of the human by a disfiguring light and with a writing that seems to be charged with psychoanalytic references?
At the end of the essay, Keenan writes:
“For language intervenes in the lives of those who seek to use it with a force and a violence that can only be compared to … light, to the tear of the blinding, inhuman, and uncontrollable light that comes through a window – something soft, that breaks” (138).
How would one go about using language as an intervention or as an entrance into the public? Keenan’s statement is interesting if one thinks about language as a means of screening unmediated experience. It would seem that language, by its very function, would be incapable of doing what Keenan posits. Although language can be seen unstable and therefore always uncertain, how can one “seek to use [language]”? Is every enunciation marked by a violence? Perhaps, it is simply a misunderstanding of what Keenan is implying in his final proposition, but I’m just trying to work through Keenan’s argument and the potential he finds in the uncertainty of language and the interruption creating by light/technology.
Monica
Blog 5: Language, Social Networking, and Social Structures
As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984) theorizes in Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, individuals take a position in the social space based on their accumulation of social capital, which represents an amalgamation of economic, intellectual, and cultural capital . How one presents his or her position in the social space – through their aesthetic dispositions or ‘judgment of taste’ – depicts and cements their social status and level of social capital. The elite in society, who have the highest level of social capital, set standards for the judgment of taste; the tastes of lower social classes are subservient to the elite standard. The upwardly mobile members of society can – and often will – try to imitate the cultured elite through absorption of taste and aesthetic preferences, but they can never truly assimilate into the upper crust.
In several works, including “The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges” (1977), Bourdieu applies his general sociological theory of taste to language and formal education. He contends that language must be analyzed through the network of social relationships from which it is generated, positing that “nobody acquires a language without acquiring a relation to language” (646). As with aesthetic dispositions and judgment of taste, Grenfell and James (1998) note, the standard of language or the social ‘norm’ is “the dominating style of language of those who speak from authority” (74). While the elite are raised under this standard of language, Bourdieu argues that the “dominated classes… are condemned to reconnaissance without connaissance” (75). In other words, the lower classes attempt to appropriate this most prestigious language as a means to advance their social position, but are not in a position to effectively learn and incorporate this form of language. Their inevitable linguistic ineptitude, often demonstrated through being ‘over correct’ as in technically proficient but not natural or fluid in their language appropriation, only “betrays the structural position of the individuals within the linguistic field” (76).
In her essay on youths and social networking, Danah Boyd (2007) contends that subject and identity formation - and the association between the subject and the public - now occurs through what she calls 'networked publics', such as MySpace. This new means of identity formation is obviously different than the means that Bourdieu would have assumed when writing Distinction. However, his overall argument still seems to hold weight. Consider Boyd's description of the poor minority student applying to a prestigious university. The student's MySpace profile indicated an association to gang violence and the admissions officers viewed the profile as unbefitting toward the image of the university. In this way, while the student was somehow able to successfully rise above his position in the social structure through his writing and academic achievement, his MySpace page immediately threw him back into that world.
My question for the week, then, is how, to what extent, and in what ways does the way someone interacts with social networking sites betray their position in the social structure?
---
Texts:
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste
Bourdieu, P.
Grenfell, M. and James, D. (1998). Bourdieu and Education: Acts of Practical Theory.
Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
social networking
In her discussion Monday about Symphony of a City, Liz Canner noted that there was an interesting difference in the degree to which a homeless man and a wealthy landlord revealed their lives on camera. She specifically commented on how whereas the homeless man never turned the camera off, in a way always being in public view already, the landlord insisted that the camera be shut off numerous times. He also appeared to spend almost all his time in his own private property.
I was reminded of this while reading Danah Boyd's discussion of the exclusion of teens, and anything associated with them and their culture, from physical public spaces of any consequence (this includes age, class, and race related divisions). This is offered as one possible root of the social networking site phenomenon, and in a way a factor in and evidence of a division between patterns of social interaction amongst teens and adults. After pointing out restrictive non-voluntary lifestyle details such as a highly structured routine, lack of mobility, and general hypocrisy on the part of adults, Boyd did note that this is generally not the case for poor or ethnically diverse teens. However, there seemed to be a gap that followed, which could have contained more discussion as to the issues specific to these other teens, who constitute a substantial portion of the population. There is a large number of homeless youth in this country, some unknown portion of which use the internet and use social networking sites. Like the homeless man in Symphony of a City, they can spend a far greater portion of their everyday lives in adult physical public spaces. It would be interesting to have more discourse on how teens of low socio-economic class use the internet and social networking sites to form patterns of social interaction, and how these compare both to those of their parents and their wealthier peers. The broader consequences of any difference could also warrant discussion.
The Unseen, the glare, and the intersubjectivity.
I find Reid's post particularly interesting in how it problematizes Keenan's use of the "window" to describe the "screen."
First, the bidirectionality aspect (or non-aspect) seem to be a concern for a lot of people (including myself). I just want to bring up a couple examples of windows that aren't screens, but have the aspect of non-bidirectionality: one-way mirrors, peepholes, and of course (and possibly the most important in this discussion) the Bentham's Panopticon project. While of course, windows certainly (by and large) allow subjects to see out and subjects to see in. And screens (TV, websites, etc etc) usually are only seen from the outside (i.e. seen in). However, let's complicate this with: texting real-time messages on TV shows (etc), viewers comments, one of Liz Canner's projects about 9/11 (I believe) where everyone had the ability to change the projection in real-time.
To contribute to Reid's argument, I would argue that looking out of a physical window, space and time are NOT radically different. In fact, I would argue they are the same. I am experiencing life in "real time" and in "real space" when I look out a window (when I'm waiting for a bus in the pouring rain on Thayer St. in Starbucks). I believe Deluze's article references the media/news depicting Osama Bin Laden speaking and then following Bush speaking. Obviously Bin Laden and Bush were not speaking to one another in the same time and in the same place. Our physical, literal window would certainly not be able to manipulate images/videos/holograms (well, presently) for this to happen.
But that aside, I'd really like to juxtapose the Bentham's Project and the current "publicity [that] tears us from our selves, exposes us to and involves us with others" (133). What sort of insights does Bentham's Project provide for this theory of publicity? Or does it? I'm particularly fascinated by this idea that the prisoner is held prisoner not BY the jailer, pheself, but rather by the IDEA/POSSIBILITY that the jailer is seeing the prisoner. He writes:
Sound familiar? Let's consider Keenan's description of the public and of publicity:
In section or at some point, I'd like to discuss the comparisons of these two concepts. But also really dig deep into why we could be considered both jailers and prisoners to the public. And how we continually are asked to "auto-survey" (i.e. autosurvelliance) by media and how we maybe be blinded by this fact. By making companies and advertising having a "soul" by also how media and screens allow us to "contribute" or seem to "contribute" to the media.... but not really. I'm pretty interested into this quote:
How can we apply this to the constant barrage of pharmaceutical commericals (i.e. Orgasm, Inc. and the creation of FSD)? And lastly, WHO is controlling the light? Or maybe it's not WHO is doing it but more: where does it come from and what can we do about it?
First, the bidirectionality aspect (or non-aspect) seem to be a concern for a lot of people (including myself). I just want to bring up a couple examples of windows that aren't screens, but have the aspect of non-bidirectionality: one-way mirrors, peepholes, and of course (and possibly the most important in this discussion) the Bentham's Panopticon project. While of course, windows certainly (by and large) allow subjects to see out and subjects to see in. And screens (TV, websites, etc etc) usually are only seen from the outside (i.e. seen in). However, let's complicate this with: texting real-time messages on TV shows (etc), viewers comments, one of Liz Canner's projects about 9/11 (I believe) where everyone had the ability to change the projection in real-time.
To contribute to Reid's argument, I would argue that looking out of a physical window, space and time are NOT radically different. In fact, I would argue they are the same. I am experiencing life in "real time" and in "real space" when I look out a window (when I'm waiting for a bus in the pouring rain on Thayer St. in Starbucks). I believe Deluze's article references the media/news depicting Osama Bin Laden speaking and then following Bush speaking. Obviously Bin Laden and Bush were not speaking to one another in the same time and in the same place. Our physical, literal window would certainly not be able to manipulate images/videos/holograms (well, presently) for this to happen.
But that aside, I'd really like to juxtapose the Bentham's Project and the current "publicity [that] tears us from our selves, exposes us to and involves us with others" (133). What sort of insights does Bentham's Project provide for this theory of publicity? Or does it? I'm particularly fascinated by this idea that the prisoner is held prisoner not BY the jailer, pheself, but rather by the IDEA/POSSIBILITY that the jailer is seeing the prisoner. He writes:
"The terrifying economy of the panoptic structure lies in the fact that this autosurveillance itslef can do without seeing, requiring only light as the possibilty of light. [...] Still ... the figure of the human as prisoner -- secure captive of self-knowledge and of a closed interiority, of peace and quiet, looking without seeing -- is challenged, disfigured, by the blinding light of another window." (128-129).
Sound familiar? Let's consider Keenan's description of the public and of publicity:
"In public, exposed to the blinding light of the other, I am without precisely the self-possession that would otherwise constitute my freedom. The enlightement of this other light opens me not by freeing me but by exposing me, to all that is different and beyond me." (136)
In section or at some point, I'd like to discuss the comparisons of these two concepts. But also really dig deep into why we could be considered both jailers and prisoners to the public. And how we continually are asked to "auto-survey" (i.e. autosurvelliance) by media and how we maybe be blinded by this fact. By making companies and advertising having a "soul" by also how media and screens allow us to "contribute" or seem to "contribute" to the media.... but not really. I'm pretty interested into this quote:
"The public is not collection of private individuals experiencing their commonality, nor the view organized for and by the human of what might gather it together The public is the experience, if we can call it that, of the interruption or the individual human subject, the unavoidable entrance of alterity into the everday life of the "one" who would be human. The public -- in which we encounter what we are not -- belongs to the rights of others and to no one in particular." (133)
How can we apply this to the constant barrage of pharmaceutical commericals (i.e. Orgasm, Inc. and the creation of FSD)? And lastly, WHO is controlling the light? Or maybe it's not WHO is doing it but more: where does it come from and what can we do about it?
How does Keenan’s article compare with Baudrillard’s on the topic of the biderectionality of windows and screens? They both consider how screens and windows offer us a view of something while simultaneously allowing ourselves to be viewed. How powerful is this phenomenon for both of them? How much does it control us? I also want to consider Keenan’s fixation with the idea of “light”. What does he mean when he talks about light? The light can be a multitude of things: a violent blinding force, the evidence that someone could be watching you, or perhaps it is actually the gaze of the viewer making the subject public and therefore laden with responsibility. How does this light control us, and is there more to it? I feel that the light signifies more to Keenan because of the last line in which he compares language to light.
“For language intervenes in the lives of those who seek to use it with a force and a violence that can only be compared to… light, to the tear of the blinding, inhuman, and uncontrollable light that comes through a window—something soft, that breaks.” 128
I would like to unpack this sentence in section tomorrow. I feel that it is important to what Keenan is trying to say, but the sudden switch to talking about language in terms of light was to sudden for me to grasp it fully.
“For language intervenes in the lives of those who seek to use it with a force and a violence that can only be compared to… light, to the tear of the blinding, inhuman, and uncontrollable light that comes through a window—something soft, that breaks.” 128
I would like to unpack this sentence in section tomorrow. I feel that it is important to what Keenan is trying to say, but the sudden switch to talking about language in terms of light was to sudden for me to grasp it fully.
Wed. Section
"What if the opening of the the aperture that allows sight were to become uncontrollable, if the regulated light that makes seeing possible were to overexpose the interior - which it opens - to the exterior against which it defines itself. The opening risks the more violent opening of the distinction between inside and outside, private and public, self and other, on which the house of human is built. This prediamcent of disarticulation structures all domestic space as such, but proves determinant for this house."
With a few lexical and structural changes, Keenan's description of the "eye house" can be transferred to the way in which Boyd talks about Myspace. Perhaps a reason Myspace and other sites have been a traditional parent's nightmare is due to the violent opening of inside and out, or especially popularized private and public: What pictures are on myspace (thus how you spend your time), relationship status have been transformed from things that you found out as your personal, private relationship deepens into something you expect to know right away.
They Own Our Hearts / Who Do We Heart Working For ?
They (teenagers) heart their statuses, comments, groups, bulletins, profiles, messages, pictures, links....but who are they for?
While Danah Boyd is comfortable addressing the modes of participation that constitute social networking sites in her "ethnography," she fails to frame this participation in a larger and economic system. She does address that most social networking sites are in some way owned by larger corporations but fails to address what this means for her "networked publics." In fact, most of what she has to say is contained within one paragraph:
While Boyd clearly points out that there may be a problematic relationship between "consumerism" and "agency," I think she fails to point that the modes of participation including merely acting as a member of the "invisible audience" is a form of production that enables profit for owner companies. I think to define and properly understand this production one must question how online agency and participation can be viewed in fact as a labor. I take this notion of user production from Tiziana Terranova's Network Culture, a work that we will later read from this semester. Terranova introduces a concept she adopts called "free labor" to describe the productive activity of users on the web that enable participation and engagement but are not seen as actual labor. This digital labor therefore is problematic in that we can see the participation and contribution to "networked publics" to be a for of "free labor" one that very large (considering their financial worth) and important (considering their relationship to/as the [mass] media) corporations that benefit from this free production.
I am also interested in how "free labor" on a digital public such as Second Life, which contains an internal economy based Linden Dollars, transform or complicate "free labor." It is especially interesting considering that Second Life users can in fact make money by creating objects and then selling them to users. It is even more interesting when you consider how advanced Second Life economy in fact is with an exchange market, a history that includes illegitimate banking practices, and periods of crisis and inflatio
While Danah Boyd is comfortable addressing the modes of participation that constitute social networking sites in her "ethnography," she fails to frame this participation in a larger and economic system. She does address that most social networking sites are in some way owned by larger corporations but fails to address what this means for her "networked publics." In fact, most of what she has to say is contained within one paragraph:
Most of the social network sites were brewed by venture-backed startups but there are a few exceptions to this. Cyworld is a property of SK Telecom, the largest mobile phone operator in South Korea. Orkut began as a side project by a Google employee but, shortly before launch, Google decided to attach their name to the site so that it launched as a Google project. Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL, and Wal-Mart have all created social network sites but none have been particularly successful. In 2005, Fox Interactive Media (a division of Murdoch’s News Corporation) purchased MySpace for US $580M. Unfortunately, not much is currently known about the long-term effects of corporate participation in social network sites. While there has been tremendous speculation about what Fox’s ownership of MySpace will mean, there have been few changes made since the site was acquired. Of course, broader concerns about consumerism’s relationship to agency in online participation are completely applicable to social network sites.(5)
While Boyd clearly points out that there may be a problematic relationship between "consumerism" and "agency," I think she fails to point that the modes of participation including merely acting as a member of the "invisible audience" is a form of production that enables profit for owner companies. I think to define and properly understand this production one must question how online agency and participation can be viewed in fact as a labor. I take this notion of user production from Tiziana Terranova's Network Culture, a work that we will later read from this semester. Terranova introduces a concept she adopts called "free labor" to describe the productive activity of users on the web that enable participation and engagement but are not seen as actual labor. This digital labor therefore is problematic in that we can see the participation and contribution to "networked publics" to be a for of "free labor" one that very large (considering their financial worth) and important (considering their relationship to/as the [mass] media) corporations that benefit from this free production.
I am also interested in how "free labor" on a digital public such as Second Life, which contains an internal economy based Linden Dollars, transform or complicate "free labor." It is especially interesting considering that Second Life users can in fact make money by creating objects and then selling them to users. It is even more interesting when you consider how advanced Second Life economy in fact is with an exchange market, a history that includes illegitimate banking practices, and periods of crisis and inflatio
Screens Really Two-Way? wed sec.
Jameson seems to give the window two primary functions, summarized by his quote of Milton:
"Window... to admit light or air, or both, and to afford view of what is outside and inside..."
This question is brought up with regard to the Garcia's house. Were the purely glass walls for the purpose of letting in light, or seeing out (as suggested by the eye-shape of the house itself)? These questions for me seemed straight forward, and can be seen in the use of blinds, tinted windows, etc.
However, when Jameson first suggests the television as a window, I had some doubts.
"In which direction does this window "face"? Looking out onto the world, presenting a view of the distant (tele-vision)? Or does it intrude into the home, all the homes, transforming the space, transporting the "world" into the world of the homes..."
To make this comparison, I think you first have to look at the functions of the window. The first is to allow light to pass through. To this, Jameson says that the television set projects light into the room of the view, just as light comes through the window into your home. The second is allow sight through. To this, Jameson says that the television allows you to see out of your home into the outside world. On the surface, these seem like adequate parallels.
However, what about the two-way nature of physical windows? At night, a lamp sheds light onto the street. Furthermore, a passer-by can see through a window into the home just as well as the inhabitants can see out. Does the television exhibit this same reversibility?
With regards to this question, Victor Burgin's inquiry on JenniCam seems very interesting. While many on the internet fit Freud's "exhibitionist" theory, one of "see and be seen", Jennifer defied this paradigm. Instead, she allowed anyone to see her, while she had no view of her viewers. For her viewers, they could see without being seen. This may be what makes screens just incredible windows. How often have you wanted to just look out the window and not worry that someone could see you? It is the ability to preserve autonomy and privacy, which windows sacrificed, that makes screens (TV, or any extensions into the internet) so attractive.
S/he raped me with his/her eyes
The Rape in Cyberspace ( Dr. Bombay?) and social network sites (Boyd)- seemed to be viewing the psychological attraction of virtual and cyber spaces as expressions of real experiences and dynamics in private and public spaces. The social network piece mapped the use of social networks by teenagers to the desire and need of teens to move from private places to public spaces. It is in public spaces where teens navigate and perform their identities. The VR piece also dealt with the formation of identity. The author made a case for the formation and expression of identity in the community of Lindamoo, and also seemed to point to how identity is conditioned by the community. (Ex: the change in the author, and the reincarnation of Mr. bungle)
Isaw an interesting tension between and individuals desire of agency and society’s control of the individual. Individuals desire agency, and conditions which simulate free choice, expression will. (these conditions must necessarily exist outside of RL society because we are never free to make our own choices, in society). VR allows users to create public spaces and community that are ideals of real society.
I felt the central argument was underscored by :"VR and RL are parallel and the meaning and implication lie in the gap between the two" The central tension that arises with the internet and VR, is exactly that the virtual becomes assimilated into the real and vice versa. What happens when you stop being able to tell when one ends and the other begins? That type of question is addressed by the media when for instance: a Grand theft Auto player murders someone in real life. Or when facebook relationship statuses cause jealous ex boyfriends to also murder their exes or the new boyfriends (excuse the gender implication here, I’m sure women could do the same, Ijust haven’t read any articles about it), Or also when a American Idol contestant is eliminated off the show and decides to commit suicide outside of Paula Abduls home.
The article directly addresses this question, "where does the body begin and the mind end?...is not the mind part of the body?" What constitutes the real and the virtual when computers, social and imagined networks , tv, become a daily and inescapable physical presence in our lives? ALAS and YET AGAIN, i cannot help connecting this to the simulacrum, and now the Lacan’s absent history effect. The article says that the rape in cyberspace "produced physical responses to unreal stimuli" ie the tears of the "rape victim". So what we are seeing in the VR phenomenon is something that theorists have described for a while now.
I want to complicate this idea a bit. Here goes, So..... lets say that representation (not real) produces real measurable effects in the real world. What happens to the real when we create fiction from it. VR and Social networks seem to be based on real spaces that we then inhabit physically. (Stay with me) So then what will happen when we are able to simulate IDEALS, which are unrealized in the real world but nonetheless models to strive for?????? I think this is kind of what we are seeing in virtual reality. LINDAMOO is an IDEAL SPACE, every player has equal agency, they are authors who can control what happens, and create what they imagine. Ideals are based on reality but are untrue. Fiction creates real responses. and now we have reality creating fictional responses (i use fiction not in the literary sense but in the imagined)
How is what WE are doing - using theoretical lenses to understand real phenomenon - any different than whats going on here??? Okay so now i lost my thought.....
I want to get back to the idea of AUTHORSHIP presented to us in the VR rape piece and to some extent the social network. Both Lindamoo and social networks allow users to "write their identities into existence" and therefore they control how they are perceived by their peers, and society. I think this deals with a question of agency. Social networks are imagined, idealized spaces where users can exercise a certain free will, or agency that is denied to them in our real society.
Are they then utopias? i think Foucault would argue no because these utopias are frustrated by the very fact that they are predicated on language. Language in and of itself is a structure, that inhibits real communication, by confining and restricting meaning. This i guess brings me to the ultimate question of language. Does it confine us or liberate us. Does it restrict or enable thought and production? WHAT ARE ALL OF THESE PIECES SAYING ABOUT LANGUAGE? And now we have all this new media stuff which is based on mathematical codes and language, and which we also respond or interact with using symbolic language. So that is where im stumped…. Is Language our captor or our liberator? Does it even matter because we are all on a boat anyway?
Friday 11 section.
Do windows cause narcissism? Fri 11AM
This week, Thomas Keenan introduced us to the window. Keenan takes us through many ways to look at a window, and he insists that they cause vulnerability and danger. However, looking into virtual windows and online projects (such as the ones that Professor Chun asked us to look at for tomorrow), I have started to wonder if virtual windows cause not only danger, but also a degree of high narcissism.
The Internet itself causes narcissism to an extent: does anyone actually care what you are doing when you “tweet” your status? Unless you are a high-level celebrity, it is doubtful that a lot of people truly want to know that you are brushing your teeth or doing your homework. However, countless people use the Internet to tell the world what they are doing every second of the day.
The online projects that we looked at today for homework lead me to believe there is a whole new level of narcissism present on the web. People everywhere believe that it is desirable to be watched through the web doing mundane, everyday activities. Just because these virtual windows are present, it does not mean that everyone wants to look in them. I was amazed to read about JenniCam, and the immense vanity that Jennifer Ringley has. She actually put a camera in her room so that people could watch her at any moment. Why is this interesting? I admit, the first thing I did was Google the website after I read the article. Why though? We are only feeding the narcissistic aspect that the web has presented.
I believe that we have created a culture of voyeur and the people in some of those projects are simply feeding off of it. They certainly believe that many people want to watch what they are doing, and to some extent, we do. I ended up watching more than 10 minutes of the “year-long” window into those two men’s lives, waiting for them to do something exciting. They haven’t yet, but I may just tune in again later.
So, in section, I think it would be interesting to talk not only about the danger that windows cause to us but also how virtual windows are changing our identity and our actions to be more narcissistic and vain. Why do we welcome people to stare in at us? Why don’t we just shut the window?
The Internet itself causes narcissism to an extent: does anyone actually care what you are doing when you “tweet” your status? Unless you are a high-level celebrity, it is doubtful that a lot of people truly want to know that you are brushing your teeth or doing your homework. However, countless people use the Internet to tell the world what they are doing every second of the day.
The online projects that we looked at today for homework lead me to believe there is a whole new level of narcissism present on the web. People everywhere believe that it is desirable to be watched through the web doing mundane, everyday activities. Just because these virtual windows are present, it does not mean that everyone wants to look in them. I was amazed to read about JenniCam, and the immense vanity that Jennifer Ringley has. She actually put a camera in her room so that people could watch her at any moment. Why is this interesting? I admit, the first thing I did was Google the website after I read the article. Why though? We are only feeding the narcissistic aspect that the web has presented.
I believe that we have created a culture of voyeur and the people in some of those projects are simply feeding off of it. They certainly believe that many people want to watch what they are doing, and to some extent, we do. I ended up watching more than 10 minutes of the “year-long” window into those two men’s lives, waiting for them to do something exciting. They haven’t yet, but I may just tune in again later.
So, in section, I think it would be interesting to talk not only about the danger that windows cause to us but also how virtual windows are changing our identity and our actions to be more narcissistic and vain. Why do we welcome people to stare in at us? Why don’t we just shut the window?
Grrr Second Life
So I spent three hours on Second Life last night! One hour was delegated to customizing my avatar’s face and body so that it “looked” like me (it doesn’t…at all). Five minutes were spent flying (obviously). And the last hour and 55 minutes were wasted on my trying to figure out why I was bald on the back of my head! I could not for the life of me figure it out. Eventually I had to wake up this morning and google “how do I change my hair in Second Life.” After all of that, I still only managed a lousy ponytail.
Why did I care so much that my avatar look like me? Isn’t the point of Second Life to explore an alternate structure of being that is inaccessible to us in reality?
Now that I think about it, I think it was more that I was immensely frustrated with the medium. Sitting, walking, even looking took manual effort whereas in life these actions are second nature. I cannot ignore the fact that I find technology immensely FRUSTRATING. Does anyone else feel like technology is more trouble than it’s worth? Or that technology never works the way it is supposed to?!
What do these glitches mean? Are they innate to the system? Are they the gaps that distinguish between personalized experience and totalistic structure (Jameson)?
wednesday 2pm Section
"Viruses Are Good For You" author Julian Dibbell utilizes what I find to be a problematic division when speaking of computer viruses. He writes "Simply put, the only way to fully understand the phenomenon of autonomously reproducing computer programs is to take into account one of their essential differences from organic life forms: they are not products of nature but culture, brought forth not by the blind workings of a universe indifferent to our aims, but by the conscious efforts of human beings like ourselves". And yet, banished from the realm of the 'natural', the virus still "just isn't, well, you" where "you" here seems to position it both in a pseudo-subjective orientation akin to our most basic human urges and a radically different and unknowable motivation while still remaining within the the anthro-teleological realm of 'culture'.
Clearly, Dibbell does not want to say that computer viruses are natural creations because human beings created them, but is this really a useful distinction? Without going into the theoretical history of the debates around the nature/culture binary and the radical criticism of its validity as a theoretical distinction, I instead raise suggestions from two levels. The first is that of ontology.
Viruses are, strictly speaking, without 'being' and without ontology. They do not exist in the same way as material things. And, as such, they cannot ever fulfill the primary physical requirement for evolution: the requirement of a logical connection between matter and being. The article is shot through with the rhetoric of evolution in a weird techno-teleological sense which I hold constitutes a conflation and a mistake on the part of those noble virus 'breeders'. They have, in fact, been trapped by their biological metaphor. Of course viruses cannot evolve. But that is not because the laws of evolution fail. It is because viruses have no being, and thus absolutely no self-interest qua preservation of matter.
Yet what if, and this is my second suggestion, their very immateriality is supplementary to the presence we all think we have, the material being invoked by the "you" at the beginning of the article. What if we can conceive of viral evolution as being part-and-parcel of human evolution as such. There has been much research to show us that our subjectivity is founded on a fundamental absence, a lack of presence covered over with the fantasy of being qua psyche. And yet 'we' are never 'really there' though our physical bodies are certainly. And clearly we must deal with the liminal nature of the intersection of mind and body here; these terms too are inseparable and cannot remain binary opposites. So then, can we not think of the virus not as an evolutionary model, but as an evolution of our very selves insofar as we are 'split' and simultaneously constituted in the very incompatibility of our minds and bodies?
Wed. Sec, A Rape in Cyberspace
When internet users are granted anonymity, consequences go out the window. The worst that could happen to a delinquent user is an IP ban. What results is that the people who care, the ones who treasure their spot in the virtual world, are the very ones who have everything to lose from a ban. They are not likely to act up both because they want to maintain a good image, and because they don't want to get booted. The ones who don't care, conversely, don't really lose anything. They can mess around, have their fun, and if they piss off too many other users, they'll be exiled. But they're not really losing anything, because there was no personal attachment to the virtual world to begin with.
This is how it has been for as long as I can remember. In RL, just as in VR, a user can harass another and get out of hand. What makes RL significantly different is the physical presence. An offending person who gets our of hand risks being physically assaulted, arrested, or ostracized. In short, there are repercussions that can ruin the rest of the offender's life. However, online there's not really anything the defendant can do to retaliate. Log off, I guess. Report inappropriate usage. Still, the worst that can happen to the defendant is banishment. Today the laws may be different in extreme cases, I'm not totally sure. However, I don't think that really applies to this paper.
I think what I'm trying to get at is the significance of physical presence. In RL, because both parties are actually there, a very offended person could throw a punch or call for help as a retaliation. However, online, even though there is less opportunity to retaliate effectively, the assault generally seems less personal (this is assuming neither party knows the other in RL). That means that, for me anyway, it is harder to be truly offended. If some other user were to somehow virtually sexually assault me, it would probably take an awful lot before I would actually feel hurt. Yet in RL, because of the presence of the offending party, it is clear that they can see, touch, smell, and otherwise know me. My race, gender, looks, and any observable features or behaviors are readily available as targets of ridicule. If someone makes an insult using this information, I personalize the insult and feel hurt. If someone makes a jab online, not really knowing anything about me other that what I may have posted, how can I possibly be as offended? They don't really know me, so what they say about me is unfounded.
This isn't the same as offending a group of people. I feel that races, sexualities, and other groups are much easier to offend online. No one needs to know me personally to insult the people who are like me. And if they insult the people in my demographic, I can internalize that insult and feel hurt. I think one could argue that the incident in LambdaMOO was an assault on women in general. If that's the case, that would explain why the victims felt so personally offended.
Windows on the World
Thomas Keenan’s “Windows of Vulnerability” brought several connections and questions to my mind. First, Keenan writes, “The opening risks the more violent opening of the distinction between inside and outside, private and public, self and other” (124). I feel like this is exactly what new media, and the Internet more specifically, is doing- breaking down boundaries between different societal spheres. What was once the private domain is now public and everyone knows everyone else’s business and thoughts (through blogs, Facebook, etc.). To me it seems that this is the true reasoning behind the “windows” of the Internet (what we call the pages) and even the whole operating system Windows. As much as the “windows” allow us to “see and be seen”, they also represent the opening of borders between groups, people, and what were previously distinctly separate realms.
Keenan asks, “What is at stake for us in thinking that we look out, that we gaze (know, dominate), from a ground and through a window, and in forgetting the entrance or the ‘gift’ of that light?” (127). I think this relates to our idea how people view themselves as entirely unique and individual, and believe that most, if not all, of their thoughts are original. We often forget the huge background of cultural knowledge and prior experience that shapes who we are and how we think. When trying to understand the meaning of a text or work, it is impossible to distance ourselves from the outside circumstances that shape us. I compare this to the “light” that Keenan speaks of, the knowledge-forming entity that is always around us, but is rarely recognized or appreciated.
Lastly, another line that caught my interest was “And contemporary technologies of the image have either substituted the screen for the window altogether (‘The world constructed by the media seems to be a valid surrogate for ‘real life’ whatever that is. I decided that aiming my camera at the television set was just as reasonable as aiming it out the window.’)”(130). Clearly, this fits in with Baudrillard’s ideas of simulacra and simulation. In a way, the world you see through a window is just a simulation of the real world. If there is some sort of design or mark on the window, it is sometimes difficult to tell if that is outside or just on the window. Someone who had only ever seen the outside world through tinted or colored windows would have no problem accepting that as the truth. The interface, in this case the window, affects the message and the reality of the situation. And the way that the media portrays the world is the same way- everyone relies on the media for information about global news and the state of world affairs, so basically whatever the media decides to show people becomes the reality, and is more “real” to people than real life. Media is just another window through which people look, albeit one that has the power to selectively change what the viewer sees through it.
(Friday 11 AM Section)
Wed. Sec, Windows and Light
Thomas Keenan’s Windows: of Vulnerability has some parallels between Liz Canner’s art she presented to class. Namely, when Keenan discusses “humans,” and the windows they “need.” He says “Humans…first of all are seeing beings, seeing ahead, from their heads, and their actions are human to the extent that they derive and follow from what they see” (126). This stance is what makes Liz Canner’s project Symphony of a City possible, as a human’s entire day is relayed through sight, by wearing a camera and microphone at the eye level. And yet it is still bound by the frame, when being projected.
The most difficult passage for me was 3.3 on page 124, beginning with “This house is a risk, not simply at the empirical risk so easily thematized and exploited by the film.” The basis of the house as an eye, “risks the more violent opening of the distinction between inside and outside, private and public, self and other, on which the house of the human is built,” ending with “But the exposure to risk offers us in turn the chance to think about the light in the eye, about the window in all its forms as an event or a gift of light—the chance of a blink, the twilight of an eye” (125). The ability to wear a camera and allow others to see your life most definitely breaks down the barrier between public and private, illustrated by such a personal habit as brushing one’s teeth, all of the sudden becomes public, in the sense that people can see it, but also that it’s projected right next to others doing the same thing (it’s not a private custom, if it’s socially dictated that we should do it). Keenan seems to be saying then that with the case of the house the window is now a two-way window, in which one looks in and out, which relates to this “gift of light.”
This concept seems to be so rooted in the concept of film and photography, which is nothing but creating images through exposure to light. But Keenan is moving this forward, and it seems that television, the “window to the world” should be associated with the windows he feels are on the way out. The “gift” then, is the gift of letting light in, but if this is extrapolated to digital media, it seems that the physical concept of light is not so much important in the new media. He mentions “autosurveillance” (128) and “the public” (135), which seems to render “light” more as a metaphor, a platform for the article, than a genuine entity to discuss.
The most difficult passage for me was 3.3 on page 124, beginning with “This house is a risk, not simply at the empirical risk so easily thematized and exploited by the film.” The basis of the house as an eye, “risks the more violent opening of the distinction between inside and outside, private and public, self and other, on which the house of the human is built,” ending with “But the exposure to risk offers us in turn the chance to think about the light in the eye, about the window in all its forms as an event or a gift of light—the chance of a blink, the twilight of an eye” (125). The ability to wear a camera and allow others to see your life most definitely breaks down the barrier between public and private, illustrated by such a personal habit as brushing one’s teeth, all of the sudden becomes public, in the sense that people can see it, but also that it’s projected right next to others doing the same thing (it’s not a private custom, if it’s socially dictated that we should do it). Keenan seems to be saying then that with the case of the house the window is now a two-way window, in which one looks in and out, which relates to this “gift of light.”
This concept seems to be so rooted in the concept of film and photography, which is nothing but creating images through exposure to light. But Keenan is moving this forward, and it seems that television, the “window to the world” should be associated with the windows he feels are on the way out. The “gift” then, is the gift of letting light in, but if this is extrapolated to digital media, it seems that the physical concept of light is not so much important in the new media. He mentions “autosurveillance” (128) and “the public” (135), which seems to render “light” more as a metaphor, a platform for the article, than a genuine entity to discuss.
Friday, March 5, 2010
S-03 Jameson
I thought it was interesting how Jameson (being a Marxist) links the way that we perceive our surroundings to forms and stages of capitalism. The stage that we are in right now is late-capitalism. He seemed to say the least about this stage of capitalism. For the stage right before late capitalism, which he refers to as " the stage of imperialism" our personal experiences become disconnected from the "economic and social forms that govern that experience". I believe that Jameson here is hinting at his idea of totality. That everything we experience in the world is connected (via capitalism) but it is so vast that we can not possibly understand or comprehend it. We can only see parts of the system and therefore we lack the complete picture. I wonder if in the stage of late capitalism we are coming closer to perhaps developing a means to represent this totality as we have become interconnected through the world wide web. We are now in the position to view, understand map information that we were never able to. We are being exposed to ideas and information that may bring us closer to understanding the world in which we live. Jameson says that these " new and enormous global realities are inaccessible to any individual subject or consciousness not even to Hegel". It seems that he is suggesting that there is no possible way in which we can become familiar with the complete picture. That we can only hope to map parts of the total. Going back to the break between human experience and reality, Jameson's ideas make sense. When ones experience excludes information on the reality of the immediate objects with which one interacts, it is relitavely impossible to map reality. The question here for me is whether or not in the stage of late capitalism we are more in touch with the real. Jameson suggests that our inability to map what is total and real also comes from the fractional nature of the subject. This fractioned subject is becoming even more fractioned with the growing presence of technology in our lives. There is no unity of subject.
If there is one thing that I would like clarified it would be what the ideal space is. If we are a part of an abstract space that is a result of a fractioned subject is that a positive or negative thing?
If there is one thing that I would like clarified it would be what the ideal space is. If we are a part of an abstract space that is a result of a fractioned subject is that a positive or negative thing?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
S03 Commenting on Leaves
During John Cayley's presentation in class the other day on electronic literature a student brought up an interesting concept that I thought about for the next few days. Someone asked if he ever felt limited by the different programs he was using, and his response was ,"of course". But then I thought to my self why use a medium that you can't exploit and utilize and feel completely satisfied? And this I concluded momentarily is where digital art merges with our previous concept of artwork. For the most part artist remain unsatisfied with a piece for an extended period of time, and rework that piece continuously until the product is one to their liking. This same method seems to be applied to John Cayley's electronic literature. Cayley could code and code continuously until his program did what he wanted to do. However there arises two conflicts. First, there is with his piece "The Speaking Clock" almost a play on the reworking of an art piece as the words on the screen constantly change. It's almost as though you see the artist's thoughts change directly in front of you, and therefore furthering the viewers connection with the piece. Second, I want to go back to his statement of unhappiness with the medium. What I deduced from this emotion is that maybe some of his ideas had to be changed based on the programs he was using. All in all I feel the unhappiness exemplifies and even further lack of control. Where Cayley expresses the lack of control in electronic art, we can think about the amount of control you have when you paint. I feel that there is definitely more control over what you are expressing in a painting then say a computer program. That last statement contains tons of irony. Technology arose out of a desire for freedom to be expressive as well as control dream like thoughts. So the fact that Cayley felt limited in a medium that was suppose to be parallel to a frontier, highly contradicts itself.
S03 - Jameson
I really don't think I'm able to completely understand the argument/s Jameson makes. However, his approach to literature and social problems is interesting and, for me, unexpected, and I want to address some of the issues he discusses. I noticed that Yugoslavia is sometimes used as an example of how socialism could have worked (had Tito lived longer). The problem is that, even though Yugoslavia managed to stay away from the direct influence of the USSR, its political system shared many characteristics of the totalitarian regime of the USSR. For example, Goli Otok in Yugoslavia was very similar to the labor camps in the USSR. Even though Yugoslavia's economy was developing while Tito was alive, it was all based on foreign loans and when he died the debts had to be paid off and the country suffered from economic crises. Now, the political system in Yugoslavia was obviously considerably better than in majority (if not all) socialist countries, but it was preserved with very harsh measures and the cult of the leader was developed to a very high extent.
Jameson refers to the political system in Yugoslavia as an ongoing successful mass experiment so I assume that he wrote his text at the time when Yugoslavia still existed. However, what I said before about the measures that were employed to preserve the system was known at that time too. That is why I wish Jameson addressed his examples in more detail.
I also can't always follow the references he makes and that is what makes understanding his text harder. However, from what I can understand, Jameson draws a parallel between cognitive mapping and the notion that ideology is a representation of one's imaginary relationship to his/her real conditions of existence. It makes sense - if we don't or can't get to know space we live in, it is directly proportional to how much we are alienated from the society we live in. Even though I think this idea has a potential to help explore and possible start solving some social problems I also think this idea is not enough.
As I said in the beginning , Yugoslavia was far from a successful mass experiment. The problem there was not alienation, one of the main problems was the fact that the system was always coming back to the hierarchy it attempted to eliminate in the beginning. It was like an ouroboros - it always came back to the problems of nationalism and lack of money that was characteristic of every previous system. Jameson acknowledges this problem, he considers it a problem of id. Awareness that he hopes that can be achieved is definitely a step towards controling the problem of hierarchy, but I am not sure if being aware of the problem means it is possible to solve it.
I feel that, for Jameson, new technology means only more space that needs to be cognitively mapped, but our society is a control society. Even though we can never fully map it, it can help reduce urban alienation that Jameson points out to.
Jameson refers to the political system in Yugoslavia as an ongoing successful mass experiment so I assume that he wrote his text at the time when Yugoslavia still existed. However, what I said before about the measures that were employed to preserve the system was known at that time too. That is why I wish Jameson addressed his examples in more detail.
I also can't always follow the references he makes and that is what makes understanding his text harder. However, from what I can understand, Jameson draws a parallel between cognitive mapping and the notion that ideology is a representation of one's imaginary relationship to his/her real conditions of existence. It makes sense - if we don't or can't get to know space we live in, it is directly proportional to how much we are alienated from the society we live in. Even though I think this idea has a potential to help explore and possible start solving some social problems I also think this idea is not enough.
As I said in the beginning , Yugoslavia was far from a successful mass experiment. The problem there was not alienation, one of the main problems was the fact that the system was always coming back to the hierarchy it attempted to eliminate in the beginning. It was like an ouroboros - it always came back to the problems of nationalism and lack of money that was characteristic of every previous system. Jameson acknowledges this problem, he considers it a problem of id. Awareness that he hopes that can be achieved is definitely a step towards controling the problem of hierarchy, but I am not sure if being aware of the problem means it is possible to solve it.
I feel that, for Jameson, new technology means only more space that needs to be cognitively mapped, but our society is a control society. Even though we can never fully map it, it can help reduce urban alienation that Jameson points out to.
S03 Navigable Space
While I do acknowledge how advanced and fascinating video games can be, I've never truly found them entertaining. While some graphics are extraordinary, I've never been drawn to anything other than Amateur Surgeon and Vending Machine Champ from my iphone. So it was fascinating to explore navigable space this week. I had never linked narratives to video games, but after this week's reading I can see the connection. Characters take part in exploring the space and developing through it by interacting with different objects.
The little knowledge that I have on video games and this reading reminded me of Patchwork Girl and how we were able to explore hypertext. Video games do a similar thing by allowing us to work at our own pace and to take our own paths. I find video games to be a bit more interactive though as you can not only look at the environment but also interact with it. Then again these interactions with other characters tend to be programed unless you are talking about online games like WoW.
The little knowledge that I have on video games and this reading reminded me of Patchwork Girl and how we were able to explore hypertext. Video games do a similar thing by allowing us to work at our own pace and to take our own paths. I find video games to be a bit more interactive though as you can not only look at the environment but also interact with it. Then again these interactions with other characters tend to be programed unless you are talking about online games like WoW.
Seeing a tip of the iceberg (Fri 11 am section)
In Navigable Space, the author describes exploring the virtual space as a subjective process, because the explorer’s vision is constantly changed according to his very own manipulation of and interaction with the virtual reality. “The navigable space is thus a subjective space, its architecture responding to the subject’s movements and emotion. In the case of the flaneur moving through the physical city, this transformation, of course, only happens in the flneur’s perception, but in the case of navigation through a virtual space, the space can literally change, becoming a mirror of the user’s subjectivity. “(Navigable Space) I think we can also see virtual space as a mirror of our subjectivity at large. When we are navigating the virtual reality, our view changes because we are only able to receive a small fraction of the large virtual environment at one time. Even though the computer can generate an infinite number of data, we as players can only perceive the part that we are able to, hence our subjectivity. The virtual reality, as a signifier of the real world, reminds us of our subjectivity in our perception of the physical world as well.
Just like the case in virtual reality, we are bombarded by huge amounts of information when we are interacting with the physical world. Information comes to our senses and we process the images, sounds, touches etc with our senses. Then our brain process the data that we have perceived and we “see” the things that we see. However, information is filtered in each step, as we are unable to absorb all the data, and finally what is bumbling up to consciousness is what is the most self-absorbing.
The brain processes 400 GB of info a second but we are only aware of 2 GB of those (Movie: What the Bleep Do We Know). Our awareness of those 2 GB of info is most of the time just about our body, environment, and time: we are living in a world of our own, a world of our subjectivity. We are only seeing a tiny tip of the iceberg.
Just like the case in virtual reality, we are bombarded by huge amounts of information when we are interacting with the physical world. Information comes to our senses and we process the images, sounds, touches etc with our senses. Then our brain process the data that we have perceived and we “see” the things that we see. However, information is filtered in each step, as we are unable to absorb all the data, and finally what is bumbling up to consciousness is what is the most self-absorbing.
The brain processes 400 GB of info a second but we are only aware of 2 GB of those (Movie: What the Bleep Do We Know). Our awareness of those 2 GB of info is most of the time just about our body, environment, and time: we are living in a world of our own, a world of our subjectivity. We are only seeing a tiny tip of the iceberg.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)