Week 12 – ‘But is it Art?’

Whitelaw (2012) draws upon a good idea about generative art. He states that traditional media is a great medium for generative art and design, particularly the ‘lush tangibility of traditional media’ (Whitelaw, 2012). Likewise, I think, England’s Vide-Uhh video is a great example of the use of traditional media as a form of generative art. In this video, the man is basically pressing and prodding the inside of a VCR as it is being recorded. I am not sure if my interpretation is correct. However, I feel that this media art draws great alignment to how the brain works and in a sense the image disruption in the video is somewhat metaphorical. It may be interpreted as another version of our human pain sensory in an electronic form and it feels relatable for me. However, another way of looking at it in another artistic manner, I believe we get more insight into technology itself and viewing the video camera as more humanistic. Somehow, I feel that it’s a view that tells us that technology is levelling the playing field against humans which comes back to the quote by Einstein, “…technology is exceeding humanity…”

Whitelaw (2013) also suggests that in the digital generative scene the ‘look’ is seen as more valued than the concept. However, there is often a narrative inside these ‘retinal’ generative artworks (Whitelaw, 2013). I feel that Vivid Sydney, particularly the light display on the Museum of Contemporary art, is a digital generative art work that has a great narrative which can be interpreted subjectively. Likewise in the Intimate Transaction, Vivid Sydney uses many forms of visual and sound design creating many different abstract sounds and feels enlightening to watch (Armstrong, 2005). I recently went to view Vivid Sydney and every single time you experience the projections I have different perspectives and emotions. Perhaps it is the different aesthetics and abstract nature which leaves me in awe.

References

Whitelaw, Mitchell (2012) ‘An Interview with Paul Prudence (Neural 40)’ The Teeming Void, <http://teemingvoid.blogspot.com/2012/01/interview-with-paul-prudence-for-neural.html >

Armstrong, Keith (2005) ‘Intimate Transactions: The Evolution of an Ecosophical Networked Practice’, the Fibreculture Journal 7, <http://seven.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-047-intimate-transactions-the-evolution-of-an-ecosophical-networked-practice/ >

ARTS3091 – Week 11

In my perspective, the future has become an unintentional haunt for many humans. Derrida (1993) first presented this idea of hauntology which is the known as the ‘past in the present’. How does this concept relate to media? It definitely can be haunting for us all with no knowledge of the future of technology, media and its effects on culture now. I believe the past, present and future interconnected.

Rushkoff (2012) talks about the struggle we are having with the new relationship to time. We live in the now and ‘priorities of this moment seem to be everything’ (Rushkoff, 2012). He explains the idea that there is no sense of the future as things are changing so fast that we are losing our ability to cope even in the present (Rushkoff, 2012). The 5 main ways in which we’re struggling include narrative collapse, digiphrenia, overwinding, fractalnoia and apolcalypto (Rushkoff, 2013).

With regards to the narrative collapse, Rushkoff (2012) points out that we have lost the linear stories and are now presented with a “new path to sense-making…more like an open game than a story”. Kony 2012 is a great example of this change as there is no concrete beginning and end of this phenomenon. We, as users of the internet, wait to react and we responded with millions of views as a proposed act on mass against political issues.

The statement in the image is true, particularly with digiphrenia. The whole idea of digiphrenia, which is ‘how technology lets us be in more than one place’, creates this sense of slacktivism (Rushkoff, 2012). In my opinion, the quote seems to suggest that humans are being overcome by technology and we are more reliant on it now than we were decades ago.

Perhaps, slacktivism is a way we deal with these overwhelming amounts of technology. It lets us live in two worlds (Rushkoff, 2012). How I see it is that technology is unintentionally meshing these two worlds together. As Rushkoff (2012) says, we don’t know how to cope with the many different types of new technology.

It isn’t the haunting of the future but of how the present shapes our future I believe.

References

Rushkoff D, 2012, ‘Present Shock’ < http://www.rushkoff.com/present-shock/>

ARTS3091 Week 9

I believe each fragmented piece of metal, yearning to cover the empty and lifeless gate, is like a collaboration of ideas building towards a common goal. I believe collaboration allows us to make society better and culture richer. Much like Cain (2012) says, new group think provides so much knowledge that even the introverted individuals are extroverted enough to exchange and provide ideas. Collaboration feels as if it surrounds me in university works and as the old saying goes, two heads definitely work better than one (Michael D. Gershon)

As a user myself, we as individuals feel powerless. However, as seen from many campaigns like Kony 2012, users in mass can promote cultural change (Coalition of the Willing, 2010). Much like Wikipedia, this image explains that mass, like a social organisation, allows people all over the world to be able to engage and collaborate together to form a spectacular piece, even for political movements or activism (Coalition of the Willing, 2010). These ‘swarms’ can help us to picture and shed light on different world issues (Coalition of the Willing, 2010).

From the techniques of ‘swarming’ and collaboration, are offered a point of departure for a new kind of politics (Jellis, 2009). Although there is much controversy surrounding Kony 2012, I think that new media has allowed people to be hand in hand when dealing with political issues involving Kony.

References

Cain S, (2012) ‘The Rise of the New Groupthink’, The New York Times, January 13, <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html >

Knife P, Rayner,T, Robson S, (2010) Coalition of the Willing < http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/ >.

Jellis, T (2009) ‘Disorientation and micropolitics: a response’, spacesof[aesthetic]experimentation, <http://www.spacesofexperimentation.net/montreal/disorientation-and-micropolitics-a-response/

ARTS3091 Week 8

Big politics: The Fate of the State

This week, the role of ‘old’ and new media in governance is being discussed with regards to transparency and government 2.0.

The 60min film, Us Now (2009) presents a lot of insight into the concepts of transparency and Government 2.0. It reveals that collaboration and peer-to-peer sharing helps unbundle and reconstitute what a government is (Us Now, 2009). Perhaps even what a government does, much like the action taken after the Kony 2012 online campaign became viral. The ability to collaborate and share has allowed users to relive this ‘community spirit’, that was prominent years ago, which can now be experienced by interacting via online mediums (SNS, blogs, forums). Although there are still many trust issues against strangers online, trust and safety are integral for government 2.0 (Us Now, 2009).  This social trust has been re-established through social media and has allowed for greater group action (Us Now, 2009). ‘Us’ as a part of Government 2.0 can be low cost and more efficient than an official government (Us Now, 2009). As Styles (2009) states, “…so many areas of government policy and service that might be improved by some citizen collaboration…”However, citizen governance will also be categorised into federal, state and local in which it actually limits the ability to improve certain services (Styles, 2009).

Although there is a lot of controversy surrounding Kony 2012, it is a great example of the collaboration of community. I feel it demonstrates the positive aspects of Government 2.0. The film has been viewed 70 million times, primarily on Facebook. Through the peer-to-peer sharing and commenting, the ‘community spirit’ of the younger generation has re-established greater group action on the Kony issue. It also reinforces the idea on “targeted transparency” which is a rule that signifies the data and presents it in a way that conveys meaningful data, similar to the presentation of the issue of Kony with the use of high quality videos (Lessig, 2010). As Lessig (2010) states, users are too smart and do not focus on issues that are insignificant. Due to the attention span problem, the high production valued film of Kony 2012 simplified the Kony issue with the high quality video, clear parth, messaging, driven deadline, credibility and user-friendly tools (Marquis & Walsh, 2012). Unfortunately, this style of film was under a lot of scrutiny.  However, due to this viral ‘community spirit’, the US House of Representatives backed a resolution condemning Kony, support the citizen led campaign in the US and the military efforts in Afraid and pledging greater support (Curtis, 2012). As the Us Now film states, “…people can work together, asking a deeper question about government…” The example of Kony 2012 demonstrates one example of the big shift in group action that gives everyone the ability to choose whether they want to participate (Us Now, 2009). In this case, this self-organised system was able to provide motivation for greater group action against Kony.

References

Banyak Films, 2009, ‘Us Now’, < http://vimeo.com/4489849>

Curtis P, 2012, ‘Has Kony 2012 changed anything, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/apr/16/has-kony-2012-changed-anything>

Lessig L, 2010, ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government’, <http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0>

Marquis A, Walsh T, 2012, ’20 Reasons Why KONY 2012 is the the Most Viral Advocacy Video Ever, <http://www.thedigitalnaturalist.com/home/2012/3/20/20-reasons-why-kony-2012-is-the-most-viral-advocacy-video-ev.html>