CART 255 - New Media Theory

2009-04-21T18:01:00.000-07:00

Final project:

Eventually I discarded my final proposal idea and tried to make a hand drawn animated story revolving a ninja and his mission to kill his target.

Response to Hardt & Negri by Alex, Alexina & Emmanuel

2008-04-09T18:44:00.000-07:00

The text describes the U.N. as a controlling structure with omnipotent power over the world. This structure is created in an effort to prevent world crisis. It is not only a protective measure for individuals but also for governments of the world. The U.N. is unfortunately an organization which decides what is universally good. They are the law upon which every subscribing state's law is based, inherited by the monarchy and liberal models proposed by Hobbs and Locke. It is not a collaboration, but rather another type of power entirely, an Empire, as the authors suggest. They talk about "just wars" as wars approved by a community for the "greater good". They have a right to make "peace wars", though the term is ironic because the U.N. says it is good and because it is good, the local government has to agree with them. War, to them, isbanalised and absolutised . Because it appears to be everlasting, the Empire cannot be overruled or overthrown by those few who disagree with them, but they are scared of that possibility. By undermining their authority, the latter begins to deplete. To remain successful, the empire must convey to the public that their power is necessary. The empire is not disconnected from local government. It is directly affected by the changes occurring in global populations. Their declines are related. Conditioning humans to the desires of the empire forms bio power. A power structure which is innately built and harvested in populations. The distinction between local and global is a false impression of the power situation. Humans revolt once they become aware of an internal conflict between the implanted laws and their beliefs. This is different from Foucault's point of view. Our world runs on money. Those who hold the most, are able to sway policies. They are the elite. Through communication media, the political power, imagination and symbolic forms influence humans. News media and non-governmental organisations identify universal needs and defend human rights, leaving the actual task of addressing the problem to the Empire. Moral intervention by theseNGO's prepares the stage for the Empire to make military interventions. Denouncing and peace-talking, in a sense, comes before the actual act of war-making to bring on that peace. "Just war" as well as rights are supported by the "moral police" (theNGO's ), just as they are supported by the local police. The UN is located in a space without borders. It is in a flexible environment, everywhere and nowhere and the same time. It has been created to fashion an illusion of security in the lower working class.

Stalin says "one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic". One death is tragic, personalised, it has a name. On the other hand, a million deaths are faceless, easier to swallow for the masses who are tuned in to the crisis or war. Those deaths are just as tragic, but rendered less so by the fact that we can't possibly imagine all those lives slipping away. We cannot think in or conceive such large terms or numbers, it is too overwhelming. Stalin killed approximately 20 millions Russians. There he dismisses those deaths as unimportant in the face of his campaign of power. Such words also make sense when contextualised with the U.N.'s "just war" concept. Do they happen to care how many die? We think not. Their goal is to police the world on their terms, regardless of the number of deaths. Canadians penetrated Iraq in an effort to keep "peace". This duty has become a cleanup of American devastation. Although there has been recent revolt against this, it mostly passed subtly thanks to the approval from the Empire. If we are to take this new knowledge to the next level, we must find a way to govern our planet effectively. One approach to this is an independent third party. Someone unbiased and uninfluenced by this planet's money would be a good candidate. Our governments could report to the independent third party for it to make uninfluenced suggestions. We believe the ideal implementation of this anti-empire is an alien race charged with managing our planet. Visions of the world will always be affected by social class. This is important in Marxist theory. The bourgeois class is more educated while the proletariat find it difficult to climb this ladder. This is not only a social problem, it is faced by many who wish to pursue post-secondary education. Foucault analyses the whole of society. In the video shown in class, it is normal that the two philosophers project different opinions as they come for different sociopolitical backgrounds. In the movie Equilibrium, everyone has to take a pill to eliminate their emotions and supervise them, make them more controllable. The society dominates all on earth. We mention this movie because, in the text, they mention that "the formation of a new right is inscribed in the deployment of prevention, repression, and rhetorical force aimed at the reconstruction of social equilibrium: all this is proper o the activity of police.".

In fact, is it possible that comtemporary society should revert to living without Empires like the UN in an effort to develop more humanly?

WHY CYBERSPACE? - Wendy Chun - Angela and Matthieu

2008-04-07T06:14:00.000-07:00

In "Why Cyberspace?" Wendy Chun analyzes the construction of cyberspace and the Internet. She begins by exploring notions of space in cyberspace. Chun compares cyberspace to a shopping mall, a privately owned, publicly accessible space. Cyberspace emerged from Gibson's science fiction and thus it is a space imbued with mythical qualities. Cyberspace "is a free space in which to space out about space and place"(43). It challenges space and place. Chun investigates how the Internet is about time and points out that the Internet has erased the difference between viewing a storing data. Chun explores how different Gibson's Utopian cyberspace differs from the Internet. She shows how capitalist systems of control operate within the Internet and the broader computer industry, from the production of components by Asian women, to High-tech Orientalism, to the effect of the TCP/IP protocol. She interrogates the question: who is is the user who uses and who is the user who is used by the system? She also questions how the systems of control operating within the Internet effect democracy.

Wendy Chun, By Tomer, John and Chris

2008-04-06T21:07:00.000-07:00

The main concept in the first chapter of Wendy Chun's "Control and Freedom", is "cyberspace"
Chun attempts to explain the term "Cyberspace", and brings up some difficulties that arise when approaching this concept.
One of the main difficulties is the notion of "space".
She shows that cyberspace is more of a tool, an apparatus, than an actual space.
Furthermore she states that there really is no basis to call this apparatus "space", and the only reason it is called so, is for legal reasons that apply to legislation over the internet.
Chan compares the lack of space when facing the internet, to the spatial aspect of television.
In this comparison Chun shows that a television program appears at a certain time, and on a certain channel, thus conforming to the idea of "space".
We thought that this idea does little to prove her point. Web pages can be seen as just as "spatial" as television channels. Furthermore time does affect the internet. So much so that there has been invented an "Internet Time", a clock specifically for the internet, to regulate it.
Chun sees the usage of the internet as a sort of "time travel", because a user can be in multiple places at once, browsing effortlessly between WebPages.
Again, we failed to see the novelty of this idea in comparison with the television. One can "channel surf", just as effortlessly on the television, and with picture in picture technology one can also view multiple channels at once.
Chun brings up Foucault's idea of heterotopia.
The heterotopia differs from the utopia in that a utopia is a fundamentally unreal space, while a heterotopia is a real space, which is simultaneously mythical and real.
We thought that this idea applies very well to the concept of "Cyberspace".
Cyberspace is by no means a utopia, but it is a heterotopia because it conforms to the two basic requirements:
It is undeniably "real", insofar that none can deny it exists.
It has many "mythical" aspects, not the least is the lack of physical "space", that Chun explains.
The idea that we thought about for our question is the following:
Can steps be taken to increase the "reality" and physicality of the "cyberspace"?
Can we forge physical space to the cyberspace? And if we do, will it still be considered "cyberspace", or a virtual reality?

Chun - by Morgan, Peter, Nic and JS

2008-04-06T20:03:00.000-07:00

Summary
The first chapter of ‘Control and Freedom’ by Wendy Chun looks at the emergence of the Web through the birth and life of what we know as ‘cyberspace’. Explaining the legal context of the ‘official’ creation of a new electronic 'space' in which things 'happened', and that had originally no local standards. She addresses the notions of place and space in relation to a network that went from being public (government owned), to privately owned and being massively commercialized. Then she goes into the field of cybernetics, talking about controls systems and how cybernetics work, which is explained to be all about maintaining internal communications through an external central nervous system. She also talks about the origin of the word 'cyberspace' which came from literature (Gibson’s Neuromancer). The ‘cyberspace’ is described as unnamable and unlocatable, as a 'free' space, using symbolic addresses and naming systems to facilitates human comprehension. It is said that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are used interchangeably, and that while ‘cyberspace loosens place, place is no longer stable or proper, and disappear and move rapidly’ . It is question of Manovich’s 'database complex' , meaning the desire to store everything. Then talking about how new media and navigable spaces, throughout interfaces, establish new relations between space and tours.

Other ideas explored are : The notion of ‘time’ as much important as space, and the active participation required by the web, compared to non-interactive TV (passive).How most DSL offer download speed faster than upload (consumer mode). Example of spatialized web (VRML) where no space exists but only objects belonging to different individuals (just like in SecondLife). Virtual realities, and multiple persona, alter-egos, The web as a space for compensation, compensatory heteropias, or spaces of pure order. The example the of the e-commerce paradise, internet as a perfect other space. Foucaults example of the boat as the perfect heterotopian example, also in close relation with colonial moments. The use of the word 'pirate' , in relation to exploration and piracy, which may indicate or create radical changes. The web surfer, who feels as home while, constantly moving from place to place, (Beaudelair's Flâneur). The perfect spectator who can see but must not be seen, who leaves not trace, but reveals other people traces. The gawker, a commodity dependent being, that stands an stares. The myth of the superagent, leading you to think that you leave no trace. Controlling code, and the architecture of the internet, content and code as parallel systems. The founding principle of the net as being control and not freedom. Open source softwares.

Near the end, she mentions that , instead of exploring utopian possibilities, it would be better to see how the web can enable something similar to democracy.

Discussion
We began with a discussion on how we approach the internet. I told of how, for me, the internet is a space, be it social or utilitarian. My paths through the net are like my daily routines through the city. It is also a social space -- a place I go when in need of social interaction. For Nic, on the contrary, the internet is an information resource, like a book. What I consider to be social arenas (forums, lists, irc, social nets etc.) are merely sources to be mined for Nic.
He is a lurker. We then looked at the cyberpunk fantasy of cyberspace as an environment for heterotopia. How would it even be possible given current technology? Isn't it disappointing that the web has become private, commercialized, and homogenized? Was it ever possible for the web to have the richness (space) depicted in Neuromancer? Are "underground" hacker-type internet users closer to the cyberpunk aesthetic than the average user? How did the open source movement emerge from cyberpunk and in what way does it differ? Unrealized are the images of the lone hacker, roaming the net. The new power lies in mass emergence. Taxonomy. Web 2.0. Is the clean, user-friendly aesthetic of the web 2.0 (the antithesis of cyberpunk aesthetic) an effect of (response to) privatization? Perhaps open source is anti-cyberpunk in that the software is competing with commercial software. In an open cyberspace, the hegemony of dominant software configurations would disintegrate. But open source creates a "structure of sharing". This reminded us of Yuill who talks of "socially directed" creation.

Is cyber-space desirable? Should the advantages of the web be integrated into the real, or are the heterotopic benefits of the division between real and virtual worth the schism of the individual?

Empire - Alexis, Ramsy, Sean

2008-04-06T19:57:00.000-07:00

Empire. World order brings an example, brought in our current times by, mainly, the UN. The UN was made as an ideological way of globalising the world [consequence of capitalist production?] however where it's theory fails to translate into practice is where our product of Empire begins. The Empire itself is the transition from nation-states to global entities validated through the juridical process of a supranational source. Empire itself constantly makes it's presence necessary, eternal and absolute and casts morality ethics and justice into new dimensions. Biopolitics is about the relationship of power applies to the individual. Foucault says that "life has become an object of power in itself". The indirect result of life is labor. Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt make reference to Marx and talk about the de-substantiation of manual labor (commodification). This translates to power being an output of life and being intrinsic to society, therefore not requiring external groups: government, Empire as it were. Alternatives to an Empire talk about the possible evolution of empires on the local and global level. They write about alternatives to the empire as a method of illusionment, specifically, the ability for segments on the local level to create a sense of identity for its members. This is done as a way to defferenciate the new social structure from the old and its flaws.

The entire text is pretty good reflection of what is happening today, 20 years later. the new alternatives to Empire are a way to brake away from the mistakes of Empire as it was built on old models that do not apply to today's global political and economical structures.

Chun by Ben, Duy, Scott, Kevin

2008-04-06T15:35:00.000-07:00

The Internet has gone through the process of metamorphosis to become some thing much more transcendent and abstract called the Cyberspace. In this cybernetic space, virtually no rules and no limits exist. Even human attain an ever ability to escape from the prison of the bodies and be free. Different from its sci-fi origins, cyberspace embraces ambiguity and contingency, one can navigate and control the interface but not the space, and the path they take in cyberspace. Cyberspace allows for an “imitation indistinguishable from the ‘real thing,’ yet completely separate from it.” Compensatory heteropias are ordered, perfect, and meticulous. Cyberspace does not adequately protect users from becoming spectacles; rather, it focuses their “gaze away from its own vulnerability and toward others as spectacle.” Whereas the flâneur is an impartial, unobserved observer, independent from the scene he/she witnesses; the gawker is not independent, “disappears, absorbed by the external world,” and becomes an impersonal being. TCP/IP is now a technical cornerstone of global telecommunications networks, as it makes it possible for networks that run on different physical media, and that use networking standards to communicate with each other. The Internet cannot be completely censored; however, its censorship depends on local configurations and routing protocols. Both of these are affected by the privatization of the Internet backbone.

As place is defined while space is undefined and contingent, getting lost in the cyberspace is like wondering in a jungle of black holes. Indeed, will this cyberspace is an exact replica of our bigger universe and consequently will inherit its charateristics? Our discussion led to whether informed emersion into Cyberspace should warrant the ability to see without being seen, or whether being seen is simply part of the agreement. The reason for this question is because it is arguably not mandatory to connect to this space, despite there being advantages.

Empire. Jos; Charlotte; Charles

2008-04-06T02:43:00.000-07:00

In 'Empire' the key element to understand here is that globalization cannot be understood as a simple process of de-regulating markets. The term 'Empire' makes allusion to a very Foucault type of situation, where we are subjected to a power that is defused or decentralized but all seeing. The flow of people and information is deemed too unruly to be monitored from a single source. The world they describe is one that abandons the old idea of a ruling class for a more complex system of inequality. Everything is blurred beyond logical interpretation. This particular event (Empire) acts as a kind of prophecy.

Wendy Chun, Group response from Natalia, Fernando, Mike, and Martin.

2008-04-05T18:46:00.000-07:00

In “Why Cyberspace” Wendy Chun discuses the internet and cyberspace, she refers to this system as a heterotopia this means that it posses all kinds of diverse content and homogenous which means that while it is accessible everywhere it is another system of control. She argues whether a system that homogenizes all information is good. Concerning Space she talks about the cyberspace not being one yet having its own illusion of time and space based on the real. We talked about our relationship to the internet and its potential to blur our notion of time. Spending a large amount of time on what it’s called cyberspace results on the user being a passive receiver with a sedentary lifestyle. So how much of internet time does it takes for it to affect someone’s reality. We agreed that code is a democratic tool because it can be disseminated through open source to people. But codes work somehow like different languages which are not approachable by most of people so the actual change that a democratic code can make is questionable.
Although time is a human construct how does cyberspace recreate our relationship with time?

Response to chun by alexina, emanuel, alex

2008-04-03T13:16:00.000-07:00

The author asks the simple question: "why do we call cyberspace 'cyberspace'?". There is no physical location required for these disembodied interactions. Chun continues in describing the ownership of "cyberspace" from a private space, that is an expanse-less metaphor for space, owned by government authorities to a publicly accessible form owned by corporations. A binary definition which leaves little room for gradation. The concept humans used to comprehend this interconnected network of networks was through science fiction works. Cyberspace, in these works, was navigable - that is, the characters moved through its virtual reality much like video game characters - and tangible, and its size and scope were visible to the user. The use of the term Cyberspace is an abstraction of the technicality of the Internet. This abstraction manipulates the user to believe they are truly navigating a vast environment. This environment possesses even more abstraction as it uses names as virtually meaningless variables for human understanding. This area has been declared an area of freedom thanks to its name. This may be misleading. Cyberspace is build on memory and space as opposed to time like previous media. The Internet is a vulnerable space in that flooding, hacking, and otherwise harmful actions may occur perpetuated by its settlers (hackers) who claimed that environment. The cyberspace culture takes place in reality while all its signs and effects take place outside of it. This Internet does more than mirror reality. It is its own simulacra giving a person more importance than in real life. Chun mentions how the code is law. That is to say that once the code is established, users and programmers abide by it and create according to it. Even open codes are controlling as the final say relies on a certain power figure, whether by the government or a private "open" corporation. Therefore, the Internet is not a free playground. The Internet is a tool which those who are oppressed can use to be empowered. The Internet is the most efficient medium for communications. This is why humans, as suppressed beings, are driven to use the medium.

The new home of Mind is the following online applications: skyrock, digg, skyblog, myspace, youtube, facebook, livejournal, blogger, etc. They demand an implication of the user and his mind into his actions online. These are examples of the simulacra created to protect users' privacy although they often appear as a window into their lives. The medium is a liberation where users can reclaim their freedom. She questions who owns the Internet and how much freedom we have online. Is it truly open to any discussion? Is the content truly always 'there' for us to peruse? Website owners can take away content at any time, thus taking away the concept of public content. Discussions are more often than not moderated by individuals who censor content or take it off the site when it is not compliant with their own bias/position. When content is limited or available only through special conditions, it may require special permissions or payment to access. The internet satisfies the futuristic desire to teleport. It morphs space and time like a teleporting time machine. Humans get instant satisfaction from participating in cyberspace activities. We can see democracy on website like wikipedia where user have a grade depend of there implication and good reviews. We can also see a lot of of other examples like digg, deviantart (good example of freedom), newgrounds and forum but each website still with laws and regimentation. We think that the following phrase, "This virtual passing promises [...] to protect our "real" bodies and selves from the glare of publicity", is dated. Online advertising is more present than ever at this time, and young girls and young guys are faced with images of perfect bodies and perfect lives, thus telling them that they must change in order to be popular, etc.

Could the Internet be qualified as the first step to a "real" cyberspace? Is it merely a test to improve users' literacy regarding a bigger "place"?

Kittler - John, Tomer, Chris

2008-03-31T08:12:00.001-07:00

Kittler states that the gramophone was able to record undifferentiated sounds, without the need of editing. He links reality with the composition, the actual sound waves that are captured by recording, and then he goes on to write about film, that “Instead of recording physical waves, generally speaking, film only stores their chemical effects on its negatives.” He also argues that the dominance of printed words was being questioned in the later nineteenth century even before phonography, photography, and cinematography. At the same time, Kittler argues, the cultural view of writing changed drastically due to the increasing use of the typewriter. What Kittler meant was that because of all these gadgets, we were loosing sight of reality and that what ever was being produced was not real at all, just some form of translation.

Now, as we fast forward to the present, what Kittler mentioned still applies to the modern ways of recording audio, video or images. Instead of having data chemically shaped onto film, everything is made out of 1’s and 0’s. At least that’s what Kittler implies. The fact that we have hardware and that nearly all the media that is produced, is just being translated to us by these computers that store nothing but binary. He means to say that everything has come to that. It’s some code that is being translated to us through means of speakers or monitors and that there is nothing real about that. There is no true depth to it.

Just a century ago, media was all analog but now it’s all digitally reproducible. To what extent will this form of data storage be developed? And if it keeps progressing the way technology is now, does it mean that one day even organic dna, like food and maybe even humans, will be broken down to be stored or transmitted digitally?

Kittler - Alexis, Ramy, Sean

2008-03-31T00:00:00.000-07:00

summary?
Kittler start explaining how the future (now) pipes all medias of film, sound and even text through optic cables. how these 3 connected medias are merely storage systems to message we produce as they contain no output method and [can not, in themselves, change the meaning of the messages stored in them]. In consequence only their quality is gauged. These new data storage systems store time. since the past could only store time through textual means. which is why everything ended up in a library. In contrast tribal oral traditions would become extinct, or encapsulated by the, then monopolistic tradition of, writing. writting itself can only store words within the confines of it's 28 letters. The new systems of images and moving images bring about new ways of thinking and remembering. Old ways are replaced, "memory" is replaced with new images instead of hallucinations that would have to be though through words. He later on explains a new division between the media and writing (brought back thanks to the typewritter). Writing now divides itself from the soul and looses it's sensuality. Sensuality now picked up by the media. with this new technologies comes the distinction between the real, the imaginary and the symbolic. the world of the symbolic itself is world of the machine according to Lacan. New terms are introduced again, those of the continuous, as handwriting, and those of discrete, as the typewriter. As ubiquitous digitalization approaches, numbers and figures become the key to all of us.

The second is about programing as an abstraction from the hardware that controls the computers of then and how, when writing code, that writing looses it's meaning because it is so abstracted from it's final interpretation. He goes on to discard software as having any kind of existence outside the hardware that interprets it for which reason it is all the more insisted as being property. without software, we are left with the bare bones of computation, the hardware, at which point efficiency is maximized since there is no abstraction to make it inefficient and wasteful. Kittler writes about having a new type machine, composed entirely of hardware, and that this new machine, confronted with such an increase of signals, now noise, would only fall into perceived chaos and back to Shannon and away from IBM.

ideas

In the first text Kitler seem to share many of the same concerns as McLuhan. Notably in the persistence of recorded in history through written word. The communicative property of history becomes subjugated to the written word. Understandably, but still, bananas. History is currupted by various external sources (external the archival form) most notably, the people who write it. In this sense, our group was more in agreement with the previous text Encoding / Decoding as it better addressed the various sources of manipulation instead of harping on the failure of a medium ( In this case, written words). People still need memory, even with recorded history, we require memory to find history books, or history classes, and definatly, what chapter we where at in the readings. Without memory itself, we would get stuck, reading the same information over and over again, similar to a computer.

Which leads to the second text, "There is no software". Its questionable how serious the statement could be, as its either A: a case of playing with words to validate and communicate a point ( that software is an abstraction that inherits the flaws of language in its inability to represent prevision of process, or rather usefull algorhythms) or B: Frederick Kitler is firmly against abstraction for the aformation weakness in language and beleives that keyboards should be composed of three keys, 0, 1, enter. Scratch that, human computer interaction should be limited to hardware operators modulating freequencies with a screwdriver. Such efficient computation ( as it subverts the computational overhead of... everything ) would lead to modeling of meaningful interaction. Admittedly, the set of problems that are turing complete are infact, a subset of all possible problems, including the interesting and the meaningful. However the abstraction utilised in the creation of programming languages and software is not embded with the failures he describes. As complexity itself takes different forms, or rather the confrontation with complexity, scaling, takes different forms. Beyond performance (the issue that relates most directly to computability) complexity itself scales as it relates to humans. As in, it would take a really long time to program something meaningful modulating signals on a circuit board when the same problem could be solved easily with a programming language. Computability in its binary form, as in, whether something is deterministic and can be computed also suffers from this complexity.

questions

do new systems of data storage, such as film and sound, effect our way of thinking in the same way linguistic determinism does?
If such problems of complexity where solved and a system was constructed to accurately model noise (chaos) or rather, the human realm, would it be recognisable as such by humans?

Kitler review by Chris and Éric

2008-03-30T18:40:00.000-07:00

Friedrich Kitler dans son texte Preface to Gramophone, Film, Typewriter avance que les medias déterminent notre situation. En fait, son analyse médiatique repose sur la transformation au fil des âges des moyens de communication. De la parole à l’écriture en passant par l’enregistrement phonographique au film, l’information se perd dans des trous noirs et l’intelligence artificielle qui gère cette masse d’informations, nous abandonne sur le chemin des commandes complexes. Lorsqu’il opère à leur limite, les médias plus anciens, tel l’écriture, sont assez sensibles pour enregistrer les signes et les indices d’une situation donnée. De plus, Kitler prétend que contrairement à ce que McLuhan prétendait, les médias resteront toujours incompréhensibles car les technologies actuelles exercices un contrôle direct sur toute la compréhension possible et évoque son illusion.

Dans le texte, There is no software, Kitler prétend que les logiciels n’existent pas car ils sont intrinsèquement liés aux matériels (hardware) donc nécessairement, ils ne peuvent exister que si les matériels existent.

Le texte de Kitler apporte un point de vue différent et plus actuel sur les médias que tous les autres auteurs que nous avons vus au préalable. Sa vision de la transformation de l’écriture, médias anciens, en une information plus volatile et malléable est assez intéressante. Parcontre, noius sommes moins convaincus par son texte There is no software, où il remet en cause l’existe des logiciels. Nous croyons que ces drniers exoistent en eux-mêmes au point d’être partagé sur Internet et en personne.

Response to Kitler - Sam,Manuela and Yin YIn

2008-03-30T17:00:00.000-07:00

In the required readings for this class “Gramophone, Film, Typewriter” and “There is No Software”, Kittler discusses that originality and self expression is lost due to the media and technology. He talks about moving-images, sound recording and the art of handwriting. Handwriting was viewed as being a form of identity when the pen touches the paper, how everyone’s is different and cannot be replicated but with the computer and all the available software’s, a font can now be manipulated till the creator is satisfied ( color, size, font type) all originality and identification is lost. He also says that media "define what constitutes reality". That media stores time in different forms; information is written on or encoded into a media.

Through out this class we have come across a recurring subject in these texts; the loss of originality and identity. It is obvious that Kitler is disappointed with technology replacing “hand on” forms of creation, writing and literature; all these mediums have been put aside and replaced with media. This idea of loss in originality when a paper is typed is quite relevant now for students who write essays for class, the papers criteria (single spaces, size 12, font type Times New Roman) dismisses all creativity except for the content.

Is possible that a digitally create work can have individuality but not in the sense of the presentation but in the content?

Kittler Response: Natalia, Mike, Fernando, Martin

2008-03-30T16:04:00.000-07:00

In “Gramophone, Film, Typewriter”, Kittler discusses how all media have been reduced into “rows of numbers”, which is the concept that he pushes further in “There is No Software” by stating that hardware is the only significant aspect of computation. He stresses that media define our understanding of the world, and dictate the illusions that we see around us, mistaking them for sense perception. With all media blending into one, the differences between them become negligible, essentially eliminating the concept of media itself. However, this is merely a continuation of the way the world has been defined by media, such as in the relationship between writing and history. In “There Is No Software”, Kittler continues this argument about the control of reality by the media, placing particular emphasis on how this control is driven by arbitrary logic, and is limiting in its representation of the world, which is in essence chaotic.

Since the time this article was written, Kittler’s prediction of the blending of media has already began to materialize in the form of the internet communications. It has also taken another form in art, resulting in the current trend of multimedia artworks that use the ability of shifting media to their advantage. While Kitler appears to be rather pessimistic about it, this blending resembles Haraway’s utopia of hybridity, and can be seen to actually hold promise in how information is interpreted and used. His ideas about non-existence of software, however, are more problematic as they undervalue the creativity that goes into its creation and use. By stating that everything is reduced to 1’s and 0’s, he suggests that all of the work done on the computer is merely that. It resembles the Modernist approach to painting, viewing it merely as colour and plane.

What would be, following Kittler’s idea, the computation arts equivalent of flat abstraction? Would such an artform hold a valid place in contemporary art world?

Kittler response: Charlotte, Charles-Antoine, Jos

2008-03-30T05:37:00.000-07:00

Friedrich Kittler describes how the world of symbolics turned into the world of the machine.For him, media are lost in the digital realm; they become numbers, thus transformable into each other through algorithms. However, the monopoly of the digital realm is not a unique case. In order to understand why, we must first understand his notion of media. First of all, media "define what constitutes reality". Media store time in different forms; information is written on or encoded into a media. The act of writing is very old, and since its debut, written languages had to be organized uniformly. The same notion of writing on a media is taken by cinematographs. However, the hallucinatory power of reading and writing is more and more lost or controlled by all lower-level apparatuses. Since most people are unaware of the lower technical levels and can only see the higher levels, they cannot see through the "monopoly of writing". The same concept was understood in "There Is No software": only the lowest level (hardware) really exists. Those who cannot see this hidden level through the higher ones do not understand fully the medium they are using and lose their "hallucinating power".

The IBM measure (logical depth) explains that "the value of a message [is in the apparatus'] buried redundancy." This means that the receiver already has the ability to figure out what the computer does, only at "considerable cost in money, time, or computation." The text also mentions that have become gods in the way that we dictate history through the monopoly of writing. Readers may be inclined to ask if Kittler is implying that software is an example of our laziness, or if he is suggesting that software cannot possibly ever replace us because it is an extension of ourselves i.e. created in our own "image". If this is true, does this mean that software can naturally never help us to do anything besides speed up our own abilities because it is created by us, for us, and with many of our own limitations? Just as the code of stylized hand-writing changes with geographical location, community, teacher, and classroom, software is also programmable. But Kittler writes that "this all-important property of being programmable has, in all evidence, nothing to do with software," as it is apparent in all things, in all skills. This is a confusing statement. The first text is undeniably reminiscent of Benjamin's discussion of the effects of mechanical reproduction because it insists that the craft of handwriting, the soulful experience with the pen and paper, has disappeared with inventions beginning with the typewriter. However, Kittler seems to find the typewriter a less offensive apparatus as it is "something between tool and machine".

Software is simply a way in which people can 'communicate' with sophisticated machines. But is this form of communication an innocent one? Is what Kittler stresses in these texts similar to Baudrillard's concerns? Is he asking readers to recognize the cold hard facts that remain when all else is removed, to understand that our era has become an era of simulation? And in addressing the craft of handwriting, could it not be argued that programming is a soulful form of craft as well, a new kind of poetry (not as a replacement of the 'old' kind, but as a different species)?

Kittler: Morgan, Peter, Nicholas, JS

2008-03-29T20:25:00.000-07:00

In "Gramophone, Film, Typewriter", Friedrich Kittler works through how moving-image, sound recording, and the typewriter have overthrown the monopoly of literature and the written word. He argues that electricity has made "obsolete" the "hallucinatory power of reading and writing." That is, the "'...glowing colors, shadows, and lights'" that emerge from the "serial data flows" of 'sensual' words, or from the spaces between the words. This, he shows, "separated the data flows of optics, acoustics, and writing and rendered them autonomous". While the text was once both "film and record simultaneously", it has been fragmented by the three temporal new-media (with the typewriter as more an apparatus than a medium). Kittler also touches on a fundamental difference between media and text: media represents the real in a direct, almost 'analog' way, while text is symbolic, discrete, digital. He claims that this cleanly divides "matter and information...the real and the symbolic"; "...man becomes physiology on the one hand [(media)] and information technology on the other [(text)]".

Honestly, we had trouble distilling "There is No Software". He seems to argue that, because software comes down to "local string manipulations...to signifiers of voltage differences", that software doesn't really exist. He continues this line of thought by asserting that as we create increasingly abstracted levels in the software hierarchy, lower levels are deliberately hidden. Thus, he reasons, we don't really know what we're writing. He also argues that modern computers, in their ability to simulate nature, are limited by "artifical" hardware and software limits. As an example, he compares Turing Machines to the DOS operating system with its 8-character file-name limit. Finally, he imagines computers based more on information theory (and chaos theory) that will supersede current hardware limits (for instance in the ability to model nature and "real numbers').

Our discussion began with Kittler's statements about the temporal nature of literature and it's 'new' replacements (or derivatives), recorded sound and film. We asked, "has sound and film replaced literature?" Surely not. Diving deeper into the text revealed that literature has not been replaced, but fragmented into the three media after which the essay is named. "Electricity", claims Kittler, has rendered literature as an electrifying, imaginative experience obsolete. But hasn't the internet reunited literature, sound, and film into a single medium? Kittler addresses this directly and shows that the reintegration is irrelevant; sound, image, and word are still fundamentally fragmented. We then explored the idea that media is non-symbolic, a sort of direct or "analog" representation of the real, while on the contrary, text is symbolic, discrete; hallucination must bridge the gap between the words. A picture is worth a thousand words, but a sentence is worth a thousand pictures said Peter. In a sense, this is an analog vs. digital discussion (and Kittler addresses this indirectly in his conclusion). At first we were confused as to what was the significance of the typewriter, given the Heideggar quote...it's surely an apparatus and not a medium...but referring to Kittler's notion of the tripartite fragmentation of literature cleared this up. Back to analog vs. digital: we looked at Kittler's distinction of "physiology" (media) vs. "information" (text). What is the nature of this division (what is the nature of the physiological, the analog). Kittler brings claims that moveable type was a "muscular" extension while new-media is "nervous" extension. Is the nervous system "physiological" or "information"-based? Analog or digital? Doesn't this all become information in the end anyway in a digital computer? We finished with a discussion of typography...where does expressive typography lie in this? Is it the merging of the physiological/expressive with the informational/discrete?

Regarding software, we brought up issues of abstraction...what really is going on in there under all those layers? Why is it significant that what we do is reduced to microscope, binary code? What is the significance of abstraction, of hierarchical language?

Finally, to ask a question: Kittler seems to suggest that we need a new kind of computer, one based on information theory (cybernetics?), without "artificial" limits, and without software. What is the purpose of this? Is a radically new, but 'universal'ly useful machine a reality?

Response to Kittler - by Ben, Duy, Kevin and Scott

2008-03-29T11:44:00.000-07:00

Kittler first writes about optical fiber networks, and how this medium merges mediums that were before seperate. A prominent concept in his writings is the storage media. The latter which recalls and reproduces the flow of time. He covers transitions such as writing to type. He then moves from the Turing machine into discussion about there not being software. His basis is that any software broken down reveals hardware and analog signals. Observations are made concerning how machine are discreet and ordered while reality of man is continuous and chaotic.

Discussion about the Turing machine led to questions about interface. Aspects that deal with the user interaction with the computer cannot be defined by a mathematical formula in the sense that there is no perfect interface. From considering our interactions with computers, we notice that we are conditioned to use certain interfaces. For example, the qwerty keyboard is not in theory better than the dvorak layout after having switched from typewriters to computers, yet it is widely used.

Does the discrete nature of computers make it a difficult medium to try and recreate the chaotic man?

Response to Kittler by Alexina Alex and Emmanuel

2008-03-26T18:55:00.002-07:00

The point in Kittler's first essay is to bring forth the point of digitisation erasing all individual media and matching them together. Indeed, it is now possible to mix sound, image and voice together to create a more realistic world in film, whereas sound alone could not be as compelling. And, again, the medium is the message: the content of one medium will be another medium that in turn will have content that is another medium, etc. (e.g. the moving image has sound that has voice and language that was written beforehand). Media created by humans trick us to believe that they stimulate our senses like reality. In fact, mediums are tightly controlled and limited stimuli. It is important not to confuse methods that filter data with our sense perception. Reality is decided on the basis that media stimulates humans accurately. This is how they give meaning to human perception of the world. Media are a vehicle with confined capabilities. This enables a standard to be created. The first of this type is writing. It was the first way to store information in a way that could be easily accessed by others. The author states "This is why anything that ever happened ended up in libraries". This means the only perceivable truth exists in writing, whereas oral truths were considered merely legends. The problem is that these truths are all from the past. It is not possible to read what is currently happening. Therefore, we "read the dead", as in dead events, not necessarily dead authors. Data is organised in such a way as to simulate human perception: it reproduces reality with binary numbers. The title of the text comes from Kittler's concept that the invention of the gramophone, the film and the typewriter represent the first instance of simulating reality and stimulating human senses, namely the ear, the eye and the brain, respectively. It is possible to create media which are as unique as their creator. This is not the purpose. In fact, media must become standard and dividual, a universally accessible truth. Computers will forever be dividual because their creators have made mistakes that will never be changed. The second text proposes that computers hide the act of writing. There is an almost infinite hierarchy of codes that hide what truly happens what happens in the machine that is, at its basis, a passing of electricity. Words are no longer the language of letters, but of mathematical programming and functions, therefore escaping our perception. There is nothing so primitive as the language of the binary: 0 and 1 the passage of electrical current. Software cannot exist without hardware. The ability to program is an attribute of the hardware, not of the software.

On the topic of software, the price manufactures charge for their product is more representative of knowledge placed in the software. We are in a pay-for-service society. This case is no different with software, otherwise we would be paying peanuts for grains of sand. Humans have developed a way to create standards which anyone can understand. This limits what our senses are able to perceive. It would have been preferable to construct a machine which incorporates environmental variables in its operation. This is the principal behind machines which could possess individuality. Company executives used to buy iPods to their kids, then started wanting a similar toy for themselves that would be appropriate in the office environment. The MacBook Air and the iPhone were thus produced to cater to their "needs". This underlines how media technology influences office technology. "Numbers and figures become the key to all creatures" is a very vague phrase and can be interpreted in many different ways: the figures could be the symbols that represent the numbers and the key to the creatures is how we can understand and represent the creatures in an almost mathematical way, with numbers, that become an image. Or, the numbers could be one thing, and the figures are a representation of things in our lives, and the key is the solution that allows a synthesis of these creatures that are in fact us, humans. Perhaps the author discusses a subject that is understood in the programmers' world, but isn't in the regular users' world. But, maybe regular users are starting to assimilate the concept, therefore the subject that might have been very strange when the text was first written could very well be understood nowadays.

Is the human being conscious of the fact that the image that he sees is simply a layer over the underlying code?

Yuill, Crandall, Dunne -- by John, Chris and Tomer

2008-03-16T22:39:00.000-07:00

The author of the first text describes the meaning of the word program and how the practice has originated. He explains how this practice has come to be known as "the new media".
The definition of the word is the process that will be determined.
In today's society, programs are used by people and venues everywhere.
A program is a set of codes that is designed to anticipate and provide a service.
This new media has divided society into two classes:
Ones who create such programs and the others who use it.
There is great importance on the relation between a programmer and a user.
It talks about what the word "programming" means and what are its goals to achieve as a product.
Our technology has advanced. We have brought forth the concept of the operational construct. This was largely used in the military, since the 1950's, as digital computing began to be substantially integrated into command and control tasks, and weapons guidance systems.
As techniques and ideologies of automation begin to take hold, we can say that a radically new kind of engagement complex begins to emerge.
As for the last text, it is about how art is being separated from its function.
"Design approaches are needed that focus on the interaction between the portrayed reality of alternative scenarios, which so often appear didactic or utopian, and the everyday reality in which they are encountered",

We can not hide from the world we live in.
Computers and technology are integral part of our future. Everything is programmed.
Our lives are programmed. We wake up at a certain time, we go to school, we eat at a certain
time, we go to sleep etc. All aspects of our life are programmed.
There might be some variables here and there, but such is the case for most programs as well.
Tomorrow I have class at 9 o'clock. We are obliged to attend these classes because we are programmed by society.
If we do not go to school, we are not relevant.
Is god the one who created this great program, and are we his user base? Or perhaps this program is of our own design? There is a great importance between the a programmer and a user.

In a world where everything is planned out from the start, are we the the ones programming it, creating our own reality? Or are we the ones using it? In other words, are we programmers, or are we users?

Re: Yuill, Crandall, Dunne -- by Angela and Matthieu

2008-03-16T22:05:00.001-07:00

Simon Yuill in his essay "Programming as practice" makes the case that programming, typically associated with computing, can be understood as an autonomous practice that manifests itself regardless of the medium. The "programmatic practice" is characterized by "mark-making" in the broadest sense, and which provides for a known outcome, gives rise to mechanisms that govern the dissemination of design and production methods. It has roots in Arab/Islamic arts and mathematics. Weaving, the Jacquard loom, musical scores, and automation are used to highlight that pattern notation is present across many media and art practices. Programmatic systems lead to distributed creativity ("ongoing production", blurring of creation/artifact) and gives new, emerging media a possibility of impacting culture if we are able to understand and promote the practice as being relevant beyond computing.

Jordan Crandall outlines the model behind what he calls the "operational construct": a grouping of computer-aided operations that track and analyze objects to "facilitate an arrangement of power." He cites the military as being a driving force in the elaboration of the technological means with which the "construct" can be actualized. The net effect of the operational construct is to link actors across space and time to reduce the time needed for crucial decision-making. The technology has seeped into civilian life too: navigational systems to map unknown territory, television broadcasts that "construct" and influence how we understand events (the "spin", a field of representation and perception leading to changed ways of seeing and knowing.) The operational construct is but one "window" onto reality: it cannot open other windows and in fact can only convey that the other windows project barbarism or irrationalism (the construct has a "license on reason"). Crandall, in explaining how the operational construct leads to an arrangement of power (analytical tradition, panopticon tradition, i.e. scientific analysis and spatial control), suspects that operational constructs are created to sustain systems of conflicts.

In "Real Fiction", Anthony Dunne enumerates the different forms of design objects: prototypes, installations, models, and props. He argues that the gallery should not be treated as a showroom for future consumer-oriented production (he rejects the prototype), but rather as a way to be critical of fundamental ideas behind the material objects. According to Dunne, the designer is responsible to challenge the status quo and introduce new ideas about everyday experiences. These do not have to mimic reality, but rather create a feeling of "estrangement", mix reality and fiction, and be embodied by "non-working models" to establish "scenarios" that are not "didactic" or "utopian" but "heterotopian": a plurality of habitable worlds.

We found Yuill's article to be well-rounded and just in its approach to the programmatic practice, having experience in computing, and were able to draw parallels from our experience. We discussed issues relating to the GPL and open-source models of software production, and wondered what impacts an open-source approach might have on politics, locally and globally, or to distribution of other goods and products. We focussed on Crandall's notion of the operational construct, and how it relates to ideas of discipline and control. We found it troubling that militaristic endeavors could have such long-lasting impacts on the civilian individual.

In the intensifying, programmatic, collaborative, and on-going practices of producing art, mathematics, and science, might artists have the means to oppose 'arrangements of power' as set by 'operational constructs'? Hasn't this structure of struggle always existed?

Programming/Operational Construct/Design - Peter, JS, Nick, Morgan

2008-03-16T19:51:00.000-07:00

The first text presents programming as an art form in itself. Comparing code to architectural schematics, weaving patterns and Arabic Khatt (calligraphy + mathematics) the author discusses the reproduction and distribution processes of programming and the social communities that it has given rise to. The second text introduces the concept of an “operational construct”, which is a series of computer-assisted mechanisms that track and analyze their subject matter, facilitating an arrangement of power. This apparatus, fueled by command, control, and communication networks, is apparent on the battlefield through precise target bombing and on one’s TV set during a sports event with an advancing digital readout. The last article deals with design as a way of critiquing society and how one interacts with their environment. Through discussing how viewers perceive design objects in a gallery setting the text suggests how these electronic products could shape the experience of everyday life.

Our discussion began with the last article, first examining how one generally associates design objects with mass production. Many of the designs discussed in the text are obviously not appropriate for large-scale production, yet are we still able to connect them with artistic merit? Another issue with design is the evident fetishism attributed to an object, elevating it above its use-value to an aesthetic pleasure. The success of many design objects depends on their fetish-value yet can design be used purely for use-value creation? The 100-dollar computer, for children in 3rd world countries, is a good example of design applied to get the most usability out of an object. We then switched to the first article, wondering what are the exact differences between analog and digital forms of creation. Is it possible that there is an underlying algorithm and programmatic language to painting just like programming computer code? Obviously this algorithm is deeply embedded in the physical-manipulation code that we learn from birth but to a computer, mixing paints, dipping the paintbrush and then applying it to the canvas would be a huge library of actions (not to mention learning anatomy, perspective and all the other things involved in studio arts education). Instead of seeing a list of directions like that of a piece of code maybe those directions are imprinted in our minds. Therefore the real difference between programming and painting is in its medium – one uses binary and the other uses atoms, which make up the paint. Online coding communities and open source programs are another interesting result of the programming medium. It was pointed out that in these communities, not only are the end-result programs critiqued but the style and artistic quality of the code itself is also important. We quickly looked at the second article, linking it to the power structures of Foucault and Deleuze.

Could the open source movement involved with programming transfer to all aspects of society? And if so, could this be the final phase of societal control, allowing complete dissemination of power and a return to communism?

(DISIPLINE > CONTROL > OPEN SOURCE?)

Yuill,Crandall and Dune - Sam, Manuela, Yin Yin, John

2008-03-16T18:48:00.000-07:00

In the text Programming as Practice: a comparison of old and new media ,Simon Yuill the author wants us to embrace programming and understand that it is not only a technical application used for computer technology which everyone refers it too but as a separate independent creative practice.Programming can be describe as (system, method or process) of planned out instructions (like architectural designs, music notation and textile patterns) which are used by artist and craftspeople for designs of works. Basically a “scientific” art formula is used to create a layout that holds heavy information that describes the delivery of each step, what will be used, what goes together and what will be the final outcome of your work, also the final outcome of your work will reflect on how well you coded it as you create new ways to present material.Also coding can be applied and manipulated to fit into a wide variety of subjects; mathematics, geometry, music, architectural design and textile patterns.

“Diagrams for an “Operational Construct”” by Jordan Crandall is the next essay and is relatively short. Crandall starts off his text giving a backdrop on when digital computing began to integrate itself in command and control tasks and weapon guidance systems, basically programming first becoming part of the military, which was in the 1950’s, and goes on saying that this was also a period where the techniques and ideologies of automation began to take hold, and that this was the emerging of a new kind of engagement complex. Jordan Crandall discusses the concept of an operational construct, which broadly defined is an assemblage of computer-assisted operations through which objects are analyzed, tracked, and negotiated, in order to facilitate an arrangement of power. Basically it’s another technological advancement that has helps to control, and monitor the population.What operational construct attempts to do is reshape how people view things, it is a domination of thought,Through machine-human-discourse integrations, the operational construct is that which helps to ORCHESTRATE A PERCEPTUAL COORDINATION, while 'playing' its subject-objects WITHIN A DETERMINED SITUATION whereby AN OPERATION OF ENFORCEMENT IS CONDUCTED."

Seeing that design is a tool to enhance the habitable world, on every level of senses. Anthony Dunne explained how design art is always looked upon as a utility in the real life even just solo pieces in an art gallery. That is why he carefully separated this essay in three different sections. Section one: The Design Object as an Installation. Section two: The Design Object as Model. Section three: The Design Object as Prop.Installations. This section talks about how Design art in general is viewed as an installment. Viewers, readers and audience usually take the art and try to bring it into the real world and analyze how it can be applied/used in the real world. Example that Anthony uses is: the booth like structure, where visitors are able to control lighting in a hemisphere surrounding their head which compares street furniture, and public utilities with mass consumption, state ownership and industrial production. Model. This second part talks about how installations should have models or prototypes that work so that the link of gallery and real life is bounded. This model can be used like the booth and make people think that this might work in real life.Props. This sections talks mainly about props and film and how they use film to show how the prop or the new product is used in real life. This is another way an art designer can show how his prototype or product for the inhabitable world is and functions. Props are images/replicas/fakes of what the public should be waiting for, to use or work with.

We found interesting that Yuill broadens the scope of the word “programming” so that it fits not only to computer related elements but also to art and other disciples both old and new. The fact that it also helps to share and communicate it to others so that it becomes the act of a group is appealing in terms of reaching out and obtaining new ideas.In Crandall’s case, it is imperative that we look closely at the benefits of human-machine synchronization before diving into it thoughtlessly. As with the example of the sports game, the more we rely on the abilities of machines, to calculate time down the imperceptible fractions, the more it seems we are losing our human qualities.It no longer seems like we are trying to enjoy the game for the game, but the time left on the game and all the little details.

Texts of Yuill, Crandall & Dunne by audrey, chris & eric

2008-03-16T13:26:00.000-07:00

The first text of Simon Yuill discusses the fundamentals of programming, what it truly is and what its role is in new media. He compares and contrasts programming to other specific media by using examples that illustrate how programming does not tie into any other media. Using the example of knitting, he shows there is no relation to that medium and programming whatsoever. He also talks about the social structures that it lies in and how it can be used to create new order and creativity.

The second text of Jordan Crandall discusses a new concept that he calls “operational construct”, which forms the way we as human beings think and act in the world. He states that this “operational construct” is based on computational technology and the effects it has on our perception. It derived from three things essentially growing from within the military: command, control and communication (as we mentioned in last week's discussion).

The third and final text of Anthony Dunne discusses presentations as a whole and the how consumption for ideas that exploit the conceptual status of objects as ideas are intertwined, as opposed to objects as mass products. In addition, he talks about how it is really important for a designer to continuously think in a critical sense, both about his ideas and the ideas they obtains from the world that surrounds them. Through this he states that individuals will have a better comprehension, better way of perceiving things and a more fluent understanding of content that will essentially be valid to their knowledge towards the world.

Yuill se base développe plutôt son point de vue autour du Free Open Source Software comme instrument de changement social et artistique. Je crois que le développement de ce type de logiciels open base peut permettre du transformation de la relation producteur-utilisateur propre au concept de programmation qui a cours depuis sa création. La construction de cette nouvelle dynamique aura des répercussions au niveau sociale et artistique. Non seulement les utilisateurs pourront influencer le développement des logiciels, mais il permettera à quiconque d'utiliser une base commune dans le but d'en faire partager le plus gran nombre possible. Il n'y aura plus de petits groupes qui pourront détenir le pouvoir de la connaissance et de la technologie car elle sera disponible à tous autant dans son utilisation que dans sa conception.

Crandall voit plus le développement de la programmation comme une nouvelle façon d'imposer le contrôle et le pouvoir par la construction de la représentation. Les nouveaux médias n'ont comme fonction que de créer un climat où les utilisateurs doivent de mouler au fonctionnement des machines. Autant le matériel que le discours sont construits de tel façon qu'ils jouent un rôle dans la production de situations qui ne font qu'anticiper se qui vient de se produire.

16 mars

2008-03-16T13:04:00.000-07:00

Dans le premier texte, Simon Yuill nous retrace l'histoire et les origines de la programmation. C'est très intéressant de voir l'évolution de ce domaine qui est aujourd'hui a la base de notre société. Au début, c'était pour des buts totalement autre que l'informatique, désignant le processus amenant a créer un motif. Cette logique venant du monde arabe a été créée pour la production et l'utilisation des documents a l'intérieur du lourd système bureaucratique de l'empire Abbasid. L'avénement de ces techniques dans le monde occidental nous ont amenés entre autres l'algèbre, mot dérivé de l'arabe ''al-djabr''. Le second texte ''diagram of an operationnal construct'' nous montre la relation que l'on a avec les appareils technologique dans un contexte militaire. Nous sommes constamment en synergie avec les appareils que l'on utilise a travers un genre de grille qui met dans un espace virtuel commun les soldats, les armes, les systèmes de communication et les commandants. L'ensemble des composantes, incluant tout l'environnement physique sont concentré dans ces systèmes, ce qui rend le soldat dépendant de ce tout. La limite entre l'homme et la machine est floue et le deviendra de plus en plus. Le dernier texte portait sur la perception du design par rapport a son côté déconecté du réel. Comme le disait si bien E.Manzini "La responsabilité ultime du designer est de contribuer a la production d'un monde habitable" . Il est donc naturel que dans lesconcepts d'un designer indépendant de toute pression de corporations ou autres, le produit crée une distance avec la réalité qui permet a celui qui la regarde d'apprécier la vrai valeur conceptuelle de l'objet. Pour créer l'effet désiré sur l'observateur, le designer doit lui-même décider des caractéristiques du design qu'il exposera, car pour faire réfléchir l'observateur, il faut qu'il soit ouvert et enclin a l'idée en question. En fait, ça devient une sorte de tactique, un genre d'apprivoisement soit par la qualité plastique, ou par un contionnement inusité. Toutes les raisons sont bonne pour créer l'effet désiré.

Yuill, Crandall, Dunne: by Natalia, Martin, Mike, and Fernando.

2008-03-16T11:27:00.000-07:00

Simon Yuill’s article discusses how programming can be seen as distinct practice that is separated from any specific medium. In the process of doing so, he situates it in context of other non-digital media such a weaving. He ties programming to the social structures within which it exists, drawing attention to how it can redefine creativity in relation to distribution and reproduction, placing them within the process of production itself.

The second article by Jordan Crandall introduces the concept of an “operational construct” which emerged as a result of “command, control, and communications” networks within the military. The need for computation-assisted observation, and the desire to reduce the time between observation and analysis, led to the creation of a system of total observation that is done both by humans and computers simultaneously. This system is so prevalent in contemporary society that it permeates all aspects of daily life, and changes our perception of the world.

Anthony Dunne’s “Real Fiction” talks about the role of critical design, which is not aimed at commercial distribution, but is used as means of critique. He proposes different ways of displaying critical design objects, analyzing how this change of context has an influence on the meaning of the objects. For example, the idea of a non-working prototype can be exploited for meaning in itself, such as in the example of bombs by Gregory Green. Dunne emphasizes the responsibility of the designer to think critically about the world around them, creating alternatives, or causing people to analyze their relationship with objects.

Jordan Crandall’s article is very interesting in its relationship to our class discussion on “societies of control”. He really analyses the means through which control is executed, and how it alters our whole perception of the world. The Anthony Dunne text highlighted the role of the designer in not merely accepting the Crandall’s model of society, but using theoretical objects to critique our relationship to it. As such, it can be closely related to the Yuill’s concept of seeing programming as a collaborative practice, particularly in relation to Open Source Software, and its ability to alter the way that we see creativity and artistic production.

How can we apply the ideology of a collaborative practice, such as that of the Open Source movement, to a “traditional” studio-based practice aimed at making a living? Can the two be compatible?

Code 1; by Alexis, Ramy and Sean

2008-03-16T10:28:00.000-07:00

The first text looks at programming methodologies, attitudes and how they are applied to other mediums, mediums that are specifically NOT programming, mediums such as knitting. It also talks about what programming is, in essence as the marking of a procedures to achieve a set final product.
The second introduces this new concept of an operational construct, which is a new way of perceiving and acting in the world thanks to technology. Operational constructs have largely been used in the military but the operational construct has evolved out of media and the divisions between the military and the civilian are now much harder to perceive. The author argues that the operational construct serves only to produce the very situations that they maintain.
The third text talks about how design is seperated from functionality in many ways and how to bring art pieces closer to the people while still retaining it's first function engaging the viewer to think critically about a certain topic the artist would be bringing to attention.

The programmatic logic applies to life as well. The daily routine as it were. Don't we all know to a certain extent what will happen next monday? The schedules, the obligations and the control that is applied to us from society are all a testament to this. We talked about the context of war and the operational construct and made quick link to how the americans fight terrorism before they get it served to them. When talking about designs and prototype, the ever popular Apple Inc. came to mind and how a non-working iPhone is pretty boring. We are seeing an application of programmatic logic into media which in turn affects this notion of the operational construct that surrounds us. The operational construct itself only servers to anticipate detrimental scenarios, and we wonder what does that say about the designs applied in media that have no critical value.

How can we change the detrimental nature of the operational construct if we can't keep art at it's critical value when presenting it as a prototype to large, money oriented, corporations who would not like shameful values of society to be put in the spot light since they themselves participate in those values?

On Programming, Operational Construct, & Real Fiction by {Ben, Scott, Duy, Kevin}

2008-03-16T09:15:00.000-07:00

In “Programming as practice: a comparison of old and new media,” Simon Yuill talks about programming’s role in new media. He defines the practice as a “form of mark-making that encodes and guides processes of production.” He differentiates between the designer and the one who follows the designs, calling this the programmatic system. These programmatic systems allow for communication of designs and production methods between large social bodies. Mechanisms to govern these come into existence. He says that programming is “’socially directed’ mark-making,” and that programmatic systems increase the sophistication of tasks. Separation of design and production, modularity, and mathematics were discussed in an historical Arab-Islamic context. With “Diagrams for an ‘Operational Construct’”, Jordan Colandall discuss the special relationship called operational construct emerging between computational technology and the defense economy and shaped by many factors including new tools and techniques as well as the social, cultural, and political contexts. This engagement has been a part of the Western discourse involving the history surveillance which has been now digitally assisted with advanced technology. This is driven radically by the nature of the army for better and more instant response of the communication, command, and control process. This contributes to the continuing conflict, reflection, and adaptation within the human-machine discourse. The text explains how much society has acknowledged the technological involvement is omnipresent and almost natural. It is present in all forms of communications. There is an example with the use of GPS systems for navigational control of the car. It allows the user to feel in control, but it is also being “watched”. This is a spectacle symbiotic, where the users must interact with the apparatus so it could be useful. "Real Fiction": time is an important factor in a design installation; immediate feedback is one of the most important elements. A genotype is different from a prototype as it represents the essence of idea but is not a perfect realistic replica of one. A prop is an object to represent an idea, but in an even more broad sense. A prop does not necessarily have to represent an actual object; it could simply be a way to demonstrate an idea.

Open Source Software was discussed. Its promising presence in current times, acknowledged. Whether or not it could realistically become the absolute standard was questioned. The long and controversial relationship between the defense economy-the army and technology has been a key point for the discussion. How one can visualize a new future for the reciprocal and mutual engagement between the two that has been two essential for their own survival. The vision of a new generation of technology that is independent from the army and transnational corporations would encounter many difficulties regarding the funding, inspiration, and motivation; yet it is not impossible. We shouldn’t take the technologies for granted. The more humanity depends on technology, the more humans become machines and create existential questioning. Technology should be crafted to take a more intuitive approach which enhance sensorial capabilities. Time plays a role in art installations that only occur for a limited period (such as the work of Christo and Jeanne-Claude), this adds to the appeal of the installation, even though the objects in it are static.
?

Programming and Design (Jos, Charles-Antoine and Charlotte)

2008-03-15T14:05:00.000-07:00

Traditionally, programming is not known as a source of art. "Programming can be understood as a form of mark-making that encodes and guides processes of production". The aesthetic properties of a programmed system are imbued in the artworks created from them. Programs tend to be tied to the social structures that employ them. The introduction of the GNU for open source software separates it from the ENULA used by Microsoft. The GNU thus allows for a much wider range of contributors to the code. Programming can therefore be attributed as a social form of mark-making. Khatt (from the Arabs) can be translated as "calligraphy". We can attribute the Arabs with many concepts that are now present in modern computing. Arabs used techniques used in programming in their carpet weavings as well. The school of Bauhaus was the first school to be credited with teaching its students to program using punch-cards for the Jaquard programs. It is important to remember that programming is not solely linked to computers, but to a variety of artistic media. "The most significant shifts taking place in current 'new media' are not so much in the formal natures of the artifacts, or their aesthetic styles therefore, but the ways in which the practice is realized at a social level. Operational construct "warps" space and time and links multiple actors as if they were one. In the 1950s new technologies and ideologies were beginning to take shape. New forms of the computer-assisted observation and analysis took shape. "The operational construct is an assemblage of computer-assisted operations through which objects are analyzed, tracked and negotiated, in order to facilitate an arrangement of power". The operational construct is also meant to eliminate the intervals between all of those things so that one could have a greater window to act upon. The operational construct is shaped out of mediatization and has a self-contradicting existence. It mixes spectatorship, commerce and combat in one and delivers images of the system that they help maintain. The third article discusses how conceptual design allows us to challenge preconceptions of the products in our lives. That these objects, sometimes, mirror reality in a way that it makes them more real then the real. These designs also allow a window into a world that is not ours but eerily alike ours.

As discussed in the first article, "Programming as practice", programming, computers and Internet are not in a world apart of the real world. Digital world certainly has some specific characteristics, but we can see in those technologies the reflection of our world. Meaningful observations can be made on creative relations in the digital world (GPL/GNU), as some barriers of the real world do not apply and laws are difficult to maintain. Furthermore, the digital realm is more easily malleable, modifiable and repairable, thus evolving more quickly. Manzini's idea about designers is "less on interaction with discrete objects than on systems of objects", or "independent agents [who] use their imaginative skills to propagandize socially and politically desirable situations".

Since the mechanisms of Internet have inspired many on political issues, could we say that it is a social, global work of Art made by all of its users, simply because they use it the way it works right now(sharing, GNU/GPL, P2P)?

Response to Yuill, Cradall, Dunne by Alexina, Emanuel, Alex

2008-03-12T18:22:00.000-07:00

In the first text, the author dissects the word program. The term actually means to instruct how a process will be performed. While the outcome may be predetermined, it is dependent on the language used to create it. Programs are common to many practices, most of which are completely unrelated to computing. As McLuhan explained in his text "The Medium is the Message", the influence of a programming structure (the medium) always affects the created product referred to as "artifact". We can do a distinction about two kinds of people: those who create the program, and those who use the program. The relation between programmer and user is quite important. The latter is dependent on the artifacts and therefore, dependent on the creator. In this case, the creator has the ability to control social behaviour. With the introduction of GPL (General Public License), this boundary is destroyed. This new model gives the users the possibility to modify the ''artifact'' program without the intervention of the creator (programmer). Later, the author explains that khatt is a term without which we wouldn't have algebra to facilitate the creation of more complicated designs, where "reverse engineering" uses programming first to be able to visualise those designs. In the Fairisle example, we find that a small community is distributing their programmatic creativity to people who in turn will use those "templates", deskilling themselves. Programs have become a feedback loop where the artifact is used to create more applications. The programmer does not predict how the user will use his product. However, the user is empowered to intuitively create new processes of production. The next text starts off with an introduction of programming as a military means: to command, control and communicate intelligence (C3I). To the author, war brings on evolution. The "operational construct" is a building of efficiency. This is a method to create a point of convergence for information where time and space can be modulated. These machines obtain this ability by allowing their human controllers to transmit any information instantly through space to remain in perfect synchronicity. It is important to note that while we use these devices, our eyes are skewed though the viewfinder of this apparatus. The final text begins with articulating that design holds an important place other than in commercial applications. These are therefore able to force a reflection on behalf of the viewer as the works are conceptual in essence. The museum is to become a site where users can try items, like a store. We would then no longer encounter exhibits where a distance is created between the piece and the viewer. The pieces must activate the audience while remaining provocative. Instant satisfaction is key. This is the case for a design object as a prop. Function is irrelevant.

This is similar to Benjamin's theory on the audience watching a movie. We are also looking through an apparatus, especially when communicating, which makes our point of view biased. The e-Art exhibit had elements of the "freak show", where they were unrelated one from the other. This made the experience strange and uncomfortable on a whole. Sometimes the pieces even looked fragmented, unfinished. The author says that the film is better than an unfinished object because it satisfies the short attention span of the audience. We think that it's better not to encourage the short attention span, to have them question and take position with or against the subject of the film. It should be a commercial work instead of a private one. One of the questions we asked ourselves was whether our civilisations would be what they are today if it hadn't been for wars. Socially and technologically, we think that we wouldn't be the same if it hadn't been for the C3I way of thinking. Military technology like the Intranet became public and thus has encouraged people to use it on a wider basis. Because of this progress, the public now has access to those military means, and thus, we think that the rivalry and war between programmers and people will now push them to create better technologies. Softwares are now open-source, and the contributions and resources provided by several programmers make us use time more efficiently, which brings us to the concepts of propagation and operational construct that round up the three texts that we had to read.

Is considering the museum a test environment similar to a business which appeals to instant satisfaction of the public beneficial to the fine art?

Re: Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto" -- by Angela and Matthieu

2008-03-09T22:55:00.000-07:00

In Donna Haraway's "A Cyborg Manifesto", she introduces the concept of a 'cyborg' representing a technologically-developed sentient being that embodies the capacity for pushing the existing boundaries of today's world. It is an agent for the breaking down of dominant and mostly binary societal structures such as class and gender. As a woman in a patriarchal society she draws parallels between the struggles of feminism and that of dichotomies in ideology. In fact she claims her preference of the 'cyborg' over today's definition of a woman, namely that of a goddess. She conceives of this 'cyborg' by first pointing to scientific progress as invalidating the difference between animals and humans, between humans and machine (in terms of machine supported and enhanced humans). She also points to the pervasion of technology in our lives as a reason we should embrace it as it allows us to thrive despite having our identities become increasingly confused.

It's difficult to conceive of a world without technology being so ubiquitous, but not an impossible mental task. We found that Haraway underlines the importance of embracing technology because it is here to stay, and it can be harnessed to rebel against age-old ideologies. The 'cyborg', then, is the pinnacle of human and technology relations; it gives a mind to a body that, she argues, is increasingly losing its human element. We found the feminist aspect to the manifesto quite interesting and tied in well to the concept of boundary transgression, and how a re-thought "human" design could achieve what "traditional" humans have been unable to, up until now.

Do societal and identity struggles slowly wane from our collective consciousness as technology itself becomes more and more pervasive, overtaking our focus, softening us to hegemony? Can we ever get to creating a 'cyborg society' for the purposes that Haraway manifests?

Donna Haraway - "A Cyborg Manifesto." by Audrey, Eric and Chris.

2008-03-09T13:46:00.000-07:00

Dans le texte de Donna Haraway « A Cyborg Manifesto » il est d’abord expliquer la fonction et l’essence du cyborg, qui représenterait en quelque sorte les fondements d’une société future (ou celle dans laquelle nous vivons présentement). Décrit sous plusieurs formes, le cyborg serait avant tout une « créature » hybride du vivant et de la machine : imagination condensée et réalité matérielle, créature à la fois animal et machine, idée politique, sociale et moderne. Son manifeste évoque la diminution des limites entre la technologie et l’humain (organique), l’humain serait donc à la fois animal, machine et homme tout en pouvant être autre, il serait aussi une unité d’où les frontières déjà minces ne seraient plus existantes. Elle fait aussi la différence entre la perspective d’un monde érigé sous l’emprise des impositions proscrites sur les mécanismes sociaux et l’exposition de plusieurs identités disparates définies par l’union des nouvelles réalités cyborgiennes. Haraway donne référence à un monde asexué, au féminisme, à l’évolution de notre monde politique au détriment de plusieurs caractéristiques qui dès lors seront des éléments du cyborg, milieu technologiquement modifié et amélioré, une idée qui semble consciencieusement décrite mais étrangement applicable.

L’idée d’une complexité technologique, le cyborg, qui guiderait le développement de l’humain est envisageable dans un avenir prochain. Plusieurs prétendent qu’ils est nécessaire de s’associer à la machine, et d’unifier quelques soit les liens originels que nous avons avec celle-ci pour en faire un tout plus fort. Il en est de même avec les animaux, autre race qui saurait nous rendre plus complexe de par son association. Il est inévitable de voir un jour le monde sous un angle technologique puisque nous travaillons ardûment à le rendre ainsi, tous semblent vouloir accéder à un stade supérieur. Pour ce qui est de la femme, Haraway rappelle la structure de genre, les classes, le travail, l’identification sexuelle, la race et bien d’autre. Il n’en est pas moins que malgré son statu féministe (ou anti-féministe), l’auteure veut un mélange complet entre les divers éléments du système, un mélange homogène parfait, qui saurait ainsi faire prévaloir notre évolution.

L’être humain est peut-être le stade le plus évolué des espèces terrestres voir même existantes, il est optimisé selon l’idée par laquelle, il peut lui-même se modifié de part ses propres inventions et se permettre des auto modifications. La race humaine serait alors selon Haraway qu’une partie du chaînon, l’Homme se donnerait lui-même à sont évolution pour créer une nouvelle race cyborgienne… mais celle-ci ferait-elle de nous un élément inférieur ou tout simplement nous rendre plus technologiquement plus avancé sans nous relégués à être captifs de nos inventions ?

Cyborg manifesto by Alexis, Ramy, and Sean

2008-03-09T13:29:00.000-07:00

The author starts the manifesto by describing the cyborg, the cyborg being a future result of our society future. she writes about cyborgs being ether and quintessence - light and clean because they are nothing but signals. In that respect she puts human between animals and cyborgs, where the first is the past and the latter the future. Her feminist topic comes from the dualism between mind/body, animal/machine, etc. Since her cyborg myth transgresses boundaries it is her manifesto to pick up on the cyborg myth and get the "political unity" that will take down the domination of "class, gender"etc. This strongly links onwards with her Marxist approach. Since a Marxist/Socialist approach destroys boundaries of class (amongst other things).She writes about embracing technology as a way to clear up the dualism that is often found within ourselves, be it mind/body or anything else. Technology unites.

In Many ways technology itself is an expression of the capitalist market that created it. how do the poor gain access to technology if you clearly have to pay for it. How does THAT get rid of boundaries that are supposedly "Transgressed"? Technology is, in many ways, an expression capitalist market because of the way it is distributed which works on the capitalist model. in that sense it is an expression of that model. Although the manifesto isn't presented as a feminist piece, we do wonder if the topic of feminist hasn't dried up.

Can technology escape it's goal of homogenization and, instead of making everyone the same, embrace the differences and diversity of everyone and unify them as well without creating a misunderstood class difference of gender or colour, but make them understand those differences - not as superior or inferior, but as simply different?

Haraway - "Cyborg Manifesto" - By JS, Morgan, Peter and Nick

2008-03-09T13:12:00.000-07:00

In her Cyborg Manifesto, Dona Haraway addresses the notion of human identity by establishing the myth of a cyborg society. She defines the term cyborg as an entity that transgresses established boundaries of society, politics and technology. First, she says that the threshold between animal-human distinctions are overridden by scientific and biological ideologies; next, she describes the blurring between the fields of the organic (human) and machine; finally, she enunciates the break of physical and non-physical, or of the visible presence of humans vs the invisible ubiquity of technology. Haraway also displays two different perspectives of this cyborg world; one, where control mechanisms are imposed on society, the other, an embrace to this fused realities and the affirmation of broken identities. Also, the evolution of current methods of domination is analysed and presented in a list of dichotomies comparing them with the old ones. Throughout her essay she states that current feminism theory should be viewed from the cyborgian perspective, as women as well have fallen out of the definable boundaries established in Western society, like male/female, mind/body, etc. Finally, Haraway points out her preference on being a cyborg than being classified into the Earthly, fragile, adored and helpless position of women as depicted in history (goddess).

The technological dualistic notions of the cyborg were clearly familiar for all of us in our discussion. Having grown up in a sci-fi culture, we made obvious connections to anime classics like "Ghost in the Shell". Nowadays, the idea of the human body as a mechanism and as a complex machine has become commonplace. But, beyond this technological approach, we debated about the concept of the cyborg as a transgressor of social, political and cultural frontiers. We established that most of the dualisms that rule the hegemonic dominant Western world, find their genesis as consequences of colonialism. The breaking of this binarism in a world where institutions overlap each other, where cultures are constantly fused, creating sub-cultures by the minute, where the immediacy of information keeps us so connected, yet so closed, creates the perfect environment for a breed of cyborgs. When identities meld together and cultures are blended, an individual culture appears; a cyborg culture. For us, this embracing of the cyborg seems to be a solution or at least a survival technique in the current state of the world. Instead of returning to nature and trying to avoid the actual simulation, should we embrace it?

In the cyborg world, aren't there imminent dangers of hybridizing and forsaking the natural? Isn't a cyborg world, suppressing and eliminating varieties and diversities in culture, economy, politics, ethics, etc?

Donna Haraway, "A Cyborg Manifesto" John, Manuella, Sam, YinYin

2008-03-08T18:19:00.000-08:00

Donna Haraway, a professor of feminist theory and technoscience. In her article "A Cyborg Manifesto", she embraces the cyborg, and criticizes feminism and identity. Her ideal cyborg would be an unidentifiable "pod", if we may, to get away from the idea of a women. This cyborg would be Haraway and any other woman that would follow her ideologies. She wouldn't have any female qualities, to an extent that she wouldn't even be pregnant.Her concept of the cyborg would basically erase the lines of Human and animal, and human and machine. This means that humans are animals and would be under the same umbrella. The borders of the human and machine/technology would be distroyed as well. These boundaries has already been broken in 2008. Just take a look at the war-amps and medical advancements. We as humans have incorprated machine/technology in the anatomy of man to help us survive. For example, pacemakers, artificial limbs (cybernetic limbs) and just the ordinary hearing aid.

As a group we came to the conclusion that we as humans shouldn't reject boundaries between humans and machines and reject boundaries within the human race, for all to prosper. Now a days we as humans need machines/technology to survive. Like in the example above within the medical realm of things.However, at the same time, we shouldn't relinquish our personal identity because that is what makes us distinct beings and not all automations that act based on certain "pre-programmed" needs. Can we, as humans, survive by not rejecting boundaries, human and machine?

Haraway Response: John, Chris and Tomer

2008-03-07T23:17:00.000-08:00

The main idea in this text is the "cyborg" and how it relates to questions of gender, Marxism and technology, among other things.
The cyborg in Haraway's universe is not confined to the science fiction definition.
That of a half android half human creation. She does some comparisons with that definition, but ultimately she refers to cyborg as anything that is "more" then simply human. Wether it be by machine implants or something far more abstract. When what makes us human is fused with something else, some addition, something alien, we become a "cyborg". In our opinion, in this text there are two different types of "cyborgs". The actual cyborg and the analogy of the cyborg.

The analogy of the cyborg is used in Haraway's text to analyze complex issues. Just like the cyborg is not just one being (he is the fusing of two or more entities), so are women and the question of feminizm, not one dimensional.
Woman cannot be named, generalized, totalized around a particular set of features—because she is fractured by differences (ethnicity, social standing, wealth, sexuality).
The analogy is taken further with the example of "women of color". These need to deal with questions of ethnic opression in adition to gender opression.

The cyborg itself is a creature bred from capitalism and patriarchy. As such it side steps many of the concepts which make us human. Even though the "cyborg" may have started out no different then any human, by becoming "cyborg" he loses much: The search for religion, the fear of death, insistence upon consistency and completeness, natural reproduction and many more.
By fusing man and machine we take upon ourselves the godlike task of creation.
Our question is: As fusing man and machine becomes technologicly inevitable, when does one lose our humanity? When tecnological boundaries are no longer an obstacle, how will we be able to tell human from elaborate simulation? What is it that makes us human?

Haraway Response: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

2008-03-06T13:15:00.000-08:00

Haraway's essay introduces the metaphor of a cyborg: one which blurs the lines between women and men, human and machine, human and animal. She discusses her opposition towards identity politics and states there is "nothing about being female that naturally binds women". As privatization grows, public space reduces for workers in this new economy. The "homework economy" is an important term here; Haraway explains how work has been (and is becoming) more and more feminized. All people are finding themselves in a state of vulnerability in the workforce, even (and especially) the white male who once dominated the scene. But the author does point out that this is not quite as bleak as it may seem, as more and more women are being involved in sciences and are resisting the military urge. This new economy has served to break down earlier distinctions between public and private domains: home and state are like networked communications rather then separated entities. A major key point related to her cyborg allusion: Cyborg imagery suggests "a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves." Haraway admits that in order for the society to finally accept women for who they are (as cyborgs) that machines, identities, categories, relationships etc must all be destroyed.

The text seems not to defend (socialist and radical) feminists, but to criticize them for ignoring a larger issue. They have fought for a voice, which they have now received. Now it's time to use that voice, and not to exclude any form of being (man/woman, human/machine, human/animal) when speaking. Haraway explains that we can't define the world in strict parameters anymore, rather we are better to accept dualisms of cyborg reality. The struggle with politics, she says, is "to see from both perspectives at once" as one will reveal information about the other that would otherwise be unknown. This is a powerful piece of advice, but in a world where both sides are corrupt, is the level of corruption what we learn about the other? Although Haraway does not claim perfection in the term "cyborg", she states at the very end of the text, that she would "rather be a cyborg than a goddess". She would rather be clouded in a blurry notion of dualities than be forced into a "consciousness of exclusion through naming", being under the misconception of an absolute truth. One could argue that the idea of being a cyborg is more realistic in the sense that, upon inclusion of an attribute, it does not force the expulsion of another. In a world where technology has become a part of us, an "extension of ourselves" as McLuhan put it, we may have difficulty in defining ourselves, but perhaps the point of this article is to prevent us from suffering, attempting to fit ourselves (and others) into one category, by asking us to break down such barriers which serve as exclusion devices.

It's been 20 years since Haraway has written this essay. Now that women in certain fields of medicine have become a mainstay, can one say that part of her wishes have now come true? Or are we still headed in the wrong direction? Although objectification of women is at its greatest in other fields (fashion), has the gap between cyborg and goddess diminished or increased?

Response to Haraway: Alex, Alexina and Emmanuel

2008-03-05T18:39:00.000-08:00

Haraway's main theme in her manifesto is the cyborg. The cyborg is the anti-feminism in her mind. The perfect cyborg is based on the image of the woman, but an asexual one.The cyborg is the anti-feminism in her mind. The perfect cyborg is based on the image of the woman, but an asexual one. This technological innovation can be interpreted as a future "us". With cyborgs, it is harder to control people because they are not categorised anymore based on their race and gender. This text is undeniably feminist. ForHaraway this term means an equality amongst genders. She's afraid of giving birth, because it affirms that she is a woman; rather, she would prefer to be an asexual cyborg and regenerate. Her distinction is harnessing the future to empower women.Haraway does not believe in integrating future technologies into historical methods or worse, natural ones. For cyborgs have no innate history. These creations are unfaithful to their creators. This makes them wholly independent. In a society of cyborgs while there is no domination, in their world there exists only collaboration. This establishes political unity. There are no longer definitions which divide society in her utopia. The original feminist idea was directed at white women only; women of colour had to fight their own battles of colour and feminine identities. Instead,Haraway proposes the cyborg as an all-encompassing feminine ideal where race and sex do not exist.

Throughout the text, Haraway brings to light many concepts regarding the cyborg. The author believes this creature is a solution to many of society's woes but it can also demonstrate human handicaps. It is possible to applyHaraway's concepts to human life, i.e. not only to feminist issues. Although she brings about many concepts of unity and harmony (such as respect for nature, animals and cultures), the most important one is of a whole. That is, a collaborating society which has no innate history, culture, race or gender. This community of cyborgs is a solution to our amalgamation of old traditions and new innovations. For the author, this is an unsanitary mix. In movies, the machine is portrayed as an being without faults.Haraway brings about many examples in her text. Although this is helpful in understanding it, she often appears to contradict her theories on feminism. It would be formidable for women to have an equal place in society. As we said in the summary, the cyborg may be a perfect image of the female being that can regenerate once injured. It looks like she's searching for a world without incapacitation, without visible injuries or disabilities. Whereas there might be differences in colouring, height, weight, etc., there would not be any signs of injuries or disabilities. The retarded mind would be regenerated to be made "intelligent"; the paralysed body would be made to walk again; the missing limbs would regenerate as soon as it is missing... In short, perfectly unblemished asexual women... But don't these differences make humans so much more individual? Is it ethical to restrict cyborgs'individualities ? Another point that is related to regeneration: with (re)birth, we lose our genetic memory/history. That is, we don't inherit our mother and father's memories, but we learn all over again. With regeneration, however,Haraway seems to suggest that that genetic memory/history would be donated. Thus, she suggests that cyborgs are higher beings even than us humans, because they are able to keep that memory and add to it. Haraway's vision may be that of one lacking faith in humanity. She may even be qualified as egocentric for concentrating on women as opposed to society as a whole. She is correct in pointing out that humans are talented in constructing barriers between varying elements.

Is the predetermined aspect of cyborgs (prior knowledge of outcome) what makes them an attractive Utopian society?

Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, group response by chris, eric & audrey

2008-03-02T16:16:00.000-08:00

In Discipline and Punish, Foucault critically describes an eighteenth century world that moves toward "educating" the mind. In this society, individuals learn self-discipline and how to transform their bodies into the kinds of bodies needed in the society that they live in. He calls these kinds of bodies the "docile bodies". He discusses how the society controls its members in our time. His chapter regarding panopticism discusses how he believed the panopticon was a generalized mechanism that illustrated disciplinary society through economics, politics and scientific techniques. It rationalizes and makes useful human bodies docile, for more higher and demeaning dominant classes.

A society forces docile bodies to believe in whatever that is dictated to them. We can take the simple example of how people believe that mass consumption is a direct translation to pleasure and self satisfaction - in this sense, the docile bodies are the consuming bodies that believe you are what you buy. During the group discussion, we were contemplating whether or not this is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, is it a threat to society rather than a benefit? We saw it as specific members of society looking against this example, where they would think outside of the box and resist the "mental self-discipline". Would it be justifiable for society to eliminate certain tools, such as literature, mass media or postsecondary education? As for the certain individuals that do believe these examples are used to analyse society, is it important to separate our academic work from our personal life? Would these consumptions be better fit to society as choices rather than obligations?

Inventions and control are two very important elements in this text. We can see the internet or any other type of mass media as a utility that allows any individual to express themself. As it was mentioned before however, with being able to express ourselves, we are restricted by understanding the information that is given to us each and every day, i.e. through schooling, books, etc. It can be seen as either / or. Expressing ourselves is a good way to send personal messages across to others, but is it not, in some sense, contributing to our "docile bodies"? Has it opened more oppurtunities for people? or has it restricted people to sit in front of a computer screen and be masked their entire lives through technological advances?

Foucault – Discipline and Punishment - Angela and Matthieu

2008-03-02T14:28:00.000-08:00

The traditional, ritual, violent forms of control have been replaced by discipline. Under disciplinary systems the body is seen as something that can be subjected, used, transformed and improved individually. It aims to make the individual body “more obedient as it becomes more useful, and conversely”(Focault, 182). Discipline is concerned with the infinitesimal details of the individuals’ lives. It emerged in order to address the inefficiencies that arose with the rise of industrial production and the subsequent accumulation of the population into large institutions. Discipline is a technology, a set of techniques for ordering human multiplicities. The aim of discipline is to increase the docility and utility of the elements of a system thereby increasing the efficiency of the entire mass phenomena.

Through hierarchical observation (via surveillance), normalizing judgment (via punishment) and examination the masses are individualized and categorized by degrees of normality. The process of normalization ensures homogeneity as well as individuality, which allows for the determination of difference. Examination is the ritual of power of discipline, serving as a mechanism of objectification. It provides documentation of the individual, thus formalizing the individual within power relation. It provides a framework in which the individual is analyzable, describable object and for which the document serves as a tool of control and domination.
In “Postscript on the Societies of Control” Deleuze reflects on the difference between Foucault’s Discipline and a new form of control, which he refers to as the societies of control. In societies of control controls are modulations, factories are replaced by corporations, schools by perpetual learning and examination by continuous control. Societies of control are societies in a higher order capitalism in which the operation of markets is the instrument of social control and individuals are pitted against one another in order to motivate.

How does Foucault’s analysis of the examination and Deleuze’s analysis of competition for the purpose of motivation relate to the systems of control in Concordia University? Compuational Arts? CART 255? Can you see either of these models of systems of control functioning in these environment?

What kinds of architectures (if any) will enforce societies of control?

Discipline and Punish - JS, Peter, Morgan and Nick

2008-03-02T14:24:00.000-08:00

In "Discipline and Punish: History of the Prison", Michel Foucault attempts to analyze the French judiciary system starting with a retrospective in the 17th century and how the methods of torture, discipline and punishment of society have been implemented and changed throughout time. In “Docile Bodies”, Foucault identifies the ultimate purpose of discipline of creating docile humans in order to maximise their economical output (utility) and their obedience in a system (docility). In this chapter, the importance of controlling details is also mentioned, as it is, combined with the correct means of diffusion, an important pervasive technique for subtle domination. In the next chapter, three instruments that ensure this disciplinary method are mentioned: hierarchical observation, where a network of gazes is established to ensure constant and subtle surveillance; normalizing judgment, where homogeneity is sought, making sure that individual differences are easily tracked and later used; and examination, where the objectification of humans and their documentation increases the “knowledge is power” premise. Finally, in “Panopticism”, the docility-utility concept is reinforced by connecting it with the apparatuses of production and how the two increase the uneven distribution of power. The concept of “societies of control” is explored by Deleuze, by saying that the techniques of domination have evolved into modular control being held in a constant overlapping and mixing of systems or institutions. Lastly, he mentions the state of current capitalism, where the marketing of the product overrules everything else.

Our discussion began by bringing up the concept of the self-sufficient warrior-like man and wondering if his existence was still possible in our current world. The image of the independent man that does not need others for his survival seemed quite utopian in the intricate network of human multiplicities, where we all have a specific role to fulfill. Later, we drifted on the schooling system and how it molds our character and train of thought. Definite differences could be seen from a public school in Kentucky to a Catholic private school in Colombia. Culture and religion become decisive factors in the domination system. It was also established that the management of details was a crucial and effective method to “tame” the student body. Subversion techniques were also analysed. Creating a group of students with certain privileged status and establishing symbiotic power-relationships with certain teachers proved to be a plausible method. Another effective method was to establish good contacts with the administrative people in power, ensuring “safe passage” through the system. Finally we talked about the realization of omnipresent surveillance in our life, but how we are oblivious to this fact. We don’t care anymore being filmed or video taped since some said it was basically to ensure security and safety, but a point was made about the fact that it is no more about being recorded, since it happens all the time, but how those who do it might use the information and for what purposes. Is this a very paranoid approach to domination systems? Perhaps not, since with the amount of information gathered from individuals, the system does possess the power. With technology and the complex network of institutions, the system makes this fact aware for the individual, therefore exercising coerced control. But we shouldn’t fear the system, right?

Up to what extent is the Computation Arts program molding us to fit in the industry?

reponse à Foucault & Deleuze

2008-03-02T13:55:00.000-08:00

Dans les corps dociles de Michel Foucault, ils explore la logique disciplinaire des sociétés du 18e siècle. Cette logique était appliquée dans un premier temps aux soldats dans le but de les garder dociles et de les rendre le plus efficace et prévisible possible. Mais cette logique s'est étalée à plusieurs sphères de la société touchant les institutions scolaires, les hôpitaux et les usines.

Deleuze, dans son post-scriptum sur les sociétés de contrôle a poursuivit la réflexion de Foucault qui étudiait ce phénomène au 18e siècle et l'a comparé au modèle contemporain de société de contrôle. Ce modèle, qui avait été prédit en quelque sorte par Foucault qui voyait ce changement venir dans un avenir rapproché, est l'évolution des disciplines. Les ressemblances saute aux yeux, le même but étant de faire de l'homme une créature malléable et sans originalité. En voulant garder ce façonnement des corps et des esprits un de leur but premier, ils ont tout simplement changer la façon dont ils allaient arriver à leur fin. Ils ont enlevés les distinctions clair entre les différentes institutions de formation et lieux de travail confondant ici la logique hiérarchique de l'échelonnage en gardant constamment les ouvriers en formation et en exerçant un contrôle excessif sur tous les employés pour sans cesse valider leurs travail. En ayant établi ainsi une structure flou le prolétariat devient encore plus qu'avant le travailleur abusé qui n'a aucune idée du pouvoir qui se trouve entre les mains des dirigeants de l'usine. Cette logique s'est appliquée à une bonne partie de la société.

Il est ainsi possible de voir à quel point le système n'a pas changé autrement que dans les procédés utilisé pour en arriver à ses fins qui lui évolue sans arrêt au profit du contrôle.

Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze: Group response from Natalia, Mike, Martin, and Fernando

2008-03-02T12:01:00.000-08:00

Michel Foucault, in his essay "Docile Bodies", and the accompanying "The Means of Correct Training" and "Panopticism", examines the eighteenth-century society in its relation to control and discipline of citizens. Gilles Deleuze follows the "Docile Bodies" in an attempt to situate contemporary society in comparison to Foucault's eighteenth-century model. He concludes that our society is no longer driven by discipline, but by a fluid system of control. While the 'discipline' model is very strict in its formation, especially in its attention to minute detail, Deleuze’s “control” model is less rigid and more adaptive towards changes in contemporary society. However, both are a result of de-humanizing objectification that is the focus of the “Docile Bodies”. According to Foucault, the docility is a result of a strict system of discipline that breaks down the relationship between humans and their bodies, making the bodies a property of the state which is controlling them. As this process runs through all levels of society, and its attention to detail is so meticulous, it is able to shape the docile citizens from their youth onwards with great precision. Resembling a military camp or a perfectly-designed machine, the rigidity of the structure coerces the objectified bodies to do exactly as it pleases, or suffer strict punishment for deviating from the norm.

Our group discussion focused on situating Foucault’s ideas in relation to new media and the overall framework of this course. An interesting contrast was mentioned in the relationship between yogic teachings and Foucault’s docility. The focus of yogic teachings locates one’s body, emotions, thoughts, and the mind in constant interrelated state. The ultimate goal of yoga, therefore, is self-discipline of one’s own body in order to control one’s own mind, and eventually in harnessing its full power within. Docility and state discipline does the exact opposite of this process, taking the body away from the individual and controlling it through an organized system. As a result, the mind is also coerced into subjugation to the same powers. In that sense, the system of “control” that Deleuze proposes is a natural progression of the system of discipline, to adapt to a more fluid society and to discipline the mind and the body on a more flexible level. New means of discipline in their contemporary fluidity, just as in Foucault’s argument, are a result of new inventions, while even further inventions come out of the resulting forms of discipline.

The relationship between inventions and control led us to analyze the role of the internet in this model. While it appears to give more freedom to the individual in terms of expression, it can also be argued to be a contributing factor to the overall docility. What is the purpose of the internet in a society of control?

Does the internet function as an outlet of free expression and democratic action, or is it a more subtle way to pin down the individuals to their homes, fragmenting their bodies even more, and giving them a place to passively vent instead of acting on their beliefs?

Foucault & Deleuze - Alexis, Ramy, Sean

2008-03-02T09:34:00.000-08:00

The first text, by Foucault, talks about different systems of control & discipline, first and foremost: the military. Discipline frameworks then move on to schools, hospitals, law and then finally the family. It is quite simply the description of discipline in our society. The second part, by Gilles Deleuze, helps take the observations defined by Foucault to apply them to our current society by taking into account the new technologies that enable Panoptic surveillance in the industry of power.

The fact that all aspects of life and work are subdivided, makes it so that life, in certain respects, resembles the army. One section cannot perform, even live, without another. How can the infantry be efficient without the artillery to clear a path before it. In the same way the cold cuts factory worker is of almost no use if there is no bread factory to provide him with the wheaty goodness of a two-sided sandwich. This way, it is much easier to observe and discipline. In the "Divide and Conquer" spirit, every section of the army, or of society for that matter, is neatly separated and looked down upon. But is also share a life dependency, which also keeps them in tight formation. Foucault's analogy to the panopticon prison brings up the ideas of sousveillance that have since then evolved in retaliation of the omnipresent surveyor. Watch the watcher. It is ironic that with the coming of technology, surveillance had reached it's highest point, only to suffer retaliation using it's own tools of the camera and the sensors.
Have mechanisms of control and discipline become so intrinsic in ourselves and in our society that we would still live under the rules of discipline without having the framework around us, would we not confine ourselves under those terms if we KNEW the frameworks were gone? Is it not the only way we know how?

Who's on Facebook?

Foucault & Deleuze response: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

2008-03-02T08:49:00.000-08:00

In "Docile Bodies", Michel Foucault shows how the details explored by disciplines subjugate the human body and thus,provides easier power for whoever wants to take it. In Foucault's words, disciplines create a relation of docility-utility, thus facilitating the maintainance of order by whomever holds the power. He also explains how the disciplinary institutions enables the convergence of information or knowledge of details of the masses up to the highest entity of a hierarchy: the use of a network of "supervisors, perpetually supervised". Discipline is also about normalizing judgment and imposing homogeneity: establishing a system of punishment, a standardized education system. The system is not yet completed without Examination, which is a much more subtle exercise of power because it is invisible. It could be understood as systems of statistics analyzed by the one(s) in power, in which individuals are objectified and documented, case by case. Notice the word statistics wasn't used by Foucault as it is more appropriate if we relate his ideas to our historical and technological situation. Gilles Deleuze, in "Postscript on the Societies of Control", does so fitting our modern society and capitalism in the model of Michel Foucault.

It is interesting to read the cycle between Foucault's description of the "school" and the "disciplinary" apparatuses. Through schooling, the disciplinary power is able to educate its subjects, and in turn educate itself. Does this mean that Foucault's beliefs are that knowledge is power, and is it also safe to say that Deleuze disagrees, stating that money is in fact power? After speculation of both texts, it seems that what Foucault describes is a modern society trying to govern the masses, while Deleuze speaks of a postmodern one; however it is one that has replaced the search for knowledge as power with attaining money as power: power of the corporation. Instead of searching for the "absolute truth" through education, we now search for money through training. Reformity is out. But is it really? Is it so different now than it was before World War II, or is Deleuze saying that it is perhaps only different because we are more aware of being watched? It could be argued that we are just as aware as we were before World War II, only now we have more liberty to discuss it. However, the texts do fall into Marx's theory of the fetishism of commodity even though the commodities may have changed slightly (or have they?).

Has our view of money really changed postmodern sociey, or has it been this way all along? Has the drive for obtaining money really liberated us into making our lifestyle and career choices, or has it actually limited us even further?

Foucalt readings by John Chris and Tomer

2008-03-02T01:03:00.001-08:00

We all have a purpose in this world. We all have something ahead of us. What we really enjoyed about this reading was the metaphor of the soldier.
Using forms of discipline you can create and configure a human being.
Soldiers are trained, are forced to become a machine, a deadly force that would do anything that is commanded of them.
In the text by Foucault, he discuses how humans are ready, and willing to be taught and modified. The concept of word domination is intriguing because, the author talks about how to gain power over people. He discusses the use of disciplines.
What Foucault is saying in the text is that to gain control over a mass, to shape a human into what they want, what is desired, is by not overlooking any details. Every little aspect of our life must be controlled and monitored.

Technology is a great factor in this discussion. The omnipotence of technology has changed our society. We live in a world where governments and corporations are trying to seize control over us. To some extent each and every one of us is being spied on.
The state is built as a machine where every little aspect is monitored, not unlike a prison. Enter the text about the panoptic prison, in which there was aroom built in the middle of the prison that rotated and filmed everything in the prison. Inmates did not know if there was anyone watching, but the fear of such surveillance kept the inmates in line.
A more personal example, my friend worked at an electronics store where they had surveillance cameras set up, that were not functioning. The purpose of these cameras were to scare the costumers into not stealing.

In our world, governments and corporations have virtually endless means of personal surveillance .With all the technology laying at their fingertips, from cameras to satellites, is there any way for anyone in this world to stay hidden?
Furthermore do these extreme forms of surveillance truly aid in keeping society in line?
Perhaps we are better off with them, then without?

Foucault by [ Ben, Scott, Kevin, Duy ]

2008-03-01T21:17:00.000-08:00

Foucault starts the discussion by showing the figure of the soldier and explains how behind the heroic appearance lies a docile body being controlled. Power employs discipline to make the body become more obedient while at the same time more useful. This ‘invention’ is not new since discipline can be found in schools, hospitals, and the armies to make order out of chaotic multiplicity. The key technique to discipline training, as demonstrated through history of religion, architecture, and war, is to pay great attention to details while keeping a big view of everything. Next, Foucault states that hierarchical observation is employed to “make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly.” Normalizing judgment used to set a norm, yet at the same time point out individualism by observance of deviance from the aforementioned norm. Examination is the combination of hierarchical observation and normalizing judgment “to qualify, to classify, and to punish.” In ‘Panopticism,' the key idea is that discipline is used as a method to induce order and organization in society while the system of law and punishment is a part of the machinery that distributes power unequally. Gilles Deleuze elaborates on Foucault’s writing that the capitalist society is compared to a factory, with the sum of the whole worth more than each individual member; the organization of production is the most important goal of this type of society.He states that the major institutions of the society of Discipline(prison, hospital, factory, school, family) are going through a generalized crisis. This crisis is caused by the transition of one society to the other. The disciplinary society controls the individuals through generalized sets of rules, hierarchy, judgment and examination. The "controlled" society creates modular conditions. A good example shown in the text was nineteenth-century capitalism which factories concentrated on production and on property. Corporations of modern capitalism no longer concentrates on the production process, but buys the finished products, sell services and buys stocks. The result is that power no longer uses discipline, but corporate control of lifestyle to make man in debt to this power. There is an organization to the distribution of wages.

It is mentioned above that discipline is not an invention of the modern society. If we look at history and everyday life, examples illustrating the use of discipline to maintain order and harmony are numerous. Yet if think critically in today society, it can be observed that the technique has become more meticulous with the power of high technology. Putting aside obvious and conventional cases like discipline in academic and military environments, there are disciplines that are controlling human beings physically and mentally in a very subconscious level, for e.g. the examples in the last reading ‘the culture industry,' in which we can see how submissive and unassertive we can be in the consumption and imitation of art and culture. What’s interesting is why Foucault uses the term ‘the docile bodies’ and not ‘the docile minds’ because as long as one can control the mind, one has total power over the body. Also, this reading has a strong sense of the implications of organization on society. The main goal of capitalism is to produce a nation, similar to a factory, with strongly rigid rules and separations and levels of rank. A future where the corporate model applies to every social institutions. It may well lead to a vision like Gene Roddenberry's Starfleet Command. A future where everything is controlled by a singular entity.

Apparently examination is a large part of the academic lifestyle we, as students, live. Does it, however, enrich our experience in school, or is it counterproductive towards our education? We concluded that there are differences between schooling and education, and that the school system is susceptible to many outside influences.

Docile Bodies - Sam, YinYin, Manuela

2008-03-01T18:37:00.000-08:00

At the beginning of the text Faucolt describes the characteristic of the ultimate and unbeatable body of a soldier. He is someone who is strong, courageous and developed to perfection by his generals; everything is manufactured right down to his strong fingers. He has gone through grooling training in order to become this ideal soldier, a representation of a true hero. By the late 18th century two of the most important discoveries were in process; the progress in society and the power of technology. These discoveries took a grand effect on the embodiment of what was considered a soldier, the soldier became something that can be remolded over and over till satisfied by the more powerful a reprogrammable machine. The body is no longer strong, self sufficient and powerful but weak and malleable ready to follow and please without question. These methods of discipline have been used for armies and monasteries but became a primary solution when power and domination was at hand. In disciplinary power everything is controlled nothing is gone to waste not time nor the body everything is used efficiently and in a structured manner.

Faucolt theory can easily be applied to today , with the new and up coming technology it is much easier to be tracked or watched by just about anyone. Technologies progress is what controls us and has power over us. Cameras, hidden video in the workplace the internet, even specific designs in architecture our all gadgets to keep an eye on us and to put us in our place. We fear being watched by those who control us and do our best to please without every over stepping any boundaries, that is how we become programmable machines for those in charge.

how can we rebel against a system that constitutes our entire knowledge base?

Foucault & Deleuze by Alex, Alexina & Emmanuel

2008-02-27T19:53:00.001-08:00

In the early 17th century, the soldier (and man) was still as individual as he wanted to be. By the late eighteenth century, however, the soldier was starting to become shaped into a machine by the ruling bodies. They were chosen by those who ruled because of their agility, strength and abilities so that they may be as less unique as possible and as uniform as possible. Foucault refers to humans as docile bodies which can be moulded like a building material. In order to establish power over groups of people, the author suggests the use of disciplines (domination) in order to subtly orient the decision process. This method is effective because it is seen as useful by the trained individual. Each individual is able to choose which discipline or task they wish to accomplish. This becomes a feeling of individuality while being created by a higher power. This becomes a programming of the mind where we are not asked to think individual thoughts, but to learn specific information which we will be tested on later (such as in Bible school, where children are disciplined into learning prayers and later tested on their knowledge of them). However, while they are given the impression that they are strong in unity, they are less so in political terms, that is, they do not have individual political strength. It is often said that God is in the details. In Foucault's (and Napoleon's) opinion, control over a mass public is achieved by not allowing details to be overlooked. Each aspect of a discipline's environment must be controlled rigorously. These details are of such little importance on their own that the disciplined individual does not notice it, and therefore easily mould the individuals into the desired mass shape. A successful scenario would include a system which invites the disciplined to observe each other. They therefore manage each other in an effort to maintain the desired order. Details become intertwined and include the design of the Establishment that is no longer built to be seen or to observe geometrical external space, and which encapsulates the subjects, rendering them visible from the exterior of their cells to the large spaces of the cafeteria or the courtyard. To ensure rules are respected a strict system of punishment is also created. A substructure of the court system which seeks to punish according to the offense must be established. Foucault's ultimate architecture is that which enables the governing powers to observe anyone at anytime. Finally, Foucault presents his thoughts as an apparatus which means a system of observation, punishment, architecture and discipline.

Today, society seems to be in the middle of a junction between war and peace. Police officers are socially acceptable because they are the "peacekeepers" in our cities and towns, yet they wear guns and ammunition in case of a scuffle with thugs. Soldiers are also socially acceptable "peacekeepers", but can turn into "warriors" at an instant's notice when peace has broken. Is that so right? Why do we feel safe with these double agents in our "peaceful" society? Can't they turn rogue? Can't they shoot us by accident or otherwise? What makes us feel so safe with them around? What makes us somewhat revere them? The answer is: because they're supposed to keep us safe. And yet... Changing topics: in college, we were told not to become a jack-of-all-trades but to specialise in one trade or to freelance in one trade, therefore, Foucault's theory of applying apprenticeship instead of examination in order to specialise in one discipline is true to this day. In universities, however, it seems like all thought diverges to the same ideology. The students become docile; they think they are learning exactly what they want to learn. Teachers do not encourage, but want us to believe that we all want a job strictly as coders or performance artists. When stragglers stand out of the group, it seems they want to rein us in with: "You all want to be coders / performance artists". We are aware that most of our actions are observed. Be it by cameras or wire taps or online tracking. It is not an issue of privacy, for Foucault it is a way to discipline. This omnipresent observation creates a feeling of ignorance. To think freely and to develop individuality and personal skills, we must avoid the all seeing eye of the leader. This is because when we are observed we can be disciplined to act the way the leader wishes. A group environment promotes the loss of individuality. Although we can communicate with each other, our opinions become worthless.

Foucault says that grouping individuals makes them more docile. Would we become stronger without a punishing, and therefore normalising, power?

Re: Horkeimer and Adorno, The Culture Industry - Angela and Matthieu

2008-02-24T18:51:00.000-08:00

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno describe the culture industry. This is the industry responsible for mass producing modern-day culture across different media. They argue that a technological rationale (society has consistently adopted new technologies) is the rationale of domination. The culture industry is not concerned with works of art, but with standardization and mass production; its goal is to provide needs for every class of citizen (and 'connoisseurs' perpetuate the idea that citizens/consumers have choice). The authors point to the sound film as having a drastic stunting effect on mass-media consumers. The technical emphasis of works are now more important than the content. The entertainment industry determines its own language, resulting in the negation of style, the aesthetic equivalent of domination. The argument goes on to mention that dissidence in mass media is part of the ideology of business, and is the only source of originality in the culture industry. We come to Tocqueville and how exclusion from the masses is today's form of tyranny, which leads to the fact that today's consumers are self-defeating when they are captivated by the myths perpetuated by media, leading to the reproduction of the same "content", i.e. the same crap on TV/in movies/in books/on the radio... The consumer must put up with what's offered. They argue that amusement/entertainment/culture industry is the antithesis of art. The fusion of culture and entertainment is responsible for the depravation of culture.

We started questioning ourselves as to how applicable the authors' arguments are in our personal daily lives. Though very dense and difficult, once the text has been broken down, most of their arguments make a lot of sense, and we found that it's still applicable in 2008, even with the proliferation of the Internet. In our eyes the net is like radio and telephone and movies; a gross amalgamation of all media, multi-media, one might say! Horkheimer and Adorno, we suspect, would not be phased by the Internet, though we can't help but wonder if their approach to individuality might change given its undeniable power of expression. They wouldn't be surprised, either, at how many crappy movies and TV shows are being produced. We agreed that, as media artists and media students, we are part of the mass-media consumers that Horkheimer and Adorno describe, but with a level of self-awareness that most of the populace doesn't have. After all, we're reading their texts, are enrolled in a university program that deals with these issues, so not much of this comes as a surprise. We also brought up the fact that users and consumers of mass media ought to read this text; it should come with the user manual of today's media appliances!

"... this [movie theater] bloated pleasure apparatus adds no dignity to man's lives. The idea of 'fully exploiting' available technical resources and the facilities for aesthetic mass consumption is part of the economic system which refuses to exploit resources to abolish hunger." (83) First, is the cinema exclusively a pleasure apparatus? What about dignity? Should media even be concerned with dignity?! And finally, what's the connection with the economic system and the hungry?!

The Culture Industry - Morgan, Peter, JS and Nick

2008-02-24T17:14:00.000-08:00

This segment of The Culture Industry by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno circumscribes the idea that manipulation of the masses happens through the production of standardized cultural artifacts (or mass media) . They mention how capitalism is used to mold the masses in creating false needs, and more importantly the feeling of satisfaction that follows them. The industry has control over what these 'needs' are and the proposed solutions for satisfying them are specifically designed and optimized for specific and labeled types of people (the 'deceived masses' , p.80). This culture system creates the illusion of tolerance and acceptance towards all people, but really dictates what one should be consuming, and subtly excludes people who don't fit in the mold.

Because the capitalism-based system creates a massive spell that shuts down all 'undesired' entities, it is interesting to notice than even a published book criticizing the role of the industries in relation to the creation of mass culture has been 'filtered' and accommodated to the economic rules, so that it can be distributed and sold. That 'adaptation' is done without contestation because we know that this is what is needed for a manuscript to become a sellable book. So why isn't it the same thing with mass media, why don't we all agree the (mass) media are never going to be in their purest form (untouched) , as their always going to be adapted by distributors in orders to squeeze as much juice as possible out of them, and as much money as possible out of us. This is probably the price to pay to be able to massively distribute media in a capitalist society. In the end, the consumption of such culture allows the masses to feel content but also never entirely satisfy the real needs which is why people keep coming back for more.

"The deception is not that the culture industry supplies amusement but that it ruins the fun by allowing business considerations to involve it in the ideological clichés of a culture in the process of self-liquidation." (p. 85) How, if possible, can we retrieve our agency in a system of deception that has dominated and permeated our society and culture?

Duy, Ben, Kevin, Scott - The culture industry

2008-02-24T16:59:00.000-08:00

In ‘the culture industry’ Horkheimer and Adorno explain that all people have an equal chance of achieving, but not by effort. Ideal types are stripped of details, and of individuality so the public can identify with their similarities. The culture industry is a self-feeding machine, which produces content that is designed for its own needs. Everything is calculated in advance, never going too far, always staying within it’s own pre-set bounds. The authors also explain how popular culture is constantly recycling ideas while convincing the public that they are new. ‘True art’ is defined as the art of the bourgeois class, which was withheld from the lower classes of society. Instead they have been presented with unlimited amounts of ‘untrue art’—popular culture and it’s mediums such as television. Until the 18th century, the artists’ creativity depended on their patrons and their objectives; now high art is available to everyone for free. Art became a species of commodity, marketable and interchangeable. The ones in power create trends, which establish the norms of the industries, but they do serve the products in different qualities so that they can make it seem like a need to every social classes of a society.

Fellowship and the abolishment of individuality were pointed out as elements of social control, discussion of these led to the instance of a fellowship exhibiting “individuality,” contrary to the larger system. Advertising becomes Art: The Art of Advertising. Big corporations with big budgets can afford advertising for its own sake and as an expression of power in the attempt to monopolize the market and create barrier to newcomers. Fight club might be a good modern example of a film which criticizes society while at the same time being appropriate enough to be marketed to the masses (specifically, as a not-so-successful in the box office but cult hit in DVD sales). Realism is usually depressing and this text is no exception. It is certainly wonderful to be enlightened of the hideous sides of western existence, but it would be advisable if solutions could be brought up to the table and let the reader finish on a good note which could then lead to a prosperous extrapolation of a possible solution.

Question: Would this text cause the same reaction on the part of the reader if it didn’t have a Nihilist approach or is this approach necessary?

L'industrie culturelle et le mythe de l'individualité Par Audrey, Chris et Éric

2008-02-24T16:43:00.000-08:00

Adorno et Horkheimer traitent de l’industrie culturelle dans leur texte du point de vue de l’école de Frankfort et de la théorie marxiste. Beaucoup d’emphase est mis sur le fait que l’individualité humaine est un mythe et que cela ne peut exister. L’industrie culturelle fonctionne en conditionnant l’humain à agir à l’intérieur de l’idéologie dominante du capitalisme. Cette dernière a transformé le monde de l’Art en un domaine mercantile où les œuvres sont traitées comme des marchandises. Parce qu’il y a une hiérarchie établie au niveau des produits de consommation culturelle, chaque individu doit se comporter en lien avec le niveau prédéterminé pour sa classe sociale et il doit choisir le produit culturel qui convient à son niveau (le pauvre va au cinéma et le riche à l’opéra). Les messages que soutient cette idéologie à travers l’art permet de conditionner et de contrôler l’auditoire pur faire en sorte qu’il obéisse à la structure sociale dominante. Ainsi est soutenu le système économique capitaliste qui bénéfice principalement à la classe bourgeoise. La possibilité pour l’industrie culturelle de fabriquer des désirs et des besoins essentiellement artistiques et de divertissement, lui permet d’inculquer à ses commodités des codes et des significations idéologiques précises. C’est à travers ce même divertissement qu’est enseignée l’attitude d’acception passive si essentielle au bon fonctionnement du système en place.

Notre compréhension de l’amusement est aujourd’hui est principalement dû à l’acceptation de ce que définit pour nous l’industrie culturelle. L’auditoire est régit par l’obéissance sociale et recherche l’opportunité de devenir plus ( gagner le tirage de la loterie par exemple), en autant bien sûr que nous soyons soumis au système. Peut-être l’avènement de la technologie (Internet, Télé réalité) est-elle en train de changé la donne, ou bien est-elle programmé par un changement de code du système? Car justement, cette même industrie nous fournit juste assez d’incitatifs à combler nos désirs et nos besoins que l’on se satisfait de cette forme de contrôle social. Nous croyons encore à la possibilité de changement et sommes convaincus que nous sommes des acteurs de ce changement, qui somme toute a déjà été planifié par l’industrie. Cette dernière a mise en place une hiérarchie où les rôles sont socialement assignés pour s’assurer du bon fonctionnement du système mis en placer par l’industrie culturelle. Ainsi, l’idée de l’individualité est perçu comme un mythe dans ce système où l’homme agit de façon conditionné à servie un large rôle social dans un but bien précis.

Nous pouvons nous comme question quel est la part de responsabilité nous avons dans le fonctionnement de ce système et individuellement, pouvons-nous choisir dans faire partie ou non?

Étude sur La dialectique de la raison : La production industrielle de biens culturels. Raisons et mystification des masses

2008-02-24T11:09:00.000-08:00

par Jean-François Duval, Jonathan Desjardins et Julien St-Yves

"Ce qui est nouveau ce n'est pas que l'art est une marchandise, mais qu'aujourd'hui, il se reconnaisse délibérément comme tel, et le fait qu'il renie sa propre autonomie en se rangeant fièrement parmi les biens de consommation confère son charme à cette nouveauté" (p.165-166). Ce passage traduit avec force éloquence le propos général de Adorno et Horkheimer dans La dialectique de la raison. Héritiers d'une grande tradition philosophique allemande, la dialectique, ils abordent ici la culture moderne comme étant l'enfant légitime de son époque, celui de l' "Aufklärung", et de son organisation sociale, le société industrielle capitaliste. Ils montrent que c'est naturellement que l'Art c'est adapté au modèle de la business. Que la production artistique c'est transformée pour se conformer aux processus de production de masse, se moulant aux phénomènes de l'organisation technologique et du marketing. Peu a peu, la valeur d'usage de l'oeuvre s'éfface derière la valeur d'échange. L'oeuvre d'art devient publicité, héraut de la consommation. Au bout de la chaîne de production, l'esthète n'est plus, il ne reste que le consommateur; Une coquille vide. La production de masse a finalement produit une masse d'individu identiques se caractérisant par leurs "[...] dents blanches, l'absence de taches de transpiration sous les bras et la non-émotivité. Et voice le résultat du triomphe de la publicité dans l'industrie culturelle : les consommateurs sont contraints à devenir eux-mêmes ce que sont les produits culturels, tout en sachant très bien à quoi s'en tenir" (p.176).

Selon Adorno et Horkheimer, il semble se produire un renversement dans le rapport de valeur qui définit l'oeuvre d'art sur le marché. Jusqu'à ce qu'elle soit "[...] si totalement soumise à la loi de l'échange qu'elle n'est même plus èchangée; elle se fond si aveuglément dans la consommation qu'elle n'est plus consommable. C'est pourquoi elle se fond avec la publicité [...]" (p.170). Il est claire qu'ils soulèvent là la pierre d'achoppement sur laquelle bute le "modèle classique" de la culture. Cette métamorphose, cette traversée du désert, est-elle la négation obligatoire et nécessaire au renversement dialectique du capitalisme? Et, l'artiste en est-il responsable, où était-ce inévitable?

réf : T.W. ADORNO et M. HORKHEIMER, La dialectique de la raison, Gallimard, coll. Tel, Paris, 1974, 281 p.

Response To Culture Industry by Chris, Tomer, John

2008-02-24T09:54:00.000-08:00

This text to us was like all the previous texts combined. It contained all the elements of the other texts. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer explain how the media is like poison to our society and that all that it is now is somewhat of a fetish, because of its controlling nature. People, without realising it, are sucked into it and continue to be while constantly being bombarded with advertisements. That’s not exactly what was said, but that is what was implied, that media is business, that it all revolves around money and that art has lost its integrity and has sold out.

It has become unbearable due to the fact that these advertisements have spread like a virus and are now found practically anywhere and everywhere. Television probably being the biggest source around followed by film and videogames, magazines and billboards and even on the packaging of food products. Television can’t be viewed without seeing a ton of advertisements repeatedly. Films used to be about performing and telling a story in a very artistic and emotional manner and now it can only be viewed as a product, a form of entertainment which is primarily used for advertisers and placeholders to invest upon. The same can be said about videogames these days. They contain cinematic attributes and compelling storylines, yet they have the same business elements as films but with far more ways to expand. It’s no wonder that games like halo 3 are raking in more money than big Hollywood hits. It’s inevitable and it can’t be stopped because society has grown accustomed to it and it seems as though people thrive for it more and more. It appears somewhat comical that people are probably aware of all this by now but no one really cares; they enjoy the way things are and continue to feed the industries. That been said, we agree that media is in a way a huge and very profitable industry but then again this is a capitalist society, and obviously entertainment will generate an industry at its backbone. Of course some of the artistic integrity could get lost when thinking of profits, but that is natural, and it is possible to find a middle ground. Independent films do exist and so does independent music, which means that not all media is intended for the sole purpose of creating industries and generating money.

Can there be art or entertainment in a society without an industry evolving around it, which suppresses artistic integrity for profit? And was this ever the case?

The Culture Industry - YinYin, Sam , Manuela, John

2008-02-23T19:24:00.000-08:00

It is obvious from the tone of the writing in the text, that Horkheimer and Adorno have a very pessimistic view of the technological world and what they call the "culture industry". Not only do they present it as a means to control the masses, they also explain how the masses are slowly led into servitude. This act is done through subconscious consent when those whom mass culture is directed at accept and welcome their new way of life with open arms: in other words, conform to the system or be excluded. We are perpetually promised things and yet we do not receive them and linger on waiting. Everything is downgraded to less elegant state. Beauty and even talent can be manufactured: for example, when those in power decide that some actress will become the next hit. Movie plots are generalized to feed the consumers needs, Horkheimer and Adorno state that one can see the beginning of a movie and predict it's ending because everything is the same. The masses are fooled into believing that it is in control, yet that is not the case. In the culture industry, the masses merely become its object. By pretending to have concerns for the masses, culture industry strengthens its grip on the mentality of the flock.

It seems to be rather alarming that we do not have any say in how the world flows. We learn what we are told, we see what we are shown, we buy what is given to us. It is because of this that we trust so much in our current system. It is the system we grew up in, we are defenseless against it, and everyday that we continue to live in it, we are hammered deeper and deeper into the culture industry. A good example of how this system strikes us is propaganda. Take for instance the United States in the past few years. Everyone is grinded into patriotism purely because of how the media showcases certain events (namely 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and Irak, terrorism against the US, security alerts, etc.). There is no longer a personal thought, it is the thought of the masses. Citizens are taught what opinions to voice through fear and terror, yet they feed on that kind of stimulation as an ever consuming group. Those who do not follow the rest are branded as "traitors" to their country or lacking in sympathy towards their own kind. Those who are weak of mind then silence their own views on the issue and join the cause because they do not wish to be exiled. In the same line of things, the creature of brand names also have created a sense of belonging. It is the illusion of fitting into a clique, being in style or out of season, having the best garments or simply not in the cool scene. Entertainment and politics both charm us into some mental state that we do not necessary need to abide by, but cannot resist. It is not in all cases that we fall into the trap, but at times we only realize much later that we are stuck in the spider's web.

Although Horkheimer and Adorno warn us about the dangers of this system, now that we are so deeply rooted into it, if eventually it is removed, would we not be lost or confused by its downfall? Or rather, would we not simply run back to it because it is the only truth that we know?

Culture Industry Response: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

2008-02-23T13:49:00.000-08:00

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno write about culture, the culture industry, and society. They begin by defining a great artist and they denounce the meaningless styles of « non-serious » music (like Big-Bands, swing-era pop-dance-Jazz-music, which they call Jazz). (p.76-78) When they say « Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in », they summarize briefly their main idea. In order to « touch » anyone that is receiving passively from this same industry, one must « fit in » by diverging only so little from the mass, otherwise will be shunned as « it is part of the irrational planning of this society that it reproduces to a certain degree only the lives of its faithful members ». Anyone who does disconnect from the dominance of he culture industry risks being accused of incompetency. The vicious circle as they describe is not yet closed: there is a huge problem issued by cheap massively distributed art (which is what the culture industry does best): « Pleasure always means not to think about anything, to forget even where it is shown. » The problem persists when those same passive persons create the demand for « culture-entertainment-art », because they actually want empty, meaningless, soulless culture. The public is not aware of its current situation, and fails to see that the promises the culture industry makes are always unfulfilled. We have only a few choices off the menu and they are never what we actually need as a society.

What the authors describe in the text as being the "culture industry" is essentially marketing. It is all carefully planned to appeal to as many people as possible, and has figured out how to manipulate people into choosing to desire the very thing it produces. "In the false society, laughter is a disease." (p. 84) Moviegoers and radio listeners search for something to clear their minds which is opposite to the way art was intended in earlier days; intellect and awareness were once required when viewing or listening, but now opinions are carefully formulated for them. The authors seem to fear that because of this, people have become unable to criticize the society in which they live. "Works of art are aesthetic and unashamed; the culture industry is pornographic and prudish." (p. 84). This is interesting: it seems the culture industry tempts people and taps into secretive desires which they are unable to actually satisfy--or it pretends not to be interested in such desires and plays the coy, innocent card. Is is possible however to say that works of art may do the same thing? Where do we draw the line between a work of art and a stylized reproduction of media force fed to us? The premise from which the authors of the text rule a work of art as such are a little unconvincing. One might question what kind of authority deemed Mozart and Michelangelo "real" and "authentic" artists in the eyes of Horkheimer and Adorno. Many of the arguments made could be applied to forms which are denounced in the writing (such as Jazz for example). Nonetheless, the text seems to describe what was discussed in the last class discussion: the culture industry is comparable to one of Leni Riefenstahl's films: meticulously organized to be manipulative.

Is the culture industry representative of the "banality of evil" as in a once fascist Germany? And if so, what sort of diabolical phenomenon should we be preparing for? According to Horkheimer and Adorno, what is the culture industry really hiding and why?

Culture Industry - Alexis, Ramy, and Sean

2008-02-17T08:59:00.000-08:00

Summary :
Horkheimer and Adorno talk about how culture is now manufactured. A bit like the Ford Model Ts. Enlightenment as deception is seen when art is reproduced under the pretext of making it accessible to the public when really the art being distributed has little to no value. The public is fooled in it's understanding of art and therefor in the value of it.

Ideas :
The authors tackle few key issues in the text that try to build up their argument. Pleasure and amusement, when they talk about amusement itself becoming an ideal taking a place of higher things it is referencing the deception which is affecting all people as part of the culture industry.
The culture industry it self is nothing more than culture and it's reproduction. By systematically reproducing art (as an example) for the people it falls under the category of mass deception. An industry of any kind does what it does best, cheap affordable products for the masses. These characteristics hinder art as art becomes imprinted with them. The struggle for art as true value only becomes more difficult in this sense. As an industry, culture aims to please and according to the authors, to be pleased means to say yes, much like how business meetings are held on golf courses. Pleasure always means not to think about anything. This lays the groundwork for control and/or manipulation.

Questions :
Does the culture industry make it easier for powers to control the masses? Are we all generic fleshbags of emotionless pleasure being converged towards the continuation of nothing?

Response to Horkheimer & Adorno by Emmanuel, Alexina & Alex

2008-02-13T17:10:00.000-08:00

Horkheimer and Adorno's text starts with an explanation of how capitalist systems harvest fellowship. They believe that culture is identical wherever such systems exist. The capitalist governments gradually integrate social beliefs into target groups using mass media and their techniques. The power of the government grows as consumers accept the new standards. The standards are accepted without question because they are presented as needs. The consumer believes he still possesses free will. In fact, this is only because they rationalize the messages transmitted to him or her by producers of culture, making them seem logical. They say that today's styles are no longer "new". They are prefabricated, no longer unique, no longer have to test themselves against their audiences. Therefore, there is no longer any style; we embrace a system of non-culture where every style converges. Any new style is forbidden, except for the few who know how to "confirm the validity of the system" by pointing out the style norms. The authors believe that, since liberalism is commonly known for its lack of categories, and that the culture industry, the most rigid of all styles, is its goal, we therefore shouldn't so easily categorise culture industry. Governments which are opposed to liberalism prefer to use techniques similar to those of marketing companies to sway the minds of their people. As soon as individuals live in ways not planned out by their governing body, they are treated as outcasts and aliens. This is an effective grouping strategy. Society turns to art in an attempt to escape the brainwashing of government. To counter this effect, governments mix what is considered high art with "light art". The effect of this juxtaposition is that consumers are no longer able to discern between actual art and what is propaganda. In a similar way, placing art which contains substance in a museum with free admission encourages consumers to disregard the latter. This is because the consumer is trained to believe that more expensive products have greater return. The culture industry is a structure, which systematically attempts to control masses by harnessing the power of media like an advertiser. Their effect is dissimulated as being part of cultural happenings. Anyone who refuses to conform is alienated and therefore encouraged to join the majority.

A famous song or a famous novel might be used for a film because it is already popular, because the producers know that the public will love it from the start. This is how producers create a cultural following for commodities. All products are generally created equal, yet it is possible to morph the masses' perception of such products. "Mad World" is a soothing, sad song used to promote a video game about war against machines called Gears of War (and, earlier, the film "Donnie Darko"). The song represents the grief that the character feels when his world shatters apart, but has no place in a "war" video game (though it does in the earlier film). It was used to target a certain crowd who would already have emotional ties with the song to make bigger profits off them. As the authors say, liberalism is ever present in the culture industry. For example, a TV show may be officially categorised as suspense, but there may as well be a large amount of tragedy as well, or paranormal content. Everyone may categorise that particular show a very different way. The few people who control the majority of the world's economy are a tightly knit group. Their influence is powerful. Governments are run as businesses which market their beliefs. All these parties collaborate to ensure their numerical objectives are attained. It is imperative for the consumer to act diligently. Artists must innovate to retain the little control the masses have left to regain free will.

Is it truly possible for individuals to choose whether they accept, reject or simply ignore the precisely controlled systems of marketing and government?

Response to Walter Benjamin -- Angela and Matthieu

2008-02-10T22:49:00.000-08:00

In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Benjamin argues that original art works have unique historical baggage defined by the artist, the context, among other factors. He refers to this uniqueness as the "aura" of art works, and argues that this aura, or authority, does not carry to reproductions of art. In today's age of "mechanical reproduction", that is, machine-aided means of duplication, the value behind the process of art making is reduced, and art is less about crafting "auras" and more about socio-political significance, i.e., through exhibitions.

As with most other groups, our discussion was centered around Benjamin's concept of the aura. His opinion regarding massively reproduced art (i.e. multiple copies of the same painting) and of aura-less art forms (i.e. film) is grim and his reasoning behind it is quite clear. On one hand, we feel that the concept of aura still exists today, because original art works are still in high demand, and auctions generate enthusiasm from collectors to the mass media. We discussed how artists today run limited-edition sales of their art works. In this case, is the aura being divided up in equal parts, or is it gone altogether as soon as it's copied? Can a digitally-created art piece even have aura, if it's composed of 0s and 1s? And then we flipped the coin and we started questioning whether the concept of an art work's aura even has significance today. We see art arise in unpredictable ways, from mixing, mashing, sampling, computing, and other digitally-aided modes of creations, and in such an astounding volume, that we felt divided on the issue.

There exist artists who use algorithms (mathematics) to produce generative art. Can this type of art be said to carry an aura, say, if it is never reproduced and its secret recipe is never revealed?

The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.* (Chris, Eric and Audrey).

2008-02-10T15:09:00.000-08:00

Walter Benjamin composes his argument based on the notion of reproduced art; he develops multiple examples on the different art matter such as movie, theatre, painting and photography, always pointing out the fact that there is a draining aspect to art when it is mechanically reproduced. It is not proposed that this idea is new, but it as become more and more of an alarming state were art doesn’t have its own value and tradition. Art has a contextual position and an “aura”, according to what, every piece as a meaningful place in time and space. Therefore mass reproduction can not convey this element to art because the essence of the “aura” goes against our social bases among with mass acceptation of the massive art reproduction. He then applies our cultural values in explaining the differences of the “authenticity” and the “authority” in art, adding to what our sense of “cult” of art has transformed in looking at an “exhibition”.

The uniqueness of a piece of art always includes the components of its original creation; reproduction breaks the idea of contact with conception. Mechanical reproduction detaches art from its authenticity, but it goes along with our contemporary aesthetic where as mass industrial produced art does not interfere with the lack of attachments to things. Contemporary art is ephemeral, an article of Arthur Danto explains how artist create in our days, being in conflict with the “cult values” of our society. “The power of the contemporary comes from the insecurity of being ephemeral rather than from building on some illusory historical foundation -- a hypothetical but always crumbling permanence -- as though that will make ones automatically meaningful and of enduring value. No art is historically important forever: the historical staying power of past art depends on contemporary creative needs -- on contemporary emotional and cognitive necessity. It is permanent and necessary only because the contemporary creates the temporary illusion that it is.”

The “aura” of an art piece can be defined in different ways; somehow, even if the artist had a significant explication to his art, the reproduction fact blurred the elements that communicated it. People consume and possess reproductions, they assume they are, know thousands of other people have seen them, bought and enjoy them. Today a piece of art is a "thing" for to many people, reproduction of art is like production.
However, is it because it is socially accepted to own copies and reproductions that it makes that piece of art less of what it is, does the “aura” disappear when it’s reproduced or does it just change of nature dependently of what it became and where it stands in space and time ?

The work of Art in the age of mechanical reproduction: Jos, Charlotte, Charles

2008-02-10T12:18:00.000-08:00

Walter Benjamin talks about the notion of Art through time. From architecture to paintings, to photography, metal casting, movies, etc. He explores different types of creation and their reproduction procedure, while investigating the link between how the mass of viewers interact with those mass reproduced creations. He then delves into the concept of uniqueness and authenticity, using many different examples, amongst others cinema, and showing that they can't be exactly compared. Through history, he observes how methods of reproduction [of art], have modified the way we create and the interaction of the proletariat with art (for example, someone who can afford to paint can't necessarily make movies and someone who bought paintings can't necessarily make a movie!).

"A man who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it"... "In contrast, the distracted mass absorbs the work of art." His example is architecture: it is a work which is "[received] by a collectivity in a state of distraction. The laws of its reception are most instructive." This relates to the way film is received by the public, which unlike architecture can be a very dangerous thing. It is not realistic to predict every kind of response from viewers of an artwork, but it is an artist's responsibility to keep this in mind. What the artist intends is not always the reaction intended. But this can go the other way: if someone means to project a particular kind of information onto the public, it is possible to manipulate the way people perceive political issues, for example. Once new technology is available for use and manipulation, it will be both used for good and for evil, this we cannot control. It is a difficult subject to ponder, as technology evolves exponentially. All kinds of mechanical reproduction seem to help us in terms of communication, but also hurt us in terms of propaganda, which is still true today. It seems that its reflection revolves around whether or not it is good to have mass communication(mass reproduction) if the majority of the population (or a large part) are unable to criticize or have a "more objective" point of view on what we show them. Even without mass communication, the problem still persist, too few people have a grasp on the "real" of what they are shown. He references Aldous Huxley saying, at that time, artistic talent is becoming very rare if we observe the ratio of "good artists"/population... However, he could only have imagined that, because he didn't verify the numbers he used and good or bad is very subjective. True, capitalism uses mechanical reproduction to sell whatever is profitable in term of capital, so what is sold is what most people want(And what they want can be modified, but that's something else). Maybe more "trash" is in circulation, but we only need one good work to be massively distributed to be as effective as if many good ones were distributed in small quantities. Indeed, in the former scenario there is still less variety than in the later, but where many persons worked individually on fairly good books, big crews worked "together" on a movie, to produce a greater result(maybe). This way of propagating art works to the masses has its downsides, if we have less variety of works, less directions are taken, which means less potentially merged ideas that would have created new ones in return. However, Internet changed this, as anyone can have access to authorship, and everyone can possibly look for what he wants. If the public still is an absent minded-one, which could still be possible with Internet (if you go on you-tube, you can simply click on the main page's thumbnails and keep going, watching what we propose to you), then we might have to look somewhere else [than in the media] to find a solution for this... education problem...? Art is a product of it's time. Every art work produced in a certain context cannot be fully reproduced without losing a certain quality. Every unique piece of artwork is intricately weaved and embedded within the fabric of it's tradition. Art is always valued and viewed on two different planes: one of cult and one of exhibition. For example, ceremonial art was only meant to be exposed within a specific context, whereas a statue in the town square represents an entirely different approach. It is this emphasis that causes art to have distinctive functions, which may not be (originally) what the creators of these arts intended, but it became so with time. So should all art be treated equally? Would one compare the utter uselessness of art in Dada to a "Masterpiece" from the renaissance? Do both have the same reproductive value? By being able to reproduce these pieces of art, we remove them from their contexts and give them a whole new meaning, readily available to be consumed by whoever willing. Film, on the other hand, creates a whole different conundrum. Static art (ie: paintings) were meant to be absorbed, contemplated upon and thought of. Whereas, film, no one image is static, it is a constant influx of moving pictures, that are but a glimpse in one's mind eye. It is a bastardized and perverted version of simplicity. One moment is is there, the next, gone. Film creates an experience without contact, where the viewer is nothing but a critic of it's whole. Film is a representation of reality (Beaudrillard would say), nothing is ever what it truly seems. The actors within it are performing for an invisible and unknown audience, simulating their presence in their performance, and eradicating their auras from the cameras, baring nothing for us to see nor feel. By creating this reproduction of an altered reality, Western Society capitalizes on spurned interest from the masses through the illusion of film. It recreates a form of Dada, for it brings nothing to an individual but fleeting images that have no content and that will be forgotten in a moment's time.A painter and a cameraman create very differing images. One paints a whole, with soul and aura, the other assembles a sequence through fragments, leaving it's viewer to assemble them themselves or through their own hegemonic position. Painting was never meant as a simultaneous collective individual experience. It is to be absorbed by individuals, at different times in different ways. Film merges the critical and the receptive, in thus, causing the individual reaction to be influenced by the mass reaction.In some respect, the approach that both Benjamin and Duhamel have towards film is the same kind of reaction photographers or the clergy have had towards new technologies. "That will kill this" in reference to Hugo's Hunchback of Notre-Dame. Fear of this new technology and the unknown that it brings along with the changes that it procures us. For is it not technology that allows for advancement, for metamorphosis of what we know? That it allows us to explore new regions and give it new meanings?In his analogy of war, he dictates that we are not able to properly integrate these new technologies in our society and that their mass production draws similarities with war. That the more they happen, that the least we utilize them properly the more they are more likely to destroy us.

With more and more labour geared towards simulations and in "virtuality", can we still say that auras can only truly exist through the real physical world? Is this a rigid concept, that will never evolve from it's roots?

Walter Benjamin: Group response from Natalia, Fernando, Mike, and Martin.

2008-02-10T12:08:00.000-08:00

The central argument of Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” stipulates that the authenticity and authority of works of art diminishes as they are massively reproduced. He does not suggest that this is a new phenomenon, as art has always been reproducible, but its scale has never been as wide. He equates “authority of the object” with its “aura”, which is based on a number of external factors that do not carry over into the work’s reproductions, such as its history, ownership, and uniqueness. As art is reproduced, and the aura fades out, the ritual aspect of art is overpowered by its political and social value. Making a distinction between the “cult” and “exhibition” value of the work, Benjamin suggests that the “exhibition” value increases with reproductions, draining art of its “cult value”. He further goes on to apply this model to the distinction between film and theatre, arguing that the non-auratic nature of film is a result of the production method which is aimed at reaching a non-specific audience.

Our group discussion focused on trying to develop a definition of “aura” which could be applied to contemporary art production, drawing a distinction between "aura" and "status" of objects. In Benjamin’s argument, this term is used very specifically to describe the sense of awe and admiration for the singularity and authenticity of a work of art. In contemporary society, especially due to the advancement of post-modernist definitions of art, the singularity and authenticity become blurred and deliberately challenged. In a way, this is the very core of Benjamin’s argument. However, many questions arise as to whether the “aura” is really fading or merely mutating to a different form. As definitions of art shift, does the aura follow? We attempted to apply Benjamin’s concepts to a number of contemporary phenomena, such as open source software (does it become an “authentic object”, if it is worked simultaneously by many people?), computer graphics (could it be the ultimate non-auratic work, in Benjamin’s sense?), and designer objects. Also, we discussed whether the flip side of Benjamin’s argument could also hold true. Making an example of New Yorker cartoons, we discussed whether the original drawing, which is often sold for thousands of dollars, acquires a stronger aura if it is reproduced in multiple copies.

Question: If the aura is composed of history and authority of the object (both of which are socially and culturally-constructed factors), then how does its definition shift as a result of reproduction and how does this change affect further cultural production?

Réponse à Walter Benjamin

2008-02-10T10:48:00.000-08:00

Selon M. Benjamin, l'aura est le sentiment que l'on ressent quand on est en contact avec quelque chose d'unique, qui est lié à un endroit précis. Comme exemple, il prend l'effet qu'on ressent en regardant une lointaine chaîne de montagne ou l'ombre d'une branche tombant sur nous. "La manifestation d'un lointain quelle que soit sa proximité"(einmalige Erscheinung einer Ferne, so nah sie auch sein mag). Voilà les termes exactes qu'il emploi pour expliquer l'aura d'une oeuvre. Avec l'avènement de la reproduction technique, les relations que l'homme entretient avec ces oeuvres ont bien sûr changées. Le caractère unique ne s'applique plus de la même façon qu'autrefois. Maintenant, l'aura tel qu'il la présente n'est plus la source d'émerveillement de l'oeil sur l'oeuvre, sans l'aura, la barrière s'est effondré laissant place a la délectation pure, sans voile.

Je vois l'aura de M.Benjamin un peu comme l'effet qu'a un Idole sur une foule. Savoir qu'il n'y en a seulement qu'un, vouloir le voir à tout pris et le contempler chaque minute qu'on a l'occasion de passé en sa présence. De la poudre aux yeux et rien de plus. Pour pouvoir apprécier la pièce, il faut la dénuder de toute notion lui donnant une valeur soit rituelle, divine ou autre que les qualités originelles qu'elle est supposé détenir. Si l'oeuvre survit et est apprécié même reproduite par milliers, c'est que sa qualité en tant que peinture par exemple est reconnue et appréciée.

Bien sûr, il faut le prendre dans son contexte qui est la modernité, les gens ont un très large éventail de "produits" qu'il leurs sont proposés. Ils aiment ou n'aiment pas une oeuvre pour toutes sorte de raisons, parfois bonnes parfois moins bonnes, mais l'art n'est pas mort pour autant, l'aura non plus d'ailleurs. Ce que M.Benjamin craignait c'est que la reproduction technique tue l'aura, ce qui ne s'est pas passé. La coexistence est là et selon moi y est pour rester. L'aura est ancré au plus profond de notre société en tant que rapport privilégié à l'art. L'original est, et sera toujours authentique car les reproductions, même les plus réalistes, resteront des copies de l'original. Dans notre société contemporaine, la valeur que l'on porte à un original n'est rien de plus qu'une valeur marchande, donnant un sentiment d'unicité et un statut au détenteur de l'oeuvre qui peut se flatter lui-même en se disant "c'est moi qui l'a". Cet effet est beaucoup plus fort maintenant qu'avant la venue de la reproduction technique car l'image est maintenant disponible et par dessus tout abordable à la masse et donc, n'est plus la raison même de la possession d'une oeuvre originale, la valeur marchande de l'image est ainsi annulé et l'homme en quête de prestige s'est rabattu sur une caractéristique différente qui est passé de "objet unique" à "premier d'un nombre infini". C'est un peu le souffle fatigué d'une croyance élitiste qui perdurera encore longtemps, même lorsqu'il n'y aura plus de différence physique entre l'original et la copie.

La reproduction technique a permis de démocratiser l'art. Il est vrai que sans son aura, l'oeuvre est banalisé, mais n'est-ce pas une bonne chose de pouvoir avoir un regard éclairé et l'accès à des opinions diversifiés sur les oeuvres? C'est en quelque sorte sortir l'homme de sa cave.

Est-ce que la reproduction technique a éteint l'art, ou a-t-elle réinventé, reconfiguré l'art selon les besoins de la modernité?

Response to Walter Benjamin by Kevin, Ben, Scott and Duy

2008-02-10T10:47:00.000-08:00

Walter Benjamin starts off by mentioning the notion of reproduction of artwork. He differentiated between manual and process reproduction. He then discusses the one element that is lacking in reproduction, which is the context of the artwork; it’s presence in time and space. Following this, the decay of the aura is talked about. This decay depends on two factors: the desires to “bring things ‘closer’ spatially and humanly,” and to abolish the uniqueness of realities by accepting their reproductions.
He outlines the parasitic relationship that art once maintained in relation to ritual, and believes that mechanical reproduction gives independence to art. He states: “Mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses toward art.” As an example, he compares painting and film, which can be described as hot and cold art.

Mechanical reproduction abolishes uniqueness, thus theoretically increasing supply; and therefore, value of such artwork would be less. In contrast, however, mechanical reproduction provides artists with access to a much larger audience, which can result in more reputable artworks. Some mediums, such as painting, still have original versions that are worth much more than copies due to their context, but prints still expose the work to a larger audience. One concern is that aggressive reproduction would result in bulk information. As art breaks its ties with ritual, artists are still dependent on funding, which is generally provided by outside sources. The motives of these sponsors may not necessarily be art for the sake of art. By having art distributed to a larger population, the quality of art is continually being pushed, as artists are more likely to be inspired and challenged by their peers.

Question: In the future, would it be a possibility to not only reproduce artwork but to imbue the reproductions with context?

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Peter, Morgan, Nick, JS

2008-02-10T10:43:00.000-08:00

In this 1936 text, Walter Benjamin discusses the authenticity of a work of art, its “aura”, the mediums of photography and film, Dadaism and fascism. The text begins by exploring the modes of art reproduction from man-made replication, to lithography, to photography and finally to film, which can capture images as fast as speech. Reproductions however lack the history, authenticity and overall presence, or “aura”, of the original version. This aura is directly related to the piece’s ritual function and the traditional context to which it belongs. With the revolutionary (for the times) reproduction methods of photography and film, there is no authentic, original version and therefore its aura and ritual function are nullified. Art begins to be no longer based on ritual but on politics. Benjamin goes on to discuss the effects of film on the art world and then the relentless destruction of aura in Dadaist creations. In the epilogue Benjamin packs in all his political messages stating how fascism seeks to introduce aesthetics into politics while “Communism responds by politicizing art.”

Our discussion began by trying to solidify a definition for “aura” as it pertains to an art piece. We concluded that the aura of a work of art was based on the belief that it was the authentic version as well as the environment that surrounds it. So the Mona Lisa seen in an art gallery behind plates of glass would inspire awe but no one would care if they saw it in a garage sale, although it could be the authentic version. We also discussed Benjamin’s assertion that we have a desire to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly thus overcoming its uniqueness and destroying its aura. This led to a discussion on micro-sculpture which are sculptures created on the tip of a pin or in a strand of hair. This is interesting because to view these works we must surrender to the representations of the microscope which adjusts reality through magnification. The aura of these works lies not in viewing them in their natural environments, which is impossible to the naked eye, but in the thought of how minuscule they truly are. The discussion suddenly jumped to the futurist movement, which is quoted from in Benjamin’s epilogue. According to Nick, one of the desires of the futurists was to give birth to mechanical cyborgs. Would the aura of these human reproductions be less than their homosapien original? After further discussion on the possibility of splicing genes from three parents together to conceive a baby we returned to Benjamin’s discourse on film. One interesting question about film developed in the text is if the aura of an actor carries through in a film. It is obvious how people back then were still grappling with how the medium of film differs from that of theater. Today we have accepted that film and theater can coexist because the experiences are entirely different. Our discussion continued by asking whether web-based art is inherently devoid of aura. If the original version of an artwork is located on the web then is the artwork being reproduced every time that we visit that website or are we just visiting it like we would visit art in a gallery? Finally we attempted to come to grips with the politically motivated ending to the text but were quite confused by its statements. I was left wondering whether aesthetics has completely permeated our political system today, with PR and advertising firms managing our political candidates and writing their speeches. His predictions that war is the only way of technological advancement while keeping with the capitalist system seem eerily familiar today, but surely we aren’t living in a fascist regime…

Is this loss of aura necessarily a bad thing? And how can we reclaim art’s aura in this era of digital representation?

Response to Walter Benjamin by Alexis, Ramy, and Sean

2008-02-10T03:58:00.000-08:00

The texts talk, very elaborately, about how mechanical reproduction changes the meaning of art. It begins by telling us how an original piece of art is authentic, and what makes it authentic is it's relevance for it's time and it's process through time and how that process give it it's authority. This authenticity is regarded to come from ritual, it's original use value relevant only to the context and time in which it was created. A copy, however, does not hold this ritualistic value. Quite the opposite, it is discarded of a valuable context and of the process that an authentic piece would go through; it looses it's aura. By loosing it's aura it stops becoming a piece of private contemplation and becomes a piece of a political message. This transformation of purpose, from ritualistic to political, is pushed along extremely efficiently through the advent mechanical reproduction which also brings about new art forms such as photography and film. The text ends up with a comparison of art in communism and fascism how these governmental bodies affect art and it's value(ritualistic vs political).

The discussion of this text was fairly odd, we did not feel the author take a solid stand yet we understood the points he was traveling across. His only arguable arguments come either at the very beginning, in the preface, or at the very end, in the epilogue. His stands are so subtle that the text is read largely in a "this is how it is" context. It is only at the very last 2 sentences that we found a final stance taken by Benjamin. It took an insight into communism and fascism to understand what his point was. First, it's important to understand that fascism works by unifying a country and claiming it's superiority over all else, it encourages class structures by pushing a type of super corporate attitude in all who live under it, and most importantly, it uses a lot of propaganda. Communism on the other hand is the opposite in several ways, gearing towards removing class structures and etc and yet, still using art to it's own political ends. So what Benjamin comes to say is that Fascism uses the authority of art to propagate a message, while Communism does so by politicizing art. Both of which are the controlled reproduction and distribution to control political discourse.

With a super communication structure like the internet, reproduction, or more appropriately, DISTRIBUTION, is the name of the game. Keeping this in mind, we think it's important to question the relevance of reproduction, since it is so common, and how that effects the control of political discourse; who has it(the control)? and how relevant is it(the art)?

Response to Benjamin Walter by John, Tomer and Chris

2008-02-09T23:46:00.000-08:00

The word art has different meanings. That is what Benjamin Walter discussed in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction".
He criticises the mass-production and commoditization of modern art.
He discuses how technology becomes more and more advanced, and how it could be the answer in duplicating an art work.
Art could always be re-produced, there is always a way to re-create something already done.
What Benjamin Walter is trying to say is that mechanical tools make producing art much easier, and faster.
For him, the aura of each art is the meaning, the understanding of its piece in our society, including its production date and its creator.
We arrived to a world where artist create art that is accessible to consumers.
Benjamin Walter makes a lot of comparisons between the mechanically reproduced work such as movies to unique work such as a painting.
We all have the tools today, to reproduce anything but it is impossible to get the same aura as the original. It is never going to be the same.

In the past, everything that was art formed was always compared, because the original always had a certain trait that no other piece could have. It is unexplainable. It was in a way magical.
We can not compare Leonardo Da Vinci's pieces to someone else that re produces his work because the original paintings contain much more, such as history.
Reproduced art is the reason why the original has more value.
Technology gives more opportunities to reproduce, but in the end, it is not the same effort involved in creating original art.
Walter has many criticisms which could be true:
He believes that an actor on stage can better identify with their roles, and create a better performance then an actor on film.
In a way, Benjamin Walter is correct but, we do not agree whole-heartedly with this criticism.
Actors could be edited later on, but they still have to give a high standard, believable performance to make movie real.
Both have differences: one has live audience, and the other has a camera filming, but for me as a director, my actors do have to give me their 100% for me to be happy with each given scene.
They are not acting for the camera, they are acting for my approval. Until I say the word "cut" or "next", we won’t stop filming.

We live in a world, where anything could be found over the internet. We live in a world, where anything is found where ever and whenever.
Internet has become a tool where we can just research and find any information needed. For us artists, it is a guide, a helpful tool to make us better artists.
Technology is ever evolving, and the computer has been a tool used by many people. Computing has become a part of art because there are so many people out there reproducing art.
Is it fair that people reproduce art created by computers. Is it real, or is it fake?
Does "computing" replace the old fashioned way of creating art? Does it take away the pen and paper?
I believe that it takes a place in our world but I find that it does not have the same representation as work made by a true artist who creates paintings, or something that has value. Computing is just a way to reproduce work, and nothing more.
Does "computing" replace the old fashioned way of creating art?
Computing is also a way to manipulate an image, giving it different content and making it into something new.
In the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction written by Walter Benjamin, he talks about how technology gives opportunities to reproduce, and how it is not the same effort put in to create these works.
He says that fake art gives the original more value, which we believe is true.
More people recognize other works through remakes. Internet opened a door, easy for us artists to find other work and re produce them.

There are so many questions that could be asked. Everything is changing around us.
Are we still living in the age of mechanical reproduction, or are we living in the age of digital reproduction where everything is all digitally made, where everything is passing through the internet? Is computing replacing the old fashioned way of creating art?
Is it ultimately taking over the role of the pencil and paper?

Response to Walter Benjamin by Emmanuel, Alexina & Alex

2008-02-06T17:55:00.001-08:00

It has always been possible to reproduce art, whether it be paintings, writings, clay pots, etc. For Benjamin, the significant difference is that mechanical (or technological) tools, render the process easier and faster. Industrialisation made reproduction much more accessible trough the use of mechanical tools. This made human manipulation nearly obsolete. That represents what the new society wants, why mass reproduction of art exists. Nowadays, the Mona Lisa can be seen outside of the museum, in the comfort of our own house. The aura of each object is defined, for Benjamin, as the latter's significance within society, including its production date and producer. Reproduction of such objects brings about an equality among them. The value of each reproduction is the same, as is the experience of the audience. With the reproduction comes the word "authenticity". This authenticity comes from the creation of the object. The copy can be used in a different manner than the original, like a Mona Lisa on fire or under water. This gives new possibilities to the use the art work. The concept of aura is that which gives historical value to objects. For instance, one may desire to acquire an object, knowing that it has a value well above average. The removal of certain unique aspects to artworks destroys their religious aspects. Instead, art is appreciated for the art alone, not the aura. Cult value is now lost, for to be valuable religiously or spiritually, such objects would need to remain hidden. Today's society loathes to see objects remain unseen (we are too important for that). Religious, ritualistic, or spiritual objects have almost always fallen in the trap of exhibitory value. By using the medium of film, the performers seen on screen are not affected by the audience. This empowers the audience to become a critic without having had any contact with the actor(s), as opposed to a type of participant. They "take the position of the camera; its approach is that of testing." Instead of spawning a quality perceivable trough time and space like stage actors, Benjamin suggests that film actors must become the character to evoke similar success. Everybody who sees a movie or watches TV is somewhat of an expert on the matter, as they can, at any point, become movie extras, or be interviewed to give (personal or professional) opinions. Benjamin poetically compares a magician and doctor to a painter and cameraman. He establishes that the painter creates through his unique perception of the world, leaving a discrepancy between that and reality. On the other hand, the cameraman is able to pierce society's appearances and portray true aspects of life. We need to know that artistic reproduction changes our perception and our collective reaction toward art. The exhibition of art work like paintings organize and control our reception. If you see a reproduction of this art in different situation the reception is not the same. Technology such as the film camera allows humans to analyse more closely their lives. This is because reproduction makes aspects of the world readily available. The point of creating art is to fulfill a later satisfaction. However, mechanical reproduction "kills" the aura effect of the object in that it is no longer unique. "I can no longer think what I want to think. My thoughts have been replaced by moving images." Personal taste no longer drives us to buy a work of art, but the fact that we create needs for that which others may already own. The author writes that art has the ability to ignite a social consciousness. Innately, humans are not willing to reconsider their beliefs. Art is an attractive way to stimulate audiences.

Paul Valéry says : "Two different manifestations - the reproduction of works of art and the art of the film". Can we also say a third manifestation: a new technology, like internet?
Today, the internet is not a glorious reproduction haven. Ultimately, data will only have to be placed in one location for the entire world to access. Although reproduction has permitted the world to communicate (like with the use of the printing press or movies), a new, more efficient technique is available. Benjamin says that the reproduction of art is able to stimulate reconsideration of social realities. Today, situations like the YouTube site essentially "pushes" content to the viewer. This is an evolution of Benjamin's proposed state. Individuals do not even need to make an effort to view the art in question. Reproduction becomes difficult when the subject is a type of artistic installation. This art form is dependant on time and space. These factors, along with the audience, are part of the art. This makes video reproductions of the work ineffective regarding their ability to ignite thought in the audience. Previously, it was easy to copy works and distribute them to the masses. Currently, copyright and authorship laws hinder the ability of artists to reproduce works or re-encode them to promote a new message. Humans are habituated to observing reproduction. Seeing a Hollywood actor in a local shopping mall excites most people because of the aura surrounding the star. This is the difference between simulation and reality. Who's to know that an object is not a reproduction? If you do know that the piece is real, then it's a reproduction; if you don't know that it's real, it's a simulation. If one is aware that what they are experiencing is a representation, then that fact is reality. As for mechanical production, nowadays, authors abound, brought on by the low cost of computers, publishing, etc. Previously, author circles were very small, very exclusive. Writing in and of itself was exclusive in that very few people knew their letters. Then came the advent of the Guttenberg's printer, which opened those circles. Then came the typewriter, then the personal computer. Nowadays, the publishing industry thrives, but is very selective because of huge masses of would-be writers.

Can we consider Benjamin's text as still relevent today, as it concentrates on the reproduction using video? That is to say, with the proliferation of the internet and other mixed new media, which tend to organize art in a way that is easier to access rather than to revert to reproduction to broadcast the message, is Benjamin's point of view still accurate?

Related Links:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x4kWTjsr_nQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jdErqHlPw3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqa4LpdtOD8&feature=related

Baudrillard - Angela and Matthieu

2008-02-03T17:37:00.000-08:00

In The Precession of the Simulacra Baudrillard argues that the reality no longer exists. He explains that the relation between representations and reality has been fundamentally altered, producing a state in which signs and symbols no longer related to reality but rather interact to create the Simulacra. All referentials have been liquidated. It is hyperreal -more real than reality. Generated from models of the real without a reality, like a map without a territory. The simulacrum is characterized by folding and meshing of the binaries of true and false, real and imaginary. Representations within the simulacra are never exchanged for the real, they are exchanged for themselves ( eg. Atomic bombs, capital). Because representations within the simulacra no longer relate to reality laws of logic no longer hold.
“Deterrence machines” (eg. Disneyland, Watergate) reinforce the simulacrum by providing an “imaginary” instance, which suggests that everything else is real. Baurillard uses Marx’s analysis of commodity to explain the emergnece deterrence. Capital was the first deterrent because the use-value of commodity has become irrelevant.
The simulacrum results from successive mutations in the relation between representation and reality. In the first phase signs reflect reality, in the second phase signs mask reality, in the third phase they mask the absence of reality and finally in the simulacra signs no have no relation to reality.

Questions:
Baurillard says that we now live in the era of “Murder by simulation”. The 2006 movie “Death of a President” in a fictional documentary about the assignation of George W. Bush constructed from archival (real?) footage. How does this simulated death function in the simulacrum? Is it a deterrence machine? Does it reinforce the simulacrum or does it subvert it? How does it relate to Baurillard discussion of past assignation attempts of political figures?

( I know we have not cover Debord, but I would like to ask this anyways…)
Baurillard analysis chronologically follows Guy Debord’s works on the Society of the Spectacle. Baurillard says we no longer live in the spectacle and that the simulacrum is decidedly different. How do these two paradigms differ? Is the Society of the Spectale a precursor to the simulacrum?

The Precession of Simulacra - Kevin, Ben, Scott and Duy

2008-02-03T16:19:00.000-08:00

The precession of simulacra discusses about how the border of the real and unreal has gradually disappeared. Eventually, it is the simulacra, the imitation of the real world become what makes sense for us and what makes up our mentality about the world. Disneyland was an interesting example of how a commercial imaginary world persuades us that the man-made world out there is the real world. We went from having something original to a culture of counterfeiting, and finally reaching a point where the duplicate replaced the original. The example of a crazy person who faked being crazy was an example of simulation removing the impact of reality. Because craziness could be faked, some may believe all crazy people are taking it. One example is of a historical cave, which was reproduced in order to leave the original intact, but the two caves might as well have been the same because the impact of the simulated cave is the same.

War footage has in many cases replaced the reality of war; we believe war is what is represented in the images/videos in the media but the footage is typically sanitized to remove the reality of the violence (Americans banning footage of dead Iraqis and soldiers in Iraq). Once simulated, a situation goes through a process of interpretation which may involved removing (censoring) and/or adding (overemphasizing) certain elements. A faked illness could appear real, including all symptoms, however it is not real in that the source is not real. Baudrillard talked about how the simulacra starts as the imitation of the real and becomes the real itself. Someone said that words are dangerous because they make up what doesn’t exist. It is all our idea about the universe. By simplifying this world and its diverse body of elements through language as the simulacra, we lost contact with the nature of things and are attached to the abstract world of the mind. Language is a powerful yet dangerous tool: communication organizes the world, but it also takes away the divinity of the real things and leaves us with the abstract ideas about the world that only exists in our mind. Through a distinct environment like politics, such as the Watergate example, “some would say” that if a system is corrupted, it works because actions are taken to denunciate it! Hence, the simulacrum/existence of democracy is then reinforced, but deceitfully hides it defects.

If humankind was able to perceive things by their essence and not through their symptoms/effects. Would simulations replace reality? How would people base their understanding?

The Precession of Simulacra by Chris, Eric & Audrey

2008-02-03T12:22:00.000-08:00

In The Precession of Simulacra, Baudrillard discusses many important issues regarding the way people perceive the true reality of things to this present day, i.e. visuals and how they tactically affect our minds in order for us to live a "simulation of reality". The involvement and interaction between semiotics, symbols and society are present with us each and every day; they are all linked with one another. Media, as we know it today, is built up on distorted images and false interpretations. He believes that these signs have transformed society in a way that all reality is no longer a true reality but rather a simulation of "human experience".

The text begins with Baudrillard's analogy, a fable written by Jorge Luis Borges where cartographers draw an exact representation of the Empire, so detailed, that it covers the entirety of the Empire's 'real' territory. Baudrillard states that there is no longer a simulation of a "territory, a referential being, or a substance" but rather the real has no more origin or reality whose consistently being generated by "models". The map, in this case, is where people live, this simulacrum of reality, and it is the reality of the human world that is gradually fading because of the consequences of hyperreality.

Baudrillard talks about Disneyland as an example of hyperreality. He describes the Californian theme park as a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulacra. In his analysis of the Disneyland ideology, Baudrillard pretends that all the American values and those life styles are put forward in a transposition of a contradictory reality. Thus, this is used as a blanket to cover the simulation of the third order; the hyperreality. Disneyland is there to cover the fact that the world is Disneyland. In clear, it appears that we have to cover that the real doesn’t exist; we have the preserve the reality principle. It is no longer a question of true of false. It’s here that the copy replace the original.

The hyperreality is characterized by the way the conscience interact with the reality, in particular when the conscience loose its capacity to distinguish the reality from the imaginary and thus it drills with it without understanding it. The hyperreality tries to give life to the past and lost reality.

Baudrillard describes photography as a tool used to destroy the world; all the dimensions of the real world are canceled by the moment the subjet is froze on the pellicule. Like death, photography fixes the end of real and the object can rebirth with a new identity totally new and autonomous.

Hyperreality examples:
Television and Cinema in general due to the way they create an imaginary world and the addictive relation that the audiance engage in. Specially, reality shows and pornography ( more sexual than the real sex)

The Precession of Simulacra: Morgan, JS, Nick, Pete

2008-02-03T12:07:00.000-08:00

Baudrillard's "The Precession of Simulacra" sets up a critical discourse in which the Real no longer exists and has been replaced by a "generation by models of a real without origin or reality". The omnipresence and precession of simulacra, simulation (as contrasted with representation) with no grounding in the real, implies a world with unintuitive dynamics that Baudrillard goes on to explain using a handful of real-world examples: Watergate, religion, ethnology, the Vietnam War, the Cold War and the Space Race... He leverages these established dynamics to explore a number of concepts from (the "murderous") science to McLuhan's media itself, turning popular and traditional rational analysis on its head and imparting a sense of despair in the face of the incomprehensible, contradictory multiplicity 'of it all'.

First thing's first: what's simulacra and how can there be simulation with no underlying reality? Some of us elected to push down right into the discourse, another failed to pop it out exclaiming, "the whole thing is ridiculous". Understanding the basic concept certainly constituted the majority of our discussion. We found ourselves employing Baudrillard's Mobius strip metaphor, watching videos of morphing GL textures, and imagining trippy paintings; turtles all the way down. We concluded that while Baudrillard's poetical prose was confusing, the images and aesthetics he conjures ("...a whole panoply of gadgets magnetizes the crowd in directed flows...", or "...produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere") help grease the concepts. We remained still confused, however, about what he meant by "phases of the image", though his phases helped ground the notion of extra-reality in a more concrete conceptual framework. Watergate was lost on the Canadians, so the American had to explain how the Left uses Watergate to signify the inherent evil of the Right; but, coming from a Left ourselves, it was shocking to read how, given this framework of understanding, the Left sabotages itself even in its moments of righteous glory. The Watergate example helped us to comprehend the notion of artifical counterpoint to establish the artificial real; the anti to "rediscover a glimmer of existence and legitamacy" of the real (though, not really). From politics we moved to Capital, seeing how Baudrillard enables his theory with Marx's Fetishism of Commodities. While on the topic of context and inter-text relations, we found that the framework embeds into and extends McLuhan's ideas nicely and we were left asking, 'is media, the extension of the senses responsible for all of this?' And, in all honesty, we just couldn't make sense of the last section. The satellite and nuclear metaphors were mostly impenetrable, and the concept of a, for instance, war's end contained in and occurring before the event (the war) itself occurs was comprehendible but outlandish. Finally, still disoriented by the very idea of the precession of simulacra, we formulated the metaphor of a chaotic system, given real initial conditions and left to spiral and fractal into chaotic catharsis.

What are we to do with this "no longer [even] ambiguous" situation? Baudrillard is denying the possibility of the real, yet he is implicitly claiming a God's eye view. How can he, like a scientist, study (the ethnology of) our social world without some degree of corruption (surfacing of the real; an island onto which to crawl from the sea) in his perfectly chaotic, double-abstracted system? Is the loss of the real good or bad, how can we have an opinion, and on what ground is Baudrillard standing?

The Precession of Simulacra: Group Response from Natalia, Fernando, Martin

2008-02-03T09:32:00.000-08:00

In this essay, Baudrillard focuses his argument on the distinction and relationship between reality, simulation, and representation. He suggests that today’s society has been absorbed into a system of simulations that hide the fact that reality behind it is disintegrating. The main characteristic of simulation, according to Baudrillard is its ability to replicate the real, blurring the line between the two states. For example, a person who is simulating an illness has all the same symptoms as a truly ill patient; he is not “hiding” that he is not ill, he becomes ill himself. In simulation, everything becomes a sign, and achieves a state of much higher malleability, as it is no longer real. As such, it is much easier to shape and manipulate a simulated world, than a real one. In order to hide this fact, society creates things that emphasize distinction between reality and simulation, such as Disneyland, which exists only to hide the fact that its surroundings are just as false.

Our group discussion focused on drawing interesting examples from contemporary culture that further support the points made by Baudrillard. The list quickly became very long and varied, including such things as Las Vegas, Guitar Hero, Reality TV, and Starbucks. Starbucks, particularly, is an excellent example of Baudrillard’s ideas. Its design and marketing strategies are aimed at simulating neighborhood coffee shops, with their couches, warm light, cozy atmosphere and light music. Because of its popularity, the spread of Starbucks has pushed many smaller coffee shops out of business, thus eliminating the very model on which it was based. Another interesting point that arose during our discussion is the relationship between Baudrillard’s theory and post-modernism. Where does it fit into his ideas, and how can his critique of today’s society be applied to a critique of post-modernist art practices?

Question: Is Baudrillard suggesting that we need to escape the simulation, similarly to Plato’s model of the cave which had to be exited? If so, what can we do to re-establish our connection to reality?

Precession of simulacra -Alexis Ramy & Sean

2008-02-03T09:14:00.000-08:00

The text by Jean Beaudriad explorers simulation and lays out his ideas quite clearly from the very beginning on how simulation has evolved to become it's own reality; detached from an original. He goes on to site specific examples of different types of simulacrum, such as that of Disneyland VS the real world, and explorers it's manifestation. It later becomes evident that reality itself is only a simulacrum.

The author made some very interesting points, one of which was how we prove our past by destroying it. The struggle between cultures(past or present) versus science as a destructor, the discovery of those cultures caused by science therefor changes that reality while science is still trying to simulate it to others. This concept of culture VS science was very interesting. Other points of interest were reality TV and how fake they actually are compared to TV, that was even closer to reality, as well as his points on reality and simulation intertwining like space and time. Some arguments, however, we did not feel held their own when reading them. We are referring to the weapons of mass destruction argument. The author said that having them only proved that they(U.S.A.) would not use them. Yet they did and as he tries to explain this outcome, the argument itself just seems to fall short which brings into question the entire text. However his points on war being a simulation and it's outcome already decided is very interesting. Some of his arguments we found very disturbing, such as that of presidents only being copies of an original "great" president, a simulation that can only be complete through a simulated death, practically making them martyrs.

It seems that, according to the author, we can only prove our reality when we put it in contrast to a simulation and then effectively destroy that reality. With that idea of everything being a symbol of an authentic reality, how do we go about creating new, original, realities? Is the fact of living constant simulations of past realities so terrible? or does it just sound bad?

Baudrillard - Simulacres et simulation - réponse à -- La précession des simulacres -- par Jonathan, Julien et Jean

2008-02-03T08:13:00.000-08:00

À partir de la fable de Borges (le territoire précède la carte), puis de l'ethnologie ("sacrifice simulé de son objet afin de sauver son principe de réalité"), Disneyland ("cacher que le réel n'est plus le réel, et donc de sauver son principe de réalité"), Watergate ("effet d'imaginaire cachant qu'il n'y a plus de réalité au-delà qu'en deça des limites du périmètre artificiel"), la TV-vérité ("frisson du réel, esthétique de l'hyperréel, frisson d'exactitude vertigineuse et truquée, jouissance d'un excès de sens, de la simulation microscopique qui fait passer le réel dans l'hyperréel") ("Vous êtes le modèle, la majorité, l'information, l'événement, la parole"), le nucléaire ("la mise au point du système maximal de contrôle qui ait jamais existé"), et autres "événements" ou "objets" social, politique, scientifique ..... Baudrillard nous explique sa notion de "disparition du réel" d'où vient percuter, jaillir et substituer celle d' "hyper-réalité" (la carte précède le territoire): série de simulacres qui ne cessent de s'auto-engendrer. L'abstraction moderne qui est "la génération par les modèles d'un réel sans origine ni réalité" porte la valeur de toute chose à devenir auto-référentiels. Abandon du miroir (instance de mesure), de la métaphysique, "mort de la représentation comme puissance dialectique, médiation visible et intelligible du réel", donc mort du symbolique. La grande ouverture lyrique du simulacre est une liquidation de tous les référentiels. Baudrillard nous dit alors que par cette opération de dissuasion, qui est la substitution au réel des signes du réel (son double opératoire); le réel devient impossible. Et parce que "tout se métamorphose en son terme inverse pour se survivre dans sa forme expurgée" ( la preuve d'un existence par son contraire); l'illusion elle aussi n'est plus possible, car il est devenu impossible de faire la preuve du réel. Et alors comme "tout les événements sont à lire à revers; Baudrillard s'en donne coeur joie à utiliser ce principe dans la forme et la syntaxe même de son texte: "l'équilibre de la terreur, c'est la terreur de l'équilibre". Nous invite-t-il a le lire a revers comme il nous invite à lire le monde à revers?

Diriger sans diriger, sacrifier sans sacrifier, être marier et célibataire à la fois, avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre, .... regarder un feu de foyer à la TV, ...... ou de fausses bûches au propane, ..... faire semblant de mourir, et mourir pourtant, ... "vers une résorption de tous les enjeux sans une goutte de sang." C'est donc la liberté qui est devenu impossible. "Les énergies se congèlent à leur propre feu, elles se dissuadent elles-mêmes."

Le cadeau au réel du sacrifice: l'invitation de revenir à un système symbolique passe-t-il alors par l'acte du sacrifice?
"Le sacrifice considéré dans sa phase essentielle ne serait qu'un rejet de ce qui était approprié à une personne ou ou à un groupe. C'est en raison du fait que dans le cycle humain tout ce qui est rejeté est altéré d'une façon tout à fait troublante, que les choses sacrées interviennent au terme de l'opération: la victime affalée dans une flaque de sang, le doigt, l'oeil ou l'oreille arrachés ne diffèrent pas sensiblement des aliments vomis. [...] Le sacrifiant est libre - libre de se laisser aller lui-même à un tel dégorgement, libre, s'identifiant continuellement à la victime, de vomir son propre être, comme il a vomi un morceau de taureau, c'est-à-dire libre de se jeter tout à coup hors de soi comme un galle ou un aïssaouah." Georges Bataille, La mutilation sacrificielle et l'oreille coupé de Vincent Van Gogh, p.30

C'est ainsi que le pouvoir tente d'injecter partout du réel, du référentiel, du rationnel pour nous persuader de la réalité du social: monde entier recensé, analysé. Baudrillard nous invite à répondre à ce défi selon la règle symbolique. Mais la règle symbolique est-t-elle toujours possible si l'on suit la logique de cette théorie? Est-il toujours possible d'être des suppliciés que l'on brûlent et qui fond des signes sur leur bûcher?

Baudrillard Response: Charlotte, Charles-Antoine, Jos

2008-02-03T07:24:00.001-08:00

In this politically flavoured text, Baudrillard talks about three distinctive "things": the Real, the Imaginary and the Simulation. The real is true, the imaginary is false and the simulation is neither true nor false but can be interpreted as the reality for some. He explores the hazards of hyper reality and metaphysics and how they relate to our historical context. He consider simulations to be dangerous as they are systems very close to the real and can affect it and interact with it, but are sustained by artificial means, they are not real. As complex as it may sound, his concept of simulation either comes back to lies and deterring or to over-rationalization (over-quantization) and this is what he warns us about.

One of the most interesting points Baudrillard makes is about Disneyland. He says, “Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the ‘real’ country, all of ‘real’ America that is Disneyland”... “It is there to make us believe” that the rest of America is real. This is a scary point when thinking of many other aspects of American culture, and the information we are fed. One might ask (or “some people” ask) if all information (or extreme/controversial/far-fetched information) forced upon us in the media, as described in Outfoxed is fed to us merely as another attempt to convince us that everything around us must be real. Without the crazy things we see on the news, we may not believe the crazy things all around us. Except simultaneously, Disneyland is reality, only it is caged up and masked as a childhood fantasy in which we all unknowingly live. We found it interesting to have pointed out to us that after all sorts of previously natural activities and habits have diminished in American cultural practice, we have decided to “reinvent” such activities and habits, remarketing them and making them new. For example, we have now come up with yoga, organic foods, and natural food products; as discussed in class last week, these new labels may be becoming the reason for the participation and purchasing of such goods, instead of the actual reason behind their creation. Baudrillard also touches on the idea that American culture is fascinated with past and dying cultures, and archaic articles, taking pride in the fact that they(we) have been able to restore them, and put them into a glass case to slow their decomposition. Is this a chauvinistic act of pride, as if to say that because of our superiority, we are able to better preserve and restore a dying culture? He asks. Once a culture is dead, it is only then we are even interested, and once it has died, it seems to possess power over us. "In order for ethnology to live, its object must die; by dying, the object takes its revenge for being 'discovered' and with its death defies the science that wants to grasp it." Baudrillard explains American requires a vision of death because "We require a visible past, a visible continuum, a visible myth of origin, which reassures us about our end."

In this digital age of repetition, reproduction, appropriation, and of replication, how can we apply Baudrillard’s theory? Can we say: simulacra is reality, therefore the medium is the message? Is this affecting computation art in a good way?

Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulations; John, Chris and Tomer

2008-02-02T23:56:00.000-08:00

The main idea in this article is the comparison between "Simulacra" (simularities) and Simulations, the comparison between the real and the "hyper-real", and how these comparisons affect our society.

Baudrillard begins with a story about Borge's map, which , allegedly, covered the whole empire in much detail. Baudrillard states that such a feat would not be possible in this day.
Baudrillard explaines this allegory by comparing "real" and "hyper-real", whereas "hyper-real" is characterized by the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially in technologically advanced postmodern cultures like our own.
We live in an era full of advanced simulations.
Baudrillard believes that simulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary."
Baudrillard argues that there are four phases of the image: one that reflects a basic reality, one that masks or perverts a basic reality, one that masks the absence of a basic reality, and one that bears no relation to any reality.
Baudrillard discusses these phases, in relation to Religion, Disneyland and Watergate.

Out of all of Baudrillard's examples we found the aspect of "simulating god" to be most interesting:
Baudrigard asks about the posibility of god being simulated. In our opinion this brings up the question of a simulation that is not of god, per se, but creation, in regards to technological advancements achieved with cloning.
Cloning gives man the ability to "simulate" god, with all the philosophical problems that arise therof.
This in turn raises the question, if a "simulated" human being is as real as a naturally born one.
If not, is the cloned a simulation of the real?

"an image always kills the truth, for the image can never represent the truth in its entirety."

If we adhere to this quote from Baudrillard, then a simulation can never be the same as the real thing.
Is this truely the case? or can technological advancements blur the line between "real" and "hyper-real" to a point beyond recognition?
Can a simulation fully represent the truth? Is it possible for us to reach a state of technological advancement full of simulation, where one cannot tell truth from simulation?

Baudrillard- Sam, Manuela, Yin Yin, John

2008-02-01T17:22:00.000-08:00

Simulacra and Simulation are the topics discussed in Jean Baudrillards The Precession of Simulacra. The base of his theory is that humanity is in a constant battle with the relationship between symbols, simulations and reality.

“To simulate, Baudrillard says initially, is to pretend to have what one has not.”

Baudrillards notion is presented with extreme simulation with Borge’s story of the map, where that map simulated a monstrous kingdom in comparison to its true form. And when the Empire crumbled and lost all its land all they had left was the map, a false representation of what used to be. This theory is much more evident in present time; we are much more focused on labeling and symbols that we believe to have powers that can transform our lives, which is caused by our culture and cleverly branded reality created by the media. To “simulate” is to imitate or reproduce a want that is “real with symbols or “sings” that can fill that need. Human experiences our only simulations of what we believe to be true instead of living reality in its true form. For example, when a person goes to the cinema to watch a movie; for those two hours the person is in a fictional reality, a simulation of a world where anything is possible. Jumping into burning buildings, or traveling to a galaxy far, far away, or being that hot stud that always gets the gorgeous woman, or that woman that could seduce a man with a bat of an eye, these films are a type of illusion that represents an ideal reality, which fades away the second the person walks out of the theatre.

(this post is probably going to be edited)

Response to Baudrillard by Emmanuel, Alexina, Alex.

2008-01-30T18:23:00.000-08:00

In the excerpt from Baudrillard's book, the author attempts to decipher reality, simulation, simulacra and hyperrealism. The hyperreal is an idea of truth versus lies. Hyperreality is created in hyperspace, therefore cannot be reality. Simulation becomes a specific type of reality indistinguishable from true life. The human brain is pre-programmed to believe that simulation is reality. Simulation does not exist because it is based on the same aura as reality. God, in combination with religion, is but only a representation which dissimulates nothing. Therefore, it hides no secrets and no reality. Doctors, for example, can tell simulators apart from truly sick people, because the simulator may not always know all the symptoms to an illness. Christianity, for example, was based on the death of the pagan religions. The newly formed religion appropriated the symbols of past religions in an effort to entice previously pagan citizens to the "better" religion using familiar symbols, and therefore manifest their power. "Science never sacrifices itself, it is always murderous." Humans are visual beings, they must see to believe. Preserving historic artifacts and belongings restores visible order and reassures society. Science recreates, reproduces many artifacts and in other time will preserve the authentic artifacts for the meaning. For example, "Ramses doesn't signify anything for us, but the mummy represents a lot". If the science loses this artifact, it loses all conceived meanings about the latter. We can qualify them of a subterfuge, a kind of hallucination. But the reproduction of these artifacts is still a real, because it is real. Hyperreality characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from the imaginary, or the fantasy. Only when one believes one is honest with his/herself does reality exist. Grown adults often go to Disneyland with their children, but it is partly for themselves they decide to go, to relive in a childlike world once again. This imaginary land suggests that the imaginary is everywhere (within Disneyland). However, once you step out, you become once again an adult, with worries and bills to pay. But Disneyland is not the only place where fantasy feeds the childish imaginary of adults: all of California is dotted with numerous recycling institutes for those who cannot face their lives. To destroy history or undesirable information, one should not deny. Denying is but only dissimulation which affirms the reality. When the evidence is non-existant, it is easy to accept that nothing happened. He says the capital is immoral, without scruples, cruelty, incomprehensible ferocity and its fundamental immorality. The only interest of politics is its own interest. Situations that seem to possess two diverging possibilities actually only possess one affirming situation. The author demonstrates how situations such as assassinations (and attempts) of a position, such as the president, affirms the situation of power, or create it, if the former did not exist previously. Whether a hold-up is only a simulation or not, the outcome is always the same: fear. The fake hijackers will always have power over those in the plane. Since the Kennedys, on the other hand, politicians can only simulate mythic political substance with the murder-alibi. This way, they can prove they are "invincible" in the face of death and, consequently, of political opposition. Only his survival gives him the power to govern. Reality TV suggests that there is no longer a medium. How can a medium be if it is intangible, if we are all "there" (on our couches, but watching them simultaneously) when the action is executed? How do we know if an argument that was edited to make the arguer sound like the "bad guy" wasn't started by someone else? Where is the message? Baudrillard believes it is simple to pacify opponents. By obtaining the ability of revolting effectively, one instantly loses the desire to do so. Earth's civilization is constructed upon long running traditions and evolution. On the other hand, the moon (and space) is an area controlled by precise laws of science and technology. The environment is calculated exactly and understood extensively. The notion of security becomes transparent and unreal. The balance of terror is the terror of balance, meaning that there is no limit except that of which we impose on ourselves. Atomic war is an argument, just a pretext used by the government to obtain what they want. The result of any war is already established, as Baudrillard explains about Vietnam : "The game is already won".

Marx believes that after capitalism there must be a revolution. Proletarians of the world unite he exclaims. Baudrillard believes that discovering ultimate power only leads to a stasis. When one posseses power they do not wish to suffer those consequences. Baudriard's discourse covers the whole of society and its innate nature from its early begginings in religion up to its advance extra terrestrial forces. It is remarkable to notice how humans prefer to accept simulation as reality rather than discover the underlying truth. The superficial values of society become byproduct of our inability to be honest with ourselves. The OutFoxed documentary is a perfect example of how a mass public can incorporate simulation in a reality, generating a hyperreal world. The online world is such that there exists no repercussions or follow up. Each parcel of information is like an image, a free standing simulacrum. Most of the information found in this cyber-space is empty of meaning. In this absence of true content, there is a medium and a message yet they are only simulated. The punk group "Bad Religion" uses a lot of Baudrillard's points of view. They use music to express their opinions regarding the simulacra. Can we say that reality remains real even when parts of this reality are omitted?

MARX

2008-01-28T06:28:00.000-08:00

Karl Marx (Prusse 1818 - Londre 1883) est une des figures intellectuelles majeur de la modernité. Son analyse du capitalisme, des dynamiques organisant l’ensemble des rapports humains, offre une vision systématique d’une profondeur inoui. C’est autour du Capital, sa pièce maitresse, que Marx articula son system. Qu’il construira en étudiant l’analyse faite par David Ricardo, homme d’affaire et économiste anglais, du capitalisme naissant. À la différence de ses prédécesseurs, c’est une mécanique complexe qu’il décrie, une mécanique sur et par laquelle tout rapport humain émerge. Un utilisant le concept de fétichisme, Marx cherche à montrer comment les marchandise, pierres de touche du capitalisme, brouille les rapports sociaux. Il faut donc comprendre ici le fétichisme de la marchandise comme le procédé où la marchandise s’octroit le pouvoir et le sens des rapports entre les hommes.

Dans le cadre de l’analyse marxiste, la marchandise devient un médium. Ce médium est un message, dont le contenue est la nature et l’organisation des rapports sociaux. Marx décrit deux types de valeurs, la valeur d’usage et la valeur d’échange. La première est déterminée par l’utilité d’une marchandise pour un individu, la seconde est déterminé par les forces du marché. Par le fétichisme, l’homme devient subordonné aux marchandises et à leur valeur d’échange.

Marx's Fetichism of Commodities by Audrey, Chris and Éric

2008-01-27T19:56:00.000-08:00

Pour Marx, le caractère mythique des marchandises ne vient ni de sa valeur d'usage, ni des caractéristiques qui déterminent sa valeur mais bien de sa valeur sociale. Cette critique du système économique capitaliste repose sur le fait que le travail humain (l'Homme) a été totalement éliminé des paramètres de productions et a réduit celui-ci à un rôle de producteur et de consommateurs. Pour Marx, le travail est le prolongement de l'être homme et c'est de cette façon qu'il en dire un reconnaissance des autres hommes; le travailleur est intimement lié à celui qui bénéficie de son travail. Ainsi, la production, c'est la consommation du travail et l'étape finale, c'est l'acte de consommer. Comme dans la société capitaliste, il n'y a plus de rapport entre le producteur et le consommateur, la distribution des biens qui fixe la structure sociale. Ainsi, le travail du prolétaire n'a pas de sens en lui-même, il devient plutôt un rouage d'un immense mécanisme. Son travail ainsi acheter par l'argent, détruit la réalité des hommes car il élimine la médiation entre-eux. L'argent devient la médiation entre les hommes.

L'analyse critique du système économique capitaliste faite par Marx au 19è siècle semble encore aujourd'hui à propos. En effet, dans une société où la consommation à outrance semble être devenue une vertu, où les échanges commerciaux se transigent entre pays lointains, le travail de l'homme semble être devenu lui-même une marchandise que l'on peut exploiter sans vergogne. La société occidentale est à un point tel obnubilée par la "marchandisation" des rapport humain et de leurs productions, qu'elle en oublie le sens même de ses fondements; la justice sociale, précepte évoqué dans le contrat social de Rousseau à l'époque des Lumières. La grande nouveauté qu'apporte Marx à l'économie politique, c'est de replacer l'Homme au centre de celle-ci. Il critique le manque d'humanisme du système capitaliste car après tout, ce dernier se développe en exploitant les fruits du travail de l'homme tout en reniant les fondements même de son développement.

Alors que Marx prétend que le sens de l'Histoire est inévitable et qu'il aboutit toujours à l'étape de la critique, de la restructuration sociale, nous sommes en droit de nous demander quand et comment ces changements surviendront-ils compte tenu de la nouvelle économique toujours plus avide de production et de consommation et qui engage à chaque jour, une quantité de plus en plus grande de travail humain.

Response to "Fetishism of Commodities" -- by Angela and Matthieu

2008-01-27T16:37:00.000-08:00

The "Fetishism" of commodities" refers to the special relationship between commodities whereby said commodities are the "products of men's hands." The analogy is made with the religious world, where human brains are independent and "enter in a relationship" between themselves and the greater "human race". The root of this fetishism comes from the social aspect of the work behind them -- which is to say, the way in which these products become commodities gives rise to the "fetishism". All this is in the context of a capitalist society. Marx also argues that commodities have no inherent "use-value", but rather, just "value". The proof is that commodities are just that, commodities ("natural intercourse proves it"). Marx equates "use-value" with "riches" and are attributes of men, while "value" is the attribute of commodities. "Value" comes from the social process of exchange. Finally, Marx explores various production-systems like a one-man island, feudal society, and also posits a society of "free individuals" where the distribution of subsistence is determined by the labour-time of each producer.

When reading this text, it's hard not to spiral into Communism, considering its impact on our world, and for each of us, academically and socially. Having said that, we focussed on the idea of a commodity, and what it means in our world (21st century), versus Marx's world (19th century). In an increasingly connected world, where markets are no longer constrained geographically, it seems difficult to transpose Marx's ideas of use-value and value. Most of today's "commodities" are the result of increasingly accurate marketing and cheap labour. As such, the wants and needs (production and subsistence) seem to be so heavily influenced by outside forces (our brains... are they really independent beings endowed with life?) that it's difficult to make the leap. Further, some of the world's biggest and most influential communities are no longer defined regionally, but intellectually. Increasingly these communities may no longer behave in the way the Marx describes -- the organization of the modes of production are not constrained within one community, but intersect across many, and across space and time.

Marx asks of the "modern economy", "does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day whenever it treats of capital?" Our question is, "Does the essence of capital entirely lie in this superstition, i.e., its Fetish character? Can that be all there is?"

Commodities and Marx: Response by Natalia, Fernando, Martin

2008-01-27T10:44:00.000-08:00

In “The Fetishism of Commodities”, Carl Marx explains the Capitalist model of turning products into commodities, and its implication on the social aspects of society. He argues that a product is turned into a commodity as soon as it is alienated from its producer, thus perverting the relationship between objects, their makers, and their users. Commodification, according to Marx, is characteristic to the Capitalist society because the means of production, such as large factories, always create a rift between the product and its maker. Marx discusses the difference between use-value and exchange-value or products, which is the difference between evaluating something based on its use, or based on its value in the market. While the use-value of an object is a natural consequence of its properties (a chair is useful because you can use it for sitting), its exchange-value is not inherent to the object and is a result of society in which it’s defined (a Bauhaus chair is no more useful than an Ikea one). The separation of the use-value from the exchange-value naturally flows out of the separation between the producer and the product, to the point where they appear to be entirely separated. Commodity fetishism, according to Marx, is when a consumer covets a product based on its exchange-value, and not on its use-value. As a result, the process of production of commodities takes control over their producers, defining what they make and how they make it. Marx argues that this system must be altered in order to give the power back to the producers. He believes that the alienated relationship between the maker and the product must be healed, but on a social level, where makers are compensated based on their labour, and the products are defined through their use-value, thus stopping the process of commodification.

One can immediately see the relevance of Marx’s model in today’s North American consumer society which has embraced the commodity in its every aspect. Globalization and outsourcing can be said to be the ultimate expressions of Marx’s alienation between the producer and the product, as most commodities are made in Asia by people who will never be able to afford them. Some things are made simultaneously in different places: a part is brought from one country to another, assembled in the third, packaged elsewhere, and sold in the United States. Following Marx’s line of thought, we can say that the exchange-value and the use-value have experienced a similarly tremendous rift as a result. Branding and marketing are aimed at heightening the exchange-value of products, creating luxury goods that serve no particular purpose and are extremely cheap to make. People buy them for the “image” that they carry, not for their usefulness. Whether it would be possible to turn away from this model and heal the rift created by globalization is a difficult question, considering that a number of world economies have been shaped by commodification in the capitalist West.

Question: Where does the trend of marketing fair-trade local goods, ethical working conditions, and connecting the workers with the consumers, fit into Marx’s model of commodities? Is it a gradual movement away from commodity fetishism, or merely another “trend” that separates the use- and exchange- value of goods?

The Fetishism of Commodities by Karl Marx - Morgan, Peter, JS and Nicolas

2008-01-27T08:18:00.000-08:00

In the Fetishism of Commodities, Marx analyses the attribution of value to the objects created in a society based on capitalist production. He says that when objects become commodities, the notion of intrinsic value is warped, since a new social value is bestowed to the item. In a capitalist society, factors of value, like the quantity of human labour, the quality of it or the cost of the materials used do not determine anymore the utility value of the commodity. Instead, a value is assigned extended from the social relations of the men who produce the commodities, which then are imbedded in the commodities themselves. This social construct of value is, according to Marx, deeply rooted in Capitalism and it creates a Fetishism of commodities that is inherent to the exchange process of the production. Throughout the text, he also explores the notions of value in different types of production systems, like Feudalism, an individual self-sustaining system (Robinson Crusoe's case) and he proposes another system (Communism) where the distribution of commodities has a direct proportion with the labour time employs in its making.

Discussing about what a commodity is we agreed upon that it is an object of social value that is non-dependent from its labour cost and its physical properties. This assigned value is unmistakably given by the hegemonic view in society and it is diffused and enlarged by the media. In our capitalist world, the designation of social values onto commodities is done by the upper classes, which control and determine, both, media and production. A perfect example of this value distortion can be seen with the iPod phenomenon. The real or exchange value of the gadget could be determined by the number of microchips and electronic components involved plus the man labour done in the process. The use value, dictated by social parameters, is far greater since it stratifies, classifies and elevates those who acquire it. This way, people don't just buy commodities for their utility; they do it for what they stand for. In the capitalist system, this misdistribution of value feeds off the markets and the economy in a never-ending loop. This process occurs with produced objects, but what about non-material things, like ideas and concepts? Could intellectual property be considered as a commodity? After all, it is exchangeable, it is the product of man-labour and it has social assigned values (i.e. Star Wars IP).

Question: If intellectual property is considered to be a commodity, does it require a capitalist society for its existence and value attribution?

Ramy, Sean and Alexis on Marx

2008-01-27T07:39:00.000-08:00

In this text, Marc describes the mechanism of commodity value creation in the social sphere. He describes how man-hours can be counted as a direct value to
man-made commodities. Therefore the exchange-value system is inherent to the creation of man-made commodities.
Labor versus the social property of labor contribute to the inflation of value, as the social caracteristics of labor have nothing to do with the value. It is rather
capitalism that creates false value through the need of society for a type or another of labor, here the offer and the demand. Marx talks of money as the materialization
of exchange-value. But money hides and camouflages the facor of necessity of living and the value of work. So where do we draw the line between a commodity
and a product of labor? Something we do need and something we don't. In the example of the family, given by Marx, all the labor is converted directly into product
of labor because there is no one else to exchange their labor for commodities. This is the allegory of the best system of social production. It is an example of man
controlling his economy rather than being controlled by it, as capitalism knows so well.

Other major concepts if the text are that religion is bad. As he describes, religion is the reflex of the people. Reflex? What does that mean? When you brun your arm,
the nervous system of reflexes is so fast that this message does not even have time to get to the brain. Extreme speed if the key. What happens to a people when
they don't know where they come from? Who put them there? They immediately create come higher beings to explain their presence. This relates to the concept of
abstraction, once again. Taking things as they are, direct exchange-value from labor for example rather than abstractgion value by using money.

So where does that put modern day money in the game? Even worse, where does that put credit? This is a fourth level of value abstraction. And the further we abstract,
the more capitalist and uncontrollable the economy becomes. (value of labor, value of commodities, value of money, value of credit)

And on that note :

"The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof" - Karl Marx. John, Chris and Tomer

2008-01-26T21:58:00.000-08:00

The main idea in this reading is Karl Marx trying to analyze how comodities get their value.
there is a difference between the value of a comodity as percieved by man, to the actual cost and time of labour needed to make that comodity.
In trying to explain where that difference comes from, Marx turns to the realm of Religion: people throughout history have explained rational indiscrepencies through acts of god, and Marx compares this void to the rational voids filled by religion.
He explains the "hidden" attributes that a product recieves, that give it it's "worth", as comodity fetishism.
A "fetish" is "an object believed to have magical powers...", though in this case it is not so much "magical" as it is "not easily explained", or rather "not obvious".
Marx also talks about the commerce of commodities:
When a product is produced, by a group of individuals, it recieves a marketable value.
This implies that it actually has two uses. One is the basic use for which it was created,(furniture, books, clothing) and the other use is for the producer to "exchange" this product for something else that he needs (as currency).
Therefore when we look at "value", a product must not only be usefull, but be usefull to others.
Marx also has a bit of critisism aimed at the existing capitalist system, romanticizing the ideal of every individual creating what he needs, and thus the modes of production will not belong to the ruling class.
This is seen in his Robinson Cruso's example and the comparison to Medieval economy.

In our opinion, when viewing Karl Marx's work, one cannot ignore the man behind the writing, and disregard his other works, namely the "Communist Manifesto".
Karl Marx did invent the idea of Communism, and though this work is not radical in nature, one can still read the undertone that lies between the lines.
Almost all of the facets of communism are in this work, though they appear more discreatly then his full-blown books about Communism.
Marx critisizes the capitalist lifestyle of purchasing products we don't necassaraly need. He critisezes the entire idea of commerce, stating that the work that is done regarding the commerce of commodities is thus "wasted" labour that could be used for actual production.
Communism is secular in it's nature, and Marx critisizes religion in this work too.
Marx states that "christiany is most fitting for a society that treats their products as commodities and values."
The main idea of Communism is restoring the "means of production" to the people, so it is not controled by a ruling class.
In this work Marx states that we live in a society where the process of production has mastery over man, not the other way around.

Our question from this reading is:
Karl Marx's analysis of the capitalist market and about the "fetishism" of commodities, is in our time more prevalent then ever.
While Communism has been proven ineffective and obsolete by modern history, does that necassirily mean that all of Mark's anti capitalist market ideas have no merit? Or can we gain to benifit from some of his concepts when viewing and criticing our consumer mentality today?

Response to Marx: Manuella, Sam, John, Yinyin

2008-01-26T19:26:00.000-08:00

Marx defines several terms such as 'product', 'commodity', and so on. He values human labor in the sense that it is to create things necessary to our development or survivability or that of people we know. On the other hand, products that are made not for ourselves, or rather for people that are unknown to us - such as mass produced items -, are seen negatively by Marx. These products, named commodities, have the ability to alienate the creator/worker/builder. Marx also mentions the use-value of an object versus its exchange-value. He states that when a person looks only into the exchange-value (monetary value) of an object, it can lead to what he refers to as 'fetishism', a sort of attraction and strong desire to the object in question.

In today's world, it seems that we attach a lot of value to an object based on its exchange-value, even though we do not always realize this fact. Marx' argument is much like that of Kant, who argued in his Critique of Judgment that beauty in itself does not belong to an object, but is rather our reponse to the said object. If we exchange the words "beauty" and "value", then we obtain Marx' argument. (from http://everything2.com/?node=commodity+fetishism http://everything2.com/?node_id=1365102) It sounds like a very negative point of view, which suggests that the whole existence of commodity fetishism is based on the illusion of the importance of the monetary system. This whole argument bases our lives around commodities, especially since we are so strongly anchored into a capitalist system. We become less preoccupied with the social bonds present in a society because we are in a race to acquire diverse commodities.

Considering that we are so preoccupied with the exchange-value of objects today, would Marx' theory apply to art? In this sense, are people more interested in the commercial value of art than its content or originality?

Marx response

2008-01-26T18:58:00.000-08:00

Scott, Kevin, Khuong Duy Pham, Ben Sauv

Marx introduced his theory by giving the example of a family. In a family, goods are distributed according to the needs of each person in the household. Goods produced become common goods in the household, and the properties of a product are seen as the amount of labour put into it and it’s usefulness for others. According to Marx, individuals have their own specific skills but for a product to be valuable it must be exchanged; a lack of exchange makes a product less valuable and that society is based on these exchanges. The concept of “labour-time” is defined as the amount of work that went into producing a product. This decides how much value an object has. Fluctuations in value should only be associated with its labour-time. Produce should be distributed based on the amount of labour-time that put into it.

Discussion: Karl Marx based his idea on a system that works well on a small scale (in a home, in a small village) but it might be difficult to implement on a large scale successfully (an entire country). Labour-time may not be a fair concept, as some workers could be lazy since they will be paid the same amount no matter how hard they work; it does not encourage individual achievement. Marxism would lead to very little choice and variety in products, as only their usefulness and labour-time would be considered. Due to the controlled environment of Marxism, society could become homogenized.

Question: In Marx’s ideal society, how would television, without the element of marketing or commercials, differ from television in a capitalist society?

Marx response: Charles-Antoine, Charlotte, Jos

2008-01-26T16:35:00.000-08:00

Karl Marx is describing his opinion that assigning value to objects is a bit ridiculous, unnatural (will not be seen in nature), and has a dangerous effect on people in the way that labour is what defines human quality. Marx expresses his disappointment in the fact that our society assigns value on people’s work based on the value of the commodity their labour will produce. The text expresses a fear of the potentially harmful effects of money concealing the social character of private labour; it was by analysing something's trade value that determined its value. Marx draws the parallel that something that is highly in demand should cause it to have more value.

Assigning value to objects appears in nature, even today. Although it does not appear in the form of diamonds or pearls, animals hide, hoard, and protect objects all of their lives: items which provide nourishment: in other words, food. And this includes all types of food, animals rarely eat one seed or bug or animal their entire lives; they make a choice, whether it be consciously or unconsciously. Gold may be valued more than iron only because of its anti-oxidizing properties, which attributes to its beauty. Marx mentioned that unnecessary commodities are just that and are produced only through a state of commodity ‘Fetishism’. He suggests that people should have a functional and practical use in society in order to have something to trade for, that they cannot produce themselves. So what does he consider being useful and useless? Without the production of unnecessary commodities such as duplicates (branding), Marx forgets or simply fails to mention, that there would be no choice, and thus no freedom of.
It may be agreed, to a certain extent, that society values a person’s labour based on the end-result ‘commodity’. However, such a concept is not always so ridiculous as Marx suggests. A commodity may be more than a material product, i.e. a skill, like the skill to perform surgery. How does the work of a surgeon differ from that of a custodian? According to this text, it does not. The work is both required in society: to heal and repair the unwell and to maintain a clean and thus healthy environment. Agreed. But should not years of study, training and promotions to larger responsibilities be rewarded? It is naïve to assume that all surgeons endure such intensive and extensive training out of the goodness of their hearts alone. If such work, including study and training, is valued equally and is then paid equally to all others, it is not so far-fetched to say that the world will lose a lot of surgeons. Removing the praise that we give as a society to the hard work and excellent skill of a surgeon and other highly regarded professions, removes the motivation in entering this profession as well. Is it wrong for society to reward those who choose hard labour, physically or mentally, depending on the ‘commodity’, or service, that results? Not at all: like a pat on the back after a hard day. The only danger here is that we are often unable to make such rankings fairly: who is to say that one person works harder than another? It is up to society to decide, and society does not always know what is best.

Question: Could we say that the principle of open-source software adheres to Marx's idea which stipulates that duplicates (branding) are unnecessary? Is it realistic to think of open-source for an analog world?

Response to Marx: Alex, Alexina, Emmanuel

2008-01-23T17:42:00.000-08:00

In the text, Karl Marx illustrates that the capitalist society considers commodities as items with the ability to satisfy their needs. It is this process that attributes a use value to the objects. When humans are employed, they are remunerated with a commodity - money. Although they never come in direct contact with each other, all humans in this capitalist society work together. This is because their individual work efforts are exchanged in the form of commodities without the parties being directly involved. The employee labour-time does not affect the exchange-value of their products, and neither do their physical properties and material relations. Their exchange value is affected by their perceived usefulness for consumers. It is then that the monetary value of the product inflates.

Marx chooses to eliminate factors such as competition within his analysis because his solution promotes equality among the needs of the members of society. It is possible to relate Marx's theory to an ant community. Classes are created where everyone is grouped into different strata with a specific duty/job to accomplish for the benefit of the colony. Another point we discussed was the process of supply and demand. Presently, the United States are going through a mortgage crisis. Lack of demand, created by unmanageable debt, has brought the prices of homes to a new high. As well, the internet has become a massive community where individuals often provide their time for free. Collectively, they ask questions and find answers efficiently. Each user is part of a niche that has its own expertise. The open source community is one of the most prominent examples where everyone contributes to its expansion. They exchange time as a commodity and benefit from the outcome of the project. Marx theorises that money is the curtain hiding the process of creation of the item and the destruction of competition by multinational corporations. This may be one of the reasons for outsourcing and unfair labour.

Considering the current north-american situation, where people believe that constantly acquiring new posession will satisfy their constantly growing needs, is the proposed model well-structured to the point of solving capitalist issues?

Medium is the message. / "Encoding & Decoding*." (Eric, Chris and Audrey)

2008-01-20T19:16:00.000-08:00

In McLuhan’s study on media communication, he proposes the idea that the medium is the message, therefore the message does not transmit as much information than the medium itself… everything depends and is referring to the medium. The author underlines the important role of media, were as the reception and the perception of the message could be completely changed by the medium and the respond modified not by the content (message) but certainly but the medium, because the content of a medium is always another medium. In the second reading, "Encoding/Decoding", the author Stuart Hall explains there are mixed messages. You have the medium and the message where the meaning of the message, to Hall, resides between the "producer" and the "reader". Even though the "encoding" part is done by the producer (he encodes it into a way that he himself perceives something), then the reader "decodes" the author's message into a different message. The communication process is built on a structure (production, distribution, consumption, distribution and reproduction) that describe the progression of the message into society based on cultural dominant signs that have to lay on a certain degree of reciprocity when encoded. When the decoder reads the message the in the way the producer intended people to, then the producer's been successful in transmitting the message. If the decoder doesn't however, if there is a "misunderstanding", then Hall states that it results from a "lack of equivalence" between the producer and the decoder.

According to McLuhan the media can change the whole communication process of the message, this idea is completely true but disagree on a point, were as we think the message is more important than the medium itself, the statement is the main source of reflection, not the medium… yes of course it has a strong influence on the message but it is not the essence of it all. One could say that media distort the essence of the message but I would say that, knowing what we know now about the communication world, transmitters must be, and most certainly are aware of that and they will play on the way the receptor will perceive the message to get the right perception. It is a complete industry of money making, therefore we as decoder stand in a place were we do not have any power on the encoding… we are in the process and as a mass like Hall says, live in universal unconsciousness and a world of universal symbols.

Question :

Response to McLuhan and Hall by Group 6 (Kevin, Duy, Ben, Scott)

2008-01-20T17:20:00.000-08:00

Summary:

The typical definition is that medium delivers or communicates the message. Marshall McLuhan argues that the medium itself is the message and this message is the scale of change or pace or pattern that that medium introduces to the human affairs. The characteristic of all media is that the content of any medium is always another medium. In the second reading, Stewart Hall said that encoding and decoding are related to each other, and the two are determinate moments with the communicative process as a whole. His argument is that the sender takes the receiver into account when he encodes the message. Signs are employed in encoding, and could be decoded in many different ways. Analysis of the message in the decoding process makes use of denotation and connotation, as well as dominant, professional, negotiated, or oppositional codes.

Discussion:

According to Marshall McLuhan's notion that the content of any medium is always another medium, it is interesting that our actual process of thought itself is a medium, probably the absolute and eventual one. McLuhan also talks about the electric media which had a lot in common with the internet even though he wrote this essay in 1964. Marshall McLuhan is of the opinion that only the serious artist is capable of 'encountering technology with impunity'�; however, he is mistaken, as serious artists are not the only experts aware of the changes in sense perception. Part of development of technology involves understanding these changes. Study of the effects on the population also involves this understanding. Many professions deal with these. The combination of denotation and connotation creates a better understanding of the message being conveyed. Denotation works on the basics of the message and connotation is mainly to enrich and define more clearly the essence of an idea. Stuart Hall's mention of the near-universal signs which are interpreted similarly by many people in a similar way could be compared to Carl Jung's idea of the universal unconsciousness and universal symbols; the virtual unconscious interpretations of symbols may be due to preprogrammed rules.

Question:

How does sensory input play a role in interpreting signs / symbols?

Response to the McLuhan and Hall readings -- by Angela and Matthieu

2008-01-20T17:02:00.001-08:00

In the McLuhan reading, what is examined is not the content of any given message, but the form of the content -- the medium. He uses the electric light as an example of a medium that has no content, or no message. He argues that the electric light is a "message of electric power in industry". He also argues that media determine the scale of the patterns of human interactions, referring to their properties of time and space. Finally, he also posits that the effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions and concepts, but patterns of perception. Media is an extension of our human senses, which explains why artists, highly-tuned to sense perception, are well-conditioned to issues of technology. He uses the example of De Toqueville as having understood the effect of print and typography. In Hall's "Encoding/Decoding", the author describes communication as a complex structure in dominance, a process consisting of linked but distinctive moments -- production, circulation, distribution, consumption, and consequently reproduction, analogous to Marxist commodity production. This process has a set of social production relations which he refers to as media apparatuses. In the translation of stages in the process, there exists misunderstanding as a result of asymmetry in the encoding and decoding moments. Finally, he talks about 'naturalized codes' that demonstrate the degree of habituation when encoding and decoding are equivalent.

In our discussion, we agreed that the McLuhan excerpt discusses the medium and how technology shapes society. Hall is more concerned with content and meaning, and how a message flows through a process. This process affects the content, as the sometimes asymmetrical encoding and decoding processes exemplify. We discussed the following quote from the McLuhan reading: "For a society configured by reliance on a few commodities accepts them as a social bond quite as much as the metropolis does the press. Cotton and oil, like radio and TV, become "fixed charges" on the entire psychic life of the community." We found this interesting when approaching Hall's writings, because we found Hall's argument ("no intelligible discourse without the operation of a code" and "lack of equivalence" in the communication process of production/consumption") to be more revelatory of the way media operate. We found "entire psychic life of a community" to be too broad. It makes no mention of "dominant/negotiated/oppositional meanings and codes", which in our view is a better approach to understanding the "social bond" McLuhan alludes to, since media varies so much today. "Charges" these media may be, but in reality (at least in our opinion) they are not necessarily fixed because of the encoding/decoding, as opposed to commodities like oil and cotton. Finally, we discovered an interesting difference between the two readings: the first (McLuhan) was published in 1964, while Hall's was published in 2000. Could this perhaps shed light on why McLuhan's ideas are less developed in relation to the encoding/decoding process? We think so.

We arrived at the following question. Between the analyses of McLuhan and Hall, which one carries a greater impact/effect/consequence for our societies? In other words, should we give agency to the technological aspect (McLuhan, the medium is the message) or to the process of production/consumption and variable encoding/decoding (Hall)? Perhaps both approaches have some merit?

dude, the medium is the message, far out - Alexis, Ramy, Sean

2008-01-20T14:50:00.000-08:00

In the first reading, the media is the message, Marchall McLuhan attempts to distinguish the communicative properties of message and medium. He discovers that that the content of any medium is just another medium.This portrays meaning as greatly attributed to the medium itself, instead of the message. As a result, our values become a of function of the mediums we use to communicate and not much else.

The reading from Stewart Hall's Encoding Decoding explores the processes of meaning through mediums. Hall explains the process a message being distributed throughout a network and how the message must be encoded/decoded between nodes to be communicated effectively.

Our group was strongly in disagreement with the first text. His arguments were essentially founded on the basis he was trying to establish. "For the message of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs." So in essence, the meaning of technology is in the measurable change to human behavior. However, one can argue that technology has the ability to create new behaviors and not just augment pre existing ones. Although the Internet made it possible to communicate quickly (communication the operand that became more efficient with technology), does this in itself not initiate a change in values? Would this change of values not effectively create new behavior patterns that one could argue were not derivative of pre-existing ones? As hard an argument to maintain, (the difference between pre-existing behaviors vs new ones) its important to address such issues when talking about them at all. For not addressing this issue McLuhan created a lot of confusion.

The second text talks about the interpretation of meaningful discourse and defends his point that it is not an individual event. We find this idea full of holes as he then tries to present different code sets that a person may use when they are "reading" a message. The text used the televisual process as an example when we believe he couldn't have picked a worse example to transmit his argument. His ideal of a perfectly transparent communication can not be achieved and we find that he is simply attempting to explain why by referring to different codes an individual may be working under instead of understanding the process of individual interpretation. He goes on even to say that "there will always be private, individual, variant readings". Constantly throughout the text the author seems to undo his own argument. The Systematically distorted communication the author mentions is inherently part of interpretation and will always be present just as when he talks about language not having a "degree zero" and that it's representation of reality will always be skewed to a degree. He hints at the structure of a system when he says that reality exists outside language, but it is constantly mediated by and through language

What Is A Medium: JS, Morgan, Nicolas, Peter

2008-01-20T12:31:00.000-08:00

The Medium is the Message, by Marshall McLuhan, addresses issues such as the extension of senses by technology and sensory perceptions bias (ex.: narcissism in relation with media). He also talks about linearity an continuity in literature versus new media. Ultimately, the text serves to demonstrate that the properties of media themselves are more important than the content that they disseminate. The second reading, Encoding/Decoding, by Stewart Hall, looks at the dynamics of broadcast television; how broadcasters cannot ensure uniform interpretation (decoding), so encode content, defining only a parameter-space in which the audience can decode. The distinction between the terms ‘denotation’ and ‘connotation’ is reduced to its analytic aspect, and the idea of transformable connotations is applied to the different positions that codes can be operated from. These positions of interpretation can be taken during decoding ‘moments’ and classified into three different modes: ‘domination’, ‘negotiation’ and ‘opposition’.

As both texts relate to ‘the medium’, it is correct to point out that the second text (Encoding/Decoding) exists inside McLuhan’s idea that the ‘medium is the message’, the common agreement being that the content is unimportant in the analysis of media. Hall specifically address the structure of the processes used to circulate content (the medium), and how communication is assured by particular ‘moments’, which all together create a medium. In Hall's context, the content does not matter as much as the medium itself, and can shift in meaning depending on the point of view (code) adopted. Viewpoints (codes), of a limited number, have been defined in literature or by hegemonic structures, but from a private look at media, when everything can be criticized, analyzed and interpreted without the need of a common agreement, the truth is variable. However, aside from Hall's implicit agreement with McLuhan's central argument, we were unable to draw any parallels between the texts. We concluded that "Encoding/Decoding" was like a microscope taken to "The Medium is the Message", explicating the media-dynamics that McLuhan glosses over.

On page 15, McLuhan writes, "'Rational,' of course, has for the West long meant 'uniform and continuous and sequential.' In other words, we have confused reason with literacy, and rationalism with a single technology." Does this imply that new-media is bringing the West closer to a "total inclusive field of resonance"?
"In [Western] philosophy, rationality and reason are the key methods used to analyse the data gathered through systematically gathered observations. In economics, sociology, and political science, a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality)
Will the 'philosophical' definition of "rational" phase out to be replaced by its (social sciences [and also artificial intelligence]) alternative, paving the way for the acceptance of (post-modern) modes of self-contradictory thought?

Group Response to “The Medium Is the Message” and “Encoding/Decoding” (Natalia, Martin, Fernando, Mike)

2008-01-20T11:17:00.000-08:00

McLuhan’s goal in “The Medium Is the Message” is to redirect the focus of analysis from content towards the medium. He suggests that social and personal consequences of any new technology can only be understood by looking at the media that is created, whereas viewing the content does not pay adequate attention to the significant changes that are brought about as a result. McLuhan only focuses on content as intertwined with the medium, but does not go into the details of how the resulting message is coded to be understood by the audience. Stuart Hall, on the other hand, in his essay “Encoding/Decoding”, pays great attention to the process through which events become messages that are then encoded and decoded by the audience. He emphasizes that meanings are not naturally constructed, but are a result of a social order in which they are created and understood.

Looking at McLuhan’s argument through the framework of Stuart Hall, we can see how the process of encoding/decoding is also present in the ways that McLuhan sees the medium. While he does not approach his argument from a semiotic perspective, it is interesting to explore how Hall’s concepts can be applied to the formation of codes that are created by the “medium” as opposed to the content, which is Hall’s main focus in the article.

If, according to McLuhan, new media in itself can change society, then how is the process of encoding/decoding (which, in Hall’s view, is linked to the social order in which it takes place), altered by these changes, and how can the symmetry between “encoder – producer” and “decoder – receiver” be maintained if the medium keeps changing at such a rapid pace?

"The Medium is the Message", "Encoding/Decoding" Chris, John and Tomer

2008-01-19T21:03:00.000-08:00

The main idea of "The Medium is the Message" is a reminder to the reader, that although we are a culture accustumed to dividing all things, the medium and the message are not to be divided for they are interchangebe. It is not a question of "cause and effect", but more the precense of duality between them, and Mc Luhan asks that we percieve the message and the media through which it is delivered as a complete whole.
Stuart Hall's "Encoding/Decoding" is about the processe that goes from the moment an idea is conceptualized, through the medium of distributing said idea, to the moment that idea is recieved by the public and interpreted. Hall describes this process as a series of codes. Coding the idea to a medium is "encoding", and the deciphering of that idea by the viewer is "decoding"

What we learn from the excerpt "The Medium is the Message", is that the “content” of any medium is always another medium, while the message of any medium is usually affected and altered by humans with regard to scale, pace, or pattern.
It is ignorent to ignore the medium and only view the underlying "message", because the medium is not only integral for the true understanding of the message of the whole, it sometimes affects the message and changes the way it is percieved, outright. Disregard the medium and you may lose sight of the true message.
Problematic in this view, in our opinion, is that if you always look the medium as part of the message you risk losing the message, as intended by the creater. If you are biased to a certain form of media (books, internet, cinema), you risk missing the underlying message when you engage a medium which you are not that familiar with or comfortable around. In our opinion sometimes the message is the message and the medium is just an excuse for conveying that message. If the message is truthfull it shoudn't matter if it is conveyed through a youtube video or a stone tablet.
Hall has a different set of views in "Encoding/Decoding". Although not oposing the ideas brought forward by Mc Luhan, Hall puts less of an emphesise on the medium itself and more on the underlying message. His article is about coding the message in a way that will be understood (decoded), in the desired way by the viewer.
Hall talks about the fact that the same symbol can mean different things to different people, depending on culture, upbringing or even the level of deepness you are looking for in the symbol. As in his example of the "sweater" which can mean a warm garmet or, the coming of winter.

In today’s culture where we use any medium , mostly to gain control of the message at all cost, it is at times confusing to know how to interpret certain things.
Our question from these two articles is:
In a world of ever evolving mediums and technologies, signs and symbols, do we not risk losing the underlying message entirely, as the medium acquires more and more subsatnce over the message?

Marshall Mc Luhan "The Medium is the Message"and Stuart Hall "Encode/Decode" - Charlotte, Jos, Charles-Antoine

2008-01-19T13:49:00.000-08:00

In « The Medium is the Message », an excerpt from Understanding Media, Marshall Mc Luhan emphasizes on the importance of the medium in understanding its content.
Content, without any reference to it's medium is an [idea] that can be interpreted on many levels, as explained by Stuart Hall. Understanding the nature and origin of a medium aids in decoding [the dominant code]. In other words, the message is the medium because a message cannot be 'perfectly transparent' (in relation to the dominant hegemonic point of view) if we don't consider the medium in the analysis of the discourse.

Media is the vehicle by which we express our thoughts, or the initial « content ». Because Mc Luhan emphasizes the importance of the medium as being the message it could then be said that he's in agreement with Hall on the level of « subjective capacity ». Having subjective capacity enables people to decode messages perhaps more clearly; in order to do so, one must consider this in formulating any assumptions.
It could also be argued that someone without such subjective capacities might not be able to decode messages in the way they were intended, therefore such individuals could then fall in to the category , as described in Mc Luhan's article (the criminal). Without subjective capacity, one may be in danger of being assimilated by dominant, hegemonic manpulation.

Is it possible for technology to blur the line between medium and content? If so, to what extent?

The Medium is the Message - Encoding/Decoding - Yinyin, Samantha, Manuela, John

2008-01-18T18:21:00.000-08:00

In The Medium is the Message, the idea of a medium combined with another is brought up numerous times. But is it beneficial for humanity to have to constantly create new mediums in order to adapt to new situations? Our non-stop dependence on technology has weakened our senses and forced us into the following direction: "Every extension of mankind, especially technological extensions, has the effect of amputating or modifying some other extension." (http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html) With each new invention or alteration to our environment, another is evoked. New media not only changes our culture but how we think and perceive things. Not all inventions are good, and some have the power to silently alter our thoughts, perception and senses over time, which is not always positive for us. It has become obvious that the inability to see the good or bad side of a medium is "the true Narcissus style of one hypnotized by the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical form" as McLuhan put it. Encoding / Decoding covers the notion of creating a message, sending the message and the process of decoding and understanding the message through television broadcasting. When the message is finally comprehended the viewer completely agrees with what is presented, agrees partially or is absolutely opposed to it.

McLuhan’s takes on medium and message raises obvious issues in today’s world. Not only is he suggesting that we must not linger on the evident content of a message, he is also stating that we must be aware of the medium. The latter can become a strong system to induce certain ideas into a person’s thoughts and way of life. For instance, in the case of a news broadcast that displays neutral facts, its content is merely informational, yet the whole medium of the television or radio is meant to cause a change of state within its viewer: such things as instigating fear or patriotism within people are quite easy to accomplish in the way they are transmitted. Hall’s theory comes into play when we realize the accuracy of the encoding of those trying to persuade us to hear their message. Those trying to persuade us into adopting their point of view know of ways to manipulate our thoughts at will. A medium is a powerful vessel which turns dangerous if used in the wrong way. McLuhan’s criticism of General Sarnoff’s theory of extensions being good or bad depending on their uses sounds irrelevant if we take into account that some things are truly evil because they possess an evil facet. The risk outweighs the benefits.

Considering the impact that our new technological "extensions" have on us, is it too late to relinquish their hold - and that of those who control the media - on us?