This is lev, So lev Manovich was the focus of most of our workshop today, on this fine wednesday morning. 2 out of 3 of our symposium panelists argued against the points discussed by Manovich in his extract “Databse as symbolic form” wheres Mardy found his arguments very helpful in describing the Web as a whole database of intertwined data to be coded by the user.

The extract from Lev Manovich’s reading seemingly exposes his outlandish contradictions in regards to both Narrative and Database. The overall argument he’s trying to get across, I believe, is that we, as users of both narrative literature and computerised databses, are passive in our practice of both systems.

I don’t quite agree, and I don understand why he doesn’t try to admit that the traditional character in a narrative is now the person who is circumnavigating through this network of info?

This is the point where I instantly noticed how Manovich’s argument crumbles. His statement that narrative is fundamentally constructed, controlled and then dispatched to a “passive audience” is quite awkward. It reminds me of a media consumption theory that I studied in high school media classes, The Hypodermic Needle Theory.

Lev Manovich continues to construct a rivalry between the database and the narrative but fails to make note of the user’s involvement in and interpretation of the text. As far as I’m concerned, a database and narrative are essentially similar in how they achieve zilch until someone interacts with them. They are both purely cypher waiting to be decoded.

So today we tried out something different for our symposium, we all sat around 2 joined desks in hope of us all engaging a bit more with the discussion. Not surprisingly, it worked, all laptops were shut and minds were focused on the topics at hand. We turned around intriguing ideas about technology and culture and whether it is passive or active, dependant or co-dependant on us and so on. Interesting how such a simple alteration to our bi-weekly process of discussion doubled or even tripled input by everyone. Good Stuff Elliot!

I am sitting on my balcony looking over richmond whilst reading Galloway’s thoughts and opinions on Technology and Culture. After finishing the extract I was unsurprisingly left unclear as to what exactly it was he was trying to explain to the us. What I can explain clearly is the way in which the two terms “Culture” and “Technology” have evolved over the past few centuries:

Technology

Greek Meanings:

tekhne – meant arts or crafts

logos – meaning word or system or study

1700’s – The word was barely used and only sparingly applied to the study of the arts

1860’s – The meaning began to evolve, it coincided with the ‘industrial evolution’ to shift to meanings such as the system of mechanical and industrial arts

1995 – Lorenzo Simpson defined technology as ‘that constellation of knowledge , processes, skills and products whose aim i to control and transform

2000’s – The meaning has changed even further now to encompass an overarching system that we inhabit, i.e. we now live in technology, surrounded by it.

Culture

Latin Meaning:

cultura – meaning cultivation

1400’s – The word emerged from the French use in the agricultural process of tillage.

1500’s – The word transferred to a metaphorical agriculture of the mind or body.

1800’s – The meaning of culture became almost entirely intellectually based, It referred to the artistic side of a civilisation

1996 – Brian Eno defines culture tactfully and simply as ‘everything we do not have to do’ (Galloway seemingly favours this definition as it is still broad enough to encompass all the alterations the word has passed through over the centuries whilst still being open enough to adapt to new situations)

‘Technology’ clashes with tradition in Cuzco, Peru.

Personally I found the reading overly stretched out like a game of thrones episode, however that is most likely just my cynical nature protruding wherever it can… Personally, I find myself agreeing with both, Tim in his post, as well as Lorenzo Simpson, that Technology involves PROCESS that aims directly at CONTROLLING and/or TRANSFORMING the way we apply techniques.