Author Archives: simonelau

Collage of symposium notes

Hammer
Different perspectives influences utility, hence not neutral. 

Not digital, but networked

< Real world doesn’t have a plot

plot ≠ narrative

Technological Determinism

Verbal/oral > remembering, reciting

Bird/human\termite

What does neutral even mean?

> Narrative = Experience?

Writing } storage of information

Reddit > constantly changing, phases,

Murphy & Potts: Technologies are neutral

Shields: plots are for dead people

Post literal world, we have abstracted the world in all sorts of ways

| building up own story about Reddit

Nothing can be neutral in relation to something else

@

In the most ‘creative’ way, I chose to use this symbol to represent how I felt about David Shield’s “Collage” text. The letter ‘a’ is situated within the circle, but it is also a part of the circle. Each fragment within the collage are individual identifiable parts that are also an indispensable contribution to the collage’s concept.

Usually, in our writing and reading, we communicate through making logical points, sequentially setting up our arguments, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. But in the “Collage” extract – ideas, notes, observations, arguments etc. are piled in an archival collage. Structure and logic has been temporarily abandoned by the author. In turn, the ‘visitor’ must experience each fragment individually, before assembling, in a reflective process, the logic or argument of the overall picture. This is an inspiring work and a beautiful and fascinating  experience because, like Zen meditation, thought and judgement is suspended during the experience while the participant discovers every piece of the puzzle. And it is not only about the non-linear structure it created, but there is also a duality presented in this experience: one has to focus on the individual fragments while, at the same time, acknowledging the collective body that it is a part of.

Narcissism

The highlight of this week’s symposium was, yet again, the never ending clash between Adrian and Betty and the awkward, inappropriate examples from Adrian. Both which are very entertaining. Things that stood out for me during discussion was the different definitions or interpretations of narcissism. Betty relates it to the idea of self image, and projecting an image of our identity while Adrian argues that it has more to do with perfection. To me, the idea of perfection is closer to self love and confidence, where as projecting one’s image seem to imply a lack of internal confidence and is more associated with self-consciousness. This is generally triggered by more negative feelings towards ones self image. We are aware of our selves, our image because we may not necessarily have the confidence to not worry about it. More over, it implies that we are not perfect, which is quite the opposite to self love. It all depends on which approach we take initially, whether it is psychoanalysis or philosophical or social.

Towards a network singularity?

After last week’s symposium, I have been thinking about a future that is shaped by this digital evolution of hypertext and the network.

I recently watched the movie Transcendence, by cinematopher-turned-director Wally Pfister. The film explores how scientific progress (artificial intelligence, technological singularity) challenges our human morals and individuality. The film was not amazing (being a blockbuster, the film focused too heavily of an individual story of a ‘transcended’ intelligence, whose transcendence did not seem to gain him any wisdom beyond a human’s, rather than investigating the deep philosophical debate that surrounds the topic – remembering to justify my criticism), but I have been interested in the concept of singularity. Although most commonly, the theoretical cause of a technological singularity is attributed to artificial intelligence (where the AI evolve to a point beyond human comprehension achieves singularity rather than humans ‘transcending’ to it – this can also be seen in the film Her, where the AI’s eventually move on from their service to humans), what I’m interested in is if humans are able to share all information at once with each other. (Similar to the behaviour of ants in a colony that I have mentioned in a previous post.)  The hardware that we currently use to access this network of knowledge and communication will only get smaller, more ‘customisable’ (we already have Google glasses!!), maybe one day these devices will become a part of us. Would we not all be ‘transcended’ by our ability to access the boundless web of information? In this sense, hypertext and our network of information are just the first few steps towards such a future. 

MIFF entry 2

Went to two MIFF films today: Listen Up Philip by Alex Ross Perry and an animated film Cheatin’ by Bill Plympton

Both were fantastic and absolutely hilarious!

Highly recommend if the opportunity arises!


Listen Up Philip: miserable, lonely, desperate characters so blatantly put on screen, its sad honesty is its funniest quality.


Cheatin’: Abstract emotions were brilliantly captured by bizzare scenes. Plympton’s animation was surreal, clever, and not exactly subtle. A journey that left the theater with me since. Part of me is still in that world. 

Thought I do have to say, not a big fan of the Kino theater.

Notes on reading

Reading: Landow, George P. Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2006. Print. (low rez PDF)

  • metatext, paratext
  • ‘we must write with an awareness that we are writing in the presence of other texts”
  • active reader-author
  • Comments as a form of hypertext – active participation from reader
  • Blogs: unsettling the borders between private and public spheres
  • ‘borders of any documents on the internet are porous and provisional at best’
  • links and search tools limit the power of authority
  • When copying exactly a printed text into virtual space, experience and textuality changes, borders are broken
  • Endings: ‘there can be no final word, no final version, no last thought…Always a new view, new idea, and reinterpretation.’
  • Boundaries of open text: it is not a closed, complete, absolute object. Boundaries are blurred, not being what it is. (Derrida)…between absence and presence, inside and outside, self and other.

A rant. A fit – on the symposium

The highlight in this week’s Q&A symposium for me was the debate about whether we need to learn coding to become network literate. As I have mentioned before, it is a choice of words which in turn makes us develop different opinions on the matter. Of course we don’t need to be experts in coding, its not like everyone will get a job or make a living out of it, nor will it harm them to just rely on what is made available to them so far.  However, suppose you are aware that there are things about the network/internet, or ways to do things that may benefit you, would you choose to not know? This knowledge may become handy at some point in the future, or it may just add to our experience of the thing itself, to help us make sense of it. In any case, it is only logical to choose to know more – this is a logical preference not a necessity, not knowing should only be applicable when you don’t have choice. When there is choice and one chooses not to know – that is an excuse. History provides a good enough example that the general knowledge of the average person will only continue to grow. Ignorance may be bliss, but that only remains as long as one is also ignorant of their powerlessness. Knowledge will continue to grow and expand, becoming more accessible to the average person. Despite what I just said about ‘choice’, it is kind of inevitable. 10 years from now, coding might be the basic first year component of this course instead of learning about networked media, which might be a secondary/primary school subject!

Which brings me to my second point…

Too bad we didn’t get to discuss the last question during the session. To generations from early 90’s and older, including myself, the idea that primary school kids and toddlers are growing up with the current technologies and networked devices must seem foreign and not such a healthy idea. Since the internet is already what it is and it all happened before the current generation of kids were born, they are already getting used to technology faster than they can learn to pick up a pen and write the alphabet on paper. Therefore, given their early exposure which allows them to know way more than we do in high school about networked literacies, it is fair to say that these subjects will be taught in earlier education. Kids are already taught through doing. Only generations like ours who adapted to such new technologies during our teenage years will probably need formulas or formal training to challenge the heavy conditioning we had growing up before social and networked media became significant.