This post is slightly different in the way that it’s a response to something occurs very frequently in my life and in the life of people in general. The topic that’s on my mind currently is the fact that people can have different opinions. This is something that interests me so much because, in my experience, it’s something that can be very exciting as well as frustrating. As I mentioned in one of my previous blog posts I browse the Internet for movie news, as I am huge fan of films. One of the interesting things when it comes to discussing a particular film is the amount of different opinions people can have about the same film.

Some people may call a film a masterpiece; others will look at that same film and see it as trash. It’s fascinating to me that how one person can look at a piece and another person sees something completely different. One of my most recent experiences would be with a film titled ‘Man of Steel’, and if you don’t know what the film is its Superman. The reaction to this film was directly split, some people absolutely loved it others completely hated.

I loved it, as a fan of Superman to me it’s the best incarnation of the character, and I saw the film having a great deal of depth, great story, well written characters, amazing acting, visuals, score etc. There are people who have told me they felt the opposite upon their viewing of the film; they thought the story was weak, characters lacking development, and basically the opposite of everything I have listed above. I frequently ask people ‘did we see the same film?’ because its beyond me on how and why people see things differently, especially when some groups people have so much in common.

In my experience with this film some people have said that I have one of the worsts tastes in films, just because I liked it, but then I often discover that the people I’m talking to have a similar kind of taste, and when it comes to stuff like that my mind is taken back, because I tend to think if we have grown up with, and love so many classic films, like Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and we essentially have very similar likes, how can we completely see one film in a very different way.  Because these people claim that I have bad taste, but we almost like the same thing, so does that mean they have bad taste too?

I understand that opinions are subjective and not everyone will ever see things the same way, but what fascinates me is the meaning behind that. If everything is based on opinions, people always argue their different viewpoints, so is there really a sense of right and wrong? I know the answer to this question will also vary if one was to give an answer.

In one of the week fours reading titled ‘As we may think’, Dr. Vannevar Bush writes about a time when scientists work and research was dedicated to building weapons for war, assuming from the date of this article it would be World War Two, and the fact that the war was coming to an end meant that its time for the men of science to move forward in their fields into new areas.

More specifically into the development and advancement on technological devices and methods.  In one section of this article Bush questions the long-term benefits we have received and goes onto list what we have earned from technology, ‘First, they have increased his control of his material environment. They have improved his food, his clothing, his shelter; they have increased his security and released him partly from the bondage of bare existence’, another interesting quote from the article would be ‘…new and powerful instrumentalities come into use. Photocells capable of seeing things in a physical sense, advanced photography which can record what is seen or even what is not…’

They way I interpreted these quotes was that technology is, and has always been, an extension of ones self. The second quote does say photography is capable of capturing what is seen and perhaps what is not, which essentially means it goes beyond what we can see and our limitations, thus being an extension. This idea intrigued me and I ended going back and reading an article, which talked about what, the extension of technology could mean for us.

The article I am referring to is titled ‘From Post-Modern Condition to The Cinematic City’ by Al Sayyad. This article explores the idea of post-modern or cutting edge technology and what it could mean for the human race, by comparing to how the future is depicted in cinema. The article takes the concept of cyborgs, which in film are beings that are part human and part machine, and idea of cyborgs in films means that they can go beyond their own selves and the notions of humanity leading the world, in a destructive path, as depicted in films such as Blade Runner (1982). Bare in mind I am aware these are fictional notions; however what the article suggest is such a fascinating concept. It continues further by saying that being a cyborg doesn’t necessarily mean being a partially organic and partially technological being, but also it could be technologies that can help advance a person’s life e.g a pacemaker.

Looking at that statement, how I am interpreting it, is that the simple use of technology could consider a person to being a cyborg. That being said, does that mean the usage of modern day devices such as smart phones or social networking sites could be a form of cyborg? These devices that make our day-to-day lives so easy, which can be considered an extension of an individual given the personal nature of their design, does using them mean we are cyborgs? People nowadays cannot live without their iphones, they are considered to being a part of us. So now in moving forward technology will advance, it will grow, making life more and more easier and easier by the decades, what will actually happen to us as a race?

During this weeks symposium one of the questions that were asked was  ‘whether art and culture can progress without technology?’ and throughout the discussion the most interesting aspect that was brought up by one of the tutors was the idea that for art and its creation what is required are tools and that tools are different to technology. Adrian however argues against the point and suggests that tools are technology, which means that pens, paint brushes, pencils etc, are in to be considered as technology.

When I heard this I didn’t know how to feel about it, I always saw them as two different things, I never thought of a brush as technology, I tended to associate mechanics and digital devices as technology. So in order to get this straight for myself and my understanding I looked up the definition of both terms, as I realized that these terms are two that are so natural in life where I’ve used them or heard them and understood the possible meaning behind them but I couldn’t think of away to describe them to myself, and other people if I was asked. The online dictionary had several meanings for both words here are some:

Technology:

…’the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life…’

‘the application of this knowledge for practical ends’

Tools:

‘any instrument of manual operation.’

‘the machine itself; a machine tool.’

‘any instrument of manual operation.’

Looking at all these definitions they are all quite similar, in a sense that it shows that there is a connection between the two terms, as opposed to them being a synonym of each other. Take for example first definition of the word tool, its any instrument of manual operation, and the second definition of technology; it’s said to be the application of knowledge for practical ends. This definition claims that technology is something that needs to applied or used in a practical form, based on that I believe that another way to look at these terms would be that a tool becomes a technology when it is used or applied for a purpose. So once a pen is picked up and is used to write it’s a technology.

Finally I also believe that this ties in with the question of whether culture can progress without technology, which is that it clearly can’t. Our world operates in the use of tools and technology, especially in this modern digital age we can’t live without technology, and as Adrain did briefly mention at the symposium that our ancestors, the cavemen, had tools and technology, like fire, to go about their everyday lives.