Final Thoughts about the Course

Huma 1650 was an interesting course nonetheless. It gave an in-depth insight into the Networked Imagination. Entering this course, I had no idea what the Networked Imagination was and what it was all about. It is extremely complex to understand. Some main things that I felt I learned a lot more about throughout the course was:

• Walter Benjamin and mechanical reproduction
• the evolution of the Internet and the networked society
• Cyberspace
  
• Will to Virtuality
• Second Self
• Copyright Laws and the Copyleft movement
• Technological Determinism
• Utopian Optimists and Pre-lapsarian Pessimists
  
• Neuromancer: how technology uses us.
• The Machine Stops: we cannot always depend on technology
• The Importance of Cyborgs: they stand up for people have been denied rights as humans because the hybdridity disrupts certain boundaries set by the Power Elite class.
  

Covering all these major topics allowed me to explore what the networked imagination was all about. Prior to taking this course I just saw myself as a user: someone who uses technology, but in fact technology uses us, and this is something that many of us are not even aware about! Furthermore, prior to entering this course, I always depended on my computer and my cell phone as a way of connecting with friends and family, but now I don't because what happens when the machine stops???

signed,

g.i.a.c.w.

Neuromancer: Major Themes & Conclusions

The question I am going to address today is:

What might be some major themes of the novel?

• The novel has a prelapsarian pessimistic view of technology. Thus, technology traps the individual, and in this case, the trapped individual was Case. Technology created a society which involved drug use and organized crime. This dystopian-like society was full of urban decay.

• The novel involves the use of technological modifications to the characters. These technological modifications fused with human qualities creates what we call a cyborg. Molly is a main character who is considered as the street samurai. She has surgical insets, she is very strong, she has very fast reflexes, she has a microsoft which allows her to read time and date, and she has these burgandy nails on her hand which she can retract. She is seen as the muscle in community that Gibson has created; she can be viewed as the superhero cyborg. This is not necesarrily the case with Case. Case has technological modifcations, but not for the good. For example, he has something inside him that releases mycotoxin that can only be controlled by Armitage (front man of a large corporation). Thus, for Case, these technological modifications make him the anti-hero cyborg. So, we have the anti-hero cyborg vs. the super-hero cyborg presented throughout the novel.
  

• Armitage, who is a sarariman, must be the leader of some large corporation; he is a business man that Molly and Case work for. Armitage is not presented in a positivistic manner throughout the novel, in fact, he is seen as the forefront of a large corporation and he has Case hacking into other systems for material gain. Thus, these powerful corporations are in control of technology. Furthermore, the novel portrays Case has letting technology control him, so if he let's technology control him and the large corporations are the one's who control technology, then in a sense, these large corporations control Case.
  

• Case continously wants to plug in to Cyberspace. This need to plug in explains Case's will to virtuality. This will to virtuality inevitably destroyed Case's physical. This will to virtuality (this will to be in the virtual world) took control over Case. Thus, technology controls Case once again.
  

• Gibson incorporates artifical intelligences. Wintermute is an AI and Neuromancer is an AI. Wintermute has a desire to coincide with Neuromancer. They are siblings and they both have individual characteristics that if combined, they would be considered an artificial intelligence that has never been constrcuted before. Thus, as Case kept plugging into Cyberspace, only Wintermute benefited.

• The most evident theme presented throughout the novel was that technology uses us and we use technology, however, if we become so caught up with what technology can allow us to do through modifications, then we pass the power to technology. As much as we think we have power by becoming half human-half robot, it is the technology that holds the power . Thus, technology is not always used in a way that allows us to escape reality, rather, we become trapped.
  

signed,

g.i.a.c.w.

Copyright Once More...

The question I am going to address today is:

What are the responsibilities, consequences, and effects of the digital on copyright and on internet users?

Copyright, where do you stand?

The old notion that the audience is solely the consumer and the artist is solely the producer no longer stands. It is safe to say that the digital has a somewhat negative effect on the copyright and a somewhat positive effect on internet users. I would say that the digital age has weakened the strength of copyright regulations.

Online, it is much easier to share, collaborate and co-produce because there is no one right there watching you do the manipulation. The internet has created this networked society, globalizing connection between individual users. In this digital age, information wants to be free, thus, internet users are using this to their advantage. The copyleft has invented this "creative commons" where internet users can go to this online application software and find donated art works (music, literature, etc.) and use it as an influence to create their own works. The only consequence I would say that the digital has on internet users is that internet users now have this extreme desire to remix, rearrange, and collaborate, but we still have to remember that copyright laws still exist. If internet users take this form of piracy to extreme levels, either them or their internet service providers can be held liable!

Copyright was originally designed to encourage innovation but it seems to be stopping it. Like mentioned earlier, I believe that the digital has lessened the strength of copyright laws. Copyright is designed to prevent piracy and yes it is true that the amount of raw online source material has been decreasing at a rapid rate due to copyright regulations. Although there are not many resources available in the public domain, there are still resources available and these resources are accessible by internet users. I also believe that copyright laws were designed by the government so that they can control old culture. The government wants to keep culture from us, but culture belongs to us! Thus, digital has weakened copyright regulation because it is much harder to enforce these intellectual property laws on online infringements.

Where do I stand with copyright?

I believe that copyright should exist, however, collaboration and borrowing is essential to creation. I would have to agree with Lawrence Lessig's vision of copyright laws being limited. I believe that artists should be credited for their creations, but only for a limited amount of time. This limitation would allow future generations to refer to previous works without copyright infringement. The creative commons is one of the smartest ideas because it encourages borrowing and collaboration which I already mentioned is essential to creation. If copyright laws continue to be so restrictive, then the networked society will inevitably become less-free and less-creative. We cannot keep letting the government have control over culture when culture belongs to us.

signed,

g.i.a.c.w.

Copyright

The question I am going to address is:

What are the challenges faced by artists in the digital age when it comes to the ownership and sustainability of art?

There are many challenges faced by artists in the digital age when it comes to the ownership and sustainability of their art. Let's use music as a focus to answer this question. First, let's look at the 3 stages of copydom: perfection, freeness, and liquidity. Perfection is seen in both the analog and digital age. This perfection did not create too many challenges for artists as the perfection was solely used to design the modern world and make music modern. Freeness is when the challenges started coming in. Freeness made napster possible which made a music revolution possible; consumer were able to download music in mind-boggling numbers, but the real question is: what did they do with this music once they downloaded it? We can fool ourselves by thinking that all they did was listen to the music, however, the third stage of copydom came in to play: liquidity. Once music becomes digitized (freeness, napster), it becomes liquid. Once music becomes liquid, it can be morphed, migrated, flexed and linked, and from here you can filter it, archive it, rearrange it, and remix it. Thus, if consumer can manipulate music in all these ways, especially rearrange and remix it, then they can inevitably make it their own. This new creation from prior work is what we today call a Mash-Up. Many artists hate mash-ups because they feel that consumers can claim copyright over creations that have been influenced from prior works, but with digitization, music went from being a noun to a verb.

Music is becoming a commodity that is traded, co-created, and co-produced by a networked audience. This poses challenges for musicians because they are no longer in control, thus, copyright issues arise. Most of the music that consumer are manipulating come from online sources where there is a lack of enforcement of intellectual property laws. When someone is online at home sitting behind a computer, downloading various musical tracks, who is there to arrest them? What if the copyright laws where the artist resides or has created the music does not apply to the consumer downloading and manipulating because they reside in a different country? These are just a few of the many challanges faced by artists when it comes to their work.

signed,

g.i.a.c.w.

Changes in Art History propelled by Changes in Technology

The question I am going to address today is:

We've seen how changes in art history have been propelled by changes in technology (painting, photography, and film). How might contemporary technological shifts create changes in perspective? Consider one specific example in your response (cell phone? iPod? digital video???)

I will consider the evolution of the cell phone. I believe that the technological shifts in the design of a cell phone has created changes in perspective. The cell phone has created changes to what is and isn't considerent art. When cell phones first came out, all you could do was dial a phone number. Now that cell phones have evolved, you can dial a phone number, sms text, instant message, take pictures and record videos. Thus, for example, whether I am at home or I visit another country, I don't even need a camera. As long as I have my cell phone I am set! Not only can cell phones dial, sms text, instant message, take pictures, and record videos, most cell phones also have the option to use the internet! Thus, these pictures and videos can be uploaded on facebook and other websites, and can also be sent to a friend via text. What does this equal? Globalization. The question now is, should these globalized videos and pictures be viewed as art? In my opinion, I believe that anything can be seen as art.

Thus, in my eyes, someone taking a picture with a loved one or even a picture of a still tree is artistic. A million dollar art painting could be an image of a thin black straight line with a white background; art is the meaning behind what is actually before your eyes. It must be remembered that art is rarely ever expicit. Cell phone photos and videos are sometimes candid moments, and these candid moments create memories. Once these memories are uploaded for others to see, it becomes artistic because the viewer begins to imagine what exactly was said right before the picture, what exactly is going on in the picture, why the picture was taken, who took the picture, what the picture is symbolizing etc. These are all the same questions we might ask ourselves when we visit a digital art gallery are they not?

We live around art, we make art; We are art.

signed,

g.i.a.c.w.

Statement of Interest

Winter Blog Assignment

The question/theme I am interested in exploring is:

How will artists produce works in the future, given the challenges of the new media?

My initial thoughts in regards to the above theoretical question is:

My group and I have chosen to explore music on MySpace. To approach the above theoretical question, I think it is most appropriate to refer to the consumers as the listeners and the producers as the major record labels or artists. My initial thoughts include how MySpace has created some sort of consumer-producer reciprocal relationship. What I mean by this it that the consumers, also known as the listeners, have now themselves become the producers. This is so because the consumers are able to listen to other artist’s music but also upload their own music as well all for free. So, the consumers have now become consumers and producers. Since the ‘consumer-producers’ listen and upload for free, they now hold some sort of power. This power also increases as these ‘consumer-producers’ may also download the musical track that they are listening to on MySpace. Thus, the ‘actual’ producers, in this case the major record labels, must incorporate innovative techniques to continue to produce musical works in the future in order to combat the challenges given by the new media (MySpace). New techniques might include: bonus content exclusive to their compact discs or even multi-track media which would allow consumers to adjust each individual track to their desired taste which would again be exclusive to their compact discs or other purchasable media forms.

My basic thesis in regards to the above theoretical question is:

Despite the given challenges of the new media, musicians must develop new techniques to ensure that their artistic productions continue to be successfully reproduced. With online communities such as MySpace, which has predominantly been instrumental in the creation of a consumer-producer reciprocal relationship, it is important to remember that consumers are not only able to listen to uploaded musical tracks, and upload their own musical tracks, but are also able to download other musical tracks for free and without consent. Thus, if new techniques such as multi-track media becomes available exclusively to the producers, and is added only to compact discs, iTunes and other purchasable media forms, then 'consumer-producers' will gravitate back towards purchasing musical works in the future.

Technological Determinism....

The question I am going to address today is:

How does Technological Determinism affect our relationship with technology?

Why is this way of thinking of technology so pervasive?

Technological determinism most definitely affects our relationship with technology. First, I'd say that it only makes sense to define what technological determinism means. Technological determinism, as discussed in yesterday's lecture, means that society is shaped by technology and that technology determines social change. Technological determinism, also known as media determinism, represents a relationship between technology and society, and this relationship is often seen as a negative one by many social scientists. According to one of the readings, "technological determinism seeks to explain social and historical phenomena in terms of one principal or determining factor. It is a doctrine of historical or causal primacy. " Furthermore, technological determinism is mono-causal and offers a single cause or independent variable. Due to its mono-causal explanation, technological determinism reduces complexity and makes strong claims which many people may find attractive.


In my opinion, individuals that incorporate the ideology of technological determinism seems to portray a way of thinking that is so pervasive in today's society. These individuals argue that we (the users) are determined by the technologies that we use on a day to day basis. Just like how we continue to fault society's actions due to media representations, or game representations such as guns in an xbox game, the same goes for technology. We continue to fault society's actions due to technological representations. Thus, when we engage in absent-minded behaviour that involves the use of technology, we point our fingers at technology instead of taking responsibility for our own actions. Since we are the ones who actually go forth and use the technology shouldn't we be taking the blame???

Well, you know what they say....when you point one finger, there will always be THREE pointing right back at you!!!!

I would like to leave you with an important statement:
By giving technology so much power to change us, we in a sense rob technology and rob the individual....It's up to you to recognize how.

signed,

g.i.a.c.w.