The title of this research assignment is a piece by George P. Landow. I feel that this is the perfect title and the perfect way to end the semester with what we have talking about in terms of new media. As I am sitting here typing the response for this assignment on Blogger, is an example of what Landow calls “hypertext as digital collage.” Landow doesn’t necessarily define what “hypertext as digital collage” is, but he points out that, “the link establishes a symbolic as well as literal relationship between two elements in a document” (159). This is exactly how our posts appear on Blogger. Sometimes excerpts from articles and books that we find to put in our posts, are linked to the original article or book out on the Web for readers of our blogs to refer to for further understanding of our post. We can also post pictures on Blogger or either link to pictures out on the Web.
Landow also discusses hypertext as collage-writing (hence the title of the essay), which basically discusses how hypertext takes the form of texts originally produced in print. This is clearly an example of how we access assigned reading material for the course on the class website. The material that we are assigned to read were once that of print, they are either scanned or posted on the Web by code and can be accessed by clicking on link or typing in a website’s address.
The purpose of this blog was not to explain, but rather show how this article is so similar to this New Media course. Landow’s article is similar in the way of some of the material we talked about over the semester such as hypertext (O’Gorman) and the teaching aids (Blogger & readings linked off of class webpage) that we have used over the course of the semester. At the beginning of Landow’s article he talks about hypertext as a “vast assemblage.” Well that is how new media, the study of new media, and the way we have discussed new media this semester. New media is several components of technology, news, film, digital, etc… assembled or grouped together to be considered as a whole.
Works CitedLandow, George P. “Hypertext as Collage-Writing.” The Digital Dialectic: New Essays On New Media. Ed. Peter Lunenfield. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1999. 159.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Blog#7:Evolution Selection vs. Natural Selection
The idea behind the title of this blog came from a comment that Jacob made in class a couple of weeks ok, and that Dr. Lucas responded on. I can’t remember the question exactly, but basically it was about parents being able to decide the traits they would want their unborn child to have. The presence of new, revolutionary technology in society has given us the ability to determine the outlook of determining who we are or who we become physically. Basically we will be able to change natural selection through evolution selection—hence the title of my blog. This changing of natural selection, or interference of natural selection as I like to call it, will it cause us as society to deviate from being less human to being more like a cyborg? Over the course of the semester we have read several pieces on the “cyborg”—what it is or how we as human beings are becoming or will all be like cyborgs in the future. At first I thought this idea was simply ridiculous, but the more I begin to think about it we are not becoming cyborgs—we are in fact cyborgs right now.
With all the rapid changes in technology people evolving into cyborgs at a rapid rate. In his book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil says that: “Technology picks right up with the exponentially quickening pace of evolution. Although not the only tool-using animal, Homo sapiens are distinguished by their creation of technology. Technology goes beyond the mere fashioning and use of tools. It involves a record of tool making and a progression in the sophistication of tools. It requires invention and is itself a continuation of evolution by other means” (14). Kurzweil’s definition of technology is exactly the way that we as humans are using technology to physically change ourselves. The problem with this is our technology (evolution selection) has caught up with natural selection. Kurzweil notes this problem by adding that pretty soon humans will be able to create evolution (natural selection) with technology (evolution selection). Kurzweil response on the problem with technology is basically how we have all become cyborgs in my opinion.
With all the rapid changes in technology people evolving into cyborgs at a rapid rate. In his book, The Age of Spiritual Machines, Ray Kurzweil says that: “Technology picks right up with the exponentially quickening pace of evolution. Although not the only tool-using animal, Homo sapiens are distinguished by their creation of technology. Technology goes beyond the mere fashioning and use of tools. It involves a record of tool making and a progression in the sophistication of tools. It requires invention and is itself a continuation of evolution by other means” (14). Kurzweil’s definition of technology is exactly the way that we as humans are using technology to physically change ourselves. The problem with this is our technology (evolution selection) has caught up with natural selection. Kurzweil notes this problem by adding that pretty soon humans will be able to create evolution (natural selection) with technology (evolution selection). Kurzweil response on the problem with technology is basically how we have all become cyborgs in my opinion.
The thought about humans becoming cyborgs was at first ridiculous, but the thought of using technology to create natural selection is just plain scary. Will technology eventually wipe out natural selection completely? or will we just tweak natural selection to make it better suit us? Either way we are deviating from being human like (natural selection) and towards being more like a cyborg (evolution selection). Once upon time natural selection changed us, now we are the ones changing or interfering with natural selection to better suit our needs.
Works Cited
Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machines. New York: Penguin, 1999. 14.
Research Assignment#3:The Medium Is the Memory
This piece by Florian Brody entitled, “The Medium Is the Memory,” is similar in title to Marshall McLuhan’s famous piece “The Medium Is the Message;” but there is where the similarities end. Brody’s piece focuses on the book (the medium) as an extension of one’s memory. While McLuhan’s piece focuses on the overall medium of which a message is conveyed through. The purpose of this blog to explain how the medium is the memory in relation to new media.
Brody’s piece starts off by discussing how books are an extension of one’s memory. The way people learned and acquired knowledge was through books he points out. He goes on to add that the book is no longer were people’s dreams and fantasies lie, they can now find them through a digital medium. These digital mediums include: television, film, and the computer. Through digital medium Brody explains, “If medium is a conveyor of memory rather than of messages, this offers us some insight into how to design for mew media” (143). This is where the medium as memory and new media come into play together. It is here that new media is considered to be the medium, and the information that one finds or contains from new media is the memory. Brody goes on to further explain that, “While the relation between the story and the apparatus has been much discussed in relation to film and television, we are only at a point where we can develop a theoretical discourse that ties the consumption of narrative to the media—unlike film and video—have the potential to emerge as a new type of book” (135). Come to think of it this statement is similar to the way educational systems are try change their curriculums to in order to provide a method of teaching where students can retain more of the information the learn by creating mnemonic devices as teaching aids. This statement also reminds me of O’Gorman’s hypericonic devise as well.
Brody’s piece starts off by discussing how books are an extension of one’s memory. The way people learned and acquired knowledge was through books he points out. He goes on to add that the book is no longer were people’s dreams and fantasies lie, they can now find them through a digital medium. These digital mediums include: television, film, and the computer. Through digital medium Brody explains, “If medium is a conveyor of memory rather than of messages, this offers us some insight into how to design for mew media” (143). This is where the medium as memory and new media come into play together. It is here that new media is considered to be the medium, and the information that one finds or contains from new media is the memory. Brody goes on to further explain that, “While the relation between the story and the apparatus has been much discussed in relation to film and television, we are only at a point where we can develop a theoretical discourse that ties the consumption of narrative to the media—unlike film and video—have the potential to emerge as a new type of book” (135). Come to think of it this statement is similar to the way educational systems are try change their curriculums to in order to provide a method of teaching where students can retain more of the information the learn by creating mnemonic devices as teaching aids. This statement also reminds me of O’Gorman’s hypericonic devise as well.
The way new media ties in to the medium as memory is an interesting one. We started off the semester in this course talking about the medium as the message in terms of new media, but I did not quite understand it at first. After reading essay from other new media theorist throughout the semester I understood that the book is the medium while the words it contains is the message. Now after reading Brody’s piece I know that the knowledge attained from the book is the memory.
Works Cited
Brody, Florian. “The Medium Is the Memory.” The Digital Dialectic: New Essays On New Media. Ed. Peter Lunenfield. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1999. 135&143.
Blog#6:Revolution GNU: Free Software or is it?
In the piece entitled, “The GNU Manifesto: GNU’s Not Unix!-Free Software, Free Society,” discusses in detailed about what GNU is, the reason for it, its availability, and so on and so forth. Even though this article pushes the benefits of GNU to the forefront, it downplays the contributions needed to maintain the software. This is the point of my blog. Is GNU really free software or is it not?
Richard Stallman wrote the piece “The GNU Manifesto” and in it he clarifies the distinction between GNU not being UNIX. Then he goes on to ask for help supporting GNU financially: “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s NOT Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed” (Stallman 1). This to me sounds confusing. If GNU is free software, than why is Stallman asking for money and equipment? I know it costs money to create software; however, I feel that Stallman should not have to come right out and say that he needs money and equipment to create GNU. If GNU is such a good idea, then the product should speak for itself. People would automatically want to invest in his product and he would not have to ask for the money. This is just my opinion.
In the film, Revolution OS, we saw the rise of some computer software companies that jumped on the bandwagon with the idea of GNU as free software. In addition to the rise of the computer software companies, some of them went out of business. Which makes you ask the question: is the idea of free software a really good idea? For the business that went out of business in the film I believe no. During the time that GNU was at its prime though, these companies made millions of dollars. So at the time GNU was a good idea. I guess the idea of free software is a hit or miss sort of thing. While it’s hot it’s hot and when it’s not it’s not.
Richard Stallman wrote the piece “The GNU Manifesto” and in it he clarifies the distinction between GNU not being UNIX. Then he goes on to ask for help supporting GNU financially: “GNU, which stands for Gnu’s NOT Unix, is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed” (Stallman 1). This to me sounds confusing. If GNU is free software, than why is Stallman asking for money and equipment? I know it costs money to create software; however, I feel that Stallman should not have to come right out and say that he needs money and equipment to create GNU. If GNU is such a good idea, then the product should speak for itself. People would automatically want to invest in his product and he would not have to ask for the money. This is just my opinion.
In the film, Revolution OS, we saw the rise of some computer software companies that jumped on the bandwagon with the idea of GNU as free software. In addition to the rise of the computer software companies, some of them went out of business. Which makes you ask the question: is the idea of free software a really good idea? For the business that went out of business in the film I believe no. During the time that GNU was at its prime though, these companies made millions of dollars. So at the time GNU was a good idea. I guess the idea of free software is a hit or miss sort of thing. While it’s hot it’s hot and when it’s not it’s not.
Before I viewed the film Revolution OS and read the article “The GNU Manifesto” I had no idea that GNU was free software and what free software was about. I mean I heard of GNU before, but had no idea what is stood for. Now that I do know what GNU is and what free software is, does that mean that GNU is like some of the free download software such as LimeWire for instance? In society today the idea of something such as software being “free” or “shared” is looked down upon as something criminal and needs to be cracked down on. I believe this is the reason why so many GNU following software companies went out of business. Not to say that there are not any GNU software companies in existence today, but they are very few. Due to the constant changing in software it seems like every year, people have to constantly go out and re-buy software and this can become quite expensive. Maybe in the future, the solution for this will be making all software free and thus becoming the norm, but who’s to say. Just a thought.
Works Cited
Stallman, Richard. “The GNU Manifesto: GNU’s Not Unix-Free Software, Free Society.” 1985. 24 April 2007. <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html>. 1.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Blog#5:Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Senior Project
The meaning behind the title of my blog is the similarities between the thesis of Janet Murray's book, Hamlet on the Holodeck, and the Communications & Information Technology (CIT) senior project. The thesis of Murray's book is to use the developments in digital technology as a way to create new forms of narrative. This is the same notion behind Macon State College(MSC) CIT senior project. Not so much in the same words, but the idea implied are the same. According to the Humanities Division website, the CIT senior project is "a bridge between the humanities curriculum and the information technology coursework"(1). The CIT senior project consists of three components: a paper, technology, and oral. The three components of the project go hand and hand, but for the purpose of this blog I want to focus on the paper and technology portion of the project in relation to Murray's thesis.
The CIT senior project allows students to come up with topics to analyze through research, using books or a computer, and in the end produce a paper and technology component that gives readers a form of storytelling that investigates and solves the topic in question. Is this not the same idea Murray is discussing in her book? In her novel she says the computer is "first and foremost a representational medium, a means for modeling the world that adds its own potent properties to the traditional media it has assimilated so quickly. As the most powerful representational medium yet invented, it should be put to the highest tasks of society" (284). This is exactly what the research for and technology portion of the CIT senior project does for the paper. The technology portion of the CIT senior project augments, illustrates, or complements in some way the research conducted. In other words it aides the paper in getting its point across to readers in a new way or a new medium.
Whether or not the point I am making is correct, I feel that the CIT senior project is somewhat related to the thesis of Murray's book of digital medium creating a new form of narrative. The point behind the CIT senior project is for students to come up with a way of telling and/or displaying their topic arguments through technology and writing. If this is so, is blogger a digital medium for creating a new form of narrative as Murray's books suggests?or is it not?
Works Cited
Humanities Division: CIT Senior Project. Ed. Amy Berke.Macon State College.2006.22 March 2007 http://humanities.maconstate.edu/cit-seniorproject.
Murray, Janet. Hamlet On the Holodeck. Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1997.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Research Assignment#2 & Blog#4: The Heuretics of the Hypericonic De-Vise in New Media
For starters the word "hypericonic de-vise" is a word that O'Gorman himself came up with and is trying to define throughout this book. The purpose of O'Gorman creating this hypericonic de-vise is to be used as a teaching aid to help students learn. In the text O'Gorman states, "...I should stress the point that that I am interested less in hermeneutics (interpretation) than I am in heuretics (invention)" (50). This statement shows that O'Gorman is interested more in creating a new teaching method versus using the teaching methods that are already in place to aid students in learning. This device in aiding students to learn that he created is not a replacement for the traditional ways of teaching, but rather a complement in teaching or shaping in teaching as O'Gorman calls it. "...Just as Ramus's scholarly method had a great influence in shaping a print apparatus that has persisted for five centuries, might it not be possible to invent scholarly methods to shape the digital apparatus" (O'Gorman 50)? This question that O'Gorman asks of how the traditional scholarly ways of teaching can shape the digital or new media apparatus is pretty straightfoward. At the same time however I believe O'Gorman is also asking how can the digital or new media apparatus shape the traditional ways of teaching.
The example used in the text about students re-writing William Blake's piece 'Nurse's Song' is a perfect example of the question I think O'Gorman is also asking about a new media tool to shape the traditional teaching apparatus. Blake's 'Nurse's Song' is a piece of art work that contains text in the image to help explain the meaning behind the potrait. In the exericise of re-writing Blake's piece, the text was removed with editing software and posted on the Web with only the image shown to the students. The students were then ask to write about what was happening in the piece based soley on the images alone. None of the students responses matched with what was going on in the picture. O'Gorman sees the results of this exercise as, "...an indication that new media, when used for something other than archival purposes, may serve as a means of rousing ourselves from the 'Single vision & Newtons sleep' in which print technology has steeped us" (66). This statement basically means that using new media as a tool to shape the learning apparatus can open up our minds up to new ideas. Versus the use of print alone which may have only one interpretation. Basically what you read, is what it means and their is no room to come up with any new ideas.
"By creating exercises such as 'Re-writing Blake,' instructors are not asking students to write about the poet/painter; they are asking students to write with him"(66). In my opinion, the definition of "hypericonic de-vise" is simply a device to help us to question and invent ideas. Whether it's for traditional scholarly methods shaping the digital apparatus or the digital apparatus shaping the traditional scholarly methods. Either way the purpose of the hypericonic de-vise is to make us think of or create more than one possible outcome for a concept. During a discussion in class last week someone made the comment, I believe it was Casey, that the notion of "thinking outside the box" rather than looked down upon, should be embraced. I think this is precisely what O'Gorman wants us to get from his hypericonic de-vise.
Works Cited
O'Gorman, Marcel. " The Hypericonic De-Vise: Peter Ramus Meets William Blake." E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incoporated, 2006. 50 & 66.
The example used in the text about students re-writing William Blake's piece 'Nurse's Song' is a perfect example of the question I think O'Gorman is also asking about a new media tool to shape the traditional teaching apparatus. Blake's 'Nurse's Song' is a piece of art work that contains text in the image to help explain the meaning behind the potrait. In the exericise of re-writing Blake's piece, the text was removed with editing software and posted on the Web with only the image shown to the students. The students were then ask to write about what was happening in the piece based soley on the images alone. None of the students responses matched with what was going on in the picture. O'Gorman sees the results of this exercise as, "...an indication that new media, when used for something other than archival purposes, may serve as a means of rousing ourselves from the 'Single vision & Newtons sleep' in which print technology has steeped us" (66). This statement basically means that using new media as a tool to shape the learning apparatus can open up our minds up to new ideas. Versus the use of print alone which may have only one interpretation. Basically what you read, is what it means and their is no room to come up with any new ideas.
"By creating exercises such as 'Re-writing Blake,' instructors are not asking students to write about the poet/painter; they are asking students to write with him"(66). In my opinion, the definition of "hypericonic de-vise" is simply a device to help us to question and invent ideas. Whether it's for traditional scholarly methods shaping the digital apparatus or the digital apparatus shaping the traditional scholarly methods. Either way the purpose of the hypericonic de-vise is to make us think of or create more than one possible outcome for a concept. During a discussion in class last week someone made the comment, I believe it was Casey, that the notion of "thinking outside the box" rather than looked down upon, should be embraced. I think this is precisely what O'Gorman wants us to get from his hypericonic de-vise.
Works Cited
O'Gorman, Marcel. " The Hypericonic De-Vise: Peter Ramus Meets William Blake." E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and The Humanities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incoporated, 2006. 50 & 66.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Blog#3: Corporate Settings Give Birth to Cyborgs That Want to be More Human Like
After Tuesday's class discussion about cyborgs, I couldn't stop thinking about the connection between cyborgs and corporate settings. I know that this particular concept is rather small compared to all of the other ideas we have been discussing about cyborgs. However without the connection amongst cyborgs and corporate settings, cyborgs would not exist in my opinion. It is these "corporate settings" that provide the financial means in order to create and maintain cyborgs. If it is corporate settings who put up the cash to support the idea of cyborg production, then aren't corporate settings the ones responsible for the creation of cyborgs. I know that scientist are the ones who physically build the cyborgs, but without the financial means to build them a scientist's role in creating cyborgs are just ideas down on paper. Now I don't mean to say that scientist's aren't important in creating cyborgs. However without the role of money to help aid in the creation of cyborgs, scientist's hands are pretty much tied.
With my new found curiosity about corporate settings funding cyborgs, I began surfing the net and looking for material that discussed this in detail. To my surprise I could hardly find any material on this subject matter. Instead I found several articles about how one day people want to become cyborgs. This one particular article that I found on CNN.com through Google.com entitled, "Why life as a cyborg is better," really caught my attention. This article goes right into context with the discussion that we have been having in class about what a cyborg is. The thing that really stuck out about this article is the comment made about the man this article is about Steve Mann. Mann is a person who has dreams of enhancing human capabilities with computer intelligence. In the article it states, "if it sounds a bit creepy, consider this: Mann became a cyborg so he could be more human ("Why life as a cyborg is better" 2)".
After reading this I thought to myself, "what". Why would someone want to become a cyborg in order to be more human? Isn't this statement contradicting itself? Then I recalled Chris Hables Gray comment that I read in his article "Cyborgology" about cyborgs as members of society. Gray states, "there are many actual cyborgs among us in society. Anyone with an artificial organ, limb or supplement (like a pacemaker), anyone programmed to resist disease (immunized) or drugged to think/behave/feel better (psychopharmacology) is technically a cyborg" (2). This is a true statement. Not only for the dreams of people like Steve Mann, but for the everyday common person like myself.
Whether I want to admit it or not, I am too a cyborg in society. Just this past week I took to different kinds of medication to ward off a cold to "feel" better. In Gray's language I am a cyborg. If this is the case then we have baby cyborgs being born into the world everyday on account of artificial insemination. As well as little children & adult cyborgs walking around who have been immunized. It is our desire to be unique, happy, & healthy individuals that causes us to take on cyborg like characteristics as Gray states. So should we then be calling ourselves "cyborg beings" instead of "human beings"?
With my new found curiosity about corporate settings funding cyborgs, I began surfing the net and looking for material that discussed this in detail. To my surprise I could hardly find any material on this subject matter. Instead I found several articles about how one day people want to become cyborgs. This one particular article that I found on CNN.com through Google.com entitled, "Why life as a cyborg is better," really caught my attention. This article goes right into context with the discussion that we have been having in class about what a cyborg is. The thing that really stuck out about this article is the comment made about the man this article is about Steve Mann. Mann is a person who has dreams of enhancing human capabilities with computer intelligence. In the article it states, "if it sounds a bit creepy, consider this: Mann became a cyborg so he could be more human ("Why life as a cyborg is better" 2)".
After reading this I thought to myself, "what". Why would someone want to become a cyborg in order to be more human? Isn't this statement contradicting itself? Then I recalled Chris Hables Gray comment that I read in his article "Cyborgology" about cyborgs as members of society. Gray states, "there are many actual cyborgs among us in society. Anyone with an artificial organ, limb or supplement (like a pacemaker), anyone programmed to resist disease (immunized) or drugged to think/behave/feel better (psychopharmacology) is technically a cyborg" (2). This is a true statement. Not only for the dreams of people like Steve Mann, but for the everyday common person like myself.
Whether I want to admit it or not, I am too a cyborg in society. Just this past week I took to different kinds of medication to ward off a cold to "feel" better. In Gray's language I am a cyborg. If this is the case then we have baby cyborgs being born into the world everyday on account of artificial insemination. As well as little children & adult cyborgs walking around who have been immunized. It is our desire to be unique, happy, & healthy individuals that causes us to take on cyborg like characteristics as Gray states. So should we then be calling ourselves "cyborg beings" instead of "human beings"?
Works Cited
Gray, Chris Hables. "Cyborgology". 2.
"Why life as a cyborg is better." CNN.com. 14 January 2004. The Associated Press. 15 Feb 2007. 2.
"Why life as a cyborg is better." CNN.com. 14 January 2004. The Associated Press. 15 Feb 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
