Posts Tagged ‘Add new tag’

Gattaca

Sunday, December 6th, 2009


This weekend I watched the movie “Gattaca.” For
those of you who may not be familiar, “Gattaca” is a movie depicting a future
in which everyone’s genetic past, present, and future is open for scrutiny. The
vast majority of people exist as a result of artificial selection and
manipulation of genes at or before conception.  I had watched the movie in
the past, but in light of everything we have discussed in class this semester I
came away with a few new insights. 

The first response I have regarding this movie is
the social implications of an exposure and manipulation of genes. In the world
of Gattaca, genes determine your stake in life the moment you are born—unless
you are the main character, Vincent Freeman, who discovers a way around the
system. Vincent is prevented from pursuing his dream of going into space
because of a congenital heart condition that he retained because he is one of
the last people to have been born naturally without any genetic intervention.
In watching this movie, I was a little disturbed to realize how easily this
kind of discrimination could occur in our current society. Just since I first
watched this movie 5 years ago, the scene of genetics and its place in society
has dramatically changed. 

When I first saw the film, I was only vaguely
aware of how genetics could be used and of the genetic tests available. Now, I
hear of new genetic discoveries every day. My own family has discovered we
carry a gene for breast cancer. Every other television series includes a
character struggling with a genetic disease, from Huntington’s on “House” to
Achondroplasia on “Little People Big World.” The problem is, as of today, we
have the ability to screen for thousands of disease-causing genes but have very
little ability to treat them once they are diagnosed. Fortunately, laws have
been developed in the recent past to prevent insurance companies from
discriminating against individuals who have tested positive for genetic
diseases, however there are always loopholes and discrimination is still possible.
What the movie points out is the danger of exponentially increasing our ability
to diagnose genetic traits without increasing our ability to help people with
these conditions. While we can identify individuals who carry genes that
predispose for cancers, from the BRCA genes that cause breast cancer to
mutations in P53 that cause just about every cancer imaginable, we can do
little more than carefully watch individuals and attempt to treat their cancers
at very early stages. We can test fetuses for genetic syndromes from down’s
syndrome to cystic fibrosis to, but by the time we diagnose them they are
already present in the child and offer no positive treatment options—leaving
parents to decide between aborting or having a child who will live with limited
capability to care for himself (down’s) or who will struggle for all of his 30
years of life to not suffocate from a buildup of fluid in his lungs (cystic
fibrosis). The dangerous precipice we are hinging on is that of accepting that
we cannot treat or change these conditions and attempting to react to it as
society has in the movie—by discounting the imperfect individuals and giving
their liberties to those who are deemed more genetically valuable. 

Fortunately, our society is still fighting to
retain its ethical duty to people, regardless of their genetic make-up.
However, the movie—in which society has forgotten this duty—works to make an
argument for the limitations of genetic testing. Through a parallel between
Vincent and his brother, Anton, the movie demonstrates genetics’ inability to
account for some of the most valuable and unmatchable human characteristics of
passion, determination, and faith. Whereas Vincent is a “God Child,” whose
genetics were determined by chance, his brother’s genes were modified and
perfected. However, in a scene revisiting their childhood, the movie shows the
brothers compete to see who can swim the farthest out into the ocean. Vincent
wins, and ultimately saves Anton from drowning. When Anton discovers that
Vincent has been cheating the system to achieve his dream, the two fall back
into the same competition and once again Vincent wins, saving Anton. In
response to Anton’s question as to how in the world Vincent, with his genetic
heart condition, is able to swim faster and stronger than Anton, who is
supposed to be genetically superior, Vincent responds: “I never saved anything
for the swim back.” Ultimately Vincent’s passion and determination to overcome
his shortcomings make him more powerful than his brother, who always relied on
his genetic perfection to get him by and never learned to struggle for
anything. 

With relation to this class, the movie
demonstrates the danger of using technology to replace the natural side of
humanity. The society’s preoccupation with breaking down every component of
human beings’ existence makes them forget the non-technical, innate part of
what it means to be human. As Vincent demonstrates, to be human means to bend
circumstances to your advantage—not to create circumstances within which to operate.
We use technology to enhance our natural existence, but must struggle to avoid
using technology to replace our natural lives. 

I am left with just a couple of questions:

1. Do you fear that society will lose its grip on
the developments being made in science each day? Or do you believe we will be
able to adapt to control the changes being made?

2. Do you think there is a line to be drawn
between which diseases should be screened for versus which should be left to
chance? For example, should there be a difference between screening for a
disease you can treat and screening for one that almost certainly means death
for the individual in question?


Mary Hambleton’s Late Works

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Thanks to the background information we were provided, I felt a connection to the abstract strokes and ambiguous themes of Mary Hambleton’s late works. Having watched my mom fight breast cancer, I felt a particularly strong connection to the work “Enough.” Furthermore, I found the exhibit left me with some lasting and powerful impressions.

Several elements of the work spoke to me. The first thing that jumped out to me when I first saw “Enough” was the layers upon layers of paint that resulted in the coral-like, 3-D texture of the majority of the work. This was distinctive among the rest of Hambleton’s late works and, to me, spoke to the rawness of the emotions that the artist was trying to convey. While most of her works incorporated layers, “Enough” was the only one featured that included textures that were not flat and parallel to one another. The irregularity of the structures gave me a sense of loss of control, which perhaps is what Hambleton felt in her last years struggling with cancer. Furthermore, the structures and colors added atop the irregular, raised layers of black paint inspired images of pain and struggle.

Protruding from the black were seemingly sharp objects, shards that were reminiscent of being stabbed and injured. Beyond the shards were, most disturbingly, rusted nails. Finally, hazards of color were splashed over the black structures, which to me symbolized a desperate attempt to achieve or maintain the same order and joy prominent in the bordering regions of the work. Together, these elements communicated to me a sense of struggle—a fight to maintain a philosophy and a perception of life while undergoing pain and abuse. The reading by Tiffany Bell suggests that this work could be addressing Hambleton’s frustration at the countless operations and procedures she must have undergone in attempt to regain and preserve her health. Examining the work inspired in me feelings of pain and frustration, and having analyzed these different elements in the piece I would have to agree with Bell’s assessment of its meaning.

Leaving the exhibit, I found myself endowed with two lasting impressions. The first of these was a greater appreciation for the power of art, and more particularly abstract art. Before today, if someone had asked me if I was a fan of abstract art, I probably would have said that I did not understand it, and that perhaps it was less valuable because its interpretation is so subjective. However, being exposed to Hambleton’s works today made me realize that understanding just a little bit of an artist’s life can enable you to understand and appreciate the profound nature of his work. Moreover, having seen the works in the gallery today, I would be more likely to submit to the possibility that in some cases, abstract art can be more powerful for its ambiguity than can other more straightforward works.

The second impression I left with today was of a more personal nature. Leaving the gallery, I found I had a greater awareness, or had been reminded, of what my mom must have gone through when she had cancer. I was only nine when she was diagnosed, and as a kid I could not fully understand what cancer meant. More importantly, the thought never crossed my mind that she could die from the disease. Touring relics of a real person’s life who died from cancer, I found myself with a new appreciation of how lucky my mom was and how lucky I am that she is still here. The fact that Hambleton’s work inspired in me such a personal realization further speaks to the power of abstract art. While other forms of art may limit audiences’ interpretation of a piece, I feel that abstract art may provide a greater opportunity for sympathy. The high level of ambiguity found in abstract art may allow viewers to place themselves, their experiences, in the context of the work and therefore to gain more personal insight. This further reminds me of the discussion we had last week about the narcissism of the artist. While the experience of creating her artworks may have functioned to help Hambleton cope with her struggle, the abstract and ambiguous nature of the product makes the work less narcissistic and more humanistic. 

Hemmet, Tuters and Varnelis; “34 North 118 West”

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Hemmet, Tuters and Varnelis Articles

                In “Beyond Locative Media: Giving Shape to the Internet of Things”, Tuters and Varnelis define locative arts and explain its newfound popularity today.  Its name having origins in a Latvian electronic art and media center, the word comes from a Latvian word meaning location. Today locative arts have come to be centered around the individual viewer. It focuses on the “cartography of space and mind, places and the connections between them”. This new art form emerged from our modern do-it-yourself culture and as a rejection of the net art movement.  It morphed out of the net art movement because it encompasses many other media forms, other than the internet. Locative media includes software art, performance, sound art, data visualization, technology-enabled social sculpture and video, among other things.  This new type of art is so different from net art because it doesn’t try to prove its art status. Net art had an elitist audience, whereas locative arts target a mass audience through their use of consumer technologies.  In addition, locative arts hold large potential business opportunities and commercial applications. In fact, many locative media artists are collaborating with industry and government now. Tuters and Varnelis classify locative media projects under two types of mapping: annotative and phenomenological. Annotative mapping is generally concerned with virtually tagging the world, whereas phenomenological mapping traces the action of the subject in the world. Under these two classifications of mapping, many locative performers are attempting to change the world by providing it with more data. The data that these artists present offer people with the opportunities to make future choices with the data in mind. As successful as the locative media movement sounds, there are some critics today that think that these mapping forms of art are actually endangering us instead of enlightening us. One critic, Brian Holmes, thinks that because the US Army controls GPS satellites, and most locative arts projects use GPS as a main device, we are “allowing ourselves to be targeted by a global military infrastructure and to be ‘interpellated into Imperial ideology’”. Other critics think that locative media is enforcing a loss of privacy in the participants lives. I think the benefits of locative media outweigh the potential criticisms. Locative arts make us more aware of the world around us by providing proven data that we can interpret for ourselves and apply to our decisions every day.

In “Locative Arts”, Drew Hemment categorizes the types of locative arts and provides many examples of each.  He defines locative art as the art of mobile and wireless systems that is more focused on the preconditions of moving or being able to move than positioning. There are three main categories of locative arts: mapping, geoannotation, and ambulant (walking or moving about). Mapping is usually done by GPS systems and people moving through the physical environment. Some examples of mapping projects are GPS Drawing by Jeremy Wood and Amsterdam RealTime by Ester Polak. Geoannotation is the making of data to be geographically specific or placing a digital object in space. In this type of media, the individual person is the tool that drives the project forward.  Uncle Roy All Around You, by Blast Theory and Radio Ballet are some examples of this type of locative media.  One thing that is has been appealing to fans of locative arts but also addressed by critics is locatives arts characteristic of being “of the world” but not “in the world”. This speaks to the fact that the way these arts are performed is through the use of people and technology and often times the finished product is not displayed in a gallery setting. This is what makes locative media so much different than other types of art forms that we see today.

 

Jeremy Hight, Naomi Spellman, Jeff Knolton

Narrative Archaeology

“34 North 118 West”

 

Jeff Knowlton was the head preparitor at the Orlando Museum of Art for five years where he worked closely with curators in both exhibitions and education. He attends conferences and participates in panels and lectures on interactive media and technology.  He is a recipient of a New Forms Initiative Grant funded by the NEA and the Rockefeller Foundation. He currently is teaching at UC San Diego in the Interdisciplinary Computing Arts Program.

                Naomi Spellman is a transmedia artist and educator. She has exhibited works including networked art, video, computer-based interactive works, and graphic prints. She has over twenty years of experience in commercial work, including art direction, graphic design, photography, illustration, and internet content development.  Today, she teaches in the Interdisciplinary Computing Arts Program at UC San Diego and in the Design and Media Arts Program at the Orange Coast Community College in Costa Mesa.

                Jeremy Hight is an internationally published writer and poet who has created numerous works for multimedia and for exhibition. He wrote a paper titled Narrative Archaeology that was presented at a conference on writing at the MIT. Now, he teaches Visual Communication for Multimedia at Mission College in Los Angeles.

 

The team of Jeremy Hight, Naomi Spellman, and Jeff Knolton are currently putting into practice this idea of locative media. Their project, “34 North 118 West”, is an interactive experience that takes place in Los Angeles, California. They use technology and the physical navigation of the city simultaneously to create a layered atmosphere for the participant. As you walk through the city, you are given a GPS unit attached to a lap top computer and a set of headphones. On the computer, there is a map that tracks your movements through the streets. When you walk to certain locations (some are shown on the computer’s map and others are left for you to discover) a narrative is read to you through your headphones. The headphones appear to only have sounds in them until activated by your position in the city, then the written narratives are read to you by voice actors. This generates the sense that everything in the city is agitated and alive with unseen mysteries that you have yet to discover.

 

 The purpose of this project was to create the feeling of being in two places at once. As you pass through the city, a story is read that juxtaposes the sight you are observing. What you are left with is a sort of virtual reality in which the world is completely contradictory to what you would expect.  They wanted to create a dual city in which the world is split into being “connotative and denotative” at the same time. The denotative city is the one that is seen and navigated on the literal level. The narrative archaeology part of the experience is the connotative aspect.  This is considered a form of narrative archaeology because as you walk through the city you peel away layers of culture in the stories you are hearing, as if you were digging for artifacts through layers of dirt.

 

Questions to think about:

1.       Do you think the narrative archaeology concept used in this project would have the same effect on participants if it wasn’t set in a busy urban setting?

2.       How can being in two places at once cause you to look at your surroundings differently?

3.       Do you think narrative archaeology  is a valid form of locative media?

 

If you want more information on this project, visit http://www.34n118w.net/

 

Nye Technology Readings

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

In his first chapter, Can we define “Technology?,” Nye explores the evolution of tools in order to reveal that “technology” is ancient, rather than modern. In the most basic sense, Nye defines the birth of technology as the point in time when humans became capable of “remember[ing] past actions and reproduce[ing] them in memory.” This capacity to “see actions as a sequence in time” is what has allowed humans to create tools and therefore shape our environment.

Whereas today technology is viewed as anything involving computers, the internet, or other machines, Nye points out that technology can be traced back through the ages to this most basic ability to shape our surroundings. Simple tools, he argues, were most basic form of technology because they enabled us to satisfy for our desire for more than just the “necessities.” By analyzing the desires that result in tools, Nye believes that technology can be used to analyze the development of cultures and societies.

Having illustrated that tools are products of the societies from which they originate, Nye proceeds to correct the misconception that science creates “practical discoveries.” Rather, Nye contends that practical discoveries come first, tending to the desires of men, and scientific theory gradually follows with an explanation of why the discovery is possible. Considering this discovery-before-explanation definition of technological progress, Nye then makes the argument that technology is in fact more like art than science. Like art, technology must work with the “un-analyzable” before progress can be made. Only once a technological discovery is made can its meaning and processes be interpreted.

Nye’s interpretation of technology as a parallel to art comes in direct contrast to what he calls “technological determinism”—or the belief that a “direct line of technological development led from the first tools to the conquest of the stars.” In his second chapter, “Does Technology Control Us?,” Nye challenges the various theorists who support technological determinism. Citing societies such as the Amish and Japan who have systematically avoided the technological progress made by the rest of the world, Nye implies that the progression of technology is not inevitable but requires willful interaction and the acceptance of new developments. Whereas many historians argue that technology forces change, Nye argues that it can only result in change if it is used in a way that is accepted and effective within a culture. Agreeing with the author Fernand Braudel, Nye argues that “technology is just an instrument” and “man does not always know how to use it.”

Continuing to explore the interpretations of technology through history, Nye describes the negative attitude with which it was viewed during the industrial revolution in contrast to the hopes of socialists such as Lenin and Marx who held high hopes that the evolution of technology would create perfect, egalitarian societies.  Further contending with the singular power of technology to compel change, Nye contradicts the “externalist” views Alvin Toffler and Marshall McLuhan. Nye’s ultimate argument is that technological determinism is a misguided theory that overemphasizes the impact of technology’s existence and undervalues the significance of the societal forces that create it and its use within a culture.

Nye’s arguments made me think about our discussions in class regarding the merging of technology and art. Whereas Nye points out that technology cannot be developed without intuitive leaps, we have encountered artists who are developing art with the determined use of technology. What is most interesting is that we have seen Nye’s theory in action in the real world—even in our own classroom—as we conceptualize the art we want to create but then have to back-track to create the technology necessary for its actualization.

 

Questions:

 

  1. Would you consider yourself a technological determinist? Or do you agree with Nye in his perspective on technology’s relationship to society?
  2. Has your view of technology changed having read Nye’s work? If so, how?
  3. Nye considers technology to be a reflection of the society that creates it. What do you think the internet, laptops, cell phones, etc. say about our society as a whole? What about other technologies—such as nuclear weapons? Cars?  

But is it Art? Reading Response

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Cynthia Freeland’s book But is it Art? deals with the idea of defining exactly what art is, obviously not an easy thing to do, as art means something different to everybody. Chapter 6, “Cognition, Creation, Comprehension” deals with the idea of defining this exactly. Art, Freeland claims, can do a variety of things, and the same piece of artwork can do different things for different people. For instance, Freeland cites work by the painter Francis Bacon, whose artwork seemed horrific to many people due to the images of screaming people. However, other critics saw only his superb technique, taking nothing from it symbolically.

Freeland claims that a proper interpretation is somewhere between these two extremes, looking partly at both and taking the art as a medium to express complicated thoughts. She goes on to explain why she finds this view relevant, as well as other ways art can be used for expression, and cites specific scholars who take that approach. For instance, Tolstoy feels that art expresses an emotion, Freud that it serves to express unconscious desires and lust, Suzanne Langer (among others) feels that art represents an idea instead of a feeling, and Dewey sees art as a tool to enhance people’s world and perceptions.

I feel that while this is a good basis, there is still the issue that each analysis is essentially correct. Nobody can really entirely know what the artist was trying to express except the artist. Therefore, there is no one “correct” way to interpret art. Art says different things to different people, and that is what makes it so wonderful. The fact that the meaning isn’t spelled out in black letters on white paper is what makes you want to come back to it time and time again, because each time you take a different meaning out of it. It also is what makes us reach for art as an expressive medium when we have feelings too complicated to express in words, or if we are confused about what we’re thinking. For instance, I know if I’m confused or angry or upset but don’t know exactly why, I reach for my camera or cello and lose myself in art momentarily. Once I’ve come back and thought about what I’ve done, it becomes easier to realize what my feelings were because they have been spelled out in the art, even if I couldn’t put them into words. This doesn’t mean that they say the same thing to everybody, but I can retroactively see what I was trying to say, what I couldn’t get across with words.  Therefore, an essay on how to interpret art can only achieve limited usefulness, as there is no one “right” way to go about it.  Freeland’s critique is good for trying to see different ways that one could interpret things, but in the end, art is still a highly personal endeavor.  Another reason that this was hurt was that each method that was examined was used to evaluate a different work of art.  Therefore, there was no consensus on when one interpretation should be applied over another.  It is as if the reader is expected to know this, and to intuitively know how to look at art.  While this is true in the sense that people look at art differently, it would seem that if people know which way to view the art, they would know what that view is used to say.

The next chapter, “Digitizing and Disseminating” looks at how technology has impacted our views of art.  The main arguments follow the thoughts of three main philosophers.  The first to be analyzed is Walter Benjamin.  Benjamin believes that each work of art has an “aura,” something that can not be easily explained.  This so-called “aura” is lost as art has become more easily accessible through technology, but Benjamin does not find this to be a bad thing.  Instead, he claims that it makes people more perceptive and that it brings art to many people who would previously have been put off by the aura.  The second view is that of Boudrillard, who takes a much more negative, dystopic view of the impact of technology.  Boudrillard finds that life has become “hyperreal” or larger than life.  An example of this would be Disney World, where everything is more perfect than it could possibly be in the real world, and weddings, which now seem to exist only for taking pictures and video, so that one can remember it rather than experiencing it.  The third view, that of McLuhan, is again optimistic.  He feels that art has become more democratic, it can be experienced by more people.  It also increases the level which people are social through technology.

Again, Freeland takes a moderate approach between the extremes.  She questions the optimism of Benjamin and McLuhan, but also finds Boudrillard to be overly pessimistic.  She ends the conclusion encouraging readers to make their own decisions.

I find myself agreeing with Freeland to an extent.  I feel that Benjamin is perhaps too optimistic, for there is still something to be experienced in seeing the aura of a piece of work. Boudrillard’s view is definitely valid, as one can see the effects he mentions all around us.  Buildings are bigger, the lives of the extremely wealthy more extravagant than before.  However, it seems a bit excessive to believe that people are no longer experiencing life, but only a simulation of it.  McLuhan brings up some good points, but often, technology leaves us as lonely as before.  If people are truly “interacting” with it, then it is only as a faceless stranger somewhere in space. The human element has then become meaningless.

Overall, the reading left me with several questions:

1. Does the medium of the artwork effect the magnitude of the impact of technology?

2. Has society always been this way and technology only heightened our awareness of it, or has technology truly impacted society?

3. If someone’s view of a work of art is different than the conventional view, to what extent is it “wrong” or merely “different”?