Who remembers the wheel?

Today, when someone mentions an idea like paralysis, an explosion, or a cyborg, humans initially imagining only the extremes of each scenario. Always complete paralysis, an entire building being destroyed, or a human with twisted metal and no soul walking around. What the class film 4002 has explored is the idea that there are many layers to a cake, and more than one facet that can dictate what one concept could come to mean. In the case of a cyborg we have come to see that it could quite simply mean a baby on a ventilator, helping keep it alive, but stealing the position of the nurturing mother. Ollivier Dyens explores this multi-facetted aspect of technology in his exert of chapter three we read entitled “The Rise of Cultural Bodies”.

Dyens explores the idea of a plastic body, but more importantly explores how these plastic bodies, as represented in science fiction texts relate to contemporary society, and how they are becoming ever more accessible in an unapparent way. First, examining the H.G. Wells text The Island of Doctor Moreau, Dyens examines how the animals there live in a plastic body because they have been experimented on, and mutilated to the extent that they are no longer animals, mere simulacrums of animals, far removed from their original selves because of the pain inflicted upon them. In a far less dramatic light, and less painful, I would like to compare this to contemporary society in a not-so-evident-technological way. We ourselves are continuously hacked at, prodded and reshaped each day by the advances of not so modern technology, and I’m not talking about in the extreme like a half man half machine cyborg. With the invention of the printing press, the media was given the ability to reach out into the homes of everyone across the globe and “poke and prod” mankind with news and ideas. Through this one medium, political and religious ideology was able to be mass produced and launched on a global scale. How effective would Christianity be without the bible? And a book can be viewed as a very early, primitive form of technology. Television has the same power; it can present hegemonic films to mass viewers enabling them to feel politically charged, but remain docile.

Having the newspaper, radio and television at hand is “transforming” humans all over is like Dr. Moreau in a very dull sense, they are “at the same time plastic surgeon and concentration camp doctor: [the] repression, art and ideology” (pg 59, Dyens). Kafka further explores this cultural transformation in his short story Metamorphosis. He uses an actual physical transformation to emphasize this idea of cultural ideology.

In the TV show DollHouse Whedon explores this idea of technology and its effects on mankind. “But as is true of the transformations that we now impose upon our bodies, Moreau is less interested in modifying living beings than in altering the world around them” (pg 58, Dyens). Echo has no personality; without technology she has no “self”, and is therefore manipulated into being whatever the buyer wants her to be. In a paranoid sense this could be superimposed on the world and claimed that the ruling party with the most amount of financial backing produces the most amount of ideology that is then circulated to the masses. Media dictates what is fashion, what is ethical, what is dangerous, what is proper, and mankind falls in tow because we see it everyday, and therefore subconsciously strive to become it. Like Moreau’s animals we are being “attacked” and “mutilated” in a very different sense, but the end result is the same, where we become transformed. A world where “technology, war, repression, liberty and art could be seeded and grown” (Dyens 60). I really enjoyed this article because it hinted at the possibilities of transformation, and like Kafka’s Metamorphosis where society usually envisions the extreme; Wells shows us the process in an exaggerated sense. This article fits into our course load because it does show a convergence between man and machine, but not the kind that involves extremes like cyborgs opening doors and turning on lights, but rather books, radios, televisions, molding mankind into an ideology. These are technological advancements, they are just not recent ones, but they are still quite active in our everyday life, and in a sense they are “under our skin” because they have such a prolific existence in society. This is where the convergence occurs, and it isn’t flashy like science fiction.

The Investigation

Unfortunately I was unable to do the reading for this week, but I would like to take a look at the two "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicle" episodes we did in class and how they relate to a reading I did for my 4002 syllabus assignment. In an essay written by Garrett Stewart entitled "Videology" he claims that science fiction movies and television are a medium for man to produce fiction of the conceived sciences of tomorrow. Essentially science fiction on the screen is a form of representation for the possibilities of the future, but also as a depiction of the undiscovered, or non apparent structures in society. This relates back to Peter's article which we read earlier on in the semester which discusses how science fiction is a "portal" to the possibilities of the future and shows us just what man may be capable of accomplishing. Garrett examines science fiction in a very positive way, declaring that it not only represents the perhaps future, but also uses its inherent "unusual spectacles" to depict the present and emphasize issues that are in society today. "The Sarah Connors Chronicles" engages in this investigation, this quest of discovery, but in an unusual fashion. Typical of many science fiction films, including "Screamers" which was viewed in class, the film commences with the technology already in existence, and through the development of a problem or corruption, the narrative entails an investigation into the past to see what the early creators covered up, but did not make disappear. For most films the problem originated at the root of the technologies birth, and therefore technology, or such advancements are viewed as corporate ploys to enhance monetary gain, but not always. Where the "Terminator" Sega differs is that the technology already exists, yet does not yet exist and the plot unfolds around the discovery of where the development of new technology went wrong. In the future machines dominate the Earth and seek out humans to destroy them, where in the present, machines still serve mankind. So quite uniquely the investigation is centred around preventing what has already come to pass (stop the development of Skynet), while simultaneously keeping the time line in check (keeping John Connor alive).
This investigation is emphasized by the police officers "interrogation" and investigation of the death of an employee as the result of a computer. Although he is attempting to discover whether or not the computer had essentially meant to kill the man, what he is really doing is attempting to determine whether or not a computer has the ability to "feel" or to form prejudice. Like he says, the computer had no ethics and therefore placed his "life" above that of humans. Perhaps the TV series is suggesting that this was where the technology originally went wrong. Garrett claims that science fiction exposes issues of contemporary society, and "investigates the propogandistic grips of all spectacle upon the credulous and unwary". So the Terminator series, that commences in media res, examines how the notion of flashy technology can blind the unquestioning mind of its possible dangers, or uses.
Both episodes watched in class pose this question of the nature of the terminators, as the future John Connor is capable of reprogramming terminators to help his cause. So are machines good, or bad? Or is it just their programming? Or programmer? The show doesn't reach a definite conclusion, because although John Connor's terminator body guard is returned to her protective status, she herself tells Sarah that next time she should be destroyed not rescued, because she understands that she is a volatile liability. Yet, the police officers investigation determines that the computer that killed the man was simply unaware of what it was doing, and was oblivious to the fact that it had killed a man. It had no comprehension of the idea of life, because it is not alive. Therefore the TV show also poses the question are the computers really to blame? At the stage they were represented at in that episode shows that it was the humans who were not to be trusted.
"The Sarah Connors Chronicles" is a curious study of the development of the "evil" technologies of the future that so many science fiction films and TV shows depict, because of its split timeline and narrative. It almost suggests this option that perhaps instead of preventing the future (which doesn't seem to be a possibility because no matter what happens in any of the films or episodes, the machines are still created and still turn against man), they can significantly alter it to be a better one, where there isn't a battle between man and machine. The opposing feelings people have in regards to the development of technology is interesting, because some, like Warwick feel it is essential to embrace technology, where others feel that it is removing the human soul from society and making man like machines. The role of technology so far in society is somewhat passive, but becoming increasingly more dominant and active as it integrates itself into every aspect of our life. For now, the musings of science fiction are all we have to envision the future and determine what may someday come to be.

Cast off the shackles!!!

A Manifesto for Cyborg's is a chapter written by Donna Haraway which was poorly received in my film 4002 class. Most felt that her argument was circular, and that she forced the reader to fill in vast gaps, but mostly, that her argument was not properly enunciated. This may be true. I'll confess it took me a few tries to get through her article because I felt it was disparate, and stringy, but I liked her metaphor. The use of the cyborg as a symbolic stand in for both women and technology was quite clever, or so I believe. A cyborg is a representation of a merger of two foreign, once viewed as incompatible entities; machine and organics. The notion of a cyborg breaks down a serious border, and suggests that man can be more than simply organic, and machines can be more than lifeless technology. The amalgamation of man and machine rejects essential ism and forces new definitions, new parameters, and new ideals to be instigated, which I believe is what Haraway is advocating for.
It is quite profound because it also briefly touches on fears of the past that are once again fears of the future.
"Contrary to orientalists stereotypes of the 'oral primitive', literacy is a special mark of women of colour, acquired by US black women as well as men through a history of risking death to learn and to teach reading and writing" (Haraway, pg 34).
As the cyborg is also a symbol for the coloured woman this section identifies a past fear that is still circulating. A fear of the unknown. It was considered wrong for coloured people in the past to be literate just as it seems wrong today for humans to mutate, or enhance themselves into cyborgs. The crossing of cultures, this breaching of borders is called to attention in Haraway's article.
Kevin Warwick is pushing this border with his experimentation with the "neuro-surgical implantation of a device into the median nerves of his left arm in order to link his nervous system directly to a computer in order to assess the latest technology for use with the disabled" (Kevin Warwick's home page). He considers himself a cyborg and he believes, as he had pointed out in many interviews, that humans cannot remain merely human. Once again the class was uncomfortable with Kevin's ideals accusing him of being paranoid, but perhaps he was simply being revolutionary.
He is placing advanced technology into his arm to help him and others function in an enhanced fashion, which may be the future, or not. The point is, like Haraway argues, he is out there doing something to break down the essentialist borders mankind has established. Though Haraway's chapter has more of a feminist tone and Warwick a commercial or technological advancement tone, they both strive to cast away fears of amelioration and step into a new world.

For a typical Hollywood production, Gamer, a film that like so many other mainstream films triumphs the underdog who salvages man kinds humanity, the film did have its merits. My interest wasn't so much in the plot, or the special effects, but in the gamine environment. The use of diagetic and non-diagetic sound really sold the "feeling" of a video game to me. Video games are designed to integrate the player into the game, and since the screen barrier is a massive barrier to breach, numerous techniques are used to correlate the gamers experience with that of the avatar. In the films opening sequence the viewer is introduced to a world of gaming culture where the "high" is not from commanding an avatar, but from actually controlling another person, dictating how their lives will unfold for short periods of time (my sister watched the film with me and she found this aspect of the film mundane and unreal, but I just asked her to consider the numerous Sims games). The protagonist is introduced to the viewer in the middle of a game which involves handheld camera images, ridiculous amounts of gunfire and explosions, and limited, if not fragmented visual/point of view. Just like a video game. I liked this, it had a better effect on my relating it to a video game than Doom did with its use of point of view camera shooting. Although I didn't like the continual visual "glitches" that occurred throughout the film that attempted to simulate live feed. It distracted me from the gaming environment.
What was the icing on the cake for me was the diagetic sound. At the beginning of the film when Kable is in the "game' fighting, in the action, the sound is diagetic, full of shouts, gunshots and explosions. Yet when Kable is removed from the action, when he climbs the flight of stairs the diagetic sounds disappear, although they are still there, just outside and below him in the building. Instead, typical of a video game, all the viewer hears is Kable's footsteps and breathing, until he is once again part of the action. Furthermore, continuously throughout the film during gaming sequences the soundtrack turns over to classical music, soothing music that does coincide with the action that is happening on the screen. Like a gamer playing with an avatar, the music, the sound is optional and can be anything the gamer wants it to be. The viewer is subjected to this experience, which separates him or her from the action, insisting that they are not a part of it, because of the screen barrier, amongst other things.
Despite its filmic, Hollywood tendencies, the film does an adequate job at recreating the game-like feel in the film, right down to the excessive gore and violence. Separate from the escape scenes, the film attempts, and almost arguably succeeds in creating the gaming environment on the screen.
This is an oxymoronic aspect of the film, as games themselves strive to simulate reality and immerse the gamer into the game's environment. Yes it is true that the gamer may select alternate sounds, but both games and cinema want to immerse the viewer/player into the simulated environment. eXistenZ toys with this idea of total immersal and conquests over Gamer as at the conclusion of the film neither the players, or the viewers are certain whether or not the game is still in play. Lia M. Hotchkiss also explores this idea in her article Still in the Game. Both games and movies attempt to break the screen barrier and this theme is united in films like eXistenZ and Gamer where the movies, attempting to simulate games, which attempt to simulate reality. This theme of breaching the screen barrier has been continuous throughout this course, as well as simulating an alternate reality, as seen in Surrogates, eXistenZ and Gamer.

I see, therefore I believe

We live in a screen based society today, not much dispute there. Although we praise technology for bringing us together, enabling us to witness all angles of the world and truly come to understand our neighbouring countries, do we trust it too much? Through YouTube, the media and the Internet the world now exists not only all around us, but in cyberspace as well, and for most people that means on the screen before them, whether it is the television or the computer screen. What people see is what they regurgitate to others. Film theorist like Robin Wood or Barbara Kilinger argues that humans don't have their own voice because they only repeat what they themselves have been told, by the media, family, peers, educational institutions and so forth.
In Jason Sperb's article he quotes Beard, saying, "Its [Videodrome] thematization of media as an ubiquitously intrusive and identity-threatening force, of the transformations enabled and threats posed by information overload, of the dissolution of borders between simulacra and the real and between spectacle and the body, of the politics of image manipulation, of sexuality and subjectivity as unstable cultural constructions is irresistibly attractive to postmodern cultural theorists.”
This quote calls attention to the blurred line between reality and the simulacrum, or the fabricated reality. As a society, North Americans depend on the "capable" media to accurately deliver the news to the eager listeners at home, who believe all that they see. In danger of sounding paranoid, or viewing the world as a conspiracy it is quite a frightening idea to consider how easily images could be fabricated, even in the slightest way. Look at all of the controversy over 911 and the true parties to blame.
The images that are presented to us via television or Internet can be so seductive, so enticing, and so factual that they can lure and entrap even the most devout. H1N1 is out there and it is a "real" threat because that is what I see and that is what I hear on the news. I myself do not know anyone who has died, or even become sick with H1N1. My sister is a nurse at a hospital and she has never encountered any one sick with swine flu. I asked most of my friends and none of them have witnessed any sign of this "pandemic" in person. For me, swine flu exists only on the screen, and I don't doubt its reality. Neither do my friends (though we doubt its severity).The media has this unique ability, because it deals with "captured" images, and we as a general population tend to take what we see for reality. Although the news images are backed up by thousands of other images and eye witness accounts, I still think Beard, and Wood, and Klinger all have a point. The image on the screen not only shows us what is, but also what could be, and we rely upon them too much.

Why Augment our Space

Augmented spaces are everywhere today, and only the most remote regions of the world exists without some from of technological, or more specifically, cyberspace enhancement. Why does the world feel a need to augment the space around them so much? Quite simply I believe it is because as humans we seek to make our lives easier, but also to make the world itself easier to reach. Augmented space isn't a bad thing, nor is it a new phenomenon as Lev Manovich pointed out in his article. Just look at someone like Hawkings for example, who is capable of so much more because he exists in an augmented space. We live more and more in a world that is existing less on paper and more in cyberspace, or "cell space" for one example of many. Today, bank transfers no longer need to be done in person at the teller, or even at the bank machine. Money can be transferred by phone, Internet, e-mail. A friend of mine receives numerous e-mail money transfers from her parents back home. GPS locators, Google maps street views, online booking and work are all aspects of societies existence in an augmented space.
Technology now has the ability to enhance a space simply through its presence. Manovich uses the example of an audio tour and I find this to be an excellent example. When I was in San Francisco over the summer I took the ferry trip out to Alcatraz island and was able to take an audio tour of the inside of the penitentiary. This simple device of offering audio guidance from previous residences of the island added an extra layer to the experience of the island. I was made aware of little details that I would not have noticed on my own, and the different voices relaying their experience humanized the prison. It was different to hear the voices of people who had lived there, rather than just see their faces. The audio tour enhanced my experience.
In the 21rst century we like to see ourselves as a world about the world. All of the new available technologies enhance the world around us and bring us closer together, making the far reaches of the planet closer, just a mouse click away, or the touch of a button. Technology has permanently integrated itself into our lives, and it serves not only to facilitate life, but to act as an information medium between settings, objects, ideas, etc and us, the curious beholder.
Spaces are augmented because of the availability of technology at any given time at any given location. A walk in the forest can become a guided tour of the different types of trees and their habitats simply because the technology to recieve such information is available. The world is being cinstructed with numerous labels and layers, offering more information, and more options through technology.

The Scientists find the Answers, the Arts ask the better questions

In today's society scientists are hailed as being brilliant engineers of the future solving all of man's problems and leading us on and into the next generation of life and technology. It is true that scientists are a crucial backbone in man's present advancements, but they are not alone. Before any technological device is developed by a scientist, it is first dreamed of by a philosopher or an artist. In Mischa Peters' article Exit Meat he discusses how the ability and future of technology, more specifically man's integration with technology, has been dreamt of and conceived of in books such as Necromancer and Johnny Mnemonic but cannot yet be attained in reality. These books use the factual idea of technology to propel ideas of technological advancements in a fictional context towards audiences all over the world. These ideas in turn are picked up by scientists who strive to make them a reality. Peters article examines speculations on "what could become possible in the future if only the technology were more developed" (pg 49). The article gauges pieces of literature that delve into the notion of "uploading" technology to the human brain as seen in Johnny Mnemonic, or strengthening the muscles technologically, or replacing living organs with mechanical ones.
At the moment these are just fantasy and fiction writings that authors who are very interested in science write about to explore the possibilities and experiment with certain social and moral qualms. But this is the root of several technological ideas. The possibility that is explored in fiction literature becomes the seed that drives a technological development. Just look at William Bourne, the first person to conceive of an underwater vehicle that was capable of navigation. Though the term "Submarine" had not yet been established, many thought Bourne was drifting too far into the realm of fantasy and was neglecting his scientific responsibilities, even though the math was sound. Years later submarines came and the world, though impressed, were not overly surprised by this advancement.
Will this be the same case in the future when man is capable of walking on Mars, or transferring their mind from organic tissue to cyberspace. The Arts are just a vessel opening the minds to unlimited possibilities, and the scientists are the ones who come through and weed out the sound ideas. Technology is far behind the imagination (as it should be), and Peters demonstrates this through numerous examples in his article of literature that is closely tied into upcoming ideas in medical and technological magazines.
In short, science fiction literature has "the ability to confront us with some major philosophical and cultural questions" (pg 57) that offer not just insight into the human condition, but also into man's possibilities in regards to technology. Larry Niven is a physicist who wrote a ok series called Ringworld in which he applies his knowledge of the cosmos and science into literature to create a fictitious world that is alien made. Is math the idea of a ring-world is sound, and could actually be possible if the technology to build such a place were available. Maybe some day it will be and we will look back at authors like Niven and Peters and see that they envisioned the future, long before it arrived.