Who are they protecting anyway...?

After reading Information Feudalism, the current political climate came into perfect focus. What is it about humankind that lead them to take laws, that are clearly intended for the welfare of the public, and skew them in favor of their own private interests? Furthermore, what is it about American politics and corporations that make them feel they have the right to dictate to the world the laws of copyright, intellectual property, and patents? Is this an extreme case of ethnocentrism or just greed? OR, perhaps both?

From the very start of this debate American interests were arrogantly put ahead of the rest of the world. For example, America took issue when foreign countries translated and published American authors' work. They called it 'piracy'. However, the same America would not allow foreign authors to be protected in the US unless their work was published here at the same time it was published in the "country of origin". "The London Times saw this as an attempt to make New York the centre of world publishing."

In the same vein, Hollywood began their global monopoly of the entertainment industry as early as the 1920s. The political leaders of the time, and since, have been in complete support of this complete domination all in the name of money. As the author(s) recall, "trade follows the film". Hollywood has been given so much protection based on intellectual property that they dictate the level of competition allowed in foreign countries completely independent of the US government.

Drahos:
 "The end game for Hollywood is no restriction on its capacity to reach any type of screen in the world at any time and place".

"...the output of the US film and TV industry serves to dilute national cultures".

In view of this, I ask again. How can one country claim this kind of global control? Hollywood is an independent, international cartel endorsed 100% by the same people who create the laws concerning intellectual property, copyright, and patents.

Drahos suggests that his use of the word "feudalism" in the title of this book is too harsh. However, I'm not sure I agree. It is very clear who the controlling power players are in this scenario; the conglomerates who own the rights. These conglomerates, or monopolies, are way beyond acting in the interest of the welfare of the public. Using Hollywood as the most extreme case, they have no competition therefore they can charge what they want, which goes against everything we know about laws concerning monopolies. And like the pharmaceutical companies, they are allowed to copyright most everything they do.

The question now is when will these corporate giants, monopolies, conglomerates, etc. sink their daggers into the free flow of information that travels across the internet? Drahos has already made the point of the importance of knowledge. With that, I digress for a moment. Again, not a new concept, question, or speculation, but if all of the research scientists were allowed to share their research/information with each other instead of being forced to tuck it away behind patents, imagine how much further the world would be with respect to cures for any number of diseases.

So, how long will the free flow of information remain free? The US has already forced imposition of its intellectual property laws on Sweden, a country that doesn't have any such laws, and doesn't, by international agreement, have any obligation to do so. However, Sweden obliged. Will the regulation come in only the form of Hollywood protection, or will it come in other forms? This story has yet to be written, but somehow I fear the outcome. The US powers that be are very good at disguising their greed by wearing masks proclaiming concern for the good of the people. My only question now is...which people?

The "Unhuman" Network...

Perhaps it is best to begin at the end of this week's reading, for, like Biology, an object is sometimes better understood if the parts that make up that object are understood. Understanding networks is indeed one of those instances, as Galloway and Thacker succinctly demonstrate in The Exploit. However, the authors' also leave the reader with a question, perhaps better denoted as a proposition. One, nonetheless, that fits neatly into a more in depth discourse of network theory, if further dissection is needed or desired.

Do "unhuman" objects exist within networks? This is the question at hand. Drawing no conclusions on this topic, Galloway and Thacker begin, and end, their discussion with bits and atoms. However, earlier in the text they discuss the "physical layer" of network protocols. Is this not "unhuman"? If material conduits are required to allow communication between nodes on a computer network, how can this "unhuman" element be questioned? Is a definition of "unhuman" needed at this point to continue? Even by it's most basic definition, the "unhuman", or, that which is not human, provides the architectural or physical structure for networks. Even biological networks operate within and around elements that are "unhuman". As noted in the reading, emerging infectious diseases travel through hotels and airports, as well as from "unhuman" host to human host.

In this line of thought, perhaps a different question should be considered:  Can networks survive without the "unhuman" element? Can Osama bin Laden "swarm" at will, causing terror on a global level without the objects of airplanes, explosive devices, and other objects of mass murder? Can online social networks operate without the structural underpinnings of a physical computing device and connectivity? If the objects above are defined as "unhuman" and deemed necessary in order for each respective network to operate, the question that Galloway and Thacker leave the reader with quickly transposes itself into more than a mere proposition. Indeed it must be considered within the same context.

That is not to say that the human element is in any way less important. Quite to the contrary. Networks require the interaction of both human and "unhuman" elements, both symmetrically and asymmetrically, in order to be "flexible" and "robust". The "unhuman" element represents and provides the infrastructure for the network while the human element actively consummates the motivation, aliveness, and human interactivity of the network.

Even after considering any and all networks, and from any point in history, this theory seems to hold true. Take for example the Pony Express. This cross-country mail service (or network) could not have operated without the "unhuman" object of the horse working in tandem with the human object of the rider, not to mention the object of his journey, the "unhuman" element of the letter and the piece of paper it was written on. Consider the modern postal service. They do not use horses to deliver mail any longer, however the vehicles they do use are definitely "that which is not human".

The networks of today, that Galloway and Thacker discuss, as mentioned above, are no different; a network is a network is a network. Of course that is an over-simplification meant only for this posting. Networks vary in many ways - in size, in content, even in structure (ie. centralized, decentralized, and distributed). But as long as they meet the four conditions for being a network, they are all recognized and operate as networks; human and "unhuman" elements working in unison to form actively robust webs of ever-changing nodes and edges.

The materiality of media....

Materiality...a new concept in our discussions thus far. Hayles' reading on "Material Metaphors, Technotexts, and Media-Specific Analysis" reminded me a lot of The Medium is the Message. However, Hayles brings to the forefront the idea of materiality and the effect its presence has on the meaning of its content.

While focusing on the physical environment in which the content is embodied, Hayles suggests that the meaning of the content is derived specifically from within that environment. She continues to say that when that same content is recreated in a different media environment, the meaning of that content changes as well.

The key differentiating factor Hayles implies is the physical interaction the viewer has with the medium in which the content is embodied. For example, historically the act of reading a printed book has particular physical, psychological, and emotional associations that have become natural to us throughout the centuries. We use the activity of reading a book as a private time when we cuddle up with a blanket and a cup of hot tea and escape into a world far away from our own. Traversing the traditional book as well as interacting with the texture of its pages, cover, and size also hold sentiment. Sometimes we even hug the book in a gesture of intimacy or hold it up in delight once we have completed the reading. In all instances, it serves as a friend in which we interact with.

Now if we take the content of that same book and recreate it in a new form of media, how will the viewer interaction change? Obviously it changes everything. New bonds must be forged, physically, psychologically, and even emotionally. (Assuming of course that the viewer yearns for these bonds.) Even the interaction between reading a hardback book versus a soft cover book effect the meaning of the activity. The hardback book is treated with more respect and is held differently, if only by virtue of its' physicality. It is more common to see written notes or highlighted sections in soft cover books than in their hardcover counterparts simply because we interact with the two differently.

The advent of various new technologies has also changed the physical activity of interacting with content. The same text is consumed differently in each of the variety of media forms it is offered, bringing new understandings through each experience. The book above would be physically interacted with completely differently if its material form was digitized to be read on a computer screen. If its form was embodied in a book tape or CD, the interaction would be still different.

This concept of materiality exists subconsciously I think for most. The conversation of reading the book versus seeing the movie always brings with it comments on preference towards one or the other. The matter of interpretation and execution of book-to-film are always in the forefront of these conversations but Hayles' point is still made. Recreating the same text in the form of cybertext brings about similar conversations. The presence of animation, hypertext, imagery, etc., alters the meaning of the text in its own unique way, and is also often followed by the discourse of debate.

Whether new material forms in which literary texts are remediated effect the original text's integrity is always debatable. The point, however, is that these remediations offer new interpretations on every level of human interaction. Past the physical activity of consuming a literary text, from holding a printed book to adjusting a computer monitor to achieve a more convenient viewing position, our psychological and emotional reactions are also modified. Will we ever form the same type of bonds that have evolved through the historical materiality of holding and reading a printed book? Will we ever hug a computer screen the same way we hug a printed book? Or will our emotional attachments fade away in reaction to the cold impersonal touch of computers? I don't think so. Soon the same intimacy we've held so dear in our human interactions with printed books will evolve into a new type of intimacy for the interaction with our computers. One thing holds true though. We will come to experience our dear old friend the book in new and different ways as we comfortably adjust to our intimate new cyber environment.

Art Remediated...

According to Bolter and Grusin, digital arts is defined as graphic, static images made of pixels rather than oils or watercolors. That is, computer programs and the algorithms which support them are the tools that the digital artist uses and the computer screen is their canvas. Content varies from immersive illustration to highly mediated multimedia imagery.

The goal of the digital artist, with respect to immediacy, tends to vary depending on the composition and the elements used within the imagery. For example, Bolter and Grusin note that fantasy illustration is a popular theme among digital artists. In this genre, the digital artists attempts to achieve immediacy by creating a space in which they imagine to be real. On the other hand, digital artists who use a variety of elements that are clearly derived from different forms of media, seek to enhance the experience in a way that the viewer is well aware of the use of multimedia objects.

What differentiates the digital artist from the analog artists of the past? Some might claim the computer aids in the creation of a piece of digital art, thus discarding the artist's claim that what they have created is indeed art. The critic asserts that the digital artist has many menu options at hand in order to determine the most appealing look; a "happy accident" it is sometimes called. In comparison, the artists from the past spent hours painting and repainting over areas they were not happy with and only stopped when they were. A true artist is not satisfied until what they envisioned in their mind is executed properly, be it paint on canvas proper or pixels on a computer screen.

The masters of the past were experts at manipulating their tools, their canvases, and their palettes to achieve their vision. So too are digital artists. They achieve their visions with different tools, different palettes, and a different canvas. And like the artists of the past, they too react and contribute to the culture in which they live in.

The difference between the artists of the past, particularly pre-Impressionism, and the artists since, is their focus on immediacy. Prior to Impressionism the objective for the artist was to remove his presence from his work. Techniques these artists worked slavishly to master were proper perspective and proportion, realistic execution, and erasure of their brushstroke. Once photography claimed a more immediate reflection of nature, artists abandoned their attempts of immediacy for a much more hypermediated experience. Impressionistic techniques created only implications of form. Picasso, inspired by the invention of film, attempted to create multiple views of the person in a single form. Pollack, among others, had no problem leaving his paint on the surface of the canvas which created a three dimensional texture, wholly contradicting the erasure processes of the past. And Dadaism removed any effort at immediacy that might have remained. All of these styles were indeed meant to be abosrbed, but by no means intended to be realistic.

Two centuries after the evolution away from immediacy in art, the digital artist relishes in hypermediacy in its purist definition. The more the visibility of mediation, the better. As mentioned above, some digital artists do still attempt immediacy by attending to proper perspective and proportion, however, it is more common to witness the hypermediated alternative.

As Bolter and Grusin note, everything has been remediated since the beginning of writing. On a larger scale, and with centuries of impressions burned in our minds, as artists, it is difficult not to remediate. We often create with styles and images from the past in our minds. A type of Creative Commons if you will. We borrow from the past to create the cultures of today. Our tools and canvases have changed, as too have our intentions. The culture of today is one deeply ceded in technology, specifically digital apparatuses that we must master in order to stay employed. But even as we use our remediated tools and canvases, we are only responding to the generations of remediation that have come before.

Is progress such a bad thing........?

...and so the debate rages on. Something I find interesting in all the readings I do in EMAC is a consistent reaction to the introduction of new forms of technology. Throughout history cultures have gotten so stuck in their ways that when someone suggests something new, they tend to resist it.

For example, Benjamin spoke about the "aura" that once existed in art prior to mechanical reproduction. (I actually had another reading this semester on this very subject, but understand it better after reading Benjamin's article.) And, I must admit, that "aura" of process, place, time, and experience, or, "authenticity" intrigues me. I have an appreciation for the authentic so it also saddens me that this element in art no longer exists, at least in the form Benjamin spoke of.

However, if there were never any change, there would never be any progress. Yes, I agree with both Benjamin and Nichols that changes in technology create social and political shifts in society. But I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing. In fact, to the contrary. Most technological advancements throughout history have been for the good of society. Just because something changes the way people interact, accomplish tasks, or even approach art doesn't mean society is in a state of decay. Attitudes cause societal decay...but that's a topic for an entirely different discussion.

I think the underlying issue driving these continued debate(s) regarding advancements of any kind is the loss of control people feel when they are confronted with something they are unfamiliar with. Nichols talked about control in his article, but in a different way. Perhaps he skipped over the initial lack of control that I mentioned above, and got straight to the heart of the matter. Historically control has driven change. Nichols mentions the Great Exhibition of 1851 in which two permanent exhibitions, the zoo and the botanical gardens were unveiled and celebrated. In his perception, this event is an example of the human desire to control all things. In this instance, nature was taken out of it's natural condition so that the powers-that-be could make sense of it, or control it.

As such, the dawn of mechanical reproduction, photography, film, and now cybernetic systems (just to mention the one's discussed in the text) are all means to tighten control. In mechanical reproduction, the business owner could control and thus capitalize off the sweat of his workers. In photography, the camera could capture a more realistic representation of nature. In film, the director could create and control an imaginary world. Cybernetics operates in a fashion that can potentially control everything we do; most notably in his article, what type of baby you would like to have...if you don't like it, kill it. (I wonder what the Republicans have to say about that EXTREMELY DISTURBING fact?! Oh, I forgot, it's the rich people who are doing it).

So, progress changes our perceptions, our social interactions, and our overall culture. But isn't that what it's supposed to do? If advancements make the world a better place to live, isn't it all worth the initial uncertainty? The implications of cybernetic systems are far greater than anything that has come before. By sharing ideas, culture, music, even video, with people from all around the world, we can start to build global alliances and perhaps take a small step toward world peace. Will we take advantage of all the opportunities that are literally at our fingertips? Or will regulation take hold before these greater potentials are realized? But if we all got along, the folks who like to "control" things wouldn't have anything to do...perhaps I just answered my own question.

So far.....

OK...I'm going a little off topic on this blog because I want to reflect on this semester in EMAC so far. Hopefully you will find it relevant. As I go through my readings and lectures, I find it amazingly relevant. The thing I find most amazing is the foresight that those who came before us had on emergent media. I sit here without a clue as to what will come next.

Was Shakespeare really referring to TV in Romeo and Juliet, or talking about new media in Othello? With this kind of genius or foresight, why haven't we yet found a cure for cancer? Or, for that matter world peace? These are a serious questions that are a lot more important than new media. But if that's what he was referring to I guess that's where we are.

So back to the topic at hand. How did we end up here? What we study in EMAC makes perfect since on how we ended up here. More and more I feel like a robot, although I know I'm not. The articles I read and the lectures I listen to make me feel that this time is not worthy of the past, however I know it is. Perhaps we do not speak the same language but our expressions are a direct reflection of the culture we live in.

As artists, our thoughts and actions are direct responses to how we feel and the attitudes we hold close. We express ourselves in ways no generation before could imagine. Perhaps it's imitation, but it's an imitation that brings people together. People can see eye-to-eye on a global level before unheard of. Is this the answer to world peace? I doubt it, but I think it could be a start....perhaps, maybe.

I think what amazes me most is that we do have all this global new media/technology, and through it all we still don't see eye to eye. I can dance with someone whose color or religion is not congruent with mine, and we both walk away knowing we will never be friends. And that makes me sad.

New media can bring us together in many, many forms; music, video, ideas, sports, interests, etc. Are the powers that be too wrapped up in the past to allow for a new type of global unity? I know what drives the resistance, but I do not understand it. Why not let the comadre of the internet be the beginning to world peace. Perhaps it is and I just haven't seen it yet.

So, with all the past foresight and the present knowledge, why are we not using technology for more good? I soon foresee many governmental regulations on what we see, post, and send online, but, again, I don't understand. Is it so bad to get along with our global neighbors? Is world peace really that scary? Or is it something that is out of the control of new media that keeps us from getting along?

I found the reading on "From Memory to Written Record" very interesting. It's one of those things we really don't think about now days. When I hear someone say "there is no written record" on this or that, I just think no one bothered recording it. I don't even think about the fact that it was before people kept written records, or, perhaps even before people knew how to read or write!

What I found even more interesting in this reading was the fact that the division of classes was just as prominent in 1066 as they are today. The same "privileged" classes were feeding their own, trying to widen the chasm between themselves and the so-called "illiterate".

What is it about groups or classes of people that give them the desire to prove themselves superior to other groups or classes of people? And who has bestowed upon themselves the authority to define what the words "literate" and "illiterate" mean? Language has always defined literacy, and by that I mean the common language and principles of a society.

Taking that question a step further in reflection of Fusser's article, if we all were to depend solely on electronic memory to perform mechanical calculations such as arithmetic, writing, grammar, spelling, etc. how will the word "illiterate" be defined at that point? And will only those who are skilled with computers be considered literate?

Seemingly, it would no longer be about knowing how to write properly or spell properly because the computer will do all that for you. But the computers of today have already proven they cannot always calculate everything properly. What will happen to language if spelling errors are not caught by this electronic memory. Will it become a muddled mess of illiteracy?

And how will this electronic memory effect education? Will schools stop teaching students how to write and spell words correctly? Will they stop teaching math? Will the necessary foundations of knowledge that Socrates explained to Phaedrus, become obsolete and unimportant?

If this were to happen, the chasm between literacy and illiteracy will surely widen even further and favor only those who can afford these devices with electronic memory...and for those who cannot, I guess they will remain illiterate, at least by someone's definition. A tragic regression in this great time of progress.

(And yes, I did run my electronic spell check on this blog entry).