A day without technology

All companies are focused on innovation, making new things people want to buy. How long will it take till the costumer says: no, I don’t need that? It’s frightening to the electronic companies that their market will one day disappear. But I think it’s realistic that at one point the costumers says no, we don’t need another ipad, we don’t need another social network. Somehow it looks like companies want to make us dependent of all these technology which we basically don’t need, well, some of them.
As part of our final assessment we decided to live one day without technology (without phone, social network, radio, mp3-player, computer etcetera). Interesting: the thing we missed the most was our clock, the time. We don’t wear watches anymore, we check the time on our mobile phone or computer. We didn’t miss the whole social network-thing at all, we felt kind of relieved we didn’t had to  update our status, tell everybody what we were doing. All five of us constantly had the feeling we missed something, the pressure to check your mobile phone in case somebody texted you. The fear of missing something was bigger than the curiosity what the message of the text could be.
The pressure you felt to check, so you didn’t miss a thing gave us all a weird feeling; almost the feeling of an addicted person. Technology disciplines us, has power over us! We were so afraid to miss something, but we didn’t really knew what exactly we could miss at all. The text of your mom how your day was, the text of a friend if you want to go shopping? Not that interesting or important at all, it wouldn’t matter if you’d see the message the next day.  Everybody is so focused on quick-respond that we are forced to respond quickly otherwise people will thing there’s someone wrong.  Does technology disciplines us? Makes technology us react like it want us to?
A day without technology felt as a relief, but we were all happy to get our phones, Ipods and computers back. When we checked our emails, text-messages we found out nothing important happened in our technology-free hours. This felt like a wake-up call; we shouldn’t be so dependent of all these technology, we don’t have to check them every five minutes. The earth will rotate without out constantly checking.

Written by Petra Laagland Winder

What would I do without technology?

It’s Friday afternoon, time to go home. After a week of following several classes and writing essays I’m tired and I just want to sit on my couch for a while. I turn on the TV. After lunch, I pack my bag and walk to the bus, which will take me to Nijmegen Centraal. After I found a place to sit in the train, I turn on my Ipod and listen to some music. When the conductor asks me for my public transport pass, I give it to him. He checks it with his little computer and wishes me a nice day. Then I watched the latest Podcasts and looked at my Blackberry: two e-mails. After I wrote a reply, I check the weather. Unfortunately, it’s going to rain. So I call op my mother to ask is she can pick me up at the station. When I see my mom, she tells me she needs to pick something up but she’s not sure she can find the place. I set up the navigation for her and we drive there.

We don’t think about it, but we’re dependent on technology. What would I have done on this Friday afternoon when I didn’t have all these devices to help me? If I wouldn’t have Internet of a TV, I wouldn’t always be aware of what happens in the world. Without my telephone I would lose contact with a lot of people. I’m not saying I can’t do without it, but do I want to? I must admit I never really thought about it. I take all this technology for granted.

Should we be more aware of our relationship with technology? Most people see technology as something of the future. But it’s already here, right now. And it will be become a bigger part of our lives. Take health care for instance: more and more people can live longer due to technology. Do you think we should depend on technology or stay independent? Or is it impossible to not use technology in the year 2011?

– Lisanne Heiligers

“The Clock”

The remix culture seems to be expanding. Today more and more artist are remixing content in their artworks. The Amsterdam school of arts seems to react on this development. Their website contains account about an course that they are offering to international professionals and students that are active in the fields of arts and media education. (http://www.ahk.nl/opleidingen/summer-schools/remix-culture/) The course especially focuses on the interdisciplinary possibilities that audiovisual media offer for art and media education. “Ultimately, it is arts educators who have a large role to play in helping children deal with the challenges of the digital world.” This is the quote that opens this webpage. That could bring us to the question Sascha posted on our weblog last week: “Would digital technology really work in educational systems?

The website encloses a video which contains an example of the remix culture as it currently exist. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8svkK7d7sY&feature=player_embedded ) It’s a short video about the movie The Clock by Christian Marclay. This movie exists out of a montage of film clips that run for twenty-four hours. It is made out of time references for every minute of the day. This could be seen as an example of the so called remix culture because it is made of a collage of thousands of movie clips. The theory of the viral videos suits this movie because viral parts are copied out of preexisting material and then used in a different content.

As already assigned to in the video about the movie, certain movies could raise the questions: What is film? And what is film about? Besides that important research could be what the effects and affects of remixing content are. This brings us back to postmodernism which could be seen as an period in art history when artist were reusing content in very different ways. Postmodernist artist seem to have already started a discussion about what happens to the “original” object when content is reused and remixed. Moreover we could asked ourselves what exactly is original? And what does originality mean in an society that lives through the rules of an democratic system? It might be interesting to investigate all these things in a country like the Netherlands.

Written by: Jolein Selen

Digital entertainment: the new learning

This weekend a brand new festival is making it’s debut in Nijmegen: Oddstream. Why am I talking about this in a weblog about digital art? Because this festival isn’t like any other. Besides music, it offers visitors a way to interact with digital technology. The festival is meant to introduce people with different forms or digital technology: entertainment, art but also educational devices. There is for instance, the Voicepong, which enables people to play pingpong by measuring the hight of the voice.

An example of a fun and educational machine is a mysterious box in an isolated room on the Oddstream terrain. This box has a sensitive plate on the top. With small blocks (like toys), with sensors on the side, you are able to produce a random beat or rhythm. These blocks have different functions: some can create melodies, other create beats and some can even alienate sounds. This box is not just usable for fun, but can also be used to help children express themselves. Do they want a low rhythm, a cheerful melodie, or a dark colour? These choices enables children to talk about their inner feelings more open, according to the creator.

Nowadays technology is more and more introduced in education. Children are able to learn there foreign vocabulary with computer programmes. This way, they are ‘immersed’ by the foreign language. My question is: would digital technology really work in educational systems? Would education improve this way, or is it better to stick with the oldfasioned schoolbooks? In my opinion, we have to work out a compromise. Sure, in this digital era children should be able to handle a computer. But experience has learned that oldfasioned frontal tuition is very effective. What is your opinion?

Bio-art

Last week we’ve discussed the combination of technology, biology and art. Normally we should say that the production of art is what distinguishes humans from animals. But in bio-art they’re using live tissue like bacteria and other living organisms. By doing this they’re adding a new dimension to art. Because of the progress in technology there are becoming more possibilities for artists. But can we call it art, or is it something different? What exactly are the qualities that makes us call something art? Because it’s so new, it raises a lot of questions with the audience.

One of the main questions is how far this process can go. Do humans have the right to change and use nature in order to produce art? This type or art is building something from scratch, a new life you could say. Today it is happening on a quite small scale, but nobody knows what will happen in a hundred years. Maybe they won’t use bacteria any longer but start thinking bigger: creating a new human, a cyborg. But maybe giving technology a bigger place in our lives isn’t necessarily bad. Technology has something interesting, but at the same time we’re afraid of it. For example: the many movies that were made about the future. In the beginning the new technology is helping human kind, but later on it will turn against us and destroy humanity. Maybe by letting the technology in our lives the fear of it will go away. If the fear is gone, we might be able to do even greater things than we’re already doing. Like McLuhan said: technology is an extension of ourselves. I don’t think the development process is near finishing. There is a lot more to discover.

What can be the role of art in this process? Art is a more accessible medium than the scientific researches and reports. People are afraid of what they’re not familiar with. Art can make the gap between science and the society smaller. What is you opinion on this? Are you welcoming the new developments in technology or would you like to put a hold to it?

– Lisanne Heiligers

To sense the human body

Body Worlds, a exhibition by Gunther von Hagens where real human bodies are exposed. Another example at we could question ourselves if it is a matter of the human body as a medium. Is it a representation of the human body and thus of reality? Or is this reality? What is certain is that these bodies are made through a process which is based on covering the body parts with plastic. Plastination is the name that is given to this “fabricating of bodies.”

What might be interesting to research is what these kind of exhibitions do to us. We could say that these bodies are not just images that are being showed to us. Presentations like these could be wearing a lot of meaning behind it. They could open connotations, meanings and codes. Think of the affect that it leaves on viewers. Observers are engaging with these pieces by walking by. This line of reasoning  is derived by seeing the exhibition as a place where bodies are used as a interface. The human body as the center of these so called art installations could bring lots of emotion and feeling to people who visit.

The difficult part of discussion about if these exhibitions have any kind of influence lies partly in the technology that is used creating certain bodies. We could suppose that you are interacting with technology while you are watching these objects. Currently we do not have much information about the affects of art works derived through technology. In any case these works are created by a anatomist.

Another difficulty that comes with studying the affect of body presentations like these is that there are no words to explain sense things. It’s impossible to describe that these bodies can do in words and what the medium specific qualities of the bodies are. But often observers get a certain feeling watching their own physicality. It influences their state of mind on that moment or maybe even how they feel and behave. People are affected immediately. They even sometimes get a “scared” feeling when they are “sensing” the human body.

Jolein Selen

My true friends on the internet

Reading the lecture before class,  one work of art caught my attention. Angie Waller’s myfrienemies.com (2007) gives the internet-user the opportunity to make friends based on shared dislikes.  Waller is questioning the ‘friendly’ social networking environment.  In class we discussed representation and identity on the internet. As a user of a social network; say Facebook, you create a new ‘identity’, which doesn’t have to be the same as you are in ‘real-life’. As we concluded in class; on the internet you can create your own reality. You don’t have to act like you normally do; you can change it. But when you’re not truly ‘yourself’ on the internet; how fake are all your friendships on social media? And does it matter these friendships aren’t real? They’re just virtual. Are virtual friends as important as ‘real’ friends? Does it matter how much we friends we have? People add you on Facebook, people you barely know. Still you accept them, because it would be ‘unkind’ and ‘weird’ if you don’t. But then I started questioning; do you still have an identity on the internet? People base their identity on things they like, friends they have, the positive thing. I think the interesting about Waller’s myfrienemies.com is that it totally based on negatives things. You can become friends based on shared dislikes. At the same time; you can become friends with everybody! People you share interest with and people you share disinterest with. Does being a friend on the internet mean anything?  Are we all friends now? Do we still have an identity on the internet or is it just one big joke?

Petra Laagland Winder

The powerful tool we call the Internet

Public space. Obviously this term excludes the private space. At least, that is what we assume. We have the idea that a public space, or a public sphere, is a place ‘were our private issues are left behind’, according to philosopher Jürgen Habermas. This is necessary to in order to participate in a democratic society. Habermas cleams that a discussion is only to be held when the participants leave their personal issues, like religion, behind. He speaks of public sphere as a condition of free speech. But isn’t free speech a right to say what we think, which means it’s impossible to leave all our private issues behind? 

The Internet is a good example of public sphere. It’s a virtual space where everyone is able to speak up. For instance, Facebook or this weblog. You are free to speak up, about anything. The Internet has such impact, that people are talking about it in daily life. An abused woman has a right to speak up, she can share feelings and problems with the rest of the world, which might not be possible in her private situation. Thereby she carries her private life with her. Her personal position could be an important contribution in a discussion. In my opinion, public sphere isn’t the opposite of the private sphere: it’s a space where people meet, virtual or physical, personal issues and ideologies included, and where we search for a reasonable way to live as a community. It is impossible to see a person as somebody without a history, without an opinion of their own, and this makes it impossible to think of a public space without our private issues on the background. Yes, it isn’t recommandable to offend one another, the public sphere is hopefully to be seen not as a battlefield, but as a space of peaceful gathering.  But if we would ban any sign of religion in public space, like in France, can we still speak of a democratic society? Maybe we can, maybe we can’t. And isn’t it important to have an occasional wild discussion or scandle, for it is important to remain critical about (our part in) our society? This is way non-democratic societies see Internet as a dangerous tool towards democratisation. And that’s what it should remain.  

– Sascha Wijnhoven

Misconceptions

On May 13th we’ve discussed the difference between space and place. A city you visit is of course a place. But besides just being there, it’s also a space. A place can have a certain feel to it. Maybe it’s a financial district or a spot that’s visited by a lot of tourists. The terms ‘place’ and ‘space’ come together in the so-called global cities like Paris, London or Berlin. Sometimes two different places can be very near to each other but in terms of space their miles apart. Take for instance a small village next to a big city; they don’t have the same feel to it.

In the modern society we live in, our perception of space and place is changing. Because of developments like airplanes, the Internet and the telephone the space between people becomes smaller. We don’t have to visit a place to see what it looks like and you don’t have to visit the people you want to speak. This phenomenon is something most people take for granted. But Manuel Castells recognised this development and wrote about it in 1996. He says there are three types of time: glacial time, clock-time and timeless time. According to Castells we live in an era of timeless time because the link between time and space is gone. We can send an e-mail to the other side of the world and it will only take seconds. The new media made space irrelevant.

I’d like to look at the influence the new media has on our perception of the world. If you look up ‘Nijmegen’ on Google you get 20.900.000 hits and 1.750.000 pictures. But it still gives a one-sided view of Nijmegen. Someone always writes something with a certain purpose. You want to make the city look good or bad or attract tourists. And because it’s not written with an objective point of view, it can’t be the truth. The only way to know how Nijmegen really is, is to visit the place. This is just one example. But think of how many times you looked something up with help of the Internet. When you’re searching for information you immediately form some kind of opinion about it. So how much of you knowledge is really the truth? Can we say that this new media is the cause of all this? Or is it because of the way we use it? One thing is for sure: the Internet made it a lot easier to get information and thereby it shapes our opinion. It creates an image, which might never be corrected.

– Lisanne Heiligers

Moving away from linearity, structure and strict categories to a more database kind of logic.

Frequently museums have presented objects in a linear kind of way. A route starts at the entrance where the story begins. Then it continues to all the rooms en eventually it ends in presence. This basic chronological story of art is often a story of art history. By moving through space the story evolves. This linear way of experiencing art seems to be reflected in other kind of arts. A album for example is often organized around a single theme. For instance the Sgt. Pepper album of the Beatles on which “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite” functions as a closure of the first act. “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” concludes the performance and “A Day in Life” serves as a coda that brings the audience back to the world of recorded song.

It seems that structure has played an important role in art history. But it seems that museums move away from this mentioned above traditional display of art and therefore structure seems to be a less important factor. At the same time the moving away from strict categories to a more database kind of logic seems to be reflected in the kind of art that is displayed. The last couple of ages new kind of arts have evolved. One important example to discuss is Digital Art. Museums struggle what to do with this kind of art but gradually it seems that the digital medium works its way through museums.

The Valkhof museum in Nijmegen appears to have appreciation for art that is derived through digital mediums. Currently a exhibition takes place about photography as a art form. Photographers achieve artworks by recording reality with a camera and adding different content. Handmade decors are used and the computer is often employed to montage the images. Therefore the constructed photographs look like manipulated realities. Different elements and different mediums are used to produce a artwork which seem to cause less structuralized objects. For that reason we could assume that the artist experiences with a more database kind of logic, like the organizers of the museum strive after when they are designing routes through the museum.  

Jolein Selen

Sources:

–          Grier, James. (2001) “The Mothers of Invention and ‘Uncle Meat’: Alienation, Anachronism and a Double Variation”, Acta Musicologica. [Vol.] 73, [Fasc.] 1. pp. 81

–          ‘ Tentoonstellingen 2011’ Brochure Museum het valkhof Nijmegen. Kunst en archeologie. (December 2010)