New Media Art

I found when I explored new forms of media art, I became much more aware of the relationship between media and art and how it can help us to understand contemporary media. I'd like to discuss this in relation to the artwork I found called, Genesis. Genesis is a media artwork by Edwardo Kac. What Kac did in his artwork was take a quote from the bible, Genesis, and turn it into Morse Code and then turn that Morse Code into DNA base pairs, using a conversion principle he devised. He them placed the bacteria, from the DNA, into a petrie dish and enabled audience members to accelerate or decelerate its growth through a website which controlled the light source (ekac 2012). 

What I found most interesting about this was the way it explored the relationship between technology and science, while still telling the story of the growth of technology. Genesis, relating to origin, works with the use of Morse Code, as being the origin of global communication and contemporary media as we know it. 

I also find the interactivity to be a major part of the work. Allowing users to engage, online, directly relates to contemporary media, which is, for the most part, completely user generated. We control the way in which the networks formed by new media grow and develop, reflected here through the bacteria.
By laying it out, in such an immersive, interactive and reflective way, Kac enables the audience to experience the progression of new media through his artwork.

Kac's work can be found at :

http://www.ekac.org/geninfo2.html

Hauntology

I find the theories suggested by Douglas Rushkoff to be extremely interesting and highly relevant to the way in which media and technology are changing our experience of time. As stated on Rushkoff.com, 'Rushkoff argues that we no longer have a sense of a future, of goals, of direction at all. We have a completely new relationship to time; we live in an always-on "now", where the priorities of this moment seem to be everything' (Rushkoff 2013). I do find myself siding with Rushkoff in many regards. Recently I have been discouraged by the amount of emphasis in our culture to live within this Facebook, Twitter immediacy, the fact that every moment needs to be immediately uploaded or shared within a platform to make it tangible is, I feel, along the lines of what Rushkoff is saying. However, I found recently the idea of living within the present takes away from the future to be turned on itself. I discovered an example of someone momentarily living in the future to heighten their sense of the present, or now. 

Recently, a friend and I went to see a performance by the London Heritage Orchestra at the Opera House. They were playing Vangelis' much acclaimed soundtrack to the popular eighties sci-fi film, Blade Runner. My friend and I are adoring fans of the film, soundtrack, and everything associated and had been looking forward to the event for sometime. It is not the looking forward to the event where I find the aspect of living in the future to still be present, but rather, something my friend said to me prior to the performance. He turned to me and asked if I was planning to record any portion of the performance on my iPhone (for Facebook or future reference purposes) to which I replied that I hadn't even thought about it. He went on to say that lately he had been tired of what technology had been doing to his experiences. That he was tired of watching a shaky, hand held recording of something after the event and having that experience take away from the memory of the actual event. We both agreed not to film any of the performance. What my friend did was live momentarily in the future to heighten his sense of the present, or now. He, without knowing, foresaw a combination of what Rushkoff describes as Digiphrenia and Overwinding, trying to relive an entire concert, through technology and having that technology alter his experience. 

It was this conscious act and ability to see how technology can alter his memory and perceptions in a future context, that made me think there are two sides to Rushkoff's argument. It is possible to utilise the future to live more peacefully in the now. 

Rushkoff, D 2013, 'Present Shock', Rushkoff, accessed 23rd May 2013 <http://www.rushkoff.com/present-shock/>

Social Science

Being from a non-scientific background, that is, none of my family studied science, and I myself have never done any scientific study, bar that of lower high school, the development of open science is something I am very grateful for as I have a keen interest in the science world. From an amateur perspective that is. 

There are many beneficial branches of open science which would directly benefit the science world and its development, such as, academic journals, open research, open access and open notebook science (Wikipedia 2013). However, looking at this from my perspective, that being a novice point of view, how can open science benefit me? What good are academic journals and research notes full of scientific jargon I don't understand? Well, the truth is, there is no use. In that regard. Where I find the concept of open science beneficial is where it connects with another online, new media platform. Like, wait for it, Facebook!

Recently I stumbled upon a page a friend had 'liked' and since then I have thoroughly enjoyed every post and addition it has made to my Facebook Wall. The page is called, I Fucking Love Science. Despite the name, the page is actually extremely knowledgable, while still relating to the mind of a science novice like myself, and five million other people who now follow the page! 

Started by Elise Andrew, a biology major who specialised in animal science and evolution, in 2012 (Wikipedia 2013), I Fucking Love Science has soared in popularity. What the page so brilliantly does is combine the popular meme culture which surges through contemporary society, relates those memes to science with knowledgable, current fact, all within the easy platform of Facebook. Its open science genius, working it from a completely new angle, one could even describe it as social science. I have learned far more from Andrew's short posts about 'whats happened this week' in the science world and just through her interesting, knowledgable and fun captioned pictures ranging from black holes and marine life to statistics and breakthroughs in the science world, then ever before. 

I feel, from my own perspective, Andrew's Facebook page is a fantastic new form of open science, or, has developed it's own brach of the umbrella, social science. By making it as easy to learn and develop your understanding of science as it is to stay in touch with your friends or experience social networking, I Fucking Love Science is paving the way for contemporary forms of learning. 

I Fucking Love Science can be found at the below link, I highly recommend you check it out!

http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience

Elise Andrew, wiki article, 16th May 2013, accessed 16th May 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Andrew> 

Open Science, wiki article, 20th April 2013, accessed 16th May 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science>

Micro-Politics and Meme's: 'Somebody got time for that'

'The sixties was only superficially a decade of individualism, if the counter cultural revolution transformed society, it is because individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, acted on mass, as a swarm' (Coalition of the Willing 2011)

The idea of micro-politics and bio-politics can, I feel, be seen to be largely defined in the above quote, individuals acting, knowingly or unknowingly, on mass. Further defined, Erin Manning summarises Michael Foucault, stating, 'In the political episteme, movements of bodies work not at the level of individual detail but with global mechanisms of equilibrium, of regularity, of normatively' (Manning 2009). These counter-political motions are so completely intangible in their nature, yet their outcomes completely achievable. A movement so elegant in it's complete lack of its own awareness is something which would fit these categories, something like, perhaps, picking a potential example for the benefit of this blog, the increasingly popular, worldwide phenomenon of memes. A meme is, as defined on merriam-webster.com, 'an idea, behaviour, style, or usage, that spreads from person to person within a culture'. 

A Meme is the act of individuals engaging with the world around them. They are the transformation and development of ideas, people and events. It is loose, free, ungraspable and unaware of itself. Largely free from outside (corporate/marketing) influence. It is the unrestricted spread of ideologies and free thought and expression. As stated by Brandon Hopkins, 'Even when this DNA (contained within all memes) is a trivial and arbitrary substance memes can be as powerful as computer viruses' (Hopkins 2011). Though open to capitalisation, it is something, at its core, devoid of political influence, with the ability to reflect upon its surroundings and make light of things overseen or cast aside. It is individuals engaging on a global scale, forming a loose melee of interaction, thought and growth to bring about a form of social organisation. 

Although now they are largely comical and may never develop into a useful counter-political or micro-political tool, they demonstrate a platform for worldwide communication and expression, knowingly or unknowingly. It can be seen then, that some form of counter-political revolution could form, of itself, through the spread of memes. Those involved in the practice could be largely unaware of the great power they have in spreading information and ideologies. A simple picture captioned with a few words could be the spark which ignites a flame of counter-political thought. A flame that links groups from differing cultures who share ideologies on similar issues, like global warming, gun polices or abortion, or simply spreads ideas around the globe and start people thinking. It could be the silent hero, completely unaware of its own political affect. 

It goes without saying that such a platform has great room for beneficial use and vast room for misuse. However, personally, I find something like this has far more potential then say, the 'haktivist' group, Anonymous. Though their values are counter-political, their execution is far to centralised. Its anonymous aspect cannot make it truly micro-political, it is simply to controlled, with no potential for that free swarm movement of information or counter-political ideology through the masses.

The Coalition of the Willing 2011, online video, accessed 9th May 2013 <http://vimeo.com/12772935>

Hopkins, B 2011, 'Micro-Politics: The Hidden Battle Against Internet Censorship', Hypocrite Reader, accessed 9th May 2013 <http://www.hypocritereader.com/2/micro-politics-china>

Manning, E 2009, 'From Biopolitics to the Biogram, or How Leni Rienfenstahl Moves through Fascism'

Augmented Perceptions

Certain aspects of augmented reality got me thinking back to the idea of medias role in our perception of the world in a big way, of course. The nature of augmented reality is, fundamentally, to alter, or heighten, our perception of the physical world. Augmented reality breaks down the idea of media having a defined sender, message and receiver relationship. Augmented reality devices place the user within a self contained network of sender, message and receiver. They become all three as they interact from themselves, with the world around them, through their device.

A particular device which made me think about this relationship was one I found while researching augmented reality devices. Investorspot.com lists the top ten augmented reality devices, one of which being a contact lens called, A Twinkle in the Eye. The concept is only in development stages, however, the idea is quite captivating. A contact lens is fitted with a small LED screen, radio chip and antenna and is powered wirelessly. 

This is truly a reality altering, perception changing form of augmented reality. But is this a good thing? As John Havens discusses, augmented reality could have its downfalls in terms of traditional human interaction. Havens states, 'Now consider this physical supply chain of seeing one anthers well-being, needs or talents displayed via visualisations, viewable through lenses outfitted with AR (augmented reality) How will we perceive each other in the near future, beyond our physical appearances? How will our positive and negative traits combine to form a visualisation that instantly defines who we are?' (Havens 2013). The way we make decisions on whether or onto to engage with others could one day be left up to our AR devices. Human interaction could be broken down to a simple, mathematical algorithm which determines what is best for the user, or, simply, what is most efficient. 

Imagine a reality that is dictated to you. Your relationships, interactions, day-to-day decision making all controlled by you AR device. Its not to say this technology is not something to be marvelled at, however, I feel, it is something to be cautious of. It seems the nature of the relationship between mankind and technology is one of utter dependance. It is completely immersive and relentless. Once we move to radical new areas like AR it seems our fate could be sealed with our utter dependance on a technological reality. 

Havens, J 2013, The Impending Social Consequences of Augmented Reality, Mashable, accessed 11th April 2013 <http://mashable.com/2013/02/08/augmented-reality-future/>

InvestorSpot 2013, Top Ten Augmented Reality Devices, accessed 11th April 2013, <http://inventorspot.com/articles/top_ten_augmented_reality_devices_32462>

Memory and New Interaction

When thinking about memory, media time and perception I found myself thinking about these elements in relation to meta-communication and the extended mind thesis. Wikipedia states, 'The EMT (extended mind thesis) that some objects in the external environment are utilised by the mind in such a way that objects can be seen as extensions of the mind itself' (The Extended Mind 2013). When thinking about this in relation to my iPhone I found an interplay with meta-communications as new forms of social interactions and communication are formed thorough the electronic interface in regards to time and interaction. I also found that the idea of living within the 'past-future' was greatly heightened by these interactions and further destroyed the notion of ever being able to consciously live within the present. 

Lets look at this through the iPhone and, furthermore, through its Facebook application. One user uploads a status or, for more direct purposes, posts a comment on my wall. Where does the 'present' for that interaction exist? Does it exist within the first users mind when they generated the original thought? does exist the moment he clicks 'send', or, does it exist in its completion, when I receive it and process it? Personally, I believe this new form of interaction, this electronic landscape, completely obliterates any form of present. It does not exist. The sender of the post lives within both past and future, having created an interaction of both time frames. Just as the receiver also lives in both. The simple fact of a millisecond delay between the time it takes to bounce off a satellite and be received on my device is enough to assure that such interactions cannot ever have a present. This also means that there, fundamentally, could be no real interaction as no direct contact ever takes place, unless, however, we think about the iPhone or Facebook application in terms of EMT. Being that my iPhone is an extension of my mind, it contains all my memories and interactions. Through this electronic landscape, my iPhone is as much myself as I am, in fact, possibly more so. 

I hope I have formulated some logical thought process in this blog post and not confused an already somewhat abstract idea even further.  

Media Ecologies as Meta-Communication

The whole idea of media ecologies or information ecologies gives way to the idea of met-communication within an electronic media context. The notion of the 'global village' where people interact, directly and instantly, through electronic networks creates a new form of communication. Although, when looking at these new forma of human interaction and communication I found a point Neil Postman made to be very interesting. He states, 'The word ecology implies the study of environments: their structure, content, and impact on people' (N Postman, Media Ecology 2013). It is the impact on people that I find to be most interesting. What do these media ecologies do to the fundamental values of human interaction? What will these shifts mean for the future of human interaction or social normalities? These are questions I'd like to set out to possibly answer in my research project, for now, however, I'd like talk briefly about the structure and content side of the study of media ecologies or environments. 

Being immersed in these environments, as are most of the population, it can be, at times, hard to step back and see the bigger picture. For me, this relates to the structure of media ecologies. They are geared as an integral part of human life, a necessity in daily routine. Checking and maintaing Facebook, procrastinating on Youtube or following your favourite celebrity on Twitter have become new ways of communicating yourself to the world through non verbal interaction. It is the structure of meta-communication, a new way of expression which one must be apart of or be left behind. Suddenly, you are a signal identity across a range of online, electronic, communities, which, in essence, would form your own personalised environment or community. To me, at times, it seems that the 'prescribed' content of these ecologies becomes largely irrelevant. We are the content. Through the structuring of these communities we dictate the flow of information on ideologies that form. This can be seen in the ever changing and diversifying world of Meme's. 

What these new societies mean for human interaction is, at the moment, beyond me, though it something I am very interested in exploring. 

Media Ecology, wiki article, 26 March 2013, accessed 7th April 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology>