While reading the first part of Expanded Cinema, I was struck by a sentence in the section, Popular Culture and Noosphere, which mentioned that the world population was at three and half billion people at the time of the writing. Now, as I sit here responding to the writing, I realize that I am a part of a population of humans that has doubled in just over forty years.
Pondering this fact, brings a lot of questions to mind. I wonder what is the relationship between the ever-growing population and the intermedia network? On one side, the network can serve to condition people especially if it is largely corporate controlled and appeals to the lowest common denominator of taste. When McLuhan referenced Pavlov’s experiment with the dogs, he said that the true significance was that it showed that controlled and man-made environments produce passive sleepwalkers that are conditioned to act without questioning the rules in place. The intermedia network on one level can serve to do just this. Rather than create a richer reality that incorporates that diversity of cultures across the world, it can serve to instead spread a message of reality that is corporate controlled and narrow in focus. This message can be wrapped in glamour and glitz, capturing our attention, though not expanding our understanding of the world we live in.
On the other hand, if used to educate and connect communities, the intermedia network can extend the “psychic mobility” of individuals by exposing them to realities that exist beyond their immediate vicinity. Individuals can partake in this network to create and fund documentaries, journalism, art, etc. that comes from the bottom up rather than the top down and works to educate rather than distract. Obviously this is already being done.
In The Intermedia Network as Nature, the author states, “We’re now moving into the Cybernetic Age in which man learns that to control his environment he must cooperate with it; he not only participates but actually recreates his environment both physical and metaphysical, and in turn is conditioned by it”. So then, what is the role of content creators? If this intermedia network is becoming more and more pervasive, reaching out to people even on their cell phones in Africa, India, China, South America etc., how can the network be used to solves problems, educate, and create meaningful community across borders and oceans and deserts rather than spread a corporate message. Also, as interactivity becomes more pervasive in digital environments, how will this affect how we see ourselves on the metaphysical level and in turn what effect will this have on the material world? And last, though the intermedia network will spread to more and more people, what is being left unsaid by those who do not have access to such networks?
More food for thought....
Internet World Stats
USA Today Article - Cellphone Use
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Reading Response: Radical Evolution, Intermedia Network, Popcultue/noosphere
Part 1 Radical Evolution and Future Shock in the Paleocybernetic Age, The Intermedia Network as Nature, and Popular Culture and the Noosphere:
The articles become interesting in temporal context, even though
this was only written in 1970 it feels like a brief
retelling of some past that should feel familiar but doesn't.
His rhetoric is riff with the aqueous glow reverberating
from the American "hippie" youth revolution of the 60's and
70's with his belief that a global worldwide
revolution was being birthed on the earth. Which to the
authors credit was probably the result of his global "intermedia
network" which to him would be credited to Cinema, TV, Radio and
print media. And today would expand to include the
internet. Just as many young people
today believe and feel that something is afoot, some revolution of the social fabric through the internet and other "converging technology" . SO my question is than does every new generation
feel an overwhelming revolution just on the horizon in response to changing
technological innovations?
I really had an issue with some of his arguments, as in
his distinctions of craft from industry and art from
entertainment. To pretend that art was never entertainment
is to affect the attitudes of the intellectual elitism
plaguing the "art" world today.
Youngblood writes:
"One might
make a similar analogy between entertainment and art: entertainment
is inherently "local," that is, of limited significance, whereas
art is inherently universal and of unlimited significance. Too often
today we find that so-called artists working in the intermedia
network are little more than adroit imitators, collectors of data and
phenomena, which they glean from the noosphere and amalgamate
into packages that are far from whole. They're clever and glib;
they've made an art of selling themselves, but they know only effect,
not cause; they are merchants of mannerisms. " end quote.
And yes though the criticism of those "artists" working in the in intermedia network
being glib imitators only ripping stuff off from the "noosphere" may seem rather apropos
he fails to acknowledge the fact that humans not just artists have been constantly
ripping each other off since the dawn of time. What is Vernadsky's and Chardin's nooopshere? really only a cool word.
Man has always been embedded in the web of culture since its coalescing. What it's really about
is as Lars Ulrich so adequately put it is "control". Who is the story teller? old versus new.
The old in fostering the new for its own continued survival
must now defend its relevancy or bear the fate of a perceived nonexistence.
Jason Lanier: Gift Culture and "Digital Peasants"
As a balance to the views discussed in recent class sessions about Intellectual Property Rights, Copyright, image and sound appropriation, and Digital Culture, here is a recent article from the New York Times about a digital pioneer who sees problems with the ideology of the web.
Notes and Reaction to "Art, Entertainment, Entropy"
General Reaction:
The author's overall argument that traditional cinema is incapable of expanding the understanding of the human experience, or has inability to contribute to the evolution of humankind, because of its root in classical dramaturgy, is argued through a tunnel-visioned perspective. Cinema has been said by some to be the greatest art, in that it has the ability to incorporate the most treasured aspects of all artistic disciplines. What the author is arguing is that entertainment films, or commercially oriented films do not have the ability to future the artistic 'energy' that fuels our expansion as a global community. There are certainly films that stem from the commercial or studio sector that I would say this is true. However, to label the entirety of traditional narrative cinema as predictable, and therefore ineffective in its attempts to change our understanding, is simply wrong.
Passages with My Notes (Written in Bold):
Plot, story, and what commonly is known as "drama" are the devices that enable the commercial entertainer to manipulate his audience. The very act of this manipulation, gratifying conditioned needs, is what the films actually are about. (Not true. There is an inherent human desire to relate story. To pass on lessons or knowledge through example. An explicit story heightens the message or makes the knowledge relatable).
The viewer purchases it with his ticket and is understandably annoyed if the film asks him to manipulate himself, to engage in the creative process along with the artist. (Not an absolute truth. This is a generalization of who the author perceives to be the audience of commercial entertainment.)…The viewer of commercial entertainment cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted upon, to be manipulated. (These are broad generalizations, with a limited and simplistic perspective.)
The Author brings up Hitchcock and Psycho, and, as Hitchcock admits, that the film was a manipulation of the audiences' expected reaction, through the perfection of the story telling. However, the author does not bring up Hitchcock's other films, such as Vertigo, which plunges the depths of the human psyche more effectively than some of the most recognizable works of art. It aims to make the audience confront their own fear or phobia or weakness. Is it not possible anymore to create a work in the tradition of the classical dramatists, and not call it art? Should the plays of Shakespeare not be called art?
Out of the nearly 7 Billion of People on Earth, many do not have the capacity or the frame of reference to pull the "energy" from works of art that this author claims must be non-familiar in order to be effective. I would argue the a more traditional or familiar work that has the ability to speak to many, and challenge just a small part of their understanding of the human condition is more effective (or contributes more energy) than a work that is interpretable, and therefore thought changing, to a few.
Drama, by definition, means conflict, which in turn means suspense. Suspense is requisite on the expectation of known alternatives. One cannot expect the unknown. Therefore expectation, suspense, and drama are all redundant probable qualities and thus are noninformative. (This author places the importance and the value on the content of the work, especially the evolution of the story's plot. He is not putting value on the audience's experience relating to the story's characters and trying to understand their though process.)
The viewer is forced to create along with the film, to interpret for himself what he is experiencing. (Does the audience of a classically focused main stream drama not interpret the motivation of the characters?) If the information (either concept or design) reveals some previously unrecognized aspect of the viewer's relation to the circumambient universe— or provides language with which to conceptualize old realities more effectively— the viewer recreates that discovery along with the artist, thus feeding back into the environment the existence of more creative potential, which may in turn be used by the artist for messages of still greater eloquence and perception.
(First of all, how does the viewer recreate that discovery along with the artist? How is the experienced shared? And, how does that energy feedback into the artist? This is unfounded, poorly interpreted, weakly argued, new age sounding nonsense. Second, it is too simple, and false, to make a blanket statement about traditional narrative cinema's inability to force new thought and understanding. Simply look at the works of Fillini, which were in worldwide distribution at the date of this publication. The works of this filmmaker were deeply rooted in the traditions of the classical dramatists, yet his films illuminated vastly new perspective on aspects of the human condition, emotion, and experience.)
The author's overall argument that traditional cinema is incapable of expanding the understanding of the human experience, or has inability to contribute to the evolution of humankind, because of its root in classical dramaturgy, is argued through a tunnel-visioned perspective. Cinema has been said by some to be the greatest art, in that it has the ability to incorporate the most treasured aspects of all artistic disciplines. What the author is arguing is that entertainment films, or commercially oriented films do not have the ability to future the artistic 'energy' that fuels our expansion as a global community. There are certainly films that stem from the commercial or studio sector that I would say this is true. However, to label the entirety of traditional narrative cinema as predictable, and therefore ineffective in its attempts to change our understanding, is simply wrong.
Passages with My Notes (Written in Bold):
Plot, story, and what commonly is known as "drama" are the devices that enable the commercial entertainer to manipulate his audience. The very act of this manipulation, gratifying conditioned needs, is what the films actually are about. (Not true. There is an inherent human desire to relate story. To pass on lessons or knowledge through example. An explicit story heightens the message or makes the knowledge relatable).
The viewer purchases it with his ticket and is understandably annoyed if the film asks him to manipulate himself, to engage in the creative process along with the artist. (Not an absolute truth. This is a generalization of who the author perceives to be the audience of commercial entertainment.)…The viewer of commercial entertainment cinema does not want to work; he wants to be an object, to be acted upon, to be manipulated. (These are broad generalizations, with a limited and simplistic perspective.)
The Author brings up Hitchcock and Psycho, and, as Hitchcock admits, that the film was a manipulation of the audiences' expected reaction, through the perfection of the story telling. However, the author does not bring up Hitchcock's other films, such as Vertigo, which plunges the depths of the human psyche more effectively than some of the most recognizable works of art. It aims to make the audience confront their own fear or phobia or weakness. Is it not possible anymore to create a work in the tradition of the classical dramatists, and not call it art? Should the plays of Shakespeare not be called art?
Out of the nearly 7 Billion of People on Earth, many do not have the capacity or the frame of reference to pull the "energy" from works of art that this author claims must be non-familiar in order to be effective. I would argue the a more traditional or familiar work that has the ability to speak to many, and challenge just a small part of their understanding of the human condition is more effective (or contributes more energy) than a work that is interpretable, and therefore thought changing, to a few.
Drama, by definition, means conflict, which in turn means suspense. Suspense is requisite on the expectation of known alternatives. One cannot expect the unknown. Therefore expectation, suspense, and drama are all redundant probable qualities and thus are noninformative. (This author places the importance and the value on the content of the work, especially the evolution of the story's plot. He is not putting value on the audience's experience relating to the story's characters and trying to understand their though process.)
The viewer is forced to create along with the film, to interpret for himself what he is experiencing. (Does the audience of a classically focused main stream drama not interpret the motivation of the characters?) If the information (either concept or design) reveals some previously unrecognized aspect of the viewer's relation to the circumambient universe— or provides language with which to conceptualize old realities more effectively— the viewer recreates that discovery along with the artist, thus feeding back into the environment the existence of more creative potential, which may in turn be used by the artist for messages of still greater eloquence and perception.
(First of all, how does the viewer recreate that discovery along with the artist? How is the experienced shared? And, how does that energy feedback into the artist? This is unfounded, poorly interpreted, weakly argued, new age sounding nonsense. Second, it is too simple, and false, to make a blanket statement about traditional narrative cinema's inability to force new thought and understanding. Simply look at the works of Fillini, which were in worldwide distribution at the date of this publication. The works of this filmmaker were deeply rooted in the traditions of the classical dramatists, yet his films illuminated vastly new perspective on aspects of the human condition, emotion, and experience.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)