To push the topic thread in a slightly different direction, I'd like to go back to a point that Margaret raised about "consumer technologies becoming revolutionary technology."
Directs attention away from the level of innovation that we've been commenting on, i.e., innovation by embedded institutional participants, to a consideration of innovation EVERYWHERE: on the street, in the garage, as a way of making do. This opens up the issue of the cultural implications and possible impact of what in the US is referred to as DIY, Maker or Hacker culture. "The street finds its own use for things," as Gibson wrote 20 years ago. What's different now? I'd be interested in pointers to critical analyses that seek to make sense of the cultural shifts--these moments of disassembly and reassembly--that don't privilege a technology or medium. > As I reflect on my years-long collaboration with Jon, Scott and Dale, this is > what I think of: first we (by “we” I mean the culture at the time) muddled > along designing new technologies—originating social media. Then, last year, > consumer technology became revolutionary technology. The actions of the Arab > Spring, propelled by social media, transformed a region of the globe. > Activists deployed available technology and created a collaborative space for > organizing dissent. At this time, the outcome of these revolutions is > uncertain, but the utility of their methods of communication is > unquestionable. And this powerful shift in the media landscape, allows me to > think of the work we did together as a miniscule part of an enormous cultural > shift. And from the standpoint of design, provides a vital and renewable > form to go with the function of our technological devices.< On May 7, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Jon Winet wrote: > Cherry-picking Anne's comments and dark observations with some of my own ... > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Anne Balsamo <annebals...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks Mark for kicking up the dust! >> >> Some comments and dark observations follow: >> >> On 5/5/12 1:14 PM, "Mark Stephen Meadows" <m...@markmeadows.com> wrote: >> > [snip] > >>> you are what you search, right? >> >> Yes and no. What gets reflected back (based on the gleanings of my digital >> wanderings) is a reflection in a cracked mirror. I still believe it to be a >> case of garbage in = garbage out. Do I feel important, understood or >> recognized when the sidebars on my search or FB page reflect back to me my >> recent digital preoccupations: horses, dating sites for women over 50, >> non-prescription sleeping aids? Does anyone even pay attention to that >> slice of digital wall paper? Image saturation and obsessive repetition >> makes me inured to the message. >> >> I built a prototype of a reverse oracle: When you enter a technology-based >> search term, what gets "returned" is not results & instances of usage in >> random contexts, but rather questions. >> >> I am my questions, not my search terms. SIRI notwithstanding, this may be my >> last defense against the singularity. >> > > Apparently I'm quote-happy in this convo. Zeroing in on your final > statement, quoting the February 14, 2011 NYTimes article* quoting John > Seely Brown, brought front and center into the mainstream conversation > during the Jeopardy match of the millennium, regarding Watson, a form > of UI far more transparent than Google's quasi-mystical search > logarithm: > > "Indeed, for the computer scientist John Seely Brown, machines that > are facile at answering questions only serve to obscure what remains > fundamentally human. > > 'The essence of being human involves asking questions, not answering > them,' he said." > > I'm pretty sure I can hold onto that ray of hiope as well, as it > certainly also identifies the heart and soul of avant garde creative > practice, to operate and experiment working outside of the narrow > angle of too much of quotidian experience. > > * "A Fight to Win the Future: Computers vs. Humans" > By John Markoff > > [major snip] > >> Repression is a pain-management technique. >> > > Amen to that, sister! - And a tried and true technique as old as > civilization itself if Dr. Freud had it right ... > > ______________________________________________ >> empyre forum >> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >> http://www.subtle.net/empyre > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
