What Makes it Art?

I should probably preface this post with an admission. I really have no idea what actually constitutes a ‘new media’ artwork. At what point does a piece of art cross over into this realm of ‘new media’? What are the defining qualities of ‘new media’ artworks? Are there even any? To be quite honest, this whole concept of ‘New Media Art’ just seems so subjective to me. The very notion of what constitutes a work of art is very much a subjective concept in itself, and coupled with the inherently indistinct, fluid notion of ‘new media’, I can’t help but think that any attempt to form some sort of conclusive definition is futile.

Art & Perception

Of course if I can’t seem to decide exactly what constitutes a ‘new media’ artwork it makes it rather difficult to come to any conclusions. But nevertheless, the one thing that caught my attention more than anything else this week is art’s apparent capacity to alter our perception of the world. The notions of time, space and reality itself become subjects of interpretation and manipulation in virtually every example I have come across this week.

When I came across Nick Veasey’s X-ray art (1) in particular, it seemed to epitomize this reinterpretation or manipulation of reality. The entire premise of his art is an attempt to reveal to the world what is beneath the surface of the things we encounter everyday. He is literally making visible the invisible in everyday life.

Veasey with one of his X-ray artworks (3)

“We live in a world obsessed with image. What we look like, what our clothes look like, house, cars… I like to counter this obsession with superficial appearance by using X-rays to strip back the layers and show what it is like under the surface” reads Veasey’s artist statement. (2)

At its most fundamental level, Veasey’s artwork is a unique representation of reality, but is it really Veasey's use of new media techniques which facilitate this?

An image I produced in a basic darkroom

While it is certainly an innovative method of creating art, Veasey’s work still seems to be a new take on existing photographic techniques. On the one hand the technologies he uses are certainly ‘new’. High powered x-ray machines in specially built facilities with high resolution scanners and digital retouchers are at the center of Veasey’s process. (4) But at the same time you can produce essentially the same aesthetic with basic darkroom techniques.

The clarity of the image may not be the same, but the basic concept of revealing what is beneath the surface is still feasible with analogue technologies. As impressive as Veasey’s work is, it is still essentially a photogram. New media may have a capacity to alter our perception of the world. But when I really think about it, this is not a characteristic of ‘new media’ art exclusively, but rather a potential that exists in virtually all art forms.

But is it New Media Art?

‘New Media Art’ seems to me to be an umbrella term applied far too liberally and I really don’t see the significance behind the label itself. I guess the point I’ve been stuck on all week is that to me this notion of ‘new media art’ seems to draw a line between the then and now of creative techniques rather than recognizing the evolutionary progression of artistic forms.

For the first time in this course I've found myself wondering if perhaps we are overstating the implications of ‘new media’. In the case of art, I can’t help but think that while the techniques may be new, their fundamental implications are not necessarily so.

References:

1. Nick Veasey 2011, Nick Veasey X-ray, <http://www.nickveasey.com/>
2. Nick Veasey 2011, About: Artist Statement, Nick Veasey X-ray, <http://www.nickveasey.com/>
3. Nick Veasey 2010, Victoria and Albert Museum, Camera-less Photography, Radar Ramblings, 2 November 2010, <http://nickveasey.blogspot.com/2010/11/victoria-and-albert-museum-cameraless.html>
4. Nick Veasey 2011, About: Process, Nick Veasey X-ray, <http://www.nickveasey.com/>

And the Award Goes To…

Once again we seem to be looking at how we can define media and its role in society and culture, and to be quite honest, I don’t think I am any closer to an articulate response to the question. But that isn’t to say that I’ve learnt nothing over the past 10 weeks. I may not be able to articulate exactly what media is, or exactly how media fits in to wider social ecologies, but what is apparent is that the relationship between the two is increasingly co-dependent.

While I would not presume to try and predict where the future may actually take us, I am confident in saying that an ever greater recognition of the significance media holds in the wider social and cultural arena is sure to be a defining characteristic of that future. In fact, in a lot of ways it is already happening. Just look at Obama’s 2008 Campaign. Social networking platforms and online games were at the forefront of his political campaign and were considered instrumental in his election. But that is just the tipping point.

Jane McGonigal’s (1) take on the future seems to epitomize this shift in the perception of what media actually is and what role it can play. While her focus is on gaming specifically, McGonigal’s stance is indicative of an entirely new approach to the field. That is, an approach which recognizes the inherent potential of media to actively shape the world in which we live, in and of themselves.

The question is; in the grand scheme of things, just how significant can a game really be? Could a game designer really win a Nobel Peace Prize? McGonigal seems to think so (and in the not to distant future I might add). She is predicting that in just over 10 years (by 2023 to be exact) the first game designer will win the coveted prize. (2) When I first came across the statement I thought it was naive at best, if not down right ludicrous.

“Gaming can make a better world” according to McGonigal. (3)

But to be quite honest my first thoughts upon reading this statement were ones of skepticism. The phrase ‘make a better world’ just seems so utopian and games by their very nature are just frivolous entertainment right?

Clearly my own knowledge of game design is very much stuck back in the early 90s (which was probably a contributing factor to my initial skepticism), but after spending some time actually looking around McGonigal’s site I’m starting to think that she may actually have a point. These so called 'games' are not just mindless entertainment. For one thing, their capacity for social organization has already been clearly established and from what McGonigal is proposing, it seems that their potential in medicine and psychology is just beginning to be seen. Perhaps a Nobel Peace Prize isn't out of the question after all.

References:

1. McGonigal, J 2011, You Found Me, http://janemcgonigal.com/ 
2. ibid                                      
3. ibid

Changing the World

Sharing is going to change the world, or at the very least, transform it. That seems to be the central point to all of the arguments I have read this week and I’d have to say that whether you’d like to admit it or not, they do make a very convincing argument.

The scientific field, as with virtually any other industry, has been completely uprooted by the development of new media and the new ecologies which have emerged as a result. In particular, the flow of information, both within the scientific field and in the wider environment is evolving. At the heart of this shift is the opening up of access to data. Instead of working against each other in a race to make the discovery that will change the world and thus ensure their infamy, scientist are increasingly pooling their collective data in the interests of furthering the scientific field, albeit at the expense of their individual recognition in many cases.

I can’t say that I really know all that much about science beyond the High School basics, but nevertheless, to me at least the field of genetics in particular seems to be tentatively embracing this more open and collaborative approach to scientific work. Just look at the Human Genome Project. The difference between independent competition and open collaboration seems clear in this instance. By opening the venture up to an international network of collaborating scientists, all of whom made their data instantly available, the progression of the project and the scientific process was streamlined. Moreover, the freely available data collected from the project has in turn fostered invaluable developments in the medical field.

“In the early 1980s, geneticists worked away in their different labs, racing to sequence genes and patent them before the neighbouring lab could. The result: duplication, very slow progress and a huge bill… So in 1986 they knocked some heads together, and decided they'd only fund geneticists who were willing to make their data available immediately. Nowadays, gene sequences get posted on the web daily and scientists build on one another's work. The pace of discovery has increased exponentially and, as a result, so have diagnostics and cures” writes Elizabeth Pisani. (1)

You cannot deny that by opening up scientific research data, the progress of discovery and innovation is streamlined, so you would think that what is undeniably a more efficient and productive approach to research would be welcomed. But of course this ‘sharing’ goes against the very premise on which the scientific field has been built. A strict hierarchical structure of recognition and acknowledgement, of discovery and reward has dictated the progression of scientific discovery; that is up until now. With the possibilities enabled by new media comes a new approach to the scientific field which seems to remove many of the rewards or incentives inbuilt into the preexisting system and those with a vested interest in the existing structure of the field are of course hesitant to embrace these new approaches.

For instance, while the Human Genome itself cannot be patented (2), removing much of the financial incentives for privatizing scientific work and enabling the apparent acceptance of this collaborative, networked approach to research in the field, resistance to these shifts are still very much apparent. It was Craig Venter who led the privatized effort to sequence the Human Genome (3) before it was declared that patents could not be applied, and now, rather than embracing this culture of ‘sharing’, Venter seems to be firmly invested in the preexisting structure of the scientific field. Last year he developed the first synthetic genome (4), seemingly bypassing the political imperatives to share his research. While sequencing the Human Genome may have lost its financial incentives, there is nothing to say that you can’t patent an artificial one (5) and I think it’s fair to assume that Venter patented his work.

The prospect of sharing may be a promising one, but we shouldn’t get too carried away. Clearly everyone isn’t embracing this collaborative approach with open arms and it would be naive to expect them to change their position without offering some sort of incentive to replace what they are losing.

References:

1.   Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing>
2. Wikipedia 2011, The Human Genome Project, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project> 
3. Ibid 
4. Sample, Ian (2010) ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The Guardian May 2, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form> 
5.  Wikipedia 2011, Gene Patent, Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent>

Between Knowing and Understanding

Transparency – from the outset it hardly seems a danger to democratic governance. After all, isn’t it kind of the foundation of a democracy? Principles of accountability and the freedom of information seem, to me at least, to go hand in hand with transparency. Democracy is after all “A government of the people, by the people, for the people” (or so I’ve heard) so don’t ‘the people’ have a right to know exactly what in going on? The aptly named “Transparency Movement” (1) represents this very idea that those in power be held accountable by making data available to the public through networked technologies and on the surface it does seem like an undeniably positive development. But, as with most issues that come up in this course, things aren’t quite as black and white as I would have first thought. Reading Lessig’s (2) article, Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government, I can’t help but agree that there is a big difference between making data available and understanding the meaning of this data. Transparency may well be equating to greater accountability, but at what cost?

The Power of Knowledge

Disclosure is anathema to corruption – that seems to be the premise of the whole ‘Transparency Movement’. Where money and power are involved there are always conflicts of interest, corruption beneath the surface just waiting to be uncovered, or so we assume. If the motives of those in power are under more scrutiny than ever before then surely this openness and accountability will encourage a more genuine political environment? At least that is the premise of the movement.

According to Brandeis;

“Sunlight is … the best of disinfectants”. (3)

And as Lessig points out;

“As political disinfectant, silicone beats sunlight hands down.” (4)

Digitizing data streamlines time consuming bureaucratic processes and network technologies ensure that virtually everyone has access to this data. The question is what are we actually going to do with this unprecedented access to data?

The Gap between Knowledge and Understanding

“Sunlight may well be a great disinfectant. But as anyone who has ever waded through a swamp knows, it has other effects as well” writes Lessig. (5)

The problem isn’t technical. It is the way in which this new-found access to knowledge is used. Just because data is now readily available does not necessarily mean that we will take the time or effort to understand it. Those in power are more accountable than ever before, but at the same time there has never been such a risk of misinterpretation and misrepresentation. As Lessig demonstrates, accusations of corruption are simply too easy to substantiate. To manipulate raw data into vague or suggestive ‘evidence’ which while on the surface seems like the ‘truth’, may have no real legitimacy is the fundamental problem of open transparency.

Bridging the Gap

When I consider this notion of transparency, projects like the Futurefarmers’ They Rule (6) are what immediately come to mind. The They Rule site tracks the links between the most powerful US companies, their board members and the government. Like this visualization of the Bush Administration;

http://theyrule.net/map_175 (7)

Its simple visual representations of complex data seem to epitomize this open and publicly accessible means of accountability which underpins the transparency movement and it is by no means a new development.

Regardless of its problems, transparency is an inevitable byproduct of the networked society. It seems that the time to debate its merits has come and gone, and the efforts of all involved would be better spent learning to adapt. Those in power, whether in governments, business, medicine etc, must all come to terms with the realities of the scrutiny transparency brings because in many ways it is already here, whether they like it or not.

References:

1. Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government.’<http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0>
2. ibid
3. ibid
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. Future Farmers 2011, They Rule, <http://www.theyrule.net/> 
7. Future Farmers 2011,  Bush Administration, They Rule, <http://theyrule.net/map_175>

Framing and Reframing

‘Stepping outside the frame’, rethinking the way in which we understand developments in media and the industries they sustain – that was this weeks objective and it begs the question; how do you even begin to identify and remove these frames? Frankly I don’t think there is any way to avoid a certain degree of framing when it comes to media and especially new media. The highly politicized discourse that surrounds the issues of publishing and distribution, driven by the economic and political interests of the key industry players, seems to always be reducing the possibilities of these radical developments in new media down to the issue of industry finances and economics.

If the hype is to be believed, new media are destroying these industries; whether it’s the music industry, journalism or print publishing, the argument remains the same and after spending the last two years studying a media degree, I’ve certainly heard my fair share of fatalistic warnings about my future (or lack there of) in these dying professions, perhaps none more so than in the music industry. But is new media really killing these industries?

It seems everyone has their own perspective, or should I say their own financial imperatives and they are all framing the debate accordingly. The record companies are worried about lost revenue, the musicians about how they are going to make a living and on the flipside; the pirates concerned with undermining the industry’s stranglehold on content and the downloader’s just wanting access and at no cost. The same can be seen in the journalism industry. Publishers are obsessed with their ever decreasing print sales, the journalists are worrying about losing their jobs, while the bloggers and citizen journalists are thinking about how they can capitalize on their audience to make a living and the readers are just interested in securing access to all of this content at no charge. Of course this is a rather simplistic overview, but the point remains valid; that much of the mainstream discourse surrounding new media and its potential seems to be caught up in the economics of the matter, the lost revenues of the traditional media heavyweights, and fails to really consider the true impact of these developments.

But if these industries are really ‘dying’, are we all just wasting our time?

Well I think it’s needless to say that I certainly don’t think so, or I wouldn’t be here in the first place. If you put aside for just a moment, this pathological concern with the economics of these industries, a completely different landscape emerges (and a much more optimistic one). With new media comes a flourishing and dynamic network of production, distribution and consumption. Setting aside the disruption or upheaval of traditional media industries themselves, the ability to create and consume content has never been more prolific than in the online environment.

Things may not be fitting so easily into the established hierarchies of these industries but the fact of the matter is that the value of these emerging networks cannot be measured by the standards of established industries. Maybe then, the solution is to set aside this notion of the media ‘industry’ all together. To ‘step outside the frame’ so to speak and start to understand the real impact of new media which goes far beyond their impact on the bottom lines of the record labels and publishers.

Understanding the Virtual in Reality

Where do you draw the line between reality and the virtual? Or perhaps the question is really whether or not you even can draw a line between the two any more.

On the one hand, when I think of the virtual I imagine whole other worlds. Virtual reality games like World of Warcraft and Second Life are what immediately come to mind and in these contexts, I do think there is an argument to be made for their separation or disassociation with what we might perceive as reality. In these virtual ‘worlds’, the parameters are quite easily defined between what we might consider the ‘real’ physical world and the ‘virtual’ in a traditional sense and I would argue that as a result, such media have relatively little impact on our perception of the ‘real world’.

However the notion of the virtual in media studies is hardly limited to these manifestations. If the virtual overlaps with the ‘real world’, as is the case with augmented reality media, these parameters obviously become less clear. As Chris Grayson illustrates in his Augmented Reality Overview (1), this notion of the virtual has the potential to be much more ingrained in our mediated experience of the world around us than I would have initially thought. Considering the virtual as intertwined with the physical world, as is the case in the numerous examples Grayson offers, these media can be seen to project and create meaning in the actual rather than virtual worlds. I found the iPhone app; SekaiCamera (2) fascinating, particularly in that it illustrates the potential for these augmented media to become ingrained in our daily interaction with our own physical worlds on such a basic and comprehensive level. Sure, the app is quite limited in its application at this point (the confined environment of a Japanese museum exhibit is hardly indicative of a widespread application of the technology), but there is definitely potential there - that is if such augmented reality media as the SekaiCamera where to become more widely implemented and 'air tags' where to become ubiquitous.

Chris Grayson writes that;

“When it comes to Virtual Reality, I’ve had a mantra that none of this will really take off until we’re in there versus looking at there.” (3)

And we seem to be crossing over into this realm of being ‘in there’. We are seeing the projection of the virtual into the actual reality of our lives and our worlds on an ever increasing scale; a sort of blurring of the lines between the real and the virtual, making it much more difficult to differentiate between the two. In this light it seems that the two can no longer be thought of as separate, but rather that the virtual is as much a part of our experience of what we know as reality as the physical world itself.

References:

1. Grayson, Chris (2009) ‘Augmented Reality Overview’, GigantiCo <http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html>
2. ibid 
3. ibid

Losing Control

Up until now I had always thought of memory as a largely internal process, functioning within my own mind. But the reality it seems, is that entrenched in my day to day life are technologies which can be seen to function as an extension, or what Bernard Stiegler refers to as an ‘exteriorization’ (1) of my memory.

The fact of the matter is that I am utterly reliant on everything from my diary to my mobile phone, computer and GPS. But up until now I had never given much though to the wider implications of this reliance and realizing this I am now wondering; should I be concerned by this dependence on these 'mnemotechnologies'?(2)

While I wouldn’t exactly call my self an optimist, I couldn’t help but question the bleak outlook presented in Bernard Stiegler’s Anamnesis and Hypomnesis.(3)

By exteriorizing our memories, are we sacrificing our control over knowledge?

Bernard Stiegler writes that:

“These cognitive technologies, to which we confide a greater and greater part of our memory, cause us to lose an ever-greater part of our knowledge.” (4)

But how can we lose something that we never had?

According to Stiegler;

“To lose a cell phone is to lose the trace of the telephone numbers of our correspondents and to realise that they are no longer in the psychical memory but in the apparatuss’s.” (5)

But were they ever committed to psychical memory in the first place? I think I speak for most people when I say that I use on a regular basis, only a fraction of the mass of accumulated numbers stored on my mobile phone. I can honestly say that I would recall from my own memory, perhaps a handful of phone numbers and sure, if I were to lose (or break) my phone I would also be losing pretty much all of the numbers on it. But if I had never had the phone in the first place (or any other medium by which I could externally store those numbers), would I have accumulated so many numbers in the first place. I certainly would not have personally memorized each and every number. The reality is that I would have no way of storing the accumulated knowledge of my extended contact list without such technologies by which to store them in the first place. The same can be said I think, for all technical forms of memory, not just the mobile phone. By exteriorizing our memory we are facilitating the creation of knowledge beyond our own individual capacities for recollection.

Surely the risk of losing knowledge is outweighed by the exponential ability to create and store knowledge which is facilitated by this exteriorization of memory.

References:

1. Stiegler, Bernard (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’ <http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis>
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid.