Overall, I found this text to be very useful in thinking through some of the theories of the visual that we have been discussing this semester. It seems that Burnett has outlined some of the most important issues within how we think about images, even if I somewhat disagree with his use of terminology in places and some of his conclusions. A few thoughts:
Burnett says, "[t]he process of copying was a precursor to new methods of disseminating information and ideas. This is most fully expressed through the zine movement and P2P communications systems that I examine in greater detail in chapter 7" (62). Although I found his later discussion of P2P systems useful for thinking about how we imagine new communities though emergent, digital forms of media, I would have liked him to continue the discussion of zines, which I believe are a valuable but often overlooked resource for thinking, as he suggests, about technologies of reproduction, the emergence of new forms of media, and collaborative design. What zines offer, I would argue, are a case study in the ways in which a given technology is often re-purposed within a given situation in order for a group to resist perceived cultural restraints. What I'm thinking of most specifically, here, is the founders of Punk in NYC in 1975 who claim that they had to create a magazine that would cover the music that was being ignored or disparaged in the mainstream publications. The editors of the publication also claim to have named punk rock more generally.
Burnett summarizes/takes issue with Baudrillard: "However, the artificial nature of these environments has made it seem as if simulation and virtual reality were illusions. This has resulted in rather superficial complaints about the world turning into Disneyland and artifice becoming the foundation for the real" (94). Several things here. I would say that Mitchell's summary of Baudrillard's description of Disneyland might be more on point with regard to the ways in which simulation might function. I think the bigger issue here, though, is a problem with the terminology itself. "Virtual" in this sense is just as problematic as "simulation." Or, to respond to Baudrillard's concerns, if we are in the desert of the real itself, then it is the desert that has been created by theories of the disappearance of the real, theories that the real is no longer real at all. Virtual suggests not real. In this sense, then, no images would be real. Unless we agree with Plato, then this seems misguided. Rather, I would argue, we have to begin to focus on the materiality of images and the ways in which things that we refer to as "simulations" or "virtual" are, in fact, actual creations. One example, here, and to tie into Burnett's discussion of immersion in video games, would be the story, printed in an Aug. 2007 editions of the WSJ of Ric Hoogestraat, who spends hours upon hours daily sitting in front of his computer playing Second Life. He is married, in name but not legally, to two women, one of whom he only spends time with when he logs into the game.
Burnett helpfully points toward the creation of a digital divide between those who are literate in computer languages and the rest of the population -- "[t]he opaqueness of 'coding' and the skills needed to create software are out of reach for the vast majority of people" (99).
Finally, I wasn't sure what to make of Burnett's claim that "[t]his is perhaps the first time in human history that a technology has been invented that could redefine what is meant by being human" (122). He argues that humans could not survive without machines (126). On one hand, yes, I agree that we should redefine how we have traditionally thought about what it means to be human. I also agree that humans could not now, nor have ever, survived without machines. This is perhaps, also, where I disagree with Burnett. He seems to suggest that there has been some sort of break that has caused us to redefine humans because humans have changed. Rather, if there has been a break, I would argue that it is that the degree of complexity of our reliance on machines has increased to the point that it has become visible. We have always relied on tools, even if they were not sophisticated machines with moving parts. But, to the first humans, those spears and rocks would have been every bit as valuable as the cars and ipods of today. Some have argued that the fact that humans walked upright came as a result of their use of tools. I believe not in technological determination but rather that man's relationship to technology has always been one of co-evolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment