A short video I made for this week’s topic, Media Art. Make sure to select the HD 720p Stream, so that all the text is clearly visible.
New Types of Art!
Reply
Category Archives: ARTS3091
The Future.
I’m actually a big advocate for gaming, and have read Jane McGonigal’s book “Reality is Broken”; but have not previously seen her TED talk. For a very long time I struggled with the idea that we, as a collective, should be spending MORE time gaming online. It seems, as she points out in both mediums, counter-intuitive. Gaming is a form of escapism, a way to move away the seemingly insurmountable, unsolvable problems of the world. To ignore these problems, and move more people into a deeper state of virtual, seems like a bad idea. We need as many minds dedicated to these real world problems as possible.
But, as McGonigal continues to expand on her ideas and rationalise the concepts that support her hypothesis, I slowly grew more convinced. Watching the video again today, reminded me of some of her more salient points, and the statistics that back up such an incredibly creative idea. Personally, the most important number that she produces throughout the course of the book, and her TED talk, is the 10000 hour rule. This rule subscribes to the idea that after 10000 hours of dedication to a field, idea, or activity, you will have become a world class participator in such an activity. These are the outliers of human society, the Roger Federer’s, the Marie Curie’s, the Steve Jobs’, the Shelley Lazarus’. What McGonigal has discovered is that the average internet gamer has played over 10000 hours of online gaming before they hit the age of 21. This is simply incredible. But what are they good at?
This is where I feel there is a convergence between this idea and the ideas discussed in the course this week – the future. There is, arguably, no single activity that occupies this much time in the current generation. They do not study maths, the English language, or science for even half of this time. They would struggle to get this close with a single sport (an hour a day, on average, for the first 20 years of your life). So what we have is a generation that has perfected online gaming. They have brought it to an exact ‘science’.
In the future, are we simply going to let there be a generation of people who are online gaming geniuses? Or are we going to harness the brain power that is used by these gamers, and put it towards a constructive, real world application.
But what..?
It is course, conjecture. Only time will tell the ways in which the world harnesses this collective brain. However, if I can offer a thought on the type of people we should be looking at, we should be steering away from World of Warcraft, where players are destructive (killing enemies etc) to benefit themselves (Level Up), and more towards Little Big Planet.
Little Big Planet is an online game made by Sony, in which players create levels for other players. There is limited personal gain beyond the satisfaction of thinking creatively, and providing a joyous experience for other players around the world. The game is, literally, only limited by one’s imagination. And it’s popular too. In the last three months, over 4 million levels have been created by users of the game. I feel that this is a constructive game, one that rewards both generosity and sharing. It is collaborative. As I said before, it’s hard to know how the future will use online gamers, but I feel that we are on the cusp of a major breakthrough, and I feel this game is pushing at the boundary…
McGonigal, Jane, 2010. Reality is Broken, USA, Penguin Publishing.
Gladwell, Malcolm, 2008. Outliers, USA, Little, Brown and Company.
http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/ – accessed on the 14th of May.
Science Time!
Whilst I have, at various stages through my university studies, considered scientific journalism, particularly in fields of biology and technology, I have never encountered or dealt with the ideas proposed in Greg Fish’s “Why Your DNA is Nothin Like a Database.” Upon reading the article, and tossing my mind back to highschool biology, I have to say that I completely disagree with Fish’s argument, which at its core is: that our DNA is so complex that it is impossible to draw parallels between a computer’s filing system, and the human genetic makeup.
To begin, quite simply, when Fish examines the difficulties of creating an ‘app’ to display the structure of the DNA strand or mRNA triplet. To combat the points he makes about inefficiencies within the ‘coding’ system of DNA, and that it is far more complex than it needs to be, I have three points:
1. We been unable to effectively experiment with a simpler DNA form (largely because the system would collapse inwards on itself).
2. The way that we have named and conceptualised/studied DNA is our own doing. The complexities in the bridges and connections between the codons and aminos in DNA are only named through human invention. The problems that Fish faces when creating the ‘app’ seem to be blamed on the fact that each codon can self assign to four differing paths of association. Just because our DNA is hard to create a database OF, does NOT mean that it does not resemble a database. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a database is a structured set of data… especially one that is accessible in various ways.”How does this not PERFECTLY describe the system that Fish has been dealing with? I fail to see where there are deviations from this idea of a database, and the way that we are genetically encoded.
3. To get rather more into the scientific aspect of the issue, the proposal of a simpler DNA sequence is thus far impossible. For the very system by which our DNA functions, we require a double stranded DNA, so that each single system is stable (as opposed to a single strand, where connections would be loose and much more open to mutation). This creates a base pair of four (Pyrimidine and Purine X 2). Thus, the triplet code that Fish resents, particularly in the complexities it presented him in designing an ‘app’ is compulsory for the DNA strand to work. If it was just a double (using 2 of the available 4 base) then you end up with 16 combinations (4 to the power of 2). This cannot sustain the required 20 amino connections. Thus the base needs to be made from the triplet Fish so laments (4 to the power of 3 equals 64). 64 combinations make more than enough availability for the amino connections, and supplies ‘backups’ to fend off mutation etc. I could continue, and I’m sure Fish would be able to propose systems beyond my knowledge. However, I still feel that until we can properly create the system that Fish proposes as more sufficient, his qualms with the current system, that has sustained human life thus far, remain simple conjecture.
Governments of the Future!
Bit of an enthusiastic title for a rather theoretically full-on discussion, but I have always been interested by the ways that future governments are going to work with technologies that are coming to the fore. I think that one of the best ways to look at the potential influence of technology is to retrofit it into past situations, and see how the outcome could have been different. For this week, there is no better example than that of Watergate. With the available technology, mostly tapes, President Nixon was able to cause what is perhaps the biggest political controversy in history. Now imagine if he had the technologies that we have today. Imagine if the public had the technologies that we have today.
With watchdogs like Wikileaks overseeing much of the governments digital footprints, the Watergate tapes (or mp3’s) would have been blown wide open. They would have been accessible on the internet for the entire world to listen to, and revolt against. We would probably have seen an uprising similar to the recent Egyptian riots, where new technologies would have allowed for spontaneous meetings, riots and get-togethers, in the hopes of bringing down a nation’s criminal leader. Whilst the American public of the 1970’s were hardly silent in regards to the admonishing of Nixon’s crimes by Ford, I think it could be argued that they were largely unheard. With the advent of mediums such as Twitter, Facebook and other online communication, all hell would have broken loose, and a MUCH stronger influence would not only have been presented by the American public, but by the world over. Would Nixon have just turned off the internet, as was recently seen in Egypt? What would have happened?
I believe that thinking about these questions, in the setting of the past, can help us think about what these questions pose to the future. For example, Will the nest big thing allow us to become even more personal with our politicians, will they be able to utilise new internet technologies to broadcast more directly, and personally. Imagine if political broadcast sentiments were catered to each individual, or each household, based on their personal preferences. It’s pretty scary, and certainly a bit farfetched, but to hypothesise the lengths that potential power drives people to can never be limited.
When looking at Watergate, and the ripple effect that spread from that scandal, and the way that so many different points in the technological history of that event could have completely changed the outcome of the way that government works today, I think that we can never underestimate the importance of media and social change. I hope that as we continue on the path to Government 2.0, we find more transparency than is already offered by Wikileaks and hackers.
Remix Culture.
A video about what some call the future of music. Mixing.
Virtual, Mediated and Augmented Reality. A case (study) for the future.
This is a short video I made about what Augmented Reality (AR) is, how it is currently being used, how it will be implemented in the future, and the ramifications it could have on human society.
What Unrequited Love..?
Reading through the various documents, watching the required videos and attempting to understand what lies at the bottom of the debate between data and human society, has made me a very frustrated man. The simple notion that data is anything other than a human controlled set of criterion set out to determine quantities and ideas that we have engineered every aspect of the criteria to reflect, is absurd. Data is nothing but what we make it. This is the very REASON that there is such contention about climate change, or lack thereof, as described by Edwards in his introduction to A Vast Machine. The course reader seems to present the idea that data is almost in and of itself, steadfast and entirely accurate.
Do we get on with data? Of course we get on with data. Data is what makes the world go round. Quite literally. We have measured the various paths, radii, circumferences, projections, weights and anything else related to our solar system, and turned them into data. We use this data as a stepping platform to inform us with more data, about the weather projections for the next week, when the tide will rise and fall, when the moon will be fullest. We then use this data as a platform for MORE data, such as what SPF sunscreen we use when we leave the house that morning, or whether we walk to the bus or drive to work.
I really tried to accept and understand the various points of view throughout this weeks readings. But for the first time in my university career, I have been utterly unable to sympathise with the ideas presented; that data, media and human life are in conflict with each other. I can understand the idea that we are consistently pushing up against data, trying to come to terms with what has been presented to us. But this kind of conflict can only occur when we take data as a given, as an immovable, always accurate source. In reality, I feel that data should not be regarded in this manner. It is able to be manipulated, rephrased, used in different contexts and is often misrepresented.
My trying to understand the confusing process that data goes through, when you implement human interpretation of results.
The way the data is represented, understood and interpreted, create different meanings to different people. This is BECAUSE we get along well with data. We make it work for us. We make informed decisions and judgments based on what we see in the data, based on this personal interpretation; and then create more data with it.
As seen in the chart, this sometimes leads to a ‘reinforming’ of the original data!
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Edwards, Paul N. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT PRESS: xiii-xvii
Rheingold, Howard (2011) ‘A Mini-course on Infotention’. http://howardrheingold.posterous.com/a-mini-course-in-infotention
Watts, Robert G. (2007) Global Warming and the Future of the Earth.
Bambrick-Santoyo, Paul (2010) Driven by Data: A practical guide to Improve Instruction.
Blog 1 – Baudrillard and Second Life
As I read through the compulsory reading this week, I was immediately struck by the small section on Jean Baudrillard. Many of the other philosophers in the text contain more salient, more reasonable and even more acceptably realistic claims than Baudrillard. However, it was this confusion and inability to accept what Baudrillard proposes that drew me into his argument, and encouraged me to dig deeper into his ideas and perspectives, despite the fact that I still believe they have less real world logistical use in comparison to some of the other theorists from this week.
As I searched and read more about Baudrillard’s theory, in particular the Demon of Images, from within which the theory of Simulacra in contained, I discovered just how sprawling Baudrillard’s thoughts are. The main difference between his views on Simulacra to other’s, is that he believes that a simulacrum in not a copy of the real, but an experience that has become more real than what it was originally based on; the hyperreal.
As a technological determinist, meaning that Baudrillard believes that technology has been the very cause of social change, the example I thought most fitting as an explanation and demonstration of my reading, was that of Second Life, an online video game, where the in-game events are remarkably similar to what one could go about in the normal course of real life. The game uses it’s own currency, that people have to pay for using real money. It has been thoroughly documented over the last few years for its notorious history of people making a ‘switch’ of sorts. Spending more awake time in the game than they do in ‘real life’. There are reported incidences of parents neglecting their children to make time for the game, spending life savings on the in-game currency, getting divorced to marry a player in-game. There have even been numerous ‘real world’ murders over in-game items and events.
I have no right to state which reality is real for avid players of the game; who is to say that a virtual environment is a less valid life than what we perceive to be the ‘real world’? One thing is for certain though, Second Life is very heavily based on the common notion of ‘real life’. It is a perfect example of hyperreality. People spend a lot of money in the game because they don’t correlate ‘real world’ value with the games currency system, because the rest of the world is utterly virtual, to begin with at least. They begin to value in-game relationships more highly than those in the ‘real world’, even to the detriment of their dependant family members. And then somewhere along the line, it switches. They eventually spend every waking hour inside the game, and the life they once had is replaced by a previously unreal environment.
This is, of course, an example of an extreme case, but by no means is it is an anomaly. The game demonstrates how easy it is for human beings to be seduced by the hyperreal (hence the Demon of Images).
References:
Murphie, Andrew and Potts, John (2002) ‘Theoretical Frameworks’ in Culture and Technology London, Palgrave: Page 15.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/simulacra-and-simulations – Accessed 9/3/11
Baudrillard, Jean (1981) The Precession of Simulacra and “Holocaust” and “Apocalypse Now” in Simulacra and Simulation United States of America, Michigan: Pages 1, 49 and 59 respectively.
http://www.news.com.au/world/korean-baby-dies-as-parents-kim-yoo-chul-and-choi-mi-sun-raise-virtual-bub/story-e6frfkyi-1225837180407 – Accessed 10/3/11
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/16/fromsecondlifetoseconddegr – Accessed 10/3/11
http://hubpages.com/hub/SecondLife-addiction – accessed 11/3/11
ARTS 3091 - A Multimedia Course Blog. 