Lev Manovich - Totalitarian Interactivity.
The above link was provided to me by Claire in a comment a few weeks back. It's Lev Manovich writing on the myth of interactivity and interactivity as a subtle form of manipulation and the resulting effects on society. This was the initial issue i was dealing with in regards to the brief. I have since moved on to other pastures and have developed an idea for an installation that sums up my recent thoughts. Therefore now this is covered i want to explore the original idea of control.
Back to the myth of interactivity. By giving the user choice this alludes to them having control, when in reality the author is simply herding the audience in a certain direction. As we move from an industrial civilization to an information civilization, the text (art work) moves from representation to manipulation, giving digital media and our current information age a very foreboding feel.
Focusing on psychological interaction between user and computer we have discussed how hyperlinks externalize the authors mind, the user follows this pre-meditated path of anothers associations, mistaking them for their own. As well as the issue of our current postmodern culture desensitizing the commonwealth as we are bombarded with hideous imagery of death, misery and pain. Now photographs and footage of this nature have such little impact. It seems our digital media society cannot escape the fact that no idea is original, thoughts are merely residual of early mechanization and more recent technological development. We are doomed to follow set narratives in every sense and our minds are therefore becoming ever more narrow.
3 comments:
I find it difficult to argue with Manovich, because I can see his points of view and agree with some of them, but I think it's a bit unfair to class the whole digital media age as narrowing our minds.
I think if any fault is to be assigned, it should be with advertisers and consumerism, that encourage this perpetual cycle of trying to be like everyone else and promote limited choices of music and style. That is not all that digital media is about though, whether society choose to use them, in this day and age we have tools at our fingertips that can allow us to be as free as we want in expressing individuality. Maybe this is becoming harder to do now that we are advertised to almost everywhere we look, but as long as their are some individuals aspiring to do that, new thought can never really be eliminated. Also keep in mind that the essay was writen ten years ago, and since then interactive media has really advanced to allow us to have greater control over how we use it, in terms of social networking, which allows us to share our own thoughts, even if, as you argue, they may not be that unique, at least the chances to express them are increasing and are continuing to do so. I think one day we will be surrounded by so much new technology stemmed from new ideas that none of us could have ever imagined now, and new media technology is helping us reach that point so much faster.
Furthermore, I don't think the new media is to blame for people mistaking other peoples thoughts as their own as much as is emphasised in the text. It certainly makes it easier to do so, but it is just a modernisation of exisiting issues in the human race. Even before the internet, for six hundred years, newspapers have been used to subtley manipulate public opinion, and before that, the church did it with the bible. Manipulation and the desire to control is just part of human nature.
Also, keep in mind that Manovich freely admits himself to have been raised in a country where the media was used to manipulate. He is not enirely objective, as this article considers.
My personal opinion is that free will is dwarfed somewhat by the media, but that the media also allows us to express new ideas with more ease when we do get them, and I don't think that free will is an illusion. I am reading a scientific article that argues this point if it interests you:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3893/
Also, if your mentioned in the ideas usrrounding early mechanization you might enjoy this text:
'From Cybernation To Interaction: A Contribution To An Archaeology Of Interaction'
I haven't finished it yet, but personally I'm really enjoying it more than any other text so far. It ties in with alot discussed in class.
Also, if your mentioned in the ideas usrrounding
Oops...meant to say:
Also, if your INTERESTED in the ideas SURROUNDING
Sorry.
illusion can be fantastic. i am about to place a load of blogs up and 90% of the philosophy i will be up is directly relevent to this, so DEF DEF worth having a look at. it may put a much more positive light on what is going on here.
with regard to a previous idea you mentioned: that the author spends ages creating something, for a user to spend a fraction of that time consuming it...
...(using halo3 as an example)if a game takes 50 hours to play and finish, many users go back and play the game again on a harder setting and getting more from the game.
there are varioud other elements, like multiplayer, that are open ended can can last as long or as short as the user wishes (these are the only ones i have played) as there is no end to playing the same game again and again, becuase each one is different, even with the same rules, the time the game is used is vastly increased.
also that 50hours is spread across weeks. it is not usually done in one go. so the time between playing the game, isnt void of the game, it still functions in conversations, thourght etc etc.
also once the game is over, even if the user never plays it again, the game continues to function is conversations, also in using "skills" learnt in that game within other games and as a further extention of "knowledge" to that user to draw apon in other eares of their life, even in an obscure way.
its all interesting stuff zac, i look forward to seeing what you pull out of this.
have a good christmas
Post a Comment