The reading takes a firm stand on technological determinism which I agree with for the most part. Basically, most, if not all of the technological inventions have come about because of “collective social and cultural desires.” For example, Myspace clearly does nothing on its own; it requires users to give it a meaning, and this meaning may mean different things to different people. For example, some see it as a way to meet potential partners, while others see it as a way to simply keep in touch or socialize casually. Regardless of the purpose, for any social effects to occur, people must use technological inventions. It is similar to the Chinese saying, “You can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Also along the same lines are the saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” However, though Sturken and Cartwright seem to find a balance on the subject, I find that the ample and increasingly widespread use of technology at times silly and imbalanced. By this, I mean the Myspace and Facebook fanatics, who make use of the technology, though do it to such an extent that may harm themselves and possibly other people. Also, the issue of video game freaks/addicts asks the question of whether it is the video game that is the problem, the video gamer, or a combination of both, and if it is a combination of both, what percentage should be blamed on which? To an extent, technology does control us and allow us to fulfill our more negative desires, which include things like internet addiction, AIM, and even worser things, like Facebook stalking. Regarding ethics and morality, technology does not always benefit its user.
On the topic of photography, the invention of the camera, and the resulting change in art forms by various traditional painters, it seems that rather than “allow” painters to create new forms of art, it forced them to. Monet, Picasso, and Braque may have jumped on the bandwagon of new art forms quickly, but others such as Adolf Hitler, I believe, were not able to. Thus, if one wasn’t part of the impressionist, cubist, or other such related art movements at the time, one was considered outdated. However, the advent of photography, whether it forced or allowed artists new freedom, did appear to result in new, exciting ways to paint. However, this brings to question the motives of those artists at the time; for example, did they create the new art forms because they were outdated? Did they do so out of necessity or in order to still make a living creating art? These questions look at the motive of the creation of art, which may bring into question the legitimacy of several artists and possibly art forms.
Interestingly, as time passes, meanings, connotations, and denotations of words seem to change. Authenticity, for example, is used differently now than it has been used in the past. Though in Benjamin’s time, authentic meant something “genuine, reliable, not false or copied,” it is now used more loosely, with the example of the “Authentic” label across the Docker’s ad. Art’s effect upon the meanings and concept of words, though subtle at times and more overt at others, seems to continue as technology progresses. If what is meant by authenticity has changed so much in less than one century, then to what extent will the meanings of words change from what they are today in another 50-100 years? New visual technologies such as the Ipod and its wagon of accessories and updates has already spawned new words, such as “podcasts” and require an increasing use of technology-related words such as “interface,” “analog,” and “text,” among many others. This may even impact slang. Connecting this idea to effects on culture and society, people create technology, which, when used, constantly transforms culture, identity, and society and since technology is dynamic and ever-changing, culture, identity, and society will always continue to change, just as it has been.
No comments:
Post a Comment