As an inroads to discussing JCR Licklider’s Man-Computer-Symbiosis of 1960, it would be interesting to analyze the simultaneous “tetrad” of effects as outlined in MacLuhan’s Laws of Media of 1992 to that theoretically supreme example of new media prefigured so presciently in Licklider’s writing, the internet.
Enhance – The internet clearly enhances the velocity and volume of the exchange of information in a multitude of digital forms, those being primarily audio, video, text and image.
Obsolesce – The internet tends to obsolesce those forms of communication or information transfer which now have a digital equivalent. The easiest example is e-mail which changes dramatically the role of the traditional paper mail service (now referred to as “snail mail”). An interesting post-e-mail phenomenon has been that companies such as Netflix have been able to find adaptive reuses for the USPS that expand and exploit its potential beyond that of a basic message delivery service.
Recurrence – I would argue that the recurrence of a suppressed fantasy of democratic culture is engendered by the internet. The internet is simply too broad and too open of a forum for a multitude of agendas, desires and opinions not to be expressed. Of course internet access has initially been available to only the most privileged. But, as time goes by, as bandwidth becomes cheaper, as the means and modes of expressing oneself become disseminated and more importantly modified by new user groups, the internet could become a more highly charged political space, not merely mimicking the partisan divisions and representations of the traditional media (which tend towards bullet-pointed filtrations) but rather micro-broadcasting a disparate array of differentiated agendas, within which the ultra fine silt of individualized desire might start to emulate the utopian dream of true representative democracy.
Reversal – The immersive interactivity of the internet that allows for the emergent political potential here previously argued has embedded within it a simultaneously regressive character, that postmodern condition best described by Baudrillaird, that culture could become a completely simulated experience.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Media
The media brings the issue that what is the limitation of human activity. From McLuhan’s article, all man-made material things can be treated as extensions of what man once did with his body or some specialized part of body, men start using themselves as media. And when it goes with scientific developments, it’s hard to tell where the media come from. After then as McLuhan raised the issue, sometimes we could see the debate whether media is from man’s biological or psychological means or technical ingenuity. And from this argue, man cannot trust himself and it cause the radical change of identity.
To identify the man, mcluhan says the transformational effects of our artificial organ- they generate totally new condition of environmental service and or life- these are the concerns of Law of Media’ (p97, Law of Media). He tries to bring the issue about law of media that provide a means of identifying the properties of and actions exerted upon ourselves by our technologies and media and artifacts. (p98, Law of Media). It’s time consuming argue that man is genuine human even though he has the transmitted organ. The artefact is the active and utter if human mind or body that transforms the user and his ground. And the artifact has the meaning as a media.
In the Laura Burd Schiavo article, how the human eye became the source of image tool. From the concept of perspective, man percept the depth of space. It brings the question about the status and reliability of vision (p114, Laura Burd Schiavo).The body became as an active producer of sensation and it gives other possibility to see the view of world. The science of vision could become less geometric and less predictable. And it obscured the boundary of real image of the world. Photographers could reform the image and we could see the world as we want even though true facts are sometimes hidden and only the surface are exposed.
To identify the man, mcluhan says the transformational effects of our artificial organ- they generate totally new condition of environmental service and or life- these are the concerns of Law of Media’ (p97, Law of Media). He tries to bring the issue about law of media that provide a means of identifying the properties of and actions exerted upon ourselves by our technologies and media and artifacts. (p98, Law of Media). It’s time consuming argue that man is genuine human even though he has the transmitted organ. The artefact is the active and utter if human mind or body that transforms the user and his ground. And the artifact has the meaning as a media.
In the Laura Burd Schiavo article, how the human eye became the source of image tool. From the concept of perspective, man percept the depth of space. It brings the question about the status and reliability of vision (p114, Laura Burd Schiavo).The body became as an active producer of sensation and it gives other possibility to see the view of world. The science of vision could become less geometric and less predictable. And it obscured the boundary of real image of the world. Photographers could reform the image and we could see the world as we want even though true facts are sometimes hidden and only the surface are exposed.
Media/ Interface
Mcluhan is saying Media observes human operation and affects them in every place where they are implicated in his article. Like he is saying, if a human artifact is not merely an implement for working upon something, but an extension of our body, affected by the artificial addition of organs, Media can called the human extended eye itself.
But, he emphasizes evolutionary standpoints of media. ‘The transformational effects of our artificial organ- they generate totally new condition of environmental service and or life- these are the concerns of Law of Media’ (p97, Law of Media).
This view would be valuable as the sense of reading both deadly and advantageous power of media generating unfathomable consequence.
In the Licklide’s article, concerning the separable function of men and computer for Man-Computer Symbioses, Licklider mentions ‘The information-processing equipment will convert hypotheses into models and test the model against data’ (p58, Man-Computer Symbioses). And, he assumes that digesting and converting data is the role of computer for successful symbioses. Letting computers facilitate formulative thinking and men’s infilling the gaps between particular circumstance and program, sounds great combination for ideal symbiotic cooperation.
Yet, I am curious that how a symbiotic cooperation with computer is actually possible in terms of time sharing.
If computer which is expected in Man-Computer Symbiosis is not just semi-automatic system and it is extended human arms and eye, it might perform like Media. With that sense, I am suspicious we can we easily ignore Laws of Media-interface, of the resonant interval as ‘where the action is’ in all structures, whether chemical, psychic, or social, involves touch (p102, Law of Media).
But, he emphasizes evolutionary standpoints of media. ‘The transformational effects of our artificial organ- they generate totally new condition of environmental service and or life- these are the concerns of Law of Media’ (p97, Law of Media).
This view would be valuable as the sense of reading both deadly and advantageous power of media generating unfathomable consequence.
In the Licklide’s article, concerning the separable function of men and computer for Man-Computer Symbioses, Licklider mentions ‘The information-processing equipment will convert hypotheses into models and test the model against data’ (p58, Man-Computer Symbioses). And, he assumes that digesting and converting data is the role of computer for successful symbioses. Letting computers facilitate formulative thinking and men’s infilling the gaps between particular circumstance and program, sounds great combination for ideal symbiotic cooperation.
Yet, I am curious that how a symbiotic cooperation with computer is actually possible in terms of time sharing.
If computer which is expected in Man-Computer Symbiosis is not just semi-automatic system and it is extended human arms and eye, it might perform like Media. With that sense, I am suspicious we can we easily ignore Laws of Media-interface, of the resonant interval as ‘where the action is’ in all structures, whether chemical, psychic, or social, involves touch (p102, Law of Media).
Media/Interface
Media/Interface
Bin Wang
The world is subjective, but not objective. Obviously the world in the human being’s eyes is totally different with the one in animals’ eyes. The world is also different in different people’s eyes. I think it is not important what the difference we can see through camera and stereoscope, because what the world really is is less important than how we see and understand it.
When we see something behind a fence or a panel with holes, we can see clearly what we want to see, however, if we use a camera, it will focus on the fence or panel automatically. The most important function of our eyes is that they can choose and adjust. So does our brain. As Schiavo’s article mentioned, “the fact that shifting ideological and philosophical meanings were not wholly constrained by or contained in the structure of the medium makes us turn for explanation to culture.”, medium are only tools through which we could see and understand the world better.
The articles talked about everything but architecture. It forces me to ask, “What’s the relation between media and architecture”. J.Z.Young put it, “all of man’s artifacts-whether language, or laws, or ideas and hypotheses, or tools, or clothing, or computers-are extensions of the physical human body or the mind.” In other words, the development of medium is the development of human body. Everything we invented is part of our body. Architecture should not be an exception.
The contradiction is that after we invented and built something, including architecture, they also became part of the world. Hence medium, built with the intension to understand, also become the things that need to be understood. Probably this is the real meaning of “media”.
Bin Wang
The world is subjective, but not objective. Obviously the world in the human being’s eyes is totally different with the one in animals’ eyes. The world is also different in different people’s eyes. I think it is not important what the difference we can see through camera and stereoscope, because what the world really is is less important than how we see and understand it.
When we see something behind a fence or a panel with holes, we can see clearly what we want to see, however, if we use a camera, it will focus on the fence or panel automatically. The most important function of our eyes is that they can choose and adjust. So does our brain. As Schiavo’s article mentioned, “the fact that shifting ideological and philosophical meanings were not wholly constrained by or contained in the structure of the medium makes us turn for explanation to culture.”, medium are only tools through which we could see and understand the world better.
The articles talked about everything but architecture. It forces me to ask, “What’s the relation between media and architecture”. J.Z.Young put it, “all of man’s artifacts-whether language, or laws, or ideas and hypotheses, or tools, or clothing, or computers-are extensions of the physical human body or the mind.” In other words, the development of medium is the development of human body. Everything we invented is part of our body. Architecture should not be an exception.
The contradiction is that after we invented and built something, including architecture, they also became part of the world. Hence medium, built with the intension to understand, also become the things that need to be understood. Probably this is the real meaning of “media”.
sha_media_interface
In an age of information design and user interface design, it is interesting to turn back to an article like Licklider's Man-Computer Symbiosis, where the meeting point between men and machines is approached cautiously, almost self-consciously. Small points like "the purposes of this paper are to present the concept and, hopefully, to foster..." or "that assumption may require justification" reinforce the hesitant tone taken by Licklider presenting this article to his peers.
What he is proposing is fascinating, that through each sides' strengths and weaknesses the man-computer relationship can become finely tuned and optimized. In some ways it reminds me of the CAD vs BIM tools, where the program's responsibility is to keep consistent and update information which enables the user to focus more on the changes needed to be made.
In Mcluhan's article, Mcluhan shows how the interface of a mechanism changes the perception of the action (bomb vs petrol, tusk vs spear). This reminds me of a recent post by iA, on the idea of interface as brand. In it, iA writes about how the iPod's (and potentially the iPhone's) success is based around the interface/brand, and how competitors have failed because all they have done so far is to mimic the interface. "Copies can’t “kill” the original if the original is that protoypical." This contemporary view of interface as a realm of advertising or branding shows how entwined the man-computer symbiosis has really become. It reminds me of Alan Kay's comment that people who are really serious about software should make their own hardware -- the idea that interface and interaction can actually drive the machine, much like Schiavo's description of the discovery of the eye as a mechanism for sight and then the subsequent process of replicating and rediscovering the machine as a mechanism for "viewing pleasure."
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/the-interface-of-a-cheeseburger
What he is proposing is fascinating, that through each sides' strengths and weaknesses the man-computer relationship can become finely tuned and optimized. In some ways it reminds me of the CAD vs BIM tools, where the program's responsibility is to keep consistent and update information which enables the user to focus more on the changes needed to be made.
In Mcluhan's article, Mcluhan shows how the interface of a mechanism changes the perception of the action (bomb vs petrol, tusk vs spear). This reminds me of a recent post by iA, on the idea of interface as brand. In it, iA writes about how the iPod's (and potentially the iPhone's) success is based around the interface/brand, and how competitors have failed because all they have done so far is to mimic the interface. "Copies can’t “kill” the original if the original is that protoypical." This contemporary view of interface as a realm of advertising or branding shows how entwined the man-computer symbiosis has really become. It reminds me of Alan Kay's comment that people who are really serious about software should make their own hardware -- the idea that interface and interaction can actually drive the machine, much like Schiavo's description of the discovery of the eye as a mechanism for sight and then the subsequent process of replicating and rediscovering the machine as a mechanism for "viewing pleasure."
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/the-interface-of-a-cheeseburger
Media/Interface
Architecture 209X, Spring 2007
Words and Cities: The rhetoric and meaning of statistically improbable phrases
Nicholas De Monchaux
Qing Wang
Media/Interface
It is interesting that both Man-Computer Symbiosis and Laws of Media treat machine/computer/tool/weapon/the extension of our human being as another independent individual. By contrast with the common senses which human being invented those tools and they serve us, both of two readings emphasize on the independence and interaction of the interrelationship. In Licklider’s article, he interpreted the current problems of computation devices and the reasons they need be shifted. The computers were designed to solve the problems by pre-determined programs or formulas. They are used to do the tedious repetitive works for people who normally are considered low efficient in that kind work. All of those performances of computers rely on human-designed pre-determined program and formulas. Computers only do what you designed in advance. They execute only one or few commands every time but in an extremely fast speed. They can find the answer of a set question much faster than human brain. However, the problem is sometimes that it is harder to find the question rather than the answer. Once computers can participate into the question-finding jobs, the process of solving a problem will be accelerated dramatically. On the contrary of optimistic thinking of Licklider’s article, Laws of Media starts with a much shadowy tones about the influence of media. It implies that the inventions of tools make people distrust and isolated psychologically. Artificial weapons as one of human body’s extension make people cruder. The more advance the weapon is, the less sympathetic people are. The analogical influence happens on the relationship between people and media. The detachment of people and physical reality enhances the deconstruction of social identity. “Radical changes of identity, happening suddenly and in very brief intervals of time, have proved more deadly and destructive of human values than wars fought with hardware weapons.” Based on that provocative narrative, artists (or architects?) have been described as the counter-force to resist the negative impact from media. “Without the artist’s intervention man merely adapts to his technologies and become their servo-mechanism. …the role of art is to liberate man from the robot status imposed by adjusting to technologies.” It recalled me some familiar ideas that art should save the society when the
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Interfaces and iPhones
I remember reading Descartes for an undergraduate class in philosophy—the last philosophy class I ever took. The answers conjured up by Descartes to the very questions that led me to take the class (i.e. what is reality and are perceptions real) I found to be beyond tedious. Descartes, for all his brilliant arguments, failed to recognize what any high school biology class made clear: the eyeball is an interface to the brain. By using the history of the stereoscope and camera to map our understanding of the how the human eye works, Schiavo traces our understanding of the eye as an interface, or as dictionary.com defines it, “a common boundary or interconnection between systems, equipment, concepts, or human beings.” In Schiavo’s words, “creating a situation in which we “see” that which is not really there, the stereoscope insinuated an arbitrary relationship between stimulus and sensation.” This means that the two are related in that the interface othrough which a stimulus is received will certainly affect its sensation.
In McLuhan’s “Laws of Media,” this argument is extended to “all man’s artifacts – whether language, or laws, or ideas and hypotheses, or tools, or clothing, or computers – are extensions of the physical human body or mind.” Certainly the stereoscope falls into this group, as do all other devices, such as guns, bombs, cars and birth control. McLuhan’s realization that “man has developed extensions for practically everything he used to do with his body” is not nearly as fascinating as how this has affected social relationships. His cited analogy between the emotional differences between a solider killing a child with petrol and a match versus dropping napalm from an airplane represents how the interface between two people affects emotions. In the case of the bomb, all senses (our integrated interfaces) are removed from the subject: the bomber is not going to smell the burning flesh, hear the screams of agony, or see the carnage up close. Unlike the stereoscope, the effect of the artificial interface no longer creates the same experience as the original.
This makes me consider the new iPhone by Apple. Rumors of its existence have been circulating through blogs for years, but until several months ago it was only subject of speculation. Part of the reason for wait was the extensive research and development of the phone’s interface. The importance of how the iPhone’s surface felt was essential; it could not smudge, it needed to be perfectly touch sensitive with an appealing surface, it needed to be intuitive, etc. The inverse of the bomb, the iPhone—a remote interface between two people conversing—was developed to compliment the interaction between natural interfaces (e.g. touch) and artificial media. This recalls Licklider’s “man-computer symbiosis.” If Licklider had seen the iPhone, his hope that “human brains and and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly” would certainly have come to fruition. That “the resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever thought” is maybe not so clear: an awful lot of automobile accidents happen as someone is arguing over a cell phone.
In McLuhan’s “Laws of Media,” this argument is extended to “all man’s artifacts – whether language, or laws, or ideas and hypotheses, or tools, or clothing, or computers – are extensions of the physical human body or mind.” Certainly the stereoscope falls into this group, as do all other devices, such as guns, bombs, cars and birth control. McLuhan’s realization that “man has developed extensions for practically everything he used to do with his body” is not nearly as fascinating as how this has affected social relationships. His cited analogy between the emotional differences between a solider killing a child with petrol and a match versus dropping napalm from an airplane represents how the interface between two people affects emotions. In the case of the bomb, all senses (our integrated interfaces) are removed from the subject: the bomber is not going to smell the burning flesh, hear the screams of agony, or see the carnage up close. Unlike the stereoscope, the effect of the artificial interface no longer creates the same experience as the original.
This makes me consider the new iPhone by Apple. Rumors of its existence have been circulating through blogs for years, but until several months ago it was only subject of speculation. Part of the reason for wait was the extensive research and development of the phone’s interface. The importance of how the iPhone’s surface felt was essential; it could not smudge, it needed to be perfectly touch sensitive with an appealing surface, it needed to be intuitive, etc. The inverse of the bomb, the iPhone—a remote interface between two people conversing—was developed to compliment the interaction between natural interfaces (e.g. touch) and artificial media. This recalls Licklider’s “man-computer symbiosis.” If Licklider had seen the iPhone, his hope that “human brains and and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly” would certainly have come to fruition. That “the resulting partnership will think as no human brain has ever thought” is maybe not so clear: an awful lot of automobile accidents happen as someone is arguing over a cell phone.
Media Interface
“Man the tool-making animal has long been engaged in extending one or another of his sense organs in such a manner as to disturb all of his other senses and faculties” J.Z. Young writes. Mans strive for stimulations, external or internal, is to break up the unison of action of the brain.
In our age man has developed extensions for almost everything he used to do with his body. The ‘laws of media’ reading argues that “all man-made material things can be treated as extensions of what man once did with his body or some specialized part of his body”.
Mans creation of new environments will lead to the changes of man himself. A new service environment will modify the very nature and image of people who use it. As electric media booms people becomes detached from mere bodily or physical reality. In this IT-era the personal and community values disappears in a rapidly increasing pace. I am actually very glad that I have had the privilege to live in the pre-internet world and experience the change of modes to communicate.
The Laws of media reading further stresses the main characteristic of man to be the communication as a tool itself.
In the Stereoscope reading Burd Schiavo writes “that media do not function as neutral systems for the storage and communication of information or opinion. She further quotes Jean Baudrillard; “media are not coefficients but effectors of ideology”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)