Kismet Arts Tangent

(1) “Being Analog” (formerly published as Chapter 7 of The Invisible Computer) by Donald Norman (1997) www.jnd.org/dn.mss/being_analog.html ;(2) ” A Short History Of the Internet” from The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (February 1993), w3.aces.uiuc.edu/AIM/scale/nethistory.html

“Human beings are the results of millions of years of evolution, where the guiding principle was survival of the species, not efficient, algorithmic computation. ” -Don Norman

We can blame technology, once again, for all our problems. It’s humans that have sophisticated deception abilities, the masters of artifacts (learning from history) and an error-tolerant computing system. It’s only the interference of the rigid mechanical memory of machines that cause enormous misunderstandings and a new post-modern frustration. We have to learn new ways to manipulate our machines to find meaning and importance in our lives. Like the movie, Terminator,only the roles are reversed. We have to blend in– learn little phrases, equivalent to the digital “hasta la vista, baby.” Technology has vastly transformed the way we interact with other human beings. Wars have gone beyond human capabilities, making political strife a true guessing game on who has the old maid (aka. WMDs). Knowledge has gone beyond human capabilities–increased education requirements because of the exponential knowledge (and need for knowledge?). A new idea of efficiency, modeled after new technology has led to the dehumanization of the worker (efficiency= no deviation).

“The technology should conform to the people, not people to the technology” (Norman).

Another movie reference: Why was the clone army superior to the droid army in the Star Wars Saga? People think. They are flexible and creative. A beautiful marriage is formed with people and machines: it’s called the Internet. It is decentralized and has evolved. It wasn’t built in a day. It evolved and conformed to the needs of its fellow man. Bruce Sterling asks, “Why do people want to be ‘on the Internet?’ One of the main reasons is simple freedom. The Internet is a rare example of a true, modern, functional anarchy.”

As technology has developed, people have adapted to it, learning its codes and being limited by its abilities. I think, for the first time, technology has… “learned” (?) something from humans. The Internet’s constantly evolving structure of communication and interaction is a sign of human beings making technology work for them and not the other way around. As Don Norman’s mantra goes: Could this have been predicted beforehand? Maybe. But, it wasn’t.

Questions:
1) How has the creation of email and instant messaging affected the way that you talk to your friends and family? Does this technology help or hinder personal communication?

2)What is the relationship between the user of a calculator and the calculator? How does that compare with the relationship between the Internet and its user?

3) Considering Don Norman’s example of the rotating naval staff, how does this concept play a role in technology’s innovative qualities?

(1) ” We Have the Information You Want, But Getting It Will Cost You: Being Held Hostage by Information Overload” from ACM Crossroads by Mark R. Nelson (nd) www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds1-1/mnelson.html[may need to be logged in to UW Libraries if offsite];(2) “The Internet: Window to the World or Hall of Mirrors?” from InterNIC News by Jack Solock (1996) scout.wisc.edu/Projects/PastProjects/toolkit/enduser/archive/1996/euc-9611.html

Information in the post-modern world is a sword that is too heavy to wield. The information storing facilities of the human mind have been far surpassed by the capacity of the Internet, but the question remains, how are we to reconcile the differences? Nodes, links and gopherspace?

I believe that the problem of “information overload” is characterized by the Generation X mentality. (If I can still use that phrase without my hand getting slapped by Douglas Copeland critics!) We as consumers of information are exposed to so much that nothing has any value. We’re spoiled by information, so much that we don’t know what to do with it. Information has become the snake that eats itself. As the young generation replaces the old generation, as in the times of oral tradition, facts become faded into fiction and then myth. Was there a time of “real” information? Or, in the past have we been just exposed to only so little that we’d want to embrace it for more than its worth?

The interconnection of information has become an “information swamp” that creates “information anxiety.” New standards have been assigned to the medium of Internet information regarding not only content, but access and design. Imagine genius material being discarded because the user couldn’t find relevant information in the first ten seconds of accessing the site.

I am unaffected by information, if I can clarify, I mean any sort of fact that appears to me through the media, excluding books. (I love books.) Most information that does reach my lowly brain seems trivial at best. Does the Obama have a new puppy for the white house? How many times did Paris Hilton fall down the stairs? The Age of Information is soon to die out and be succeeded by the Age of Relevancy, but perhaps not soon enough.

Questions:

(1) How would a “truth” police be implemented in the decentralized structure of the Internet and how could it be enforced?

(2) What do you think are the consequences of living in a world where everyone lies? What are the consequences of the “information overload” of the Internet?

(3) Nicolas Negroponte coined the phrase “The Daily Me” to describe a personalized newspaper. With the overcompensation of the need for relevancy, how will that affect our exposure to new and diverse information?

Reading:  Chapter 4, “Technologies of the Third Mediamorphosis” from Mediamorphosis: Understanding New Media by Roger Fidler (1997) ;

Fidler explores the different uses and consequences for the ever changing pace of society. He mentions the medium being a force for unifying the nation (91) but to what ends? Is creating national mass market greater than promoting a particular set of values (92)? I would like to say that American media must have some better ends than to make money, but here we are in a capitalistic/materialistic society, where some would argue that the means and ends are self-perpetuating. So, we have materialistic values, what moral good would more communication media produce if it for merely monetary gain? We have all this great innovative technology. So what do we do with it? Spend more time playing Sonic the Hedgehog.

He describes that the media, especially noted with the advent of photography that hidden truths and grand illusions play on the same stage, so to speak (94). New forms of communication inspire new forms of entertainment and leisure as well creating a conflated market place for both business and leisure to create meaning (94). Images and notably television connect us to the world in the way print could not (99), but how great is that invention if it is used to promote MTV’s real world that only seems to distort what is real?

There is no president to govern the internet and its contributors. I would say that half the stuff on the internet merely attempts to correct what others have said or to create questionable truths themselves. In an anarchistic network (103) there is no right or wrong. You can publish Proust or pornography. What are we communicating to ourselves and each other? Are we better human beings if we can sell television sets to each other?

 Questions:

(1)What does Texas and Maine have to say to each other?  Walden suggests in the article that the medium is not validated by the content. Are there significant benefits to the betterment of society?

(2)How does media continue to shape what is “real”?

(3)What is the good of a newspaper running a radio station? What is the good of a newspaper having a website?