Group11:::::: Critical Art Ensemble

(Mazi, Ron, Rami, Yung-Hoon)

Critical Art Ensemble

(CAE) is a collective of five tactical media practitioners of various specializations including computer graphics and web design, film/video, photography, text art, book art, and performance.

Formed in 1987, CAE's focus has been on the exploration of the intersections between art, critical theory, technology, and political activism. The original members are Steve Barnes, Dorian Burr, Steve Kurtz, Hope Kurtz and Beverly Schlee. Their book projects include: The Electronic Disturbance (1997), Electronic Civil Disobedience & Other Unpopular Ideas(1998), Flesh Machine; Cyborgs,Designer Babies, Eugenic Conscousness (1998), Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media (2001), Molecular Invasion (2002)

Nomadic Power and Cultural Resistance

In “The Electronic Disturbance”, CAE argued that a major change in the representation of power had occurred over the past twenty years. Power once represented itself as a visible sedentary force through various types of spectacle (media, architecture, etc.), but it has instead retreated into cyberspace where it can nomadically wander the globe, always absent to counterforce, always present whenever and wherever opportunity knocks.

“It is now necessary to bring panic into the bunker.” We should disturb the illusion of security that the nomadic power is trying to establish by counterattacking it by means of resistance. They mention that tactics such as hacking, sending a wide spreading virus, email bombing are effective tools against this cyber nomadic power.

The electronic world is by no means established and that is why we should take advantage of this by new forms of electronic resistance. Artists/Activists (as well as other concerned groups) can help the resistance by using media against this power. After all, this nomadic power’s weapon of choice is and always was media so why not use it against it.

Foucault and Chomsky Debate, 1971

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm

Followup _Chomsky and Intellectuals

The Dominion and The Intellectuals
Noam Chomsky interviewed by an anonymous interviewer

Antosofia, 2003
QUESTION: Last year, we worked on a seminar, made by the students, called "Genealogy of Dominion". We studied Max Stirner, Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, Etienne De la Boetie and Hannah Arendt. I worked on Max Stirner, The Ego and Its Own, he believes language has a disciplinary effect that through the words goes straight to ideology. So, for Stirner, you have to free yourself from this kind of language and have a personal rebellion, not a revolution. This is something different from your language conception that is free and creative. I want to know what you think about that.
CHOMSKY: I think Stirner is confusing language with the use of language. I mean, it is like asking whether you have to free yourself from a hammer because a hammer can be used by a torturer. It is true that a hammer can be used by a torturer but the hammer can be used also to build houses. The use of a hammer is something we must pay attention to, but the language can be used to repress, can be used to liberate, can be used to divert. It is like saying you have to liberate yourself from hands because they can be used to repress people but it's not the hands' fault.

QUESTION: It is very hard to live in the U.S. for a left activist. I don't t feel very comfortable in your country. What is the condition of activism in the U.S.?

CHOMSKY: The situation is really complicated. There are no labor-based groups and there is no labor-based political party. People are completely disconnected and this lack of connection is a real problem. Don't forget that the Marxist movements were never very strong in U.S. in all of its history: there were ambiences in which independent Marxists gained influence but this didn't happen in the main part of the country. Also remember that the U.S. government is an extreme radical and nationalist group with some similarities to European fascism. It has proclaimed "imperial ambitions" relying on its overwhelming predominance in the military dimension, and is unusual in its dedication to the needs of narrow sectors of wealth and private power. People in the United States work really hard, much harder than any other advanced industrial society and this causes a lot of stress. People are always concerned about their work and they live in fear. Although there is a lot of crime in the United States, it is approximately the same as comparable societies, but fear of crime is far higher [in the U.S.]. In many ways, this is the most frightened nation in the world. Moreover, the level of activism depends upon which part of the United States you are thinking of: the United States is a very complicated country with many different tendencies. For example, last week, I was in the largest university in the country, which is not exactly the liberal center of the nation: Texas. In Houston and Austin, where I was, there were all kinds of community and campus-based activities. At the University of Texas there were thousands of people involved in protest after Congress authorized the use of force, and the student government passed a strong anti-war resolution. One finds similar things all over the country, at a level that is quite without precedent. There has never been anything like such protest before a war is officially launched, and war-peace issues are only one element of the broad popular movements that are taking shape, committed to a wide range of issues and concerns.

QUESTION: I was impressed by the fact that everywhere, in shops, in bars, at the movies, there is the same poster about 9-11 with the sentence, "We'll never forget". In Europe, maybe we would have written something like, "We'll always remember". It seems that there is a taste for revenge in your "ad".

CHOMSKY: You have all sorts of different reactions, I mean, right after September 11, it was reported that a big proportion, or a high majority, of the population wanted the attack against Afghanistan. It's a normal feeling; now the same majority would pursue a diplomatic solution.

QUESTION: In a text of yours you say that the world is ruled by a "virtual senate". Can you tell me something more about this?

CHOMSKY: The term is not mine. I am borrowing it from the professional literature on international economics. The "virtual senate" consists of investors and lenders. They can effectively decide social and economic policy by capital flight, attacks on currency that undermine the economy, and other means that have been provided by the neoliberal framework of the past thirty years. You can see it in Brazil right now. The "virtual senate" wants assurances that the neoliberal policies of the Cardoso government, from which foreign investors and domestic elites greatly benefit, will not be changed. As soon as international investors, lenders, banks, the IMF, domestic wealth, and so on, recognized that Lula might win the elections, they reacted with attacks on the currency, capital flight, and other means to place the country in a stranglehold and prevent the will of the majority from being implemented. When they regained confidence that Lula would not be able to depart fundamentally from the international neoliberal regime, they relaxed and welcomed him. As they put it, Lula reassured people that he would keep Brazil safe. That specific use of language has two faces: if he keeps it safe for the financial investors, will he keep it safe for the Brazilians? Governments face what economists call a "dual constituency": voters, and the "virtual senate." Lula promised his country that he will keep Brazil safe for the population, but the IMF wants to keep it safe for its own constituency: the "virtual senate." They will act so that the money comes right after the elections and only if Lula keeps up with creditors. This is the effect of financial liberalization and other measures that have established the "virtual senate" as the dominant force in determining social and economic policy within a country. It means the population doesn't have control of the decisions taken by his own country. One consequence of liberalization of capital is rather clear: it undercuts democracy.

QUESTION: This is a big win for the left in the world; Brazil is such a big country ...

CHOMSKY: I have a lot of respect for Lula but the problem is that he has very little space to maneuver. Actually, he has some choices: he can become some sort of figurehead in the hand of the IMF or he can do some good for Brazil. If he doesn't get killed first...

QUESTION: We hope not...

CHOMSKY: Lula could direct resources for internal development but unregulated capital flow can be used very effectively to undermine attempts by individual governments to introduce progressive measures. Any country trying to stimulate its economy or increase its health spending is likely to find this deviant behavior instantly punished by a flight of capital.

QUESTION: It seems to me, with a certain degree of difference, that the concept of a virtual senate is similar to Negri's and Hardt's concept of Empire. [Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, Empire (Harvard University Press, 2000)]

CHOMSKY: Empire, yes, but I have to say I found it hard to read. I understood only parts, and what I understood seemed to me pretty well known and expressible much more simply. However, maybe I missed something important.

QUESTION: Yes, and the book arrives to the same conclusion as yours but through a more complicated, less readable way...

CHOMSKY: If people get something out of it, it's okay. What I understand seems to be pretty simple, and this is not a criticism. I don't see any need to say in a complicated way what you can say in an easier way. You can make things look complicated, that's part of the game that intellectuals play; things must look complicated. You might not be conscious about that, but it's a way of gaining prestige, power and influence.

QUESTION: Do you look at Foucault's work in this perspective?

CHOMSKY: Foucault is an interesting case because I'm sure he honestly wants to undermine power but I think with his writings he reinforced it. The only way to understand Foucault is if you are a graduate student or you are attending a university and have been trained in this particular style of discourse. That's a way of guaranteeing, it might not be his purpose, but that's a way of guaranteeing that intellectuals will have power, prestige and influence. If something can be said simply, say it simply, so that the carpenter next door can understand you. Anything that is at all well understood about human affairs is pretty simple. I find Foucault really interesting but I remain skeptical of his mode of expression. I find that I have to decode him, and after I have decoded him, maybe I'm missing something. I don't get the significance of what I am left with. I have never effectively understood what he was talking about. I mean, when I try to take the big words he uses and put them into words that I can understand and use, it is difficult for me to accomplish this task. It all strikes me as overly convoluted and very abstract. But what happens when you try to skip down to real cases? The trouble with Foucault, and with this certain kind of theory, arises when it tries to come down to earth. Really, nobody was able to explain to me the importance of his work...

QUESTION: Do you think intellectuals should free themselves from theory, from visions, such as Zapatistas, and Marcos?

CHOMSKY: Marcos's own thoughts were interesting, but there is no such thing as an "absence of theory", I mean, you always have a commitment to some set of beliefs, goals and visions and so on, or to some kind of analyses of society. That is true whether you are expressing your views on torture, or freedom of speech, or in fact any issue beyond the most utterly superficial.

QUESTION: I was thinking of your text, "Goals and Visions," and I think that sometimes it is much more important to concentrate on goals and forget the visions!

CHOMSKY: You don't have to forget them; there is a balance. You have to make your own choices; I mean, close friends of mine may make very different choices than me. For example, Michael Albert [of Z Magazine] thinks that is really important, to spell out the visions. My feeling is that we don't know how to do that, so this kind of work is less important than that on goals. These are speculations about reasonable priorities, doubtless different for different people, as they should be. There is no general right or wrong about it.

QUESTION: When you talk about the role of intellectuals, you say that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. Could you explain this assertion?

CHOMSKY: One of the most elementary moral truisms is that you are responsible for the anticipated consequences of your own actions. It is fine to talk about the crimes of Genghis Khan, but there isn't much that you can do about them. If Soviet intellectuals chose to devote their energies to crimes of the U.S., which they could do nothing about, that is their business. We honor those who recognized that the first duty is to concentrate on your own country. And it is interesting that no one ever asks for an explanation, because in the case of official enemies, truisms are indeed truisms. It is when truisms are applied to ourselves that they become contentious, or even outrageous. But they remain truisms. In fact, the truisms hold far more for us than they did for Soviet dissidents, for the simple reason that we are in free societies, do not face repression, and can have a substantial influence on government policy. So if we adopt truisms, that is where we will focus most of our energy and commitment. The explanation is even more obvious than in the case of official enemies.

Naturally, truisms are hated when applied to oneself. You can see it dramatically in the case of terrorism. In fact one of the reasons why I am considered "public enemy number one" among a large sector of intellectuals in the U.S. is that I mention that the U.S. is one of the major terrorist states in the world and this assertion, though plainly true, is unacceptable for many intellectuals, including left-liberal intellectuals, because if we faced such truths we could do something about the terrorist acts for which we are responsible, accepting elementary moral responsibilities instead of lauding ourselves for denouncing the crimes official enemies, about which we can often do very little.

Elementary honesty is often uncomfortable, in personal life as well, and there are people who make great efforts to evade it. For intellectuals, throughout history, it has often come close to being their vocation. Intellectuals are commonly integrated into dominant institutions. Their privilege and prestige derives from adapting to the interests of power concentrations, often taking a critical look but in very limited ways. For example, one may criticize the war in Vietnam as a "mistake" that began with "benign intentions". But it goes too far to say that the war is not "a mistake" but was "fundamentally wrong and immoral". the position of about 70 percent of the public by the late 1960s, persisting until today, but of only a margin of intellectuals. The same is true of terrorism. In acceptable discourse, as can easily be demonstrated, the term is used to refer to terrorist acts that THEY carry out against US, not those that WE carry out against THEM. That is probably close to a historical universal. And there are innumerable other examples.

G2 & THE EMPIRE

by Anthony and Raed

It is quite depressing to see what our existence has become through the powers laid upon us by global capitalism. The authors speak of the notion of the human body being constructed and controlled by powers beyond the government, one from economy and capitalism. On one hand, global capitalism is becoming an Empire (not to be mixed with an Empire, like the Roman Empire), but an Empire that has no boundaries and is not centralized. This money driven Empire absorbs all power from us, and tricks us into thinking we are helping society by being hard workers and giving ourselves to our jobs. However, in truth, we are just becoming cogs in their system. One can feel freedom and power at times, but it is only lent to us by the Empire, it is temporary and only there for our distraction. It is hard to fight against it because we are unable to rank up against this Empire. To fight against it would lead us directly to a certain social constraint. We must first gain access through the Empire to overthrow it, like a Trojan hoarse (cute isn’t it!).

Group 1- Bastien, Jon Kebe, Mohannad, Jason, Brent, Etienne

They propose not only a new way of thinking about capitalism and the societies of control, but a new way of understanding how we can and must revolt against it. They have a high goal -- of being the Karl Marx of the twenty-first century!

It is interesting to analyze a reading that becomes an auto critical piece in such a fast pace. Especially these months of perpetual questioning to the empire of the world and its big influence in international conflicts, economic influences and systematic stomping of those who do not follow its guidelines, “Empire” is a good reflection of the lack of balance we are struggling with today and that seems will never be fixed while the system works in such brutal and primitive way. As the authors say on page 43, “One might even say that the construction of Empire and its global networks is a response to the various struggles against the modern machines of power, and specifically to class struggle driven by the multitude’s desire for liberation.”

Hardt and Negri illustrate through symbolic political examples what the empire is, has become, and will do to our lives. The critique to what the modern world has left for its legacy, based on the infinite number of never-ending wars and conflicts, raise eyebrows and proves a point that is very interesting, yet scary. This reminds me of a passage where H & N discuss the non-existing connection of several events such as riots, strikes and revolts going on throughout the world. We live in a world that is supposedly increasing in communication and thus creating a global Empire, but the facts that these events were not connected in any way shows an “urgent political paradox of our time”, “Struggles have become all but incommunicable”.

The authors quote Eric Auerbach by remembering his though of “Tragedy is the only genre that can claim realism in the Western literature”. This is directly linked with the struggle for power brought in by the empires, and how we have degenerated our societal values and have not yet been able to resolve our most basic and symbolic differences with one another, thousands of years after great wonders such as the Egyptian pyramids or the invention of the wheel and the development of our own tribal world.

The key factors of Communication within the empire and the “Res Gestae”. How guilty are we of what is happening and how much are we supporting it by sustaining a weak or non-partisan state of mind that succumbs to the fierce claw of Capitalism and Imperial politics? The United Nations, for example, as well as all the multinational political treaties, accords, funds, commissions and committees built to support a multi-networked planet of common labour are indeed good proposals, but there is still a treacherous gap within theory and practice. The main headquarters of the United Nations is inside the biggest empire. The empire is the main donor of funds to maintain these organizations running and tends to end up intimidating, more than supporting, when such closeness is as tight as it is in our actual times. If the United Stated had respected the stand of the Security Council in 2003 with respects of the war in Iraq, history would have been too different now and we would have reaffirmed the ethics and actual existence of the United Nations as a mediator for world politics. Yet we allowed Rwanda to happened, not to mention Darfur and other tortures that should wipe out our faces from the mirror when, as humankind, we look at each other and praise our sense of fraternity.

Group 1 - Jason, Etienne, Brent, Jonathan, Bastien, Mohannad

The disciplinary society we are embedded in permits access to only a selected few. The world created for us, demands an accumuilation of knowledge to achieve this hierarchal deserved access. In his essay entitled, ‘Society of Control’, Gilless Deleuze is interested in the notion on how we can resist this control, inspired by the dominant functions of capitalism. He further explores on how things are connected and related, arguing that there is no centralized power that is decentralized. Essentially the molecular traits embody society, establishing its structure to be rather fluid. The molar disciplinary’s dictate the rules and activities in which society must participate, and the behaviors that which constitute an acceptable status. If an American refuses to go to war, than it is assumed that he must not stand by the patriotism of his country. Fascism is the most ideal control of society.

Nations have a tendency of demonizing their opponents through mediation of images imposed through the media. “… twin Fascism is new or can make something new. It can only reproduce the environment that supports its own health: fear, denial, and an atmosphere in which its victims have lost the will to fight” (Morrison, 760) In her address to Howard University on March 2, 1995, Toni Morrison indicates that racism is fabricated through provoking fear through images of other cultures. Our understanding of a culture or the objectives revolving around war, are solely understood through subjective representations depicted through the mass-media. The images alienating effects on our imagination establishes a world developed through an artificial depiction. Racism is determined through the fascist rules of our planet. The representative images symbolizing ideology of a particular nation haunt the spectator, not permitting them a chance to resist.

"Society of control" and "Racism and Fascism" - Group 7

Group 7 (Andrea, Alex, Dominic)

Society of control

Many author presented in our class have discoursed on the idea of a society of control. In ''society of control'', Gille Deleuze bring further the analysis of authors like Foucault and Virilio and apply them to a modern society.

For Deleuze, the control of environment is no longer modular and particular to some institution but generalized, mixed and deeper than before. The system of control are repeated in the different levels of society (home, work, school, institution) and the modules of control have become a single deformable mold. According to Deleuze, this new mold is more visible to individual but, because of it changing nature, it has also become impossible to undo. For the author, this change is reflexted in the capitalist society by the change from industry of production to industry of marketing. The power structure is no longer physical, just like data is invisible in a computer.

Racism and Fascism

In ''Racism and Fascism'', Toni Morrison explain how racism is still very present and enforced by our society and institutions. He list 10 solutions to ensure the survival of racism in the society. He make us realize how much these ''solutions'' seems to be used in our current institutions. For him, these fascism's ideas are present in all our different political party. Because of this, the problem is not associated to a particular political party but to global policies. In the last part of the text, Morrison explain how a merge of the different structures of society is an excellent way to ensure the survival of the racism and fascism ''regime''.

In conclusion, this merge and uniformication of the different structures of society appear very close to the one described by Deleuze in ''society of control''. This idea is somewhat frightening because it imply the possibility that specific individuals have put in place the actual ''society of control'' in order to enforce some fascist agenda.

God save US!

"Society of control" & "Racism and Fascism" - Group 9

Born in the 17th arrondisment of Paris 1925 Gilles Deleuze was a great French philosopher. His educational background is as follows;

Schools

• Attended public schools before the Second World War.
• Attended school in Normandy for a year.
• Returned to Paris – attended the Lycée Carnot and then he studied at Henry IV.
• 1944-1948 – Studied Philosophy at the Sorbonne.
• 1948 – Gained his agrégation in Philosophy.

Teaching

• 1948 – Began teaching philosophy in various Paris Lycées (high schools).
• 1957 – Taught history of philosophy at the Sorbonne
• 1960-64 – Researcher with the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique.
• 1964-69 – Taught at the University of Lyon and then took a position as professor of philosophy at Vincennes.
• 1969 – Deleuze took a teaching position at the experimental University of Paris VII, and he continued to teach there until his retirement in 1987.

Other Facts

• While studying, some of Deleuze’s professors included Ferdinand Aliquié, Georges Canguilhem, and Jean Hyppolite.
• Gilles Deleuze was married to Denise Paul “Fanny” Grandjouan in 1956.
• He became very good friends with Michel Foucault in 1962.
• Deleuze experienced his first major incidence of pulmonary illness in 1968.
• 1969 – Gilles Deleuze became friends and started a partnership with Félix Guattari.
• Deleuze took his own life on November 4, 1995.

Society of control

The text deals primarily with control in a time- sequence manner, the distinction between disciplinary societies and the society of control. The text can be associated with Foucault’s work regarding the old disciplinary systems and the “closed environment”. According to Deleuze

• A disciplinary society is characterized by scheduled control such as tests.
• A control society is characterized by constant surveillance.

Other aspects the text centers on are:

• Deleuze illustrated the change between the two different societies by the constant reform. For example: The Quebec school reform
• Surveillance brings instability
• Signature vs. id number to identify individuals
• Modulation (surf) of the control society brings the individual production in a wave movement, as opposed to production/ leisure.
• Sovereignty made use of simple machines while disciplinary societies use machines involving energy and control societies use machines called computers.
• The mutation of capitalism and how marketing is the new form of control
• Continuous forms of control: prison, schools, hospital and corporation.

Morrison

Toni Morrison whose original name Chloe Anthony Wofford was
born on February 18th 1931 in Lorain, Ohio, U.S.
Morrison is a African American writer noted for her examination of black experience (particularly black female experience) within the black community. lToni Morrison, the first black woman to receive Nobel Prize in Literature in 1993.She attended Howard University (B.A., 1953) and Cornell University (M.A., 1955). After teaching at Texas Southern University for two years, she taught at Howard from 1957 to 1964. lIn 1965 she became a fiction editor. From 1984 she taught writing at the State University
of New York at Albany, leaving in 1989 to join the faculty of Princeton University.
She currently holds a place on the editorial board of The Nation magazine.

Books and texts
The central theme of Morrison's novels is the black American experience; in an unjust society her characters struggle to find themselves and their cultural identity.
Love (2003)
Paradise (1999)
Jazz (1992)
Beloved (1987)
Tar Baby (1981)
Song of Solomon (1977) ; its publication brought Morrison to national attention.
Sula (1973)
The Bluest Eye (1970)

Racism and Fascism

In her work Morrison discuss marketing and the consequence on our mental state. “Fascism talks ideology, but it is really just marketing – marketing for power.”

Fear and denial are an atmosphere in which its victims have lost the fight. Control is the central idea; Fascism is control, marketing is control.

Morrison describes the process used to attain a sense of racism and the fascism system of control. Racism and fascism are described as viruses and we have become the carriers.

Group 5, "Society of control" and "Racism and Fascism"

"Society of control"

We live in the place which operates by disciplines. The difference is that, in the old day, we are disciplined at the factory, school, and hospital. However, in the control of society, the corporation replaces them. In the society of control, everything identified by code; thus, we no longer find ourselves dealing with mass/ individual pair. Individuals have become “dividuals” such as masses, data, banks. Substitute for the individual or numerical body of a dividual material to be controlled.

The text also mentions that "scandals" are arising from technology, "with the passive danger of entropy and the active danger of sabotage; the
societies of control operate with machines of a third type, computers, whose
passive danger is jamming and whose active one is piracy or the introduction
of viruses."

Not only that, while technology is freeing us, it is trapping us as well, as in this example, "Felix Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one's
apartment, one's street, one's neighborhood, thanks to one's (dividual)
electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could just as
easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours; what counts is
not the barrier but the computer that tracks each person's position--licit
or illicit--and effects a universal modulation."


Society is shifting from "disciplinary societies" (foucault-ian society
where we are constantly "passing from one closed environment to another,
each having its own laws..." pp.1) to "societies of control".
(process analyzed by Virilio)


"Racism and Fascism"

This text discusses marketing and it's effects on our minds.

There is a "final solution" ( pp.1) reference to Hitler's final solution, which is genocide.
Outlined that final solution(genocide) is last step, involves other means to reach that end.

The "enemy" referred to in article could be anything:
-Jews in Nazi Germany ?
-Terrorism/ terrorists/ unamericanism-unpatriotism in modern US
-Opponents to racism in modern society

It is outlined that fascism is carrying out the article's 10 steps on us.

Society of control vs. Disciplinary societies

G11( Ron, Mazi, Ramy, Yung-Hoon)

Deleuze recognizes disciplinary societies as an ended system which has given its place to the society of control, a new intellectual way of applying control over the society. This happens according to Deleuze by blending what Foucault calls “closed environment”. Also other methods like specializing, dividualizing (password replacing signature) are key points in this process.

Today every person has a personal password which is recognized by a machine; a machine that works with a program designed for dealing dividually with individuals.

Delueze notion of the capitalism in the today’s society of control is also very interesting as he calls it a capitalism for the product rather than capitalism for the production, as most of the products are made in the third world where there is cheap labor. And this is why marketing have become the core of the financial society, to an extend where Toni Morrison recognize Fascism a marketing for power rather than just an ideology. By making people paying their tax and debts, today were are enclosed to these methods of control through power where we are consumers in form of .numbers and statistics

Virilio & Minh-Ha

Group 7 (Andrea, Alex, Dominic)

Environment Control

We believe that some of the key ideas in Virilio's text are our present-day perception of time, how our concepts of speed have affected the evolution of technology, and how this is all connected to our relationship with our surroundings. The effect is that humankind is becoming a part of its surroundings, and we are losing the core of what it means to be human by losing touch with what is reality and relying too much on technology. Everyday technologies are reducing daunting tasks to a series of small, simple motions, which shows how these two happenings are intertwined causing the blur in reality.(e.g. the click of a button turns on a television... you believe the reality is that you turned on the television when in fact the reality is that you only pushed a button).

When the Moon Waxes Red

One of the main focuses of this text was the mechanical eye, or rather the camera. Minh-Ha explores the notions of reality and subjectivity when recorded through the lens of a camera. She goes on to describe how most commercial movies are artificial and not a true representation of reality because it is a completely planned production, with each shot carefully taken into account and produced in an aesthetic final product. Whereas, in a documentary, it is, or should be, more subjective in that one is recording and reproducing reality onto film, choosing to include all elements of the reality, perfect and imperfect alike.

Lost post retrived again-------------------Blogger.com (we are sorry, for any drawbacks)

--Romain---Audrey--M-A Brunelle- Miles

Baudrillard--------------------------------

Baudrillard in this rather fatalist text introduces three of his main themes: the hyperreal, the simulacra and its orders and the notion of orbital.
First of all, Baudrillard explains his idea of hyperreal. It is the “real without origin of reality.” For example, a line of cars manufactured according to a model. There is no original car nor fake car. He even goes further than supposing there is no difference between the real and the simulacrum, he assumes that the real has disappeared. The simulation has not only taken over, but destroyed the notion of real. Just as the map of the empire in Borges fable destroys the empire itself.
He also depicts several orders of simulacra. First of all, there is the symbolic order. Society is organized as a fixed system of signs (for example, the king wears the crown. He who has the crown is the king.) Then there is the first order simulacra. A competition of the meaning of the signs appear. The art perverts the basic reality, but there is still a well defined original. Then appeared the second order simulacra, with the notion of mass production. There are reproductions, but no counterfeits. They are all originals. Basic reality becomes prototype, but there is still a difference between a prototype and a product. Finally there is the third order simulacra which represents the death of the real through simulations. Through the digital, art bears no relation to reality at all.
Baudrillard’s notion of orbital illustrates very well his fatalism. Our control over this simulated world can be compared to the control a satellite has over his trajectory.

M-A Brunelle, Romain, Miles, Audrey-----------------------

Paul Virilio. “Environmental Control”


First, after the reading of Virilio, we all aggree that the way Virilio think remind us the text of Oosterling. And some of the ideas of Oosterling emmerge in the Virilio text. First he is very critical on new technologies and like Oosterling he denounces our dependence to them. He also bring that, our notions of speed follow the evolution of the technologies. One of the key idea of the text is how technologies affect the way we deal with objects into a distance perspective. We do nothing anymore. Like we don’t use our legs anymore, we are always encapsulating into traveling machines. We do not cook. We buy all ready meal that you just have to heat up, to save time or because we are lazy. We do not construct our stuff anymore like our grand father did. Like knitting, or harvesting foods. We don’t do anything, so we don’t live anymore. So in General, like Oosterling, Virilio denounce the fact that we are alienated by technologies and at the end it kills our true essence.


Trihn. Mihn-Ha, “World as a Foreign Land”


We found that, the critical look she has on cinema was the most interesting issue of the text. I don’t know why. Maybe, that’s because we are all surround by movie and television so it reach more our interests. She declares that, cinema is far from reality. She claims that a good true documentary should not be aesthetic. Because the more you play with the image, in order to improve its quality, the more you hide the reality. And she also denounces the rules in cinema. Who write them and who decide what is good and what is not. Movies are a very great propaganda device. That’s why we should all have a critic look on them.

Forgotten Post - - Licklider/Flusser

Group 7 (Andrea, Alex, Dominic)

Man-Computer Symbiosis

Licklider proposes the symbiotic relationship between man/woman and computers where computers would be able to interact intelligently with its human operators; moreover, it would operate as an equal, providing valuable feedback in the problem-solving process and not merely be a tool for solving complex equations.

In this respect, we do not believe that there is a true symbiosis with computers today. The computer still remains a tool for helping us accomplish difficult tasks, however, they still do not possess the ability of abstract or interpretive thinking, or thinking at all for that matter. They are simply the some of their parts and programming. We provide variables and scenarios for them to process but they do not actually ponder these circumstances. They are completely logical and process information in a linear fashion all based on their original and edited programming. Despite the fact that much of what computer systems do is daunting and complicated, it is still nonetheless a product of our programming capabilities, even when we extend it into the realm of artificial intelligence. Although some of these A.I. programs are capable of learning, they are still based in programming and are not sentient, nor do they have personalities of their own. Furthermore, their learning capabilities only extend as far as programmed algorithms within their matrix(not the movie), as opposed to living beings where we merely learn from experience whether we've encountered these circumstances before or not. We have no choice but to adapt or perish.

A New Imagination

In this text, Flusser talks about human imagination and thought, and how these are complicated abstract concepts, which have been subsequently demonstrated through several different writing constructs (i.e. alphabet, numeric structures, and what the author refers to as digital code).

Basically, as I understood it, Flusser uses 'digital code' to refer to the representation of our thoughts and imagery in its base form, or rather numeric computer codes, which consequently is the only way our creation, the computer, would be able to understand it.

All this made me think of how the total value of the chemicals in the human body is only worth something like 13$. Although chemically, a human being is not worth much, it is more a measure of the essence of a human being, i.e. the sum of its parts, being worth more than the individual pieces. That is my problem with Flusser's idea. Although imagery can be represented by digital code, will the transfer into that representation lose something along the way? Does the actual image hold more meaning than the digital code?

G2: Vir & M-Ha

by Anthony and Raed

Virilio explains how our existence in relation to our surroundings is not only mediated by our classical seeing with light, but is forever affected by time. Our relation is becoming transparent and we are hybridizing with our surroundings. Thus, we become our surrounding, and alienate ourselves from our perceived “reality” to live in our produced “reality”. Our drive to control everything (including our existence) becomes mechanical and we end up being in the cogs that we turn. Sensing a strong feeling of alienation from media, we become burning fuel for the latter. We do not ameliorate or prolong our existence but render us in a state of prolonged estrangement and death: empty capsules.

M-Ha dips in notions of re-creating reality in an objective way. Technology used in this manner should be non-existent for the latter image to be real because technology isn’t natural, and when filming something natural, its presence produces a subjective image. We think that nature is perfect; when it is truly imperfect. So when recreating reality through video (example), one should show the imperfections so as to have amore honest view of everything that is going on, not a mediated one.

M-Ha 2: The notion of “reality” is debated through media and our existence. And when we mediate its existence, reality is changed. One has to be aware of this process because he or she could easily feel separated from the produced “reality”. Ones existence is then shaped by misinterpretation. One must be able to want to see the differences and be able to disconnect from the produced “reality” to be able to define objectively him or her self and perceived “reality”. Media as an alienator can also serve as a tool for understanding our existence. Tools such as “film, television, journals and radio” promote the textures of our existence to ensure an overall sight of what constitutes us. We are all strangers in different realities, one must hope to be able (and want) to process it and re-construct your own.

Image and representation (Virilio and Minh-Ha)

(Mazi, Ron, Ramy, Jo)

Virilio tries to express reality through speed of light and time. How the speed of light affects our notion of reality, the fact that we perceive every incidence at the moment it occurs. We also argued about the idea of trans-appearance, and how time plays an important role in our perception rather than the space. Therefore the speed of light which is related to time is more important than the light itself in the way we conceive the reality of appearances. And that is why the image is what Virilio calls shadow of time, referring to Plato.

Virilio also cites Walter Benjamin’s idea of “aura” and discusses how technology made us so close to the things that we are no longer affected by it. We are trying our best to develop systems of control where we are able to do everything simultaneously without necessary being present in different spaces, and here is the notion of mobility which doesn’t necessarily refers to space.

In the second reading Minh-Ha argues how we are subjective and the technology is absolutely objective; that is why when we hide technology as much as possible, the images we are presenting become far more detached from the reality.

Discussing Minh-Ha, why do we think that the reality is neutral? Can the reality itself be biased as well? Reality, Being untouched and raw whether it may seem biased, it is neutral.

Also, if “a bad shot is guaranteed of authenticity" then is a beautiful piece of art, even if it is reflecting reality, always a lie?