Response 1 to Bryan Waddell on Frances Dyson

DMST 4200                                                                            TaRhonda Thomas McKee

Response Sounding New Media                                              January 31, 2012

            The human fascination with technology comes to life in Chapter 7 of Sounding New Media: Immersion & Embodiment in the Arts and Culture. Dyson outlines not only what is possible, but also our inherent connection to futuristic forms of media. The author makes a connection between our inner workings as human beings and our understanding of new technology. The most poignant quote to demonstrate this connection is found on page 159, where Dyson states: “If technology produces a reality that ‘exceeds the onto-hermeneutical grasp of language,’ that is enmeshed in our perceptual system, that produces knowledge yet is precultural, one might look to code-- as raw data rather than information -- for a suitably ambiguous signifier of something that informs and affects human embodiment while distinct from it.”

            This strong statement, in my opinion, can be interpreted in the following way: If technology creates something that is more advanced that we, as human beings are accustomed to (which can be referred to as being part of our ’cultural DNA‘), we look at what we do know and are comfortable with as a basis to find what does make sense and what gives us the potential to gain knowledge in order to improve our own lives and levels of intelligence.

            However, grasping such advanced concepts as those presented by technology is not always an easy feat. Dyson illustrates this difficulty by pointing out the difference between writing and code, referring to Derridean concepts, which was of the opinion that “code is somehow outside of both the metaphysics and culture,” (Dyson, 161) perhaps due to the thought that, again referring to the Derridean concept, “computer code ‘exceeds both writing and speech, having characteristics that appear in neither of these legacy systems.’” (Dyson, 160)

            Those who remember the early days of computer programming can attest to foreignness of code, compared to the written and spoken forms of communication. Whereas a person can, for example, solve a math equation by counting in sequence, a computer speaks a completely different language, using its ‘code’ to gain meaning from the equation and develop a solution. The following link provides an explanation of binary code, in order to show just how complicated (and different) a computer’s ‘language’ is from a human being’s: http://www.theproblemsite.com/codes/binary.asp

            For this reason, artist Catherine Richards encourages a shift away from that which values a complete understanding of codes and advanced forms of technology. In that same breath, Dyson explains that not knowing the inner-workings of a particular form of technology does not make that technology less valuable, stating (of a space which deemphasizes the assumed essentialness of code): “It is a signal that-- like the electromagnetic pulsations of the human heart-- is below the threshold of knowledge, although not necessarily below the level of cognition.” (Dyson, 160) A question to go along the line of this thought is as follows: If, as human beings, we can perceive things and their importance without fully understanding how they work, would we then place a greater value on those same things if we knew their inner-workings? Or does knowing the inner-workings demystify an object and, thus, reduce our interest in (and the importance of) those objects?

            As an artist, Richards communicates her theories on human interactions with technology through her work. But she does not necessarily want to make the meaning of those messages obvious. As Dyson states “Knowledge is never given in Richards’s work, but always in question.” An example of such can be seen in Richards’s piece The Virtual Body. A video (http://www.fondation-langlois.org/html/e/page.php?NumPage=165)

demonstrates just how overwhelming the piece may be to participants, giving them the feeling of their hand floating away from their body. That sense of confusion (and lack of full understanding of the inner-workings of the piece) is just what Richards seeks to induce, with the narrator of the above-mention piece even stating that “It is designed to surround, overwhelm and trick the spectator just as in its own way, much of new technology is committed to created a simulated sensorium, enveloping all of the senses.”

            Such an experience can be frustrating for those who go into such an exhibit unprepared for what they will see. I pose the question: is this sort of expression (and its statements on human relationships with technology) beyond the interest and comprehension of those who do not already specialize in such studies? In other words, is the message lost on the non-scholar because of the complicated matter in which it is transmitted? Richards deemphasizes the need for total understanding. But is she also isolating herself to a select few who “get” her work, thereby preventing her message from being heard by the masses?

           

Bryan Waddell on Frances Dyson, Sounding New Media

“…the core element in Richards's constructions: the electromagnetic spectrum, the ontology of the signals therein, and the devices-both technological and cultural-used to contain and reveal them. In materializing these immaterial substrates of technology, Richards is also interrogating some of the contradictory desires that permeate technoculture, for example, being wholly immersed in technology while remaining an individual, or believing that the virtual originates in some magical elsewhere, devoid of any physical manifestation.” (p. 170)**

After reading and rereading Dyson’s chapter on Atmosphere and researching Richard’s work(s) the above quote stuck with me the most (primarily due to the fact that it is quite a loaded statement).  To me, this statement provides not only a key thesis/concept to Richards’ work but also brings to light what Dyson infers as a very specific intention of Richards’ work as well.  In my investigation of the text, the terms “spectrum” and “electromagnetic spectrum” kept popping up with some frequency throughout with little to no mention of actual atmospheres in regards to Richard’s work.  It was in Dyson’s loose definition of atmosphere that enabled me to wrap my head around why. “Like the aural, the atmospheric suggests a relationship not only with the body in its immediate space but with a permeable body integrated within, and subject to, a global system… (p. 17).  The electromagnetic spectrum itself is a specific type of atmosphere that encompasses not only the physical world as a whole but also in smaller subsets that transmit and impact the greater (spectrum) by surrounding and interacting with each and every one of us.

Knowing this, it allowed me to better understand what the statement (above) Dyson made meant by putting into terms I could better understand.  Simply put, through her work Richards attempts to give a physical embodiment to the electromagnetic spectrum allowing for a visual illustration of the spectrum itself through the semiotic use of physical material, the incorporation of technological devices and addressing cultural ideas.  Furthermore, it is through these created material objects that Richards hopes to not only bring to light the spectrum that we still know so little about but also have a profound physical and emotional impact the viewer. This impact then causes a flux of their own electromagnetic spectrum that will subsequently impact the spectrums of the art object, surrounding individuals and the greater atmosphere in general.

In order to gain a sense of awareness of the atmosphere that surrounds the individual, they must first gain an awareness of their own physical embodiment.  This awareness is partially accomplished through the mirroring caused by the physical nature of her work, reminding the viewer of their own physicality.  Likewise, the early moments of engagement with the art object brings to light the individual’s metaphysical counterpart and ultimately the effect it has as it is intertwined with the system of “unseen” it occupies through the emotional and sensory changes of the individual brought about by said interaction.  Dyson herself even cites that the characteristics and attributes of each material used can have very specific connotations that can affect the viewers mental state towards the piece and emotional state of being in general (ex. the fragility of glass along with the conductive nature of a metal that appears to be charged can make a person very reluctant/fearful to touch or interact with said materials in the case of Charged Hearts).  This ultimately affects the surrounding electromagnetic spectrum. Additionally, these realizations are aided and amplified by the focusing effect a gallery or viewing space can provide by confining both the viewer and the art object into a contained environment.  It is within this specific and contained space where the two parts can have a very immersive experience with not only one another but also the surrounding atmosphere they occupy.

Each one of Richards’ works beckons for engagement, for the living and inanimate to affect not only each other, but also the atmospheric system that the two are contained in.  Take for example the piece in which the quote I selected was originally derived from, Charged Hearts.  Broken down, the piece connects two glass hearts and ‘terrella’ to form a simple circuit (made of glass, metals, computer and gasses), relying on the Earth’s electromagnetic spectrum to stabilize the containment and the changes brought about by interaction of an individual to stimulate and amplify the contained spectrum.  By the individual’s lifting and touching of one of the hearts it charges the circuit, immersing their own electromagnetic spectrum into a union with that of the piece.  This allows for individual’s electronic pulses to emit charges to the contained spectrum of the piece, causing the gasses (the physical manifestation of the spectrum) to “excite” and for the objects themselves to become illuminated by each pulse sent from the individual (http://bit.ly/AnTJGI).  Having such a powerful impact on the physical state of an inanimate object can affect an individual’s emotional state of being as well (pushed to extremes in the piece I was scared to death / I could have died of joy http://bit.ly/xloJLy).  This emotional change not only has bearing on the frequency/strength of pulses sent by the individual’s spectrum to that of the art object, but also those sent to the surrounding unmanifested atmosphere.  These emotional changes cause the visual state of the object to fluctuate, further pushing the emotions and curiosity of the individual.

What I find extremely dynamic about this piece is that it works in two ways; not only does it give physical illustration to the affect that two entirely separate electromagnetic spectrums can have on one another when directly interacted, but it also brings to light the unknown affect the interaction has on the larger “unseen” spectrum that encompasses both.  It is as if Richards understands that many individuals have a much easier time relating to or understanding that which can be seen as opposed to that which cannot.  You could say that her purpose (and that of her creations) is meant to serve as a vehicle of awareness pertaining to the unseen, something that most do not really comprehend or consider.   It is also safe to assume that as a viewing audience (of one of Richards’ works), their primary concern is witnessing the direct state of change brought about to the art object as another interacts with that object, as opposed to the unseen impact the interaction brings to the spectrum of each individual and the gallery as a whole.  Which brings about a larger question: Does the unseen which impacts an atmosphere need to be seen in order to bear any relevance to the objects that are immersed within that atmosphere?

Take for example, the ever flowing and ever present debate on climate change.  While I’m not going to cite my opinion on the subject in particular, it is a very interesting subject to view in the case of the impact of the seen vs. the unseen.  This, at times, heated and widely publicized debate has used both visual representations and daunting language to evoke visions of ultimate demise and absolute disconcern on the subject at the drop of a dime (http://bit.ly/fb0Xll).  The use of imagery and video of glaciers cracking and falling into the ocean, animals losing their habitats even the smog and pollutants engulfing an entire cityscape bring to light horrible visions and allude to what can be and are often accompanied with profound statements of warranting a need of change for the better.  Where as images of a beautiful day city day or even animals thriving within their habitat evoke happiness or even repress the concern an individual may have previously held about climate change (representing the unseen).  But what impact does this have on the individual?  On days of low-air quality warnings does the individual using his lawn mower during day light hours think about the impact the object has on the atmosphere in which they are contained?  Does the late night scholar think about the power he and his computer consume as the seen manifestation of burning coal or nuclear fusion?  Or in the same light, consider the unseen emissions of impacting multiple spectrums as it passes through the greater atmosphere.   Personally, I view the question at hand as more so “a barometer” of sorts measuring an individual’s perception and aptitude to handle and process the unseen in an as meaningful or disinterested way as those who require a direct view of the physicality.

After viewing and investigating Richards’ work, she truly has mastered the ability to give a material representation to the unseen environment(s) that surround and the ideas that incorporate and impact only all individuals but the physical realm we occupy as a whole.  Though the “digital” aspect of her work is rooted more within the realm of science as a whole, it is beyond a doubt that without the technological advances made since the modern era; these representations would not be possible.  For Richards, science and technology serves as the vehicle for the ultimate awareness of not only our own physical embodiment but also illuminating the surrounding unseen and how little we understand about it.

**The latter part of the quote I selected is more so a secondary concern that has peeked my interest as an artist rather than a contributing piece of the whole.  I’m really just looking for some opinions after the fact.  Personally it’s hard for me to view Richards’ art objects as investigations of contradictory desires in both the realm of technoculture as well as raw human emotion.  I am a firm believer that a primary purpose of art is to evoke a raw, unassuming human response.  But to say a work like Charged Hearts can be viewed along the lines of an investigation of “being wholly immersed in technology while remaining an individual” is a bit far fetched.  In this day and age, the vast majority of individuals between the ages of 16 – 40 are mostly if not teetering on the edge of complete immersion into technology.  Because technology surrounds the vast majority of daily life in a “First World” country it has become almost an afterthought, background noise of sorts.  I’m reminded of the recent string of Samsung commercials poking at the Apple Sub Culture and the constant need and blinding effects Apple products has on their devoted allegiance.  What bothers me about these adverts are as follows: Samsung reduces the Apple faithful to a group of late 20 something hipsters when the larger demographic spans much further than the 5-8 span represented and secondly, the Android/Google faithful are just as devoted to gadget/tech releases as their Apple counterparts.  In a state of being where an item or set of items is common place, how do those items have any bearing on a being’s sense of individuality?  

Response 2 to Gabe Walford on Frances Dyson’s Sounding New Media

Gabe posed an interesting question in his discussion of Frances Dyson’s chapter on immersion as experienced through the experimental VR programs created by Char Davies. The question is as follows: in Davies’ artwork we are immersed through an aural state into a world of transparent substance and form, but is such a space or optic sensation needed to be immersed in this world?
 

As we discussed in class, the simple answer is no. Many people have different levels of tolerance, as it were, to immersion – that is to say, some may become easily immersed, while others may find complete immersion impossible. Indeed, immersion is triggered by variant stimuli: some may find immersion eased by aural stimuli; others by visual/tactile.

Allow me to posit one universal requisite for immersion: privacy. Here I mean the sense of having dominion and control over (external) stimuli. When we enter a virtual environment such as Ephemere, we exert a level of control over stimuli: we see what the artist has created, but nothing more. We hear the sounds the artist has scored to piece, but nothing else, save the sound of our breath. (Presumably) the virtual environment is devoid of unwanted chatter. These VR spaces are sterile. A virtual environment necessarily must be sterile, because the genesis of virtual stimuli demands necessarily the absence of organic (here real, non-virtual) stimuli.

If we agree that absence of organic stimuli is a preordination of VR – and therefore immersion – Dyson’s reading of Davies’ work, especially with regard to sound, begins to take on some interesting implications. Dyson writes: “there is sound, inasmuch as there is atmosphere”. This is true; and it is also true that there are ways to keep sound out. Dyson compares sound to atmosphere, and perhaps the element of atmosphere sound most resembles is weather – like sound, we cannot control the weather, but we can create internal weather systems that keep the real weather out while enveloping individuals in a controlled, artificial, sterile atmosphere.

Dyson also writes that sound cannot be controlled, like looking or touching in that it travels through an atmosphere without being limited by the things that limit our sight and our touch. Sound is ethereal, Dyson writes. But sound’s ethereality is also destroyed by the creation of a virtual environment – sound must be subjugated in order to facilitate immersion. I doubt that Dyson would overlook this, but rather than juxtaposing the control exerted on sound with the control exerted on optics, she largely ignores the problems of aural control and focuses on visual control systems inherent in VR.

It would seem that Dyson’s mere lip service to the problems of auditory control and sterility implies that an in-depth analysis would undermine her argument connecting sound to the void and visual transparency to flux. For Dyson to acknowledge the organic absence of sound within a VE would be to tacitly suggest that the flux, and the void to which that flux belongs, is environmentally conditional. Dyson: “The oscillatory, turbulent presence of sound – materially and figuratively – functions in an analogous way to the breath and balance interface she uses, to her insistence on stasis, and finally to her exploration of vision’s fine lines in her most recent work.” But within that interface and exploration, Davies also denies the turbulence and presence of sound, destroys its stasis, and silences its pervasive breath.

Let us ponder some additional questions:

Will VR ever facilitate immersion in a non-sterile environment?

And, What does the necessity of privacy and sterility say about immersion, and VE’s in general?

Consider the following artifacts:

Duke University is testing fear reactions in fully immersive virtual environments.

Ray Kurzweil on TED discussing the future ubiquity of technology.

Response 1 to Gabe Walford on Frances Dyson’s Sounding New Media

After leading last Thursday’s in class discussion, Gabe proposed the question: In Davies artwork we are immersed through an aural state into a world of transparent substance and form, but is such a space or optic sensation needed to be immersed in this world? To me, this is a fairly loaded question in two ways. First, what does it mean to be or experience to total immersion and second, is space or optic sensation needed to be immersed.
  

What does it mean to be or experience total immersion? There are many different levels of immersion one can experience, especially with in the world of technology and digital media.  Many of these different states or levels of immersion were discussed in class as a group, and as I stated then, I fell strongly that total immersion within a digital/virtual realm or object is simply not possible.  It is likely that we may only experience partial immersion in our life times that in fact, total immersion may be out of the question entirely.  To be totally immersed one would have to lose all sense or cognition of the physical world around them.  Thus becoming completely enveloped by the environment or object in which they are interacting with. When I look at Davis’ work, it is clearly illustrated that although she strives for the viewer to reach a state of total immersion in her Virtual Reality, the actions of navigating and “being” within it only make the user more aware of their own “physical being”.  For those of us who have ever worn a VR headset, you will remember how it is impossible to not be constantly reminded of its presence and the physical impact it has on you the entire time one wears it.

Additionally, in order to interact with the environment one wears gloves that allows for movement and interaction within the VR.  These gloves are typically connected to the headset and as you “explore” the environment you can still physically feel the tug and chaining effect cause by the data cables (granted it is possible for a VR system/unit in this day and age to be complete wireless with the technological advancements that have been made, knowing this however, it begs the question: when was the last time you saw or heard of the use of a VR system in mainstream media?).  I understand that Davis attempted to neutralize these conventions by using multiple/additional apparatuses and devices in an attempt strive for complete embodiment.  As described by Dyson:

Although some have responded to the ocularcentric basis of VR by extending the means for sensory interactivity (based on the assumption that once all senses are represented then immersion will be more realistic-so realistic in fact that the experience becomes "real" rather than "virtual"), Davies has attempted to move away from the visual by incorporating the breath and body balance into the navigational system, rather than relying on the relatively crude interface of the data glove… The focus here is on embodiment-seen as the total body, rather than the body as a point of view determined by the eye/hand and head. Using breath to move up and down in the virtual environment, and balance to move left and right, the design of Osmose was intended to counter the frontality of vision with a sense of movement within enveloping space. (pp. 112-113)

Yet even Dyson herself recalls the clunky and inertness caused by the vest of Osmose, which one can only draw the conclusion that it would be a physical impossibility to not be aware of outside technology used to bring about embodiment and immersion.  In order to be fully immersed one would have to become an inert object, with a loss of all motor skills and senses in the physical realm and thus experiencing senses, movement and control in a metaphysical way controlled by one’s brain power ( http://bit.ly/yMWPq8 ). 

Is space or optic sensation needed to be immersed in this (VR) world?  To me, the question relates only to partial immersion into a digital medium while within our own physical realm.  Our senses of space, touch, vision and hearing allow for our physical being to become immersed within an experience or environment.  It is through a human’s senses that allows for that individual to perceive and experience emotion in both a real and virtual environment.  If one could not see the happenings of a new environment how would they know that they are experiencing it?  Likewise, if one could not hear the happenings or feel the presence of the objects and happenings wouldn’t the same be true?  I know it seems simple but in understanding what it truly means to be immersed, one’s senses must also be transformed by the experience in order for that experience to be perceived and “felt” by the individual.

             

After reading the chapter, Gabe’s take on it and our in class discussion I guess the following questions still linger:

-First will partial immersion ever become so powerful and encompassing that it allows for the beauty and natural of our physical world to become mundane or disinteresting?

-Second, with the idea of perfection becoming (somewhat) attainable in a VR, if a state of total immersion becomes possible someday will it have a draw, for those who it seek it, to enter a realm completely with out the imperfections or shortcomings of their physical existence? 

-Third, is it then beneficial to experience a  world where the pains, hardships and inevitable truths of “real” life do not exist and allows for complete escapism from life as we know it?

Media Objects:

http://hvrd.me/c6s2kt

An interesting article on the impact digital immersion and technology will have on journalism in the near future (via Nieman Reports online).  Illustrating the possibilities of a realm where information within an interactive environment is fully possible.

http://bit.ly/zMroWt

A video showing advancements in Augmented Reality (what some will say Virtual Reality has become) and its uses.  Through this medium I personally find immersion more possible and interesting.

http://bit.ly/y1cveU
A video for an iOS game that you solely navigate with the sound of your voice.  Inspiration was derived from Dyson's book Sounding New Media.

Gabe Walford on Frances Dyson, Sounding New Media

In Davies’s aesthetic, the transparency of images is intended to evoke a sense of sheer existence in objects – these objects are, like Cage’s ashtray, both vital and vibrating. Viewing objects through a lack of sight – through the myopia that Davies has lived with for much of her life – is the act of viewing them in a vibratory sense. And indeed Davies describes the luminosities she sees in her field of (myopic) vision as “flowing” and “pulsing.”
- Frances Dyson, Sounding New Media (2009: 127).

The aesthetic of Char Davies’s work is of particular interest to the discussion of ‘immersion’ in that her critics argue that the sense of touch is critical of true immersion, but they fail to comprehend the more abstract substance within her work. To unpack this segment, we must examine the materiality of the forms within her work and what allows them to possess a substance/being to the “immersant”. Through the aural nature of her VR works the comparison made to John Cage and the Pepsi-Cola Pavilion is fitting, if not divisive, in emphasizing the relationship between the viewer, the work/environment, and the state of being within it. For Cage the interest in reality was one found in an objects inner vibrations, or inner life, allowing for the object to be “knowable” with it’s own sentience and desire (Dyson, 143). Related back to Davies’s ‘transparency of images’ we explore an object through a world in flux and enveloped in aurality, or one of “flowing” and “pulsing” as seen through her myopic vision. This abstraction of sight relates to her own philosophies, and as Merleau-Ponty points out, separates the subject from an object “which is no longer an ‘object’ as such” (Dyson, 120). Building from this, the distortion of an object into something more malleable and transparent to the eye, and conveying something more at it’s core as Cage sought through an object’s vibrations. These transparent forms push further though, relating to the breath which the viewer is made aware of from their movement, establishing a greater relationship through the vibrations from breath to the voice, as the aurality of the object is to it’s transparency. We are peering through the transparent image and understanding it for it’s “inner being” by way of it’s aural quality, and experiencing it in the flux of Davies myopia.

The power of breath within the piece holds the greatest explanation to the understanding of immersion for a participant. Rooting herself deep in a history of philosophy to the relationship of breath to the voice, Davies is able to relate the viewer through their own physicality to the virtual world by way of the aural nature surrounding them. With the head phones set and the 3D sound as guide, the immersant navigates the new world by the force of their own respiration, and becomes a “pulsing” being of their own. The audio which they experience heightens the awareness of space as different qualities may come from different locations and guide you to discover other forms. This awareness of space through the aurality, and it’s use of the participants breath make one more conscious of their own being, as Merleau-Ponty describes the “being [is] no longer before me, but surrounding me and in a sense traversing me” (Dyson, 120). The world surrounding us pulses and breaths on it’s own and a pursuit is made towards understanding our place within and the more temporality of nature as the piece move through different sections, which Davies designed as seasons (http://bit.ly/vO4QYt). Dyson describes in relation to one’s breath and balance as being more aware of “perceptual and physical modalities based on sound and listening more than materiality and sight” (Dyson, 121).

Immersion as an idea is interesting in the larger framework of digital but also in the world of art. Through the experience conveyed within this artwork one is able to be immersed in a way much of art through history has only dreamed to provide to it’s participants / viewers. The experience as a state of being and aural relationship of our breath to the other forms becomes one where we are more aware of our own physicality. We are enchanted by this alterity, but through the experience become certainly more aware of our own breath and balance, and the headset atop our head. We are unable to affect this other world while our physicality and epistemic knowledge of the real might become even heightened. This brings into play Merleau-Ponty’s idea of “hyper-reflexion,” where we are initially concerned with understanding the solidity of a form through it’s aural nature, we become more aware of our own body and that even while being apart of this space we are not separate from the reality outside of us.

For Davies critics, the idea of immersion becomes a question as to what causes immersion and the logical equation of understanding the event of entering it’s state. This being the debate of whether such a condition is the result of touch and sight within space, or if it is brought on through a surrounding aural environment. In Davies artwork we are immersed through an aural state into a world of transparent substance and form, but is such a space or optic sensation needed to be immersed in this world? In more recent times, there has been the question of the possibility of aural drugs, and if certain audio pieces can cause the feeling many experience while intoxicated by chemical substance.

This was brought to the attention of popular culture through certain electronic songs that clammed to be able to put a listener into a high if listened to with headphones. The concept being that if the listener immersed themselves in certain aural vibrations which have a binaural beat it would heighten the activity within their brain causing the desired state. Dubbed iDosing, it was quickly across the internet and documented through youtube with teens calming to have been immersed in ecstasy provided by varying songs – just as quickly the media followed raising the concern that if someone would listen to these songs to experience a high it might be a gateway to much more serious real world activities (http://bit.ly/crPOeo).



As it turns out, such binaural beats were developed in 1839, and are a tool used in psychological therapy to help with such things as sleeping disorders and anxiety. The aural stimuli is the reaction of a listener / immersant hearing a beat at two different frequencies between each ear, and the brain perceives the sound at a much quicker pace. It is also said that much of the high that it is considered to induce is fictitious and pushed along by hype as it may be a self fulfilling expectation, and can even be found in the sleeping aids you might purchase at a mall (http://bit.ly/aGQIe0).

It is interesting though to consider the idea of entering an immersed state or actively trying to enter an alterity through a strictly aural method is found as a popular phenomenon. If a listener does actually become immersed in the process it would seem that touch and sight would not be a need. Whether or not that is for the result of a perceived high reminds us of what Davies’s participants wrote within the guest books of her gallery exhibitions stating they had felt a sort of heighten or different emotional state and anxiety . While the perceptual may help, and is certainly interesting to examine for those less imaginative, this may show in Davies VR works that the aural quality does in fact immerse the participant by enwrapping them in the sounds. This of course can be argued against and that the immersion might be just that self-fulfilling expectation, yet conversely that someone who does not experience such a feeling may simply be expecting not to and is focused to much on the materiality around them.

For Davies, if her work truly has the intention of immersing someone to become more conscious of their being and bringing them full circle to feel more conscious of their being in reality. Then it could also be said it is result of same process for someone who does not become immersed, and in a shallower sense, is thinking very much of their being in reality. It is an abstract state, and the history of art criticism is riddled with those who do not understand an abstraction, which Dyson is sure to emphasize is not an out of body immersion/experience as dreamed by so many in the new media field. It is however, a close examination of the aurality surrounding us found through the abstraction that Davies’s myopia puts upon her, and one where she takes one step closer toward what Cage thought of to be an objects sentience found in the vibrations.

Further links to the VR work of Char Davies:
Ephémère - http://www.immersence.com/ephemere/index.php
Osmose - http://www.immersence.com/osmose/

Response 2 to Tim Pfarr on Erik Davis, TechGnosis

Just as there are varying theories regarding a human being’s response to technology, there are also various ways to interpret those theories. Such is the case with Davis’ theory linking technology to the supernatural.

In his analysis of the text, Tim Pfarr derived the following question: “If Davis is to succeed in disenchanting current technology, what is to keep the next new medium from following in the path of enchantment of its predecessors?” Despite Davis’ acknowledgment that “I deeply sympathize with these attempt to disenchant technology and to deflate the banal fantasies and pernicious hype that fuel today’s digital economy” (Davis, 12), it is not a foregone conclusion that Davis seeks to take away all of the mysticism associated with our interpretation of technology. The author seems to pay homage to that complicated relationship, which dates back centuries, stating “I am attempting to understand the often unconscious metaphysics of information culture by looking at it  through the archetypal lens of religious and mystic myth” (Davis, 97).

Particularly intriguing are Davis’ inclusion of religious elements and how they factor into our modern dealings with technology. Davis theorizes that human beings, already being familiar with religion, use it to process things that they do not yet understand. A simple, yet eye-catching, example of this is the choice of words for the world’s first telegraphed message in 1844: “What hath God wrought!” (Davis, 71). Using a trusted source (religion) as the explanation behind a complicated matter (technology) can assist a person in believing what may, at some point, seem unbelievable-- especially if it is undetectable to the human eye (like, for example, the electrical currents that made the transmission of that original telegraph message possible). Unfortunately, that type of blind belief is so predictable that it has become a resource for individuals who some believe are practicing predatory behavior. An example of unquestioning trust brought about by religious beliefs can be seen in the following video clip of a money-anointing preacher (particularly, the clip ranging from 1:34 to 1:54). In the video, members of a large southern church faithfully -- and without question -- throw money to their pastor, believing that giving him the money will somehow ensure that they get more money. They cannot explain how that will happen. They just ascribe to faith. That same type of faith, Davis believes, is the reason behind our eager acceptance of new technology and he seeks to bring that unconscious processing, supposedly locked in our DNA and its “aura of authority“ (Davis, 106), out into the forefront.

 Particularly fascinating was Davis’ linking of supernatural elements like Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP) to human beings’ relationships with technology. It seems only natural if one believes the author’s assertion that “Spiritualism was the first popular religion of the information age. As such, it was bound up from the beginning with the electromagnetic imaginary and the telegraph‘s groundbreaking transformation of electricity into information.” (Davis, 75). Such an innate link between, for instance, radio and the spiritual world has led some to seek spirits through technology. Nikola Tesla’s eavesdropping session of alien beings’ conversations (Davis, 90) was a precursor to modern-day spirit hunters who seek out the supernatural in radio transmissions. One practice involves listening for the supposed voices of ghosts speaking through actively-scanning radio channels. This practice relates back to Davis’ theories on the human imagination. With a range of different sounds presented on constantly-changing radio frequencies, one’s imagination-- in some form or another-- must fill in the gap. It leads to the question: Is a person who hears a supposed EVP revealing an innate, unconscious acceptance of the spiritual or of the power of technology? One radio station claiming to be “high jacked” by spirits posted the following EVP online.

Davis’ work seems to be preparing humanity for the technological advances to come. However, as technology becomes more widespread it may not be to the benefit of everyone. The ultimate far-fetched Extropian of “uploading their consciousness-- their mind, their self -- into a computer,” has to potential to further a problem with which Davis is concerned: an imbalance of power in regards to technology. If human beings continue to invest more of their lives into computers and technology, what will become of those who do not have access to that technology? It is a question posed by Brian D. Loader in the same year that Davis penned his book. In an excerpt from Cyberspace Divide: Equality, Agency and Policy in the Information Society, Loader questions if technology is “likely to produce a widening of social cleavage between the information-rich and the information-poor…That is to say that technologies are not value-neutral but will have both beneficial and disadvantageous consequences for their increasing pervasiveness within societies." An excerpt from that writing can be found here. Such a concern can be expressed for those who do not have personal, convenient access to home computers, MP3 players or the increasingly-popular electronic notebooks.

As Davis sought to explore the mysticism involved in technology, so, too must human beings seek to understand our relationship with modern advances and what could be an innate connection to them.

Response 1 to Tim Pfarr on Erik Davis, TechGnosis

In our class discussion, Tim posed the following question:

Does Davis hope to put an end to enchantment of all future media?

Through the discussions in class and further reading of the text, I do not believe that it is Davis’s hope to put an end to enchantment of all future media.

If we are to treat enchantment to mean the same as mysticism, certain quotes allude to the notion that Davis finds the mystic repercussions of new technology as important as the scientific ones. Davis points to many situations in which finding purely supernatural reasons behind or for new media lead to quite outlandish results (see the section on Scientology and E-meters), but if we are to strive not to think in Manichean ways, then it is natural to assume that a future where all technology is viewed purely in scientific terms is not ideal either. It can be further argued that it is also impossible for any new technology to emerge without any mysticism. For one thing, science is not, for lack of a better phrase, an absolute science. Davis says it best while discussing the concept of electromagnetic imaginary.

From the outset, I urge you to resist the temptation to write off electromagnetic imaginary as pseudoscientific dreck or the manipulative lies of quacks. For one thing, even the nuttiest notions about material reality emerge from our need to stitch together, however provisionally, the world we feel with the world we know. Moreover, we make the historical determination between “real” science and wild-eyed speculations in the rearview mirror, and even then, only selectively. (52)

The best illustration of this concept for me specifically has always been the sad story of Pluto. I grew up in a world where children were taught that Pluto was the ninth planet. I don’t specifically recall ever creating a mobile of the planets, but if I had, Pluto would have been there slowly orbiting in cardboard glory amongst the other 8 giants. In 2006, however, science changed its definition of a planet and gave Pluto the boot. While this was not the first time I realized science is an ever-changing and advancing field, it was certainly the most jarring and personally resonating instance of the rules suddenly changing. This leads into the next question posed by Tim:

Will an increased base of widespread scientific knowledge prevent supernatural consultation obsolete, or will this base instead lead to increasingly rapid growth in technology that leaves citizens in awe?

Since science is constantly evolving – at times even driven to evolve because of technological advances – if scientific knowledge became the victor over mysticism or the supernatural, it would eventually drive people back to find answers in the supernatural due to its inability to provide definitive answers.

That being said, Davis certainly makes the case that mysticism in and enchantment with new media is something we need to acknowledge and, perhaps, wake up from. He rails against the technotopia when he writes that “Most of us would like to live in a more peaceful, virtuous, and wondrous world…the magical idea that engineering will create such a world is an ominous and tricky dream, though it seems a mighty difficult dream to shake” (29). Magical, ominous, tricky, dream; this combination of loaded words does not imply desirability.

So, Davis does not want us to demystify all new media, but neither does he call for a continued ignorance to the scientific qualities in technology. It seems that he is calling to us to open our eyes and try to find middle ground between Manichean and Augustinian thought.

Computers, cybernetics, and information technology now provide curiously useful mirrors and metaphors along the trail of self-development. For people drawn to psychospiritual transformation but repelled by the old fairy tales, the notion of “technologies of the self” does not dehumanize so much as empower. (172)

We have the opportunity to better ourselves and our culture with each new technology, but we should try to do so in a moderate way which is neither too utopian in its optimism nor too Extropian in its rationality.

Follow-up Questions

1. Is there a technology that sparked a level of excitement in you that bordered on fanaticism? What is your relationship with that device/technology now? Were you able to channel that awe into inspiration and find empowerment through it, or did the wonder wear off and you moved onto the next new thing?
   
2. In a world where a one group of human beings can state that “man is machine” while another group proclaims that we are all “flesh stuffed with excrement”, is it possible that we can do anything in moderation? Is it human nature to gravitate towards extremes?

Links

• This study conducted by psychologist Betsy Sparrow at Columbia University exemplifies the idea that technology is “transforming human consciousness” (Davis 1998, 30). Is this a prime example of “new technologies amputate as much as they amplify”? Or is it possible that technology changing the way our memory works is not a good or bad thing, just a new progression of being?

http://news.columbia.edu/googlememory

• This clip from the television show Caprica visualizes Extropian and Gnostic philosophies. The whole clip is relevant, but specifically starting from 3:25, Apotheosis is described and shown. Apotheosis is defined as “the elevation or exaltation of a person to the rank of a god”, and this is achieved in Caprica by uploading the consciousnesses of believers into a virtual heaven, which is a variation of the Singularity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNOH5k9rIk&feature=related

• At the end of our discussion, we began theorizing on the aura created by scarcity. Trace alluded to the fact that his older version of TechGnosis had more spirit, and perhaps, authenticity than our newer versions. If that is true, then electronic copies seem like shells of their original works. I could not help but include a link to my favorite webcomic on the subject.

http://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/e-reader/

Tim Pfarr on Erik Davis, TechGnosis

Below are excerpts from Tim Pfarr's discussion leader document.

New technologies of perception and communication open up new spaces, and these spaces are always mapped, on one level or another, through the imagination.

Our modern technological world is not nature, but augmented nature, super-nature, and the more intensely we probe its mutant edge of mind and matter, the more our disenchanted productions will find themselves wrestling with the rhetoric of the supernatural.
- Erik Davis, TechGnosis (1998: 90, 48)

In his book TechGnosis, author Erik Davis asserts that technology innately tickles the human imagination, leading consumers to explore the realm of the spiritual to better understand the principles and devices at hand. While Davis leads readers through history, exploring the ways in which various media compelled humans to investigate the unknown, the aforementioned quotations perhaps best represent the keys to Davis’ argument.

The first quotation concerns how new technology is manifested, and how humans assimilate such manifestations. New technology of perception and communication — which can perhaps more generally be considered technology of information transfer — creates new dimensions through which content is manifested. Traditional writing manifests itself through ink and paper. Radio content manifests itself through invisible electronic waves. Film manifests itself through an illusion of motion. Davis asserts that consumers are forced to use their imaginations to unravel the intricacies of these new methods of manifestation. TechGnosis rests upon this concept, and it uses it to account for the “myth, magic and mysticism” that has simultaneously arrived with each new medium. As implied in this passage and written more directly elsewhere in TechGnosis, theories of such myth, magic and mysticism can be extrapolated to future media. This excerpt implies that it is of human nature to consult the imagination in attempting to grasp the principles of new technology. The text lacks exploration as to why this is so, as well as suggestions as to how one may be able to overcome this cycle when new media arrives.

The second quotation makes an assertion about the state of society, and the human response to technological advancements. The great technological advancements of the last 50 years have created a world vastly different from that of generations before it. Men and women can forge relationships without physically meeting. Films are screened in three dimensions, making the audience feel as if it is taking part in prerecorded action. One falls into the minority if he or she lacks instant, pocket-access to the information superhighway. What had once been a tangible world has transformed into one of intellectual stimulation and invisible seas of information— a super-nature, as Davis calls it. The great push to understand this world threatens all technology that has become explored and understood. Inevitably, Davis contends, one is forced to resort to supernatural language in an attempt to grasp what is not yet understood, as the supernatural accounts for the unknown. Much like the first excerpt, the second excerpt refrains from investigation as to why such disenchanted productions find “ themselves wrestling with the rhetoric of the supernatural.” Perhaps it is of human nature to do so, as implied in the former quotation?

Human beings are at unease with their own mortality, and it leads them to seek the divine for comfort and assistance. Not only is this manifested through the obvious outlet of religion, but also — as TechGnosis points out — it is manifested through the consultation of the imagination and the supernatural in the struggle to understand new technology. Given the seemingly natural inclination to seek the divine, it logically follows that the supernatural and elements of the imagination become elements in this struggle.

An example of the tendency to consult the supernatural can be seen in this clip from the History Channel’s documentary television show "Inside of History," and its episode studying the Salem witch trials of the late 1600s. Specifically, consider the segment between 2 minutes and 46 seconds, and 5:08, which details the symptoms of witchcraft as seen by those in colonial Massachusetts.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqjX-9UNB7s

In the Puritan town of Salem, Massachusetts, the cause of such skin blemishes, as well as the laws of physics that concerned buoyancy, were unknown, or at least unaccepted. Also, this example indeed has limits. Those who sought witches may have been unconsciously seeking to fulfill self-fulfilling prophecies. Furthermore, the Puritan society of Salem was deeply religious, adding an additional predisposition to consult the supernatural. Nonetheless, parallels can be drawn between consultation of the supernatural in Salem, and the consultation of the supernatural in more recent times. Consider Thomas Edison’s attempts to establish a telepathic radio channel “between worlds” (Davis, 78) and Tesla’s speculation that aliens are invisible and among us (90).

However, examining the differences between the Salem witch trials and the supernatural components of new media exposes another element of TechGnosis that Davis perhaps did not thoroughly emphasize, or emphasize with the necessary clarity: What may lead humans to consult the supernatural is precisely the fact that new media frequently manifest themselves through means undetectable to the human user. Radio waves cannot be seen, individual film frames cannot be distinguished and very rarely can an observer recognize the constantly updating pixels on a television screen. These media deal in the otherworldly, much like the supernatural. While the contrast of these high- and low-tech societies draws attention to the way new media garner supernatural interest, one can also make an argument that citizens of the information age have similarities to the Puritans of the late 1600s, as both are grappling with elements not yet fully understood.

Davis states that he sympathizes with attempts to “disenchant technology and deflate the banal fantasies and pernicious hype that fuels today’s digital economy” (Davis, 12). His goal seems to be to mitigate the power struggles present in the digital economy. This begs the question of if this attempt is worthy. Davis spends a significant amount of TechGnosis following the enchantment of technology through history, and with each new medium, the process seems to repeat itself. If Davis is to succeed in disenchanting current technology, what is to keep the next new medium from following in the path of enchantment of its predecessors? Does Davis hope to put an end to enchantment of all future media? Furthermore, will an increased base of widespread scientific knowledge render prevent supernatural consultation obsolete, or will this base instead lead to increasingly rapid growth in technology that leaves citizens in awe?

Link to complete discussion leader document (.pdf)