New Media Reader Time Line 301-375

1974- Theodore Nelson writes Computer Lib/ Dream Machines
- Sought to clarify computer technology for the masses
- Predicted personal computing
- Imagined how computers could be used to redefine and enhance educational and other non-corporate settings

1974- Augusto Boal writes "Theater of the Oppressed" outlining his revolutionary theater techniques
-created interactive improvisational theater and performance pieces which encouraged discussion of political and social issues
- allowed participants to imagine and therapeutically work through different political or personal problems and solutions

1975- Nicholas Negroponte "Soft Architecture Machine"
-outlined how computers could be used by experts in non computing fields, specifically architecture, to enhance their work
-describes how how software can be as responsive and intuitive as possible to a user's needs

1976- Joseph Weizenbaum "Computer Power and Human Reason"
-Wrote about the controversy surrounding his talking bot "Eliza" and discusses the danger of human-technology empathy and interaction

New Media Reader pages 231-301

Thee texts in this segment discussed the debate over whether technology determines the course of history or if the social situation gives rise to technology. The authors were also debating whether new medias represented a potential mouthpiece for the masses or whether it was merely a tool of corporate control. I agree William's argument that the technologies discussed here, television, radio, etc, rose out of a very specific milieu of social change. These technologies were commissioned and developed in the service of those in power, and it shows. For me the purpose of most entertainment technology is distracting spectacle and the illusion of choice. While media like TV seems like a pro-democracy force that gives everyone regardless of gender, race, or class a common culture, it is also anti-democracy in that it gives consumers an illusion of choice and freedom because they can choose whether to watch American Idol or the Amazing Race. The internet is the receiving/transmitting tool that Enzensberger imagines, and it may challenge a lot of the arguments of these authors. I can see it as a tool of control and as a possible tool of revolution. As a tool of control it furthers the phenomenon that Baudrillard describes of the faits divers. On the internet, we are flooded with information and sensational stories, so that everything is important and nothing is important. There is so much information happening so fast, that nothing can retain enough attention long enough to become more than a symbol of revolt. Despite all the content sharing that happens on the internet, it is owned and controlled by a few corporations, and mostly we just consume their content. Also what Williams says about the TV as an in home device also goes for personal computers. People are isolated and turned inwards through these devices. Although people can talk on message boards or on websites about revolution, this will not scare anyone unless people are gathering in the street and perpetrating actions.
However on the other hand, maybe a revolution of the future will happen through technology, and will not be material. I read about how warfare of the future will target the enemy's communication system. Under this model it is conceivable that a small group could take control of a nation by hacking into its systems of communication. Secondly, if there is one thing the internet is good for, its creating imagined communities, and imagined community is the first step to an imagined future which is the first step towards revolution so who knows....

G.H. Hovagimyan's lecture and demo

I was impressed by the methods that Hovagimyan used for his works. I was especially inspired by the videos that could be played in any order. These were surprisingly effective and it was interesting to see how a linear narrative could be broken down. I also liked learning about situationist performance art, and seeing those historic performances because these is not something that I have looked into a lot. However, I was a little weirded out by the content of some of his performances. They seemed a little elitist. Privately owned public spaces are the least of our problems in the world right now. If you want to be punk rock and start shit with the man, why bother doormen who are just trying to do their job? I felt like the tone was that they were just trying to freak out all these people who could never possibly understand what a art happening is. Why should doormen and passers-by be made to look foolish if the artist's goal is to challenge these big corporations. It made me feel uncomfortable. Similarly were the two women who peed in the barbara kruger retrospective. I'm not a big fan of her work, but if you wanna take on the institution of the art world, she should not be the target. Young women artists need to recognize the rarity and the debt they owe to succesful women artists who came before them, whether they like their work or not. This is something that I feel strongly about.

New Media Reader Time Line 231-301

1968- Doug Englebart and William English demo an interactive computing system.
-set precidents for both the internet and personal computers
-introduces the mouse

1970- "Software- Information Technology" Exhibition at the Jewish Museum
brought new media art and the issues that surround it into the eye of the general public

1970- Hans Magnus Enzensberger writes a Marxist Theory of Media
-suggests a new orginization of media in which the masses can be producers and not just passive receivers of culture and media, and thus create the means for social change

1972- Jean Baudrillard writes "requiem for the Media" in response to Enzensberger
-rejects Enzenbergers' idea of turning the consumer into producers of media
-says media is inherently a tool of bourgeois control, and that all it contains is reduction of what it reproduces to pale models

1972- Raymond Williams writes "Television: technology and cultural form"
-rejects technological determinism
-provides a case study of the causes and effects 0f television