The Alienation Effect in Violent Videogames and the 'Problem' of Serious Play

Jason Farman "The Alienation Effect in Violent
Videogames and the Problem of Serious Play" What social issues will video game developers and consumers be dealing with as this gap gets closer and closer?

There is absolutely no doubt that modern gaming has created some serious social issues, and the future does hold some curious sociological changes as interactive gaming gets closer to reality. However, the alarmist speculation that comes from Jason Farman is woefully misinformed. He talks about what effect theatre can have on people when you take away immersion elements, resulting in a more critical audience. I think it is a bit absurd to try to fight the human desire for immersion in a story. The main thing different with today's video game from the rest of the media we've consumed over the years is the interactive element. The question is whether the interactive element combined with full digital immersion could alter our understanding of the real world. I think this is a legitimate concern when the way we actually interact with video games moves beyond controllers, and we experience full immersion. Currently I think the use of controllers and the limited effects of screens does not pose a threat to misunderstanding the
differences between the virtual and reality.

For all the discussion of an interface-less interface, we would need exactly that for us in the virtual world to allow such a phenomena to occur. The real dangerous video games we hear about people losing their lives to these days utilize simple game design principles that bring out the obsessive and collector qualities in us. There may be some cases of trying to live through video games, but this same sort of thing can be seen through social networking and MUCKs. Even then, the people trying to conduct lives through the internet still usually recognize the difference between actions online and in the real world. It certainly isn't healthy for people to lose their lives to video games and online personas, but it doesn't pose an actual danger to larger society.

The Venus Project/ "Resource Based" Economy

(Seriously, Monorails?)^
The Venus Project and the concept of a "Resource Based" economy

I've heard it said politics isn't a battle of what's ideal, but what is possible. I have this view point not out of Skepticism, (although I can be a Skeptic, many in my generation are) but of what is practical. A complete reformatting of our economy from the ground up simply couldn't happen here. So many issues would arise from destroying entire life's savings to the destabilization of economy. Yes, our economic system is fairly unstable at the moment, cycling constantly between boom and busts after Industry bubbles form and break. However, I do believe when there is proper taxation and stronger oversight and regulation the capitalistic system, it could still work to benefit all. A resource based economy is quite similar to just a larger scale of the gold standard. Arguably it is a better basis for money than gold, as resources actually do have practical value. However it fails to account for the value of human and mechanical labor, which makes up the vast majority of all major economies. I think GDP could be an accurate measure of our actual economy if we completely reformatted the federal reserve (and integrate it with the government), stopped printing money, fixed Wall Street and the Finance Industry, and started knocking out debt whilst fighting inflation. It's a lot of things to do, but I think such high minded, idealistic concepts that do away with human centric economy (which is absurd) arises out of a disillusionment with money.

Economic politics aside, the concept behind the Venus project seems to be with the best intentions, but the aesthetic is ludicrous. It looks as if some fungineer from Disney tried to design a tacky futureworld city back in the 1960's. The concept isn't bad, but the rootshock, linearity, and lack of diversity in the layout and design of the buildings would make it a breeding ground for poverty. Brazilia had a futuristic efficient layout when it was built, but it resulted it large masses of unused land and huge bouts of poverty.
I am quite passionate about the politics behind city design every since I took an Urbanization class here at Tech. This class taught me the four major points of successful city design: Mixed Use of buildings, short city blocks, concentration of people, and a diversity of aged buildings. This city fails to deliver on efficiency of space (although it does have an efficient concept for city services: trash, sewer, etc.), short city blocks, mixed use, and the all important older buildings. I would say that we need a good reason to build up a new city, especially in dire economic times as these. We certainly couldn't do this to any existing cities, and there is a real question whether that city layout could actually work. The implication behind the Venus Project being that if we test this out, that city design could create the social change desired. (admittedly Zeitgeist was all over the place about their concept of human psychology and how to motivate it differently) Even if you create the test city and somehow achieve a complete reformatting of the economy, people will still game the system. There is way to much trust in human nature on behalf of the project, and a bit of naiveté about the complexity of human behavior.

Hope, Change, and Modern Graphic Design

The aesthetic history of the Obama "Hope" Poster definitely has roots in Japanese print style. Perhaps also a sort of comic book aesthetic. I think that our perception of epic characters has shifted in modern times to the more flat shaded, heavy outlines look. This sort of vector art seems more timeless than the swooping line sand details of yesteryear. My favorite example of this is the timelessness of the ABC logo. A very simple circle with a future styled san serif font. The same elements can be seen the the curves and colors of the Obama poster. Especially the font choice for hope. There sort of elements that heavily use negative space help create a sort of epic feel, often times an underground feel of a figure to rally behind.

The copyright implications vary a bit here. The situation definitely shows that Shepard Fairey's moves were of questionable morality. However I believe part of the burden of copyright and creative commons lies with the photographer. The internet will always be free game unless specified otherwise. There does need to be a certain degree of alteration or presentation (in the case of Andy Warhol or Marcel Duchamp) for it to be considered an independent art piece. While that is largely subjective and left to interpretation, I think there is a reasonable point between complete nonsense and artistic initiative.

The Message is Hope. As well as many other things…He is the new american flag (kind of like the hip logo he has of the O with the stripes going into it.) These elements are incorporated into his actually being, the implication that he literally defined by this message. There is much to be said that he represents the new school, with a heavy theme of change. His concept of changes, I think, is to make a mature government that can make fair compromise. The poster definitely reflects the candidate Obama, however the president is a different deal. In my opinion, I still see that his ideals are there but his desire for bipartisanship and progress at the same time has forced him to compromise time and time again. He seems to think that if we reached out enough across the aisle he could find middle ground, but often this has lead to deals that are horridly detrimental, often passing bills that are much more damaging than they are progressive. I think he has a little too much faith in the government's ability to compromise, and is terrible at striking fair deals with the other side. The government will always be split between these parties and ideals, and it will always be a massive battle to get things passed, and There will ALWAYS be people (And corporations) who are dissatisfied and will resist new legislation. You can't always make the other side happy, in the words of Bill Maher "Obama should take a note from Bush, sometimes you got to have cojones and make things happen" Ultimately Obama has made a lot of change happen, but for every shard of hope through new legislation (Healthcare, DADT, etc.) there is plenty of bad change to stomp on it (Bailouts, Corporate Personhood, and Corporate welfare via Subsidizing)

I just hope that as campaign season rolls around, Obama can use what he has learned about realistic governing and mix in a new wave of progressivism that is desperately needed in a time when the Distribution of Wealth in the US is comparable to 3rd world countries.

Can Civilization and Nature Coexist?

"Civilization isolates all of us, ideologically and physically, from the source of all life - nature"

The DJ Spooky article certainly drifts a good bit, as I said like free form jazz. It seems to be the guy's mindset. His emphasis on the importance of nature and being in tune with that music does make sense to a certain degree. He suggests we should use our technology to help us "reconnect" with nature, his example being the WTC sound project and his work converting the sound of nature into sampling. In a way we do constantly 'sample' from nature all the time, we've looked to it for inspiration in art all the time. He seems to insinuate that the internet is like the massive archive we can 'sample' for human creations and ideas. Once again this is a smart metaphor, nature and the internet have this in common (even though nature is archived only by it's process of natural selection.)


If his goal was to raise awareness of the importance of our connection to nature, (which is indeed critical as many massive environmental issues from oil to bees is intimately tied to our survival as a race) then yes his suggestions are relevant. However, he seems to just be proposing that we do what we have always done. Draw inspiration from nature! Honestly a big part of art is to shake us out of the disillusioning isolation that is everyday modern life, and art is an opportunity to remind of our natural roots. However architecture, city planning, and environmental progressives also play an important role. This quote demonizes civilization, when civilization is one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. Sure, it has lead to pollution, isolation, and a myriad of other issues. Humanity is about building and progressing, it is in our own nature! The world we have created isn't simply built on convenience and comfort(although some skeptics would argue to the contrary), we are creators. While artist are well known (from music to painting) to be the key creative creators to help preserve natural roots, that role is also the job of our planners, architects, and many other creative types. They also should work to help blend human society back with nature without compromising human needs. A fantastic example of this can be found in Corbusier's city planning or Frank Lloyd Wright's architectural genius. DJ Spooky is basically emphasizing a theme to remind us of nature, but to really bring it into daily life you have to physically change the landscape. We are a smart and ambitious civilization, and we can find a way to make this work if we can just break the somewhat distinctly American culture of inflexibility and NIMBY-ism (Not In My BackYard, usually found in Nuclear Power debates but that's a different issue.)


I think that civilization and nature aren't polar opposites as presented in the quote, if anything that is an example of the speaker's own human centric thinking. Our civilization is built with the tools and supplies we find in nature, so it is still in essence a part of it. It's really just important to insure we still see nature everyday as a reminder of where we are from, and learn to design and build around that fact

Government vs. Internet (The Brawl in Cyberspace)

What power should governments have over the internet, if any?

The opportunity for abuses of power by the government with the internet are very vast. Considering that the internet is the ultimate forum for free speech, tampering with the internet via censorship and control of access is a violation of free speech rights. We addressed a part of this in the last post, whether the internet is a human right. My response being that if the technology and access is there, then restricting it is indeed a violation of that right.
Often advances to control and pass regulatory legislation regarding the internet are done under the banner of opening a forum for capitalism.

The Communication Decency Act was one of the first example of this, a very absurd attempt at regulating the internet back in 97. Today, Net Neutrality being one of the top issues as the bill comes up over and over again. The concept that your ISP could control what you access on the internet is such a massive danger to free speech, and a massive opportunity to capitalize by major corporations. Thankfully the EFF has rallied the tech savvy groups to protest such a move every time the bill comes up in the House. Every time it has been shot down, despite having some of the more poorly informed senators representing the people of the internet (ie. Ted Stevens and "the series of tubes")

Recently we've seen the birth of data capping among Comcast internet networks in some states. Once again this is a slippery slope (currently the cap is set very high at something around 200 GB.) Right now people will have to pay if they download/ upload too much through their internet (right now only people who download an absurd amount of movies and such are at risk.) We've seen this capping at Virginia Tech as well, a pseudo response to what they perceive to be examples of illegal P2P activity. (Granted Data capping is not uncommon as we see it often with smart phone 3 and 4G networks. However the justification is the cost of making and maintaining these networks)

In foreign countries the examples abound of governments blatantly censoring or outright shutting down the internet for it's citizenry. The concept is not surprising because the internet is a great opportunity to get the word out about abusive governments, as well as spreading new ideas that are dangerous to the powerful heads of state. The US thankfully has been fairly good about keeping the internet free, but it has been a very real struggle to maintain that. In less free countries it is not surprising that the civilians don't have the ability to fight against these overreaching moves by their own governments. That's why "hacktivists" have a responsibility to reach out to these people help provide them a means to fight back at least in cyberspace via private publishing and file sharing. There are some obvious things the government should intervene on: violations of copyright, piracy in some formats, etc. However free speech should never be on the chopping block.

Internet Empowerment

Do you feel empowered by the internet?

The concept of empowerment by the internet really is no different from any other tool. The computer itself is tool of empowerment, as are the programs on it. Without advances in 3D software development, I wouldn't have pursued an art degree. The tools on my computer give me the ability to make the art I want to make. In the same means the internet empowers me to connect to friends, post my works, and learn new things.

Yes, it is true that the internet is an absolutely integral part of my life. I use it constantly to learn new things, communicate, and work. Empowerment clearly comes with the internet, among many other things. It is truly a great tool for fast tracking the advancement of knowledge and humanity. The censorship we see in the less free parts of the world is not at all surprising, as the internet provides the opportunity to learn and organize. It truly is a tool of empowerment, and while it has been used to spread ignorance, the truth often wins out if you look in the right places.

It's no doubt that the internet has empowered me in many ways, and it is certainly true that it is a tool for empowerment in struggling 3rd world countries. My question is for all that it does and has done to change the world, is it a human right to have access to it? As powerful as it is, the internet is still a tool, just like the computer, a car, a cell phone, etc. It would fall under an implement of another human right: the right to learn. Education was primarily done through analog formats such as books, but there is real opportunity to fight biased writers and euro-centric thinking by using the internet. I think it could certainly be listed as a critical need that people below the poverty level don't have access to. (like food, running water, cars)

Sherry Levine- Fantasy, Reality, and Addiction

In what ways has building and communicating through online profiles changed you personally?

Do you think that online communities and role play have helped us more (in terms of self reflection and growing) or hurt us more (in terms of addiction to fantasy and disconnect from reality)?

My experience with online profiles and internet communication and roleplay devices over the past few years have been significant. The experimentation the internet offers has really allowed me to learn more about myself and meet like minded people. I eventually met these people and maintain real world in person relationships alongside our internet communication. I think ultimately this is the benefit Sherry wanted to see happen with the internet. I think that some of the issues she warned about with MPD and the reality disconnect really manifested themselves as the internet became mainstream and we started to casually forgo in person communication even more for devices.

From what I gather from her many interviews she seems to be more about warning the harm that our connected selves is causing to society, culture, introspection, communication, and concepts of reality and privacy. She really has put emphasis on the issue of privacy, which like communication, has radically changed especially in recent years. We volunteer much more information to everyone than ever before, but even worse is the loads more specific data gathered without (or at least ignorant of) our knowledge. She said 'facebook is not free, we pay for it by volunteering our privacy' With the creation of face book connect and other applications that continue to integrate the internet into one insular circle. A lot of the creative expression and opportunity that comes with anonymity will disappear, and more importantly it will become more and more natural for us to communicate everything we do (online and off) to everyone we know. Sherry warns now we are losing two very important aspects of our humanity, the intimacy of privacy and in person communication.

As far as this question goes, I would say for all the opportunities the internet has presented in networking, we have lost quite a bit in serious human relationships. I personally know I take it too far, I communicate and meet with people primarily online, with the exception of my fellow students I've primarily reserved contact with friends in person to the weekend only. When Sherry talks about taking a step back and re-evaluating what the machines are for before we get too sucked in, it is all to relevant to geek culture. We have seen time and time again that geek culture in usually the predecessor to mainstream, and this very issue of further disconnectedness is spreading to regular people. I think she wants us to view all the new communication technology as a means to an end, instead of the end to a means.

What seperates Humans from Machines? Anything?

What do you think differentiates a human from a machine?
Do you think we will be replaced? Do you think Turing’s test is a good representation of deciding which is which?

The question of consciousness and sentience seems simple by definition. The things that make us human and animals is our ability to emote. Things like communication, working together, and adaptation are all traits of things like plants and other non sentient things. The same question is proposed with robots. If a robot could emulate humans in every way from learning to communicating, will it ever cease to be an imitation of life? If the machine could simulate emotion based on it's history of learning and understanding of it's surroundings how is it different from us? Even though our brains are wired differently, we could still think and learn to arrive at the same conclusions. If a robot can arrive at the prospect of emotion from a purely logical standpoint based in a perspective of it's history, then how is it different? Could the emotions, passions, and etc. we experience purely logical aspect of the human experience? Technically the feelings we have are the results of a series of complex chemical interaction responding to electric stimuli with the environment, is that necessarily different with the electric repines of robots to their environment? We are told to be unafraid to question the nature of humanity itself, but perhaps the conclusion more depressing than we wish to think. Our emotions could be essentially empty, only unique in that they are easily created. If our emotions could be recreated by a machine, then perhaps they are no more unique than our ability to walk, reason, and see things. Creativity could befall the same fate of emotion under the same circumstances. I suppose you could ask a replicate from Blade Runner if they ever feel a part of the human experience, certainly they feel prejudice and injustice.

The Turing test is a fun and simple exercise to get people to think differently, but it is purely a psychological test. The level of subjective in these experiments don't properly evaluate what traits make us human. The question of what makes us human may be just beyond our reach, if there is something distinct at all (outside of the obvious human species of animal.) Perhaps a robot is simply a percentage of human based on how closely it imitates each aspect of what we can do. So yeah short answer, No. The test is however a good examination of the quality algorithms and psychological knowledge of what the majority of people think is human.

What Future Technologies mean for Humanity

Humans understand the world in only 3 dimensions and communicate in a very slow, serial fashion called speech. But can this be improved on? Can we use technology to upgrade humans?


As we discussed this question, the issue of whether we as a species will make it to this supposed future. Yes, the technology is there and if our progress stays on track we will see the technology we dream of here manifested. I mentioned Stephen Hawking's quote, that if we make it through this century that the human species is set on track to avoid extinction for many millennia. I think this is relevant, because he arrives at this conclusion based off of the potential of our future technologies with advanced computers, cyborgification, etc. Presuming we do make it to see this future, I think creativity and right brained thinking will be all the more important.
Consider how the nature of work has changed for us and where it is going in our immediate future. Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind addresses that creative jobs will be the in demand jobs now and in the future for working in developed countries. If we were to make the massive jump to this cybernetic future envisioned now, it would be all the more important of a commodity. Creativity is theoretically what separates us from the machines, and as machines inevitably surpass us in thinking power (even with cyborg enhancements) human will have to struggle to offer something machines can't do. It's the same dilemma many workers faced as the assembly line was replaced more and more with machines. I also imagine studies into HCI (human-computer interaction) will be massive growing field as well, as the future ensures computers and the internet will need to be seamless with our daily lives as well accessible by human thought. The big questions still remain though about what this will due to knowledge, how we process data, and how we think. Will we learn to think like computers? can we? What about visa versa? What are the still critical aspects of human jobs that won't be taken over by machines? If we live long enough, we might just find out.

Neuromancer

Do you think there are situations that are similar to this concept of outlaw zones present in today's world?

Theoretically as we advance as a civilization, the areas of outlaw zones get smaller and smaller over time. Not only with advances in surveillance, but due to stabilization of lifestyles. However quite the opposite seems true for today's day and age. While crime in general has decreased, there are still sections of cities where criminals inhabit. There are still safe zones across countries to conduct illegal activity. I think a smart aspect of Neuromancer and the like is that it recognizes that as city populations increase, no advances in technology can truly eliminate crime and the black market. In fact, a lot of technology advances the "black market."

Enter the anarchy that is the internet. Policing the internet for illegal downloads and illegal threats is nearly impossible, and the mass disillusionment with government laws is a real subject of investigation. Even the best law abiding citizens commit crime on the internet, sometimes without realizing it. The big question is what will become of essentially the ultimate "outlaw zone." As we move forward with upgrading internet infrastructure and creating better software, it is inevitable that P2P will result in free distribution of all media.

Downloading movies will be as fast as downloading music, and piracy will extend for all forms of software. The flip side is the backlash from the corporations that need to make money. The only ways it could stop the internet revolution would be to
1) remove net neutrality
2) enforce some Orwellian level legislation against piracy (DMC codec tried and failed with that)
3) block of and starve the free internet with huge online companies (facebook, amazon, etc...)

Anyways I digress, the truth is technology is neutral. We have found in recent times it has created massive Outlaw Zones, and it may continue to do just that. The best defense against creating a population of criminals is to ensure a fairness in lifestyle. It is impossible to answer the question without getting political in this sense. As the gap between the rich and poor get wider, the unrest will be stronger. As many revolutions across Egypt, Iran, and other countries have shown, unfairness and political corruption will not be tolerated. Technology can serve strongly to fuel revolution. I'm not saying that in a more fair world, piracy and crime won't exist. However these "Outlaw Zones" are often the center of creativity and innovation. We must learn to see them as areas of opportunity.

Nam Jun Paik

The Question: Nam June Paik innovated the use of video, should this type of medium (video) be considered art or simply just an advancement in technology? Why?
What influence do you think Nam June Paik's work had on the development of new media art today?

Video is an art form. Why? because it is. If it wasn't I'd be wasting my time taking Video Art classes.
Nam June Paik's work definitely had a very strange style that I think massively influenced some of the main stream pop culture we saw in the late 70's, early 80's. Some of his cheesy filters and effects became mainstream staples of that bright and colorful time period for video. His innovations in manipulating video tech to create art pieces also had an influence on artists at the time. He was changing people's paradigms and understandings about how video could be used. In more recent times, it could be said that he set in motion a new mindset that various forms of presenting and manipulating video could be considered art.

Reasearch, Presentations, and Art

The CAUS research symposium had a wide range of presentations, many on personal research of the faculty into artistic mediums. However the one that drew me in the most was the presentation on the future of Graphic Design classes. The entire presentation centered around new technology and teaching techniques that Ben, Troy, and Somaya have been pushing. There was an interesting contrast between the challenges and benefits of 4 design versus freelance work. Both seemed to be positive options to prepare VCD students for the real work world. The real world for the computer artist often alternates between freelance and employed jobs. I'd love to see this idea expanded on across other art dept. such as creative Tech. During my time here I've both worked for Tech as a normal job, and done some free-lance work as well. Unfortunately my experience was varied, working for tech yielded very few hours and most free lance jobs were unpaid. It would be useful to have an option like VCD students have to learn about the best ways to approach these issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Viola new how to pick powerful locations. As zoo as they showed the interior of the silo he had chosen for 5 Angels, the aesthetic was immediately obvious. His choice of raw, industrial, metallic, and inhuman setting was the perfect frame for his projection piece. The video had an immediate effect, mostly utilizing a common color across them. This sort of contrast of colors is an aim of my senior studio. Although I'd like to have more subtle contrast, I do want the stark dramatic effect of lighting the was apparent both in Bill's videos and in his setting. The sound must correlate with the mood that the lighting is trying to convey. His art piece was more than just a narrative, it really was about creating moods.

Rights and Obligations

What right does an artist have to their own artwork? Once an artwork is bought, should the artist have any say to how it should be presented or kept? What legal responsibility does an artist have to society?


An artist has the full right to their work, however to protect it from the rest of the world (whether through variants, re-mixes, copiers etc.) you have to go through the proper legal channels for copyrighting. Luckily the passage of Creative Commons 2.0 makes this a fairly easy means of protecting your work. As a new media artist, very little of my work manifests itself in the physical realm. So I am quite used to not have the ability to sell my work, as it is usually produced with a group for pay. However, in the instances where this applies, the terms should be agreed upon at the point of purchase. If the artist had special request for how the piece was to be displayed and where, then he/she should ensure that it is included in the contract.

The Pepsi-Cola incident at The Pavilion is indeed unfortunate, but immediately made clear that the artist must lay down terms of their work at the point of purchase. Once the money is laid down, I believe the power the artist can have over their art quickly diminishes. Not to mention how much these options vary by country's law.

The legal responsibility is naught for the artist. I think we have an obligation, if the artist is exploring new frontiers, to break laws. The only real limit of an artist should be their own moral boundaries. Of course this is a dangerous idea, as morality is relative to individual people. However art is often dangerous, all new things are. We have an obligation to society to forge new territory and ideas. A responsible artist would know how to bend the rules and expose new truths and viewpoints without endangering anyone. Because of the fluid nature of law, considering it often varies from state to country, it can't be an ultimate reference point for where artists should stop. I think there is at least a certain degree of common sense that an artist must employ when making and showing art. It would be desirable to be libertarian about this, and set this limits to whatever doesn't disturb others. However the power of art lies in it's ability to expose people to concepts, ideas, and aesthetics they haven't seen before.

What the Future means for the Past

What becomes of old art forms as new technologies develop? It is a difficult to answer, because it is quite rare to see entire art forms die off. Usually there are still a few artist that cling to old techniques. Consider photography, nobody makes callotypes or daguerrotypes anymore. The question arises, as new technologies create new techniques from creating and showing art, are we still creating the same art? Fundamentally in many cases it is the same idea. Graffiti to cave painting, photo shop to canvas painting, drawn animation to FBF computer animation. However there entirely new forms that have arisen from technologies such as photography and video that crate a whole different art. This is mentioned in the article that these form pierce into reality and demonstrate a deeper meaning in our daily real world. However previous art forms had to recreate and interpret these using human imagination and bias.

While the old techniques and mediums for art still exist, largely a lot of the principles that come with them can be lost. Tens of thousands of people can use photo shop, but probably only a hand ful of them probably know what the burn/dodge tool actually means. In fact such an effect can be replicated by different means than that algorithm. That is if we wish to replicate the effect at all. A lot of post photographic techniques arise out of a need to fix a picture because the machine (camera) failed to represent something the way we want it. It is possible for such concepts to drop out completely. (We do however see a revival of intentionally making error in film, to recreate our old feeling of film.) We spend a lot of time in 3D animation avoiding the computer perfect look.

Something that old mediums and techniques do face today is new expectations. The people viewing these mediums expect a level of convenience and an amount of public notoriety that can draw their interest. Like the British dude said, the days of patronage are over. It can also be argued we expect more content than used to be expected. many musician release multiple albums to stay "relevant," and using old techniques and mediums usually take longer to achieve the desired effect. The expectations are simply different, especially as new technology streamlines the art making process.

Metropolis
“The mediator between brain and hands must be the heart”

The obvious metaphor for this is the important means of communication between the upper and lower classes. That it is only through "the heart" or compassion and understanding of where each person comes from that compromise can be made. Of course there are much larger real world implications of what the heart could stand for. Understanding human nature, we can't all work in perfect harmony and hope that we can depend on everyone to be trustworthy and not abuse power.

Ultimately the heart could stand for any number of things from the establishment of unions, to the invention of democracy. I assume government is the heart mediator that ensures that abuse does not go on, and guard against a serious divide between the economic power of the lower and upper class. Now the question is what system help establish a fair working order for all those involved? The idea of capitalism allows the room for growth and is perhaps one of the most profitable economic systems out there. Of course the only way to make that system work would be to ensure a government could regulate everything necessary to ensure standards were fair for everyone. The scenario played out in the film would be an existence where the companies own everybody, and the opposite would be a government that ran the economy.

It can certainly be argued into today's day in age of political corruption and a system that is loaded head to toe with powerful lobbies that influence our politics more than the regular vote, taking the power out of the hands of everyone and favoring the elite. We are approaching a divide between upper and lower classes that only existed during 1920's era. Some would say this is an inevitable result of capitalism, but a purer system of politicians could ensure that the worker is guarded against the oppression of Elite.

The system works in the reverse extreme (which we don't see often today, but exist) when systems like trade unions grow too powerful, making demands for lifestyles that a company cannot afford to perpetuate (I believe an example would be the union struggles with the auto industry.) This a teaspoon sized opinion on what could help a government re assume a fair role in mediating between worker and employer.

Artistic Stereotypes and Public Perception

Question
NM(new media) art is usually made by teams of people, has NM finally destroyed the myth of the artist or has the myth just been changed to accommodate computer programmers and designers?

After a good bit of thought on this, I find myself jumping back and forth between the fence on this question. In relation to whether the artistic label could/ should be extended to designers and programmers, I think yes and no. I still see programmers as tool designers that aim to help the efficiency of regular life and of course the artist. That is not to say that programming lack creativity, but it is far too focused on the functional. Designers are closer to artists because both the functional and the aesthetic is key. Programming is a little too focused on function, at the point that you call in a designer to adjust a GUI to be aethetically pleasing is when the artistry is happening. The programmer's contributions are about efficiency and making tools better.

Now about the stereotype of the artist. If we consider artist as in the typical professional sense I would say that perhaps new media did shift some public perception of it. However, I think the stereotype lives on today, especially in education. Consider the way Virginia Tech's Art program is structured. Creative technologies is still embedded with Studio Arts. This may be a bit more of a technical issue (making a new major is really difficult.) Yet, when I tell people that I went for a Studio Arts degree, the immediate response is that I just wasted A LOT of money. The perception of the uselessness of an art degree is still an existing stereotype, unless you specify some technical field associated with it. This implies that the technical field (whatever it could be from animation to graphic design) is still separate from art in the public mind. Ultimatly after a few seconds of thought, most people would come to the conclusion that all of these jobs are art related and create art in it's own right. However the association still exist that commercial new media art is too functional (entertainment, advertising, etc.) to be immediately thought of as art.

The exception would be perhaps new media art used in non commercial means. In the traditional sense of putting up mixed media art projects in galleries to be sold for large sums of money. In Exit Through the Gift Shop most people didn't associate graffiti as a real art form (despite it's traditional nature) until Banksy and Mr. Brainwash put up their graffiti projects in a gallery opening and sold his pieces for tons of money. The mentioned in the documentary that art is viewed as such because an artistic elite chooses what is art versus the common people.

New Media Theroy

The blog is being picked up again to cover the various topics of New media Theory! So now you can hear all my self important ramblings on what I think of various out of touch, modernist, high concept, low aesthetic modern art stuffs.

Just kidding, much love Duchamp <3