Technologised Bodies

Pre-Notes Discussion:
In what ways are bodies already enhanced (made more capable, beautiful) by technology (can use mechanical, physical, and chemical)?

I believe we can extend our bodies in many different ways. Whether it be internal or external, technology has come a long way to enhance us through capability, aesthetics, etc. First I'll begin with external enhancing technology. Glasses, for example, produce better vision and adjust to our sight sensory to make us more capable. The technological work put into wires and more for braces to straighten teeth is an aesthetic enhancing aspect. Next would be prosthetics or fake limbs. This crosses into internal as well, but it's shown on the outside. This helps out with capability of body usage. Similarly is hearing aids, as they use technology in a small device to let people hear what's outside to the inside. And lastly would be plastic surgery, where technology and surgical devices are used to enhance someone to be more "beautiful" or to fix something that could have happened at birth or in an accident. 

Next is the more internal ways our bodies are enhanced by technology. These include mainly medical devices such as plates and screws or pins in your body to hold together a new knee or hip or bone marrow or something of that sort. Also  there are pace makers with the heart. These are all for usage and enhanced capability.

And lastly, I would consider this the "blurred lines" of technology enhancement, that touches for a short period of time. I'm talking here about biotechnology. This certain kind of biotechnology would be CT scans, PET scans, or MRI's. We're connected to this technology for a brief period of time, and though it's not embedded in us, it still produces results that enhance an overall understanding of a condition or issue. To me, that enhances our bodies and makes them more visible.

Further Discussion: On Eric Siu's "Touchy"

1) Describe this work in detail:

Eric Siu's "Touchy" is a device, essentially a human camera, and the person who is beneath it is "blinded constantly until a human touch enables the opening of the automated shutters. While a continuous physical contact is maintained between Touchy and a user, the camera shoots a photo every 10 seconds" (Vimeo). 

This project/device not only focuses on the relationship between humans and technology, but human interaction with one another as well. The video [work] that shows what Touchy does encompasses not only the use of the device, but symbolic and thematic issues about society as well, which I will discuss later on. 

I'll delve a little into the video that was made to promote this device. The video begins with the viewer (third person perspective) watching a young female noticing that the man in the video (Siu himself) can't see with his device on.  She touches him, and there's a camera sound. Then there's a close-up shot of her eyes looking into the camera. Interestingly enough, the viewer still doesn't see Siu's face. This was sort of a prelude and foreshadows what's to come later on in the video.

Then there's series of shots where Siu is trying to touch different objects and it's emphasizing how the technology is literally (as well as metaphorically) blinding him. This goes on until the female (same one as before) touches his face. We get a shot of the lenses opening up, emphasizing that human touch enables vision, light, a new perspective. The lenses opening are photos being taken and we see through the lens on the back of the device the photos taken. 


2) How does the work use technology to extend or change the abilities of the human body?

In this work, technology is used to change the abilities and extend the human body. First I'll talk about how it changes the abilities of the human body. So if we really look at it, isn't "Touchy" disabling the human body in a way? I would say yes. The fact that "Touchy" is taking away vision from the human is in fact disabling. But then again, by disabling the human, the human can gain another ability. When vision is taken away, I think humans gain the ability to long for that closest to vision, touch. They long to feel what they can no longer see. That happens with Siu, as his vision is lost, a human touch comes in and he can "see" again. He can capture that moment with a photo or perhaps metaphorically a memory. 

It extends the human body by making a camera. On "Touchy's" website it is stated that "The artist transposes the functions of a camera to a wearable helmet device comprising of a pair of automated shutters, a functioning camera and an interactive screen" (Siu, Concept | Touchy). The human feels what it is like to be technologized and essentially is a camera. The human body is extending in the sense that it's capable of producing something other than we usually do, technology itself. Of course we can produce technology, but not right away. There's steps involved. With "Touchy," the human produces a photo right away when vulnerable to touch. 


3) What issues does this work raise about today's society or about the effects of existing technologies or about the potential or possibilities that new technologies might have?

For me, there are multiple issues this work raises about today's society. First, I think this work is explaining that without human touch, we are nothing. We need interaction or else our world would be consumed of darkness, emphasized by the shutters on the camera. I think it's also commenting on the fact that sometimes technology is blinding us. We always look at our phones or other devices and are blind to the "real" world and don't interact personally anymore. An effect of technology is that physical communication is diminishing because of it. I also think this work is conveying that we can really use technology a "right way" to interact and live both in a technologized world as well as a human and interactive world with one another. The fact that Siu could see and the photos were taken once he experienced the human touch examines the aspect that we can use humans and technology (to work together) to create or screenshot a memory and a beautiful moment, and to really open up our worlds instead of shutting them out with closed lens. That's the potential or possibilities that new technologies can bring to us and help us realize.

Works Cited:

        Siu, Eric. "Concept | Touchy." Touchy. Eric Siu, 1 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://touchtouchy.com/concept/#sc>.

        Siu, Eric. "TOUCHY, A Human Camera." Vimeo. Vimeo, LLC, 1 Jan. 2012. Web. 1 Jan. 2014. <http://vimeo.com/38584876>.

Video Games: Just Playing?

When considering shooter games and what I personally think are the best to worst, I think Doom/Postal is the best, Remission second best, and then America's Army and Under Siege as the worst.

Why? Firstly, I think Doom and Postal is a bit violent, but it's also claimed as satirical. Living in America, I realize that satire and reliving certain events and mocking them or using them for entertainment is a part of our culture, so I can understand this more. Secondly, Remission I think is great for education for cancer patients and even their family or friends. I also think it gives the child hope for curing cancer and beating it. However, I see a few implications with this game. Our group discussed that yes, a child should know about their reality and cancer. But perhaps sometimes they need to take their mind off of it and should be playing other video games or doing other activities besides dwelling on their illness. Secondly, I see a bit of false hope in this game. That yes, they can be killing cancer cells, but in reality, perhaps there is no cure if they are terminally ill or have a cancer that is not yet curable. I would rather see them out doing something with the time that they have rather than staying inside on a game. Lastly, I see America's Army and Under Siege as the worst shooter games. Though it's proven effective, I don't really support the game America's Army for recruiting American soldiers. I also don't like how they target a specific race. Yes, I understand that that's factual and complies with the ongoing Middle East conflicts, but if we want to establish peace among these people and teach the younger generation another way besides war, we shouldn't be target specific. Also, as for Under Siege, I don't like the fact that it implies war and killing between the Arabs and Israeli people for Palestine. Thus, because these games have a strong political and ideological purpose, it makes it a problem.

One of my group members, Nicola, recalls playing video games when he was a bit younger. He claimed the different games were in fact killing games, but were rather innocent. It wasn't about killing people, but rater mythical creatures and so forth. What really infatuated me about Nicola's recollection was his face when he was remembering these games. When he remembered one, his eyes would light up as he recollected the different aspects that went along with the game and how to win, like reliving his childhood and the sort of play he used to enjoy. He liked that it was rather innocent, and that his parents coincided with the fact it was innocent and just fun aside of violent.

Digital Media and Social Activism

This is certainly the age for digital media. The fact that many people undergoing social activism embrace and utilize this tactic, if you will, can be both positive or negative to the event. It could also simply just be informational.

The event that I have chosen to research is the ongoing (still continuous) protests between the anti-mosque and pro-mosque groups in Sunshine Coast, Australia. Essentially, an Islamic community wants to set up a mosque and many people don't want that as they feel it's a threat to not only their community but to their "free country." The threats include "beheadings, the introduction of sharia law, the loss of rights for women and the undermining of the Australian way of life" (Furler). However, alongside of the Islamic community is a strong support system of young Australians that are in favor of a free, religious country. And they believe since the country is democratic, any religion should be free to practice and build where they please.

Just as a statistic, "More than 500 people converged on land near the Stella Maris Catholic Church to protest the mosque plan," (Furler) just on the September 20, 2014 date.

The obvious hoped-for outcome of the event is that each side wants their own way. The anti-mosque protestors don't want the mosque or Islamic community because of a alleged threat, and the pro-mosque protestors believe it right to let them build. A compromise where each side would get what they want would be ideal to avoid the protests, but we'll see where this goes.

Some of the event participants stated completely opposite things. A pastor that is against the mosque, Benny Tan, was "preaching" to the crowd about the group being manipulative. He said, "That's just a ploy to win us over and because they are smaller in numbers. But as they grow in numbers and in confidence, you try to stop them then," (Furler). Tan claims he knows this because he's lived in an Islamic country for over twenty years and has experienced it "firsthand."

In the video provided below, an anti-mosque protester yells to a young woman (presumably Islamic), "Why don't you go back to where you're from?" (Furler) And pro-mosque protestors yell that it's a free country and religion shall not come between equal rights.

Digital media is a large part of this social activism event and there are a plethora of devices and sources used to promote the event, support/not support the event, and/or to just put out the facts.

First off, Sarah Joseph states in her essay that "'Web 2.0' refers to Internet platforms that allow for interactive participation by users. 'User generated content' is the name for all of the ways in which people may use social media" (Joseph, 2012, 146).

There is much user generated content in this protest. First, the website and online newspaper column that I have based some of my research on has user generated content. It contains two ways for interactive participation by users. First is the "reader poll" on the page it's a poll that asks "Does Australia have freedom of religion?" and a few multiple choice answers. Secondly, there is a spot for comments. This way, people can place their opinion on the event, or add facts. For example, user name "SunMan" stated that he was at the event and posted, "I was there today and it was a very well controlled event. Thank you our Police. There were more anti-mosque supporters than I expected" (Furler).


Joseph also states, "Finally, people share information on social networking sites, of which Facebook and Twitter are among the most popular. These sites are very versatile, enabling the sharing of text, pictures, videos, audio files, and applications" (Joseph, 2012, 148).
Not only was this on websites such as blogs and online newspapers, but it was posted on Twitter. As the photo shows below, a photo was being tweeted about a sign at the protest. Though the sign had a stand point, the tweet seemed to be purely informational. 

There's also a Youtube video of the event which shows the two sides fighting verbally and the police involvement. 

Again, the involvement of the social media was all informational, perceptional and even opinionated. Informational when the reports stated what happened, how many people were at the event, and other factual statements that weren't bias. Perceptional because when looked at it in a rather abstract way, social media can be negative or positive, but it's really  just the way the reader or viewer perceives it, the social media is just the medium. For example, one may get post a tweet about the event from a certain side that seems negative to the other, but to them it's positive or vice versa. Social media also played a role of reporting the event and even publicizing it in a way. 

Thus, throughout the use of social media via many different sites and sources, whether it be photos, videos, blogs, etc., this event among many others today has been and continues to be publicized and put into different perspectives for the people who may or may not be involved in the event.

http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/videos/mosque-protesters-clash-police-watch-2/24277/

Works Cited:

Furler, Mark. "Mosque Protesters Warn of 'Beheadings' at Rally." Sunshine Coast Daily. Sunshine Coast Newspaper Company Pty Ltd 2014., 20 Sept. 2014. Web.

Furler, Mark. "Ugly Scenes at Sunshine Coast Mosque Protest." Brisbane Times. Fairfax Media, 20 Sept. 2014. Web.

Joseph, Sarah. Social Media, Political Change, and Human Rights, 35 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 145 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol35/iss1/3