It is not a new idea or a new practice to combine the body with technology. We wear clothes, we use toothpaste, we ingest supplements and hormone pills which change our shapes and physiologies.
We've treated our bodies like machines long before using machines in our bodies. That is what the entire health industry is premised on: your body is a machine which needs to be "fueled" with certain things like 'electrolytes.' The machine is the epitome of perfect utility so we aspire to that homogenized goal. We aspire to that perfect alienation of ourselves to ourselves, to make ourselves the products of our own labour, to become valued commodities.
Just think of how we write our CVs, trying literally to sell ourselves to the highest bidder. Just think of botox, implants, and fingernail polish. We are a lot of work to make these days. I just hope that my exchange value doesn't drop with the influx of all these other people-products that look just like me.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Am i a cyborg?
Taking up the discussion from class this week about us being cyborgs, personally i don't consider myself as one but i do consider my self as a person that is highly reliant on technology.
First part of my argument i looked up the definition of "Cyborg". it states "a human being whose body has been taken over in whole or in part by electromechanical devices; "a cyborg is a cybernetic organism"
Next, i took that definition and applied it to my self, do i have a part of my body that has been "taken over by electromechanical device". No hence i don't consider my self as a cyborg!!
I!! personally believe that technology is just a developed or a upgrade to our old living styles. It's only created to make our lives more efficient, but it hasn't really changed the way we live our lives.
The use of ipods and computers are just an upgrade of the method of entertainment.
The development of new media is increasing but the dying out of the old is slow. The example i like to point out is the engagement of reading a book and listening to an ipod creates equal amount of enjoyment for the audience, as there are still many old and young people reading books on the bus. the musicals events and the theater provides equal value of enjoyment as the surround sound system, the music hasn't changed its just the situation and the form which we're consuming the media develops with technology.
The use of the library to collected information is equally important as collecting information online.
I once read an articles, can't remember exactly where but there was a statement that said the computer offers us an empty promise and that the internet doesn't contain any information until people started to upload information on to web pages through the use of HTML developed by Tim Burners Lee allowing viewer to contribute to the construction of information.
Suggesting the information on computer came from the audiences, who dumb ed down the information they collected from books.
Which concludes my point that the development of technology has just provided us with an more options and the fact that we can physically function without the support of technology suggested that we're not cyborgs, but we do rely on technology to maintain our way of life.
If technology one day got up and left the planet (concept from the transformers movies) we would still be able to survive, it would only take us a while to adapt to the new environment. hence we are not cyborgs and our interaction with technology is just a development from our old ways of living. We are still living human lives and not lives of robots.
All images are from Google image search
How important is technology?
Some may have many bad things to say about technology, how it is not so gender neutral or portrays a superficial life, however we cannot dismiss that technology in many ways has helped us as humans accomplish many things that otherwise may not of been possible.
Take this example for instance: I am in the car with my friend, she’s driving, she happens to wear prescribed glasses, she cannot see anything 1 metre away without them on, this technology helps her in more ways then she can imagine, we could say that they improve her way of living.Take my other friend who wears hearing aids every day, so advanced that she can hear the slightest patter, I could list many examples of the ways in which technology has advanced our way of living however everything good has to have some disadvantages right?
No matter how much we would love to praise technology the reality is that technology also has its downsides, the world as we know it in many ways (apart from the Amish of course) relies on technology so if for some reason there was no technology left on this earth and we went back to our caveman days would we be able to find the same joys in a stick and stone as opposed to an iphone, playstation or even a laptop? So are we becoming too dependent on technology or are we just using technology to help improve our way of life?
Take this example for instance: I am in the car with my friend, she’s driving, she happens to wear prescribed glasses, she cannot see anything 1 metre away without them on, this technology helps her in more ways then she can imagine, we could say that they improve her way of living.Take my other friend who wears hearing aids every day, so advanced that she can hear the slightest patter, I could list many examples of the ways in which technology has advanced our way of living however everything good has to have some disadvantages right?
No matter how much we would love to praise technology the reality is that technology also has its downsides, the world as we know it in many ways (apart from the Amish of course) relies on technology so if for some reason there was no technology left on this earth and we went back to our caveman days would we be able to find the same joys in a stick and stone as opposed to an iphone, playstation or even a laptop? So are we becoming too dependent on technology or are we just using technology to help improve our way of life?
Upgrade Me
In my life, I have owned two mobile phones, two mp3 players and two digital cameras. In each case, the second one was superior to the first, in terms of quality, functionality and applications. And of those six items, I have not brought myself any of them.
My case is probably a little unique- I’ve been lucky enough to have always received these items as a Christmas or birthday gift. I think this fact suggests that I have successfully avoided being a slave to ‘Upgrade Culture’. This is a concept I had never even thought to exist until it was introduced in lecture. Yet its premise is so simple, but has been blinded to me by the power of advertising. Already we’re up to the iPhone 4, even though the first one was only introduced less than four years ago. And what generation of iPod are we up to now?
I feel that males may be more preoccupied with the concept of upgrading than that of females, though I know plenty of females who are also interested in having the latest gadget. It probably also arises somewhat from the idea of ‘boys and their toys’ and woman being anathema to technology. For instance, the latest televisions are almost always targeted for the male spectator.
I think it would also be a fair to suggest that professionals come to mind when we think about those with the latest technologies. This may be because rofessionals may also require new technology within the workplace more than other professions. But it is also highly likely here that this would be due to the fact that newer technologies are generally, more expensive. Thus, the latest gadgets equates to more affluence. New technology also contributes to professionals looking the ‘the part’.
It is also important to emphasise that it is probably young professionals that buy into upgrade culture. This probably comes down to this group having more disposable income (without kids, mortgages ect), but also with the fact that youth are more open to new technology than older generations, having grown up with and being more comfortable with it. It’s probably a large part of the reason we see this group in commercials for mobiles and mp3 players.
Next to the iPod Touch, my Samsung mp3 player looks prehistoric. It doesn’t even have shuffle, so simply wanting to ‘upgrade’ to a better model is an important factor in purchasing new technology for many. I resist buying an iPod Touch, mainly due to economic reasons, but even if I this was not a deterrent, I probably wouldn’t buy one until my mp3 player died. So upgrade culture is affected by economics, gender, age and culture; but it’s also largely a personality factor. The documentary ‘Upgrade Me’ explains some of the psychological factors that motivate upgrading.
To an extent, I think we all succumb to this phenomenon in consumer society. It’s just that instead of new technology, I upgrade to a new pair of shoes.
Do you think that you succumb to upgrade culture?
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Bertozzi's Conventions Unnecessary
The reading by Bertozzi “You Play Like a Girl” left me rather conflicted. When I was younger and was surrounded by consoles like Sega, Playstation and Nintendo I was constantly playing video games like Crash Bandicoot, The Legend of Zelda, Mortal Combat and Alex the Kid. These all have very broad ranges of subject matter from jungle adventures, to fantasy, to combat, to a small square headed boy, running around popping blocks in his little red overalls. The point is that the attraction of gaming wasn’t necessarily about the subject, but rather the action. If the game is fun and entertaining then I would enjoy playing it regardless of the subject matter. Yet Bertozzi talks about different conventions to get ‘women into gaming’ and they actually don’t seem necessary. Bertozzi mentions making inter- and cross-gender play more frequent; normalising it by using more female avatars. Using avatars that don’t stereotype inherently female attributes and change societal conceptions on what it means to be female: to change the way females are presented – strong and competitive being more sexually attractive as opposed to the stereotypical meek and submissive, women as ‘weak’.
To be honest, growing up I never noticed any of these. At the end of the day it is only a game and cannot be compared to reality (although some people may struggle with the concept of reality on a daily basis). I played games because initially my brother played them, and as a child I wanted to do all the things my brother did. Now it seems I play games because I want to, hence my addiction to Guitar Hero. It is not as if I felt less of a player because I was a woman, or because the games lacked these so called ‘needed conventions’ in order to appeal to the female audience. I enjoyed these games regardless and was more captivated by their entertainment value. This is why the reading left me conflicted. I see where Bertozzi is coming from, but from experience, I don’t think it is necessary.
To be honest, growing up I never noticed any of these. At the end of the day it is only a game and cannot be compared to reality (although some people may struggle with the concept of reality on a daily basis). I played games because initially my brother played them, and as a child I wanted to do all the things my brother did. Now it seems I play games because I want to, hence my addiction to Guitar Hero. It is not as if I felt less of a player because I was a woman, or because the games lacked these so called ‘needed conventions’ in order to appeal to the female audience. I enjoyed these games regardless and was more captivated by their entertainment value. This is why the reading left me conflicted. I see where Bertozzi is coming from, but from experience, I don’t think it is necessary.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Technology: The Creeping Invasion
 |
| Source: Waikato University |
I shiver at the thought of technology completely taking over in this age and eras to come. For the past few days, I've been immersing myself in various technology-related articles. Most of these articles, not surprisingly, are optimistic, in fact, hyper-optimistic about "the unimaginative, exciting future technology has in store for us". This clause in quote alone personifies technology as if it was or supposed to be some kind of man-made god with human or supernatural features, or some robot that continually goes through intense technical makeovers to become somewhat human. Technology wants to take over, and man is cheering "it" on. Humans and human abilities are no longer "the future", technology is now theoretically "the future". Following that line of thought then, I become sceptical of the time when humans will become walking technologies in every sense of the word. That is, not only handling multiple pieces of gadgets in one go as we already do now, but also walking around with chips in our flesh, codes in our fingernails, or something seriously twisted like that...
 |
| Source: Actv8 |
I don't really know much about the age-game but I do hear 'Ice Age', 'Stone Age', 'Middle Age'...and of course, 'Computer Age', the age we're in. Centuries from now, I wonder what age it'll be and what kind of humans will exist in that age. *Deep breathes*. Scepticism. I mean, if anyone has been in tune with the country's current affairs lately, you might have heard about the introduction of a technological classroom. This is where students basically will throw pencils and papers out the window to welcome Apple screens on which the teacher would appear and start teaching. I'd like to blog about this particular subject, but for this current discussion on my scepticism towards stuff like this, I reckon this tech in class thing is a big fat risk. The headline for the news reads "Classrooms of the future". Now, is it just me or does this title also remind you of..I don't know..Matrix or some highly-charged robotic film? Does it sound like we're gradually moving into a blockbuster era where reality will be like...a thing of the past?
And what's up with people apparently gaining "21st century skills" if they know how to use a computer? Over-emphasis, I tell you. Take classes, get the skills, and get over it. Not everyone would like to specialise in Computer Graphics. And even if computers have already invaded all strands of the workforce, what other skills/ knowledge do you need except the basic tools, Microsoft/Adobe software, and those pertaining to your profession?
But enough of my venting, it is due to both my semi-conservative state and scepticism. Maybe I'm just not ready to move on (lol). Bottom line is, technology are the aliens that wants to take over planet Earth. So either way, aaaaaaaaargh.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Don’t Blame the Genders, Blame the Console!
In our recent tutorial for week 3, we looked at how gender’s play a part in whether or not they participate in video games. Luke said something along the lines of “… boys will be involved in more immersive games whereas females are more into browser based games that they can dip in and out of”. While that much is true, I also believe it is the game console manufacturers who decide which gender(s) to target.
In particular is the Nintendo Wii, if we look at the consoles & its controllers’ design and colour scheme we can say that it’s quite gender neutral. Compare this to the Playstation 1, 2 & 3 or Xbox & Xbox 360, their consoles are often black, grey or grey-ish white and sleek with a futuristic-ish design. Even the controllers are loaded with buttons that require time to learn all the functionalities possible for the controller and for each game. In contrast, the Wii is a simple white, the console itself is rather simple looking, small and compact and the controller looks more like a remote, an already well established household object.
The gameplay on the Wii is also quite natural itself, rather than learning button combinations, the Wii opts for physical movements that are easy to pick up and learn. And the Wii taps into all of these facts to market itself. Look at TV ads for Playstation or Xbox, they are generally quite high-end looking and flashy, the Wii ads are of people just playing with the Wii in a social context.
It's because of all this that the Wii attracts more female gamers than any other console. The actual content of the games also help to break down this barrier to entry for potential and current female gamers with games that are violent for those females who like it and for male audiences and games that are simple, perhaps with cute graphics, realistic in the sense that it might be something they like to do/play (eg: Tennis).
So whilst we might generalize that females just aren’t into video games, it’s more the console manufacturers and their marketers which are pointing the consoles more at the male gender. If Sony or Microsoft started designing their consoles at females in terms of console and controller design, the types of games available and the price of the console itself, the amount of females participating in video games on those consoles may increase also.
In particular is the Nintendo Wii, if we look at the consoles & its controllers’ design and colour scheme we can say that it’s quite gender neutral. Compare this to the Playstation 1, 2 & 3 or Xbox & Xbox 360, their consoles are often black, grey or grey-ish white and sleek with a futuristic-ish design. Even the controllers are loaded with buttons that require time to learn all the functionalities possible for the controller and for each game. In contrast, the Wii is a simple white, the console itself is rather simple looking, small and compact and the controller looks more like a remote, an already well established household object.
The gameplay on the Wii is also quite natural itself, rather than learning button combinations, the Wii opts for physical movements that are easy to pick up and learn. And the Wii taps into all of these facts to market itself. Look at TV ads for Playstation or Xbox, they are generally quite high-end looking and flashy, the Wii ads are of people just playing with the Wii in a social context.
It's because of all this that the Wii attracts more female gamers than any other console. The actual content of the games also help to break down this barrier to entry for potential and current female gamers with games that are violent for those females who like it and for male audiences and games that are simple, perhaps with cute graphics, realistic in the sense that it might be something they like to do/play (eg: Tennis).
So whilst we might generalize that females just aren’t into video games, it’s more the console manufacturers and their marketers which are pointing the consoles more at the male gender. If Sony or Microsoft started designing their consoles at females in terms of console and controller design, the types of games available and the price of the console itself, the amount of females participating in video games on those consoles may increase also.
Blogs... Really?
I can't honestly say that I read a lot of blogs. Apart from checking out a few articles published by friends on their blogs I can honestly say that I don't really see the point in maintaining an online account of one's interests. Yes, that sounds negative and grumpy but would you paste flyers on the outside of the library saying "I went for a coffee with a few friends the other day and read an interesting article in M2, by the way, that reminds me: check out that cafe on Vulcan Lane, they have really good coffee... etc. etc. etc."? I don't know about everyone else, but that seems rather strange.
If there were enough flyers to match the number of bloggers, buildings would resemble birds instead of buildings. Because the flyers would look like feathers... Yeah, you get it. The point is, the internet is a public domain, so is the public library, the streets, parks etc. It is as dangerous posting private information on the internet as it is on a street corner. Also, if a blogger isn't solely after attention what is the point of a blog? To share opinions and information that may or may not interest other people?... Assuming that people will be interested at all is a gamble, so the real reason must be solely personal. A way to publish and examine day to day life and compare alongside other human beings. We're not interested in the interests of others, we're interested in the lives of others, which is a pretty scary thought. Facebook and Twitter take this to the extreme, providing real time updates and a hub for varying personalities.
To wrap up I'd like to point out that Blogs aren't as harmless as they seem. Compared to Facebook, yeah, they're alright, but to reiterate: The internet is a public domain. I'm not a paranoid freak, just a techno-realist.
Cyborgs aka "iPeople"
Before the idea of the Cyborg was introduced to us on Mondays lecture, I thought a Cyborg to be a strictly physical concept.
The infusion of man and machine in some sort of weird and unnatural combination of gears and flesh all making up what loosely resembled a human.
Instantly I thought of the Borg race from Star Trek; Pictured to the left is Captain Jean-Luc Picard after he had been "upgraded" to have machiney parts by the Borg race. (note: the fricken laser beam attached to his head)
How close are we to being able to replace our bodies with machines?
Check this link out. 16 actual parts of your body that they can or will be able to replace in the near future. Some parts on the list that you might find astonishing:
-Heart
-Lungs
-EYES...
YOUR EYES!?!? And they even have different degrees of enhancement... You could go for the full eye replacement; which has the potential for all sorts of stuff: different "modes" of vision where you could see in night vision, infra red and heat vision. Crazy amounts of digital zoom etc.
Or if you're feeling tight on the budget, there's an alternative; enhanced contact lenses. These project extra information onto your eye like a "heads up display" in a jet fighter for example (see picture).
Now imagine for a second you're walking down the street with your robotic contact lenses in, surveying the street in Terminator fashion when an update from facebook pops up into your sight and its a friend request from your new friend in FTVMS 314.
This is a very likely implementation of this technology, in my opinion, as we already use Facebook on the go via our smartphones.
I think the desire for people to bring technology closer and closer is inevitably going to lead to an integration of human and machine in a way that will allow users to access their technology faster than is already possible (the time it takes to reach for your phone in your pocket).
Imagine the time you could save if you were in some way able to communicate with computers with merely your brain signals. Currently, if you want to update your facebook status, you have to access the internet (either by smartphone or computer), log in, type your status, then hit enter, casting it far out into the interwebs.
On the other hand, lets look at the steps that would be needed if you could think all of those steps and a computer could understand your thoughts; it could literally be as easy as thinking this sentence, "I want to update my facebook status as: Man this weather sucks, I wish I was in Fiji, with a mojito." Done.
I appreciate the benefits that technology brings to us day to day, and I'm definitely a fan of pushing technology further to benefit our everyday lives and make it easier to keep in contact with the people in our lives as well as the world around us (aka technology is my slave).
However I do see some of the pitfalls that lie within the discussion of "how much is too much technology?". If we become too reliant on technology we run the risk of having something go seriously wrong and the whole system crashing with some serious, real world results.
I think the development of technology will be carefully controlled and monitored, to avoid any sort of "machine uprising". As humans we're already so paranoid about technology revolting I think that we would avoid at all costs, putting ourselves in a position where our iPod would have the initiative and capability to try and kill us.
In closing, I think people will definitely have varying opinions on the moral issues of merging our bodies with technology to the degrees mentioned, but you can't argue with the benefits it could represent and ultimately the time it would save us.
Thanks for reading.
All rights reserved to all the respective clips used. I do not own any of them and am not responsible for them being hosted on youtube.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Kill or Be Killed: Negative Representations of Males in Video Games
The 21st century, although in its early stages, has given birth to a new era of gaming where players are immersed in story lines saturated with graphic violence, sexual content and offensive language.It is these story lines that we the gamer find ourselves addicted to as they are vehicles for which we can participate in acts which would certainly not be accepted in mainstream society.
We find ourselves sucked into a virtual world governed by its own rules and regulations and as a result leave the digital world having witnessed and/ or accrued labels and stereotypes not befitting to our real selves but rather to the gender groups to which we belong.
The Grand Theft Auto franchise has certainly opened up a big can of worms in the sense that it adheres to everything I have touched on so far but also may be considered in a positive light in that it also gives us things to ponder and critically analyze that we may have not done so previously.
Yes, the female is portrayed negatively, for example as a crack head, as seen by my recent experience when playing Grand Theft Auto IV where I had to fetch a female characters coke back from an abandoned hospital. But it is the decisions I made and the actions I had to take in this mission which made be think that females weren't the only ones being portrayed in a negative light in the virtual world in general.
Males to, whether some like to admit it or not, are equally if not on a larger scale portrayed negatively as well.Hell, the male character I was playing had to kill about 30 people and outrun a 3 star wanted rating to even complete the mission while also having to steal numerous cars violently throwing its occupants from them to acquire them.
If that doesn't constitute a negative representation of a male then I don't know what does. What this blog has tried to make readers understand is that although it is the negative representation of females that we largely pay closer attention to, the negative representations of males do deserve as much attention and analysis than ever because if we the gamer go on ignoring it any longer it could spiral out of control to depths which it may not recover.
BY KYLE REDPATH
DATE: 02/08/2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Gender barriers in video games - A core issue
 |
| Image source: Author screen capture |
Whether your personal preference is for the social, easy to learn gameplay of Farmville or the complex strategy-based warfare of Starcraft, if you're female and you're engaging with the technology, then more power to you.
In reality, the casual-core split does matter. Problems arise when females encounter barriers that stop them from playing certain video games.
At a workshop in 2005, game designer Sheri Graner Ray was shocked to discover that the group of female game developers she was speaking to had never played the five games that she had selected to discuss. All five games were critically acclaimed best sellers. All five featured male avatars and were played mostly by males.
Once the women played the games, they thoroughly enjoyed them. It wasn't the gameplay that had prevented them from enjoying Warcraft (a real-time strategy game) or Halo (a first-person shooter). There were other gender-related barriers that had prevented them from playing the games.
Female gamers may now be more common, but gender inequality prevents them from having equal access to core games. If players encounter a gender issue (hypersexualised characters, lack of female characters, hostile cross-gender play) that makes them uncomfortable playing a game, they may be prevented from experiencing gameplay that they would otherwise enjoy.
Moreover, if this inequality prevents females from gaining the skills required to use the digital technologies that are becoming increasingly important for work and play, the stakes are much higher.
Elena Bertozzi's recommendations make an excellent starting point for changing gender inequality (see the week 3 tutorial reading). Whether we see her suggestions incorporated into male dominated core titles is another matter entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)