Interactive telecommunications force a re-evaluation of what we have learned from television

Lovejoy talks about the juxtaposition of cyberspace, technology and humans, and how the formal has changed the way we interact. This reflections summarizes my notion of individualism that emerges from the creation of cyberspace, critically analyzing how the disappearance between private and public boundaries disrupts culture, social structure to create a blend of identity that is transcends categorization.

Erosion of social structure and culture

The emergence of cyberspace in the year 1982 by author William Gibson, which he coined in a fictional book and now become reality. Much so, the cyberspace, which largely consist of online networks and the internet had altered its position from being an escape from reality in the early 2000s, to reality being an escape from cyberspace in our current modern era. We were fascinated with what the internet had to offer, its possibilities were never-ending and our curiosity led us deeper into the world of cyberspace that we had unknowingly caged ourselves in a space we do not fully comprehend. Yet, we are so comfortable in this virtual space that we are blinded by its dangers; or choose to turn a blind eye on it.

The spying; the breaking down of barriers between private and public space for an individual was identified by Lovejoy as she denounces the cyberspace for this erosion. We tune in to our social domains and internet so often that we become ‘social’ by being ‘anti-social’, which is so ironic as we lose our sense of genuine, face to face communication and we rely and depend on the internet to hold our social interactions instead. We are unknowingly data-mined on a daily basis through our web browsers (cookies and service providers), spied on with our webcams and even voiced recorded and analyzed through machine learning to ‘personalize’ our user experience on Google, to receive advertisements on products we seem to voice out through our computers. Imagine having google ‘read our thoughts’, that is how the internet space is becoming.

We break the traditional perspective of hierarchy, as we are able to communicate to just about anyone with different statuses, different backgrounds and social standings.To further emphasize on this change, our culture has been eroded in a matter of years due to globalization and cyberspace interactions. Some cultures that took centuries to create are often neglected as they become obsolete in the cyberspace, as the internet becomes a borderless space that embraces every individual. People on the internet do not bond their traditional cultures per se, instead the main stream media has repudiated the idea of culture by promoting pop culture. A new, widely accepted culture that becomes a norm for everyone, regardless of nationality and race. The idea of promoting self was created by pop culture as a way to liberate ourselves from the stresses of having to conform to society.

Cyberspace as a venue for validation

We have created a persona, an impression that we wish to convey, a front made to convince others that this is actually the real us. Many seek validation online, through platforms such as Youtube and Instagram, as they constantly monitor their likes and shares on these social media platforms to validate their self-worth. It has become such a big issue that Instagram change its policies recently to remove the number of likes being displayed.

Social Media Influencers often provide the opportunity for people to live vicariously, to experience the crazy experiences such as travelling and living in luxury. ‘Followers’ tend to support these influencers in their lifestyles by ‘donating’ to them, and feel the satisfaction of seeing their influencers have the opportunity to live a lifestyle ‘funded’ by them. Unbeknownst to many living in such manner, we are guilty of doing so as we indulge in hours of drama on netflix, youtube surfing sports cars and house tours of mansions, amongst many other forms of entertainment. The availability of entertainment may cause some to stop short of living their own experiences as they are able to do so through others.

Individualism

We do see the social commentary on proprietary models that emerged from the 20th century through the form of WikipediaArt. WikipediaArt is a performance artwork that critically analyses the nature of art, knowledge and Wikipedia, a collaborative project by Nathaniel Stern and Scott Kildall.

Wikipedia Art

Although I appreciate and support the challenge against ownership and champion the idea of an open source thinking, it provokes me to think about individualism that arises from participation of WikiArt. Specifically, the fact that individuals are able to contribute to an artwork in an open source setting such as Wikipedia, and subsequently seeing it being taken down just 15 hours after its creation confirms that a sort of proprietary model still governs the open source platform. The backlash by the online community made me question: was the commotion really about criticizing ownership, or because expression by individuals were subdued? This expression makes me ponder about the people’s perception of contribution and ability to impact the cyberspace which they are actually concerned with, rather than simply denouncing Wikipedia’s ethics. The problem of individualism arises again as I believe people may be genuinely obsessed with their ability to create and impact on the cyberspace. The open source space of peer to peer interaction may be a mirage of peer to peer validation.

Conclusion

We live in an era where it is difficult to identify the long term benefits and consequences of engaging in the cyberspace. The disconnect from reality by communicating through the cyberspace and erosion of culture leads us to validate and identify ourselves in ways that we may not notice, and thus communicates our growth of individualism as we are reorganized through globalization. We will continue to find ways to belong and exist on the cyberspace as we inculcate in the young the need for technology.

Sources:

https://wikipediaart.org/

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2005). Open Source . In Open Source (p. 25).

 

FUTURE WORLD

is an interactive space consisting of numerous exhibitions where visitors can interact and immerse themselves in a ‘magical’ environment. High-tech interactive artworks in Future World are created in collaboration with teamLab, a renowned interdisciplinary art collective. It is here where we see a fusion and removal of boundaries between art and science. How appropriate it is to be held at the Art Science Museum!

INTERACTION.

It is defined as a reciprocal action or influence, involving two or more objections or persons.

As we previously learnt, interaction come can in many forms, namely:

Man-man interaction

Man-machine interaction

Machine-machine interaction

In future world, we are able to see all of these types of interaction happening. Man-man interaction is displayed through the observation and reaction to other people’s input onto the interactive screens, which I will discuss further. Man-machine interaction occurs when the visitors are required to sketch a drawing, move closer to the installation or follow an instruction to receive a reaction from the machine, in this case the installations. Machine-machine interaction is displayed when we move an object, for example in the City In a Garden – Giant Connecting Block Town, when a block is moved to a different location, the map recalibrates and reflects the current location of the block in the virtual map.

Real time change in location of objects, synchronized with the physical location of representation objects placed.

An interactive artwork should invite visitors/participants to think, take a step back and observe. It creates a personalized experience and opinion towards that particular artwork. We deviate from the typical need to critique and evaluate each artwork based on how ‘good’ it is, how it is able to accurately depict or evoke a certain emotion or get that certain reaction from its audience. Instead, we as the audience break down and digest the artwork empirically.

Certain level of understanding is needed before a viewer chooses to interact with the object. We as humans have the tendency to fear what we do not know and reject it. As much as we tend to give the audience the freedom to interact, we insert controls to guide the viewer, which does so much for us. These controls can help preserve our artwork, tailor user experience (albeit to a small degree), and most importantly ensure that the interaction becomes a positive experience. These ‘controls’ usually come in the form of instructions, or guides and hints that lead us to a certain action(that is usually unrestricted) that kick starts the entire experiential process. Without these controls, there will be little to no understanding from the viewer and thus restrict or compromise the experience. Let me provide you a few examples.

*170314_Sliding through the Fruit Field_nontelop

As seen in the Sliding through the Fruit Field installation, there is a set of staircase that leads people up the top of the slide, where they can slide down and observe the interaction beneath them. They ‘become a beam of life-giving sunlight, and as they glide down the slope, their energy is transferred to the fruit field, causing flowers and fruit to blossom and grow’. Even though the interactivity is the most important aspect of this installation, without the control(staircase), users may not be aware on how they should properly interact with the Fruit Field installation. Users may end up trying to climb up the slide via the interactive screen, which increases the chance for injuries etc, or end up not interacting with it at all because they don’t know how to.

At another installation, called the Sketch Aquarium, viewers see a set of tables and chairs, with a giant screen that displays the Aquarium. There is a set of instructions like this:

These set of instructions and description helps contextualize the artwork, and in my opinion, although done as an afterthought(so I would assume), it is a vital asset of the artwork.

As previously mentioned, the control acts as a guide and thereafter, the freedom of what to draw, where to touch etc. belongs to the participants.

I drew a gentlemen jellyfish and scanned it, adding it to the collection of fishes appearing in the Sketch Aquarium.

Video of my jellyfish

It was also natural for viewers to read and observe other viewers’ creations as well. One viewer had written on his fish ‘Free HK’, which reminded me that the content scanned and uploaded were unfiltered. This allowed the viewer to actively voice his opinion on the Aquarium, as part of the ‘freedom’ he was entitled in this interactivity. Could this be then considered a limitation of the artwork? After all, any viewer could exploit the use of the Aquarium.

SPACE – Crystal Universe

SPACE – Crystal Universe was strategically placed as the last artwork before the viewers finish up their tour of the FUTURE WORLD exhibition. The artwork consists of over 170,000 LED lights and a panel to walk through before reaching an open space that viewers can capture the entirety of SPACE. I believe that mirrors were placed on the sides, top and bottom of the lights to multiply the illusion of the countless LED lights that resembled stars. The concept of space and the unknown will forever be intriguing. The beauty of the galaxy and its vastness is reflected in pop culture, where movies are based in Outer Space. Although I did not linger in the art space, the interaction encouraged me to step back and think about the interactivity that it involved – the swiping on our mobile devices to change the light effects on the installation. The physical element of simply touching the artwork is removed, since we send our response through the internet. Will that, then, change the experience of the users when the element of touch, thus interactivity, is changed? The medium, in which we are able to interact, therefore affects greatly how we receive the experience.