User:Eleanorg/annotation-nichols: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:53, 26 October 2011

The Work of Art in the Age of Cybernetic Systems

Annotation

Written in 1998, Bill Nichols' essay revisits Walter Benjamin's (1969) 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction', applying its insights to the equivalent of the day: that of computing and cybernetics. The essay is organised into four sections.

In the first section, Nichols reviews Benjamin's observation that new aesthetic techniques (for Benjamin, mechanical reproduction; for Nichols, cybernetics) can act as a 'shock' which could potentially destabilise the current social order - though that this "transformative potential" is prone to being appropriated & neutralised by those in power. Nichols' position echoes Situationist critiques of the rapid recuperation of apparently radical new artistic forms, which can end up being merely "new variants of spectacular participation" (Vaneigem 2006 p.128) which in fact reinforce passivity.

In the second section, Nichols continues to explore the ways in which the potential of new technology to change social relations is often unrealized, or thwarted. He notes that while cybernetics invokes a more dialogical mode of relating than film, appearing to offer an alternative to the dominating/objectifying gaze (as discussed by Mulvey (1975) among others), domination can also occur through dialogue when the aim of that dialogue is to command and control. Here a perhaps questionable distinction is introduced between the effects of cinema and those of cybernetics: cinema is a copy of reality where cybernetics is a simulation; a gaze looks, a computer interface controls. The ways in which cinema simulates, and the gaze exceeds 'looking' to control and regulate, are not acknowledged.

In the third section, Nichols emphasises further the distinctions he has drawn between film & cybernetics. Rather than merely reproducing reality, cybernetic simulations of real life question what we mean by 'reality' at all. Nichols nods again to the Situationist observation that spectacles and simluations can be terribly real: wars fought through game-like interfaces still kill people; test-tube babies are born. Thus, cybernetic ideas become embodied in the physical world, troubling the distinction between idea and object.

In the final section, Nichols summarizes by rejecting a technologically deterministic approach to predicting where cybernetics will take us. He states simply that its use and impliations will be decided socially, and that it is up to human culture to either capitalize on the more dialogical/communal possibilities of computer networks, or allow them to be recuperated by capitalist individualism.

Benjamin, W. (1969) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction in 'Illuminations' by Harry Zohn, trans. (New York: Schocken Books).
Mulvey,L. (1975) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema in Screen, vol. 16, 3 (Autumn) 6-18.
Vaneigem, R. (2006) The Revolution of Everyday Life (London: Rebel Press).

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 In the first section, Nichols reviews Benjamin's observation that new aesthetic techniques (for Benjamin, mechanical reproduction; for Nichols, cybernetics) can act as a 'shock' which could potentially destabilise the current social order - though that this "transformative potential" is prone to being appropriated & neutralised by those in power. Nichols' position echoes Situationist critiques of the rapid recuperation of apparently radical new artistic forms, which can end up being merely "new variants of spectacular participation" (Vaneigem 2006 p.128) which in fact reinforce passivity.
-In the second section, Nichols continues to explore the ways in which the potential of new technology to change social relations is often unrealized, or thwarted. He notes that while cybernetics invokes a more dialogical mode of relating than film, appearing to offer an alternative to the dominating/objectifying gaze (as discussed by Mulvey () among others), domination can also occur through dialogue when the aim of that dialogue is to command and control. Here a perhaps questionable distinction is introduced between the effects of cinema and those of cybernetics: cinema is a copy of reality where cybernetics is a simulation; a gaze looks, a computer interface controls. The ways in which cinema simulates, and the gaze exceeds 'looking' to control and regulate, are not acknowledged.
+In the second section, Nichols continues to explore the ways in which the potential of new technology to change social relations is often unrealized, or thwarted. He notes that while cybernetics invokes a more dialogical mode of relating than film, appearing to offer an alternative to the dominating/objectifying gaze (as discussed by Mulvey (1975) among others), domination can also occur through dialogue when the aim of that dialogue is to command and control. Here a perhaps questionable distinction is introduced between the effects of cinema and those of cybernetics: cinema is a copy of reality where cybernetics is a simulation; a gaze looks, a computer interface controls. The ways in which cinema simulates, and the gaze exceeds 'looking' to control and regulate, are not acknowledged.
 In the third section, Nichols emphasises further the distinctions he has drawn between film & cybernetics. Rather than merely reproducing reality, cybernetic simulations of real life question what we mean by 'reality' at all. Nichols nods again to the Situationist observation that spectacles and simluations can be terribly real: wars fought through game-like interfaces still kill people; test-tube babies are born. Thus, cybernetic ideas become embodied in the physical world, troubling the distinction between idea and object.