User:Mathijs van Oosterhoudt/projectprop2

Camera Induco

Introduction

'To behold, use or perceive any extension of ourselves in technological forms is necessarily to embrace it. By continuously embracing technologies, we relate ourselves to them as servo-mechanisms.' - Marshall Mcluhan

'We become what we behold. We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.' - John M. Culkin

A tool is a specific application of technology, created to solve problems. Technology constantly influences how we view the world around us, and by logical consequence so does the tool, that which allows us to (in an ideal world) apply said technology directly for our own reasons, rather than indirectly influencing us (for other people's reasons). We hold the tool, we use the tool, we determine how it is used, etcetera.

However, just Like with technology, it becomes important to question who controls the creation of tools, as often the user of the tool is not the same as the creator, And if so, the creation of tools still requires tools and is influenced by his or her's view and understanding on technology (i.e. if one would make a measuring device, it would most likely be modeled after an already existing one, rather than trying to invent one's own technique of measuring.)). Small changes in tools influence us in ways unimaginable, and while problem-solving through the creation of tools might sound ideal, one also has to understand that tools might not only be created to solve our problems, but perhaps largely their (The creators, the shapers of tools) problems.

Tools solve problems, but tools also restrain. Crudely put: By doing one thing, it might not be doing the other thing. The specifics of the tool is one of many decisions, many restraints. We pick our tools (Perhaps unconsciously) on which restraints we prefer or think we require. These restraints shape the outcome of the work we as users attempt to create with the tool, but also influences the way we perceive the tool (And through that, technology and society). However, creators (of tools) don't actively shape tools to what they want them to do to the user in mind, but rather by what they think they want them to do for the user (Langdon, Technology as Forms of Life).

Technology is not something that influences us solely on its own, but rather its use, both directly as well its use in context (socially and culturally) is what influences us (McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man). How a tool is shaped or created greatly influences its possible use, to the point where it becomes important that users are able to shape the tool as is required for their needs. This appropriation might seem quite commonplace with the blooming maker culture nowadays, but do realize that appropriation of technology comes with the understanding of technology. I understand a book, I understand its shape, hence my ability to use it to level out that one odd leg on my table. Appropriating more complex technology however becomes harder as it evolves with time. Where one might understand a pinhole camera (Inherently just a black box with a hole on the front), one can nowadays not easily understand the mechanics of a digital camera without in-depth studies. This prevents us from appropriation, therefor giving power to its creator - those who control the means of production.

A last question to ponder is that of the use of the tool versus that which it creates. The user often sees tools as a means of getting his or her result, but whilst both the result and the journey matter, to what degree is the actual usage of the tool of influence rather than its end result (or possibilities)? Where a painting from Pollock references the act of painting itself, the end goal of any tool in some way, shape or form will reference the tool (And thereby technology) itself. How does the tool relate to the now common phrase The Medium is the Message?

My goal is to create a tool which is designed with the goal of making visible the ways in which it is shaping its user.

Relation to previous practice

These themes are identical to that of my essay on the button; my media object for this year. It talks about how we construct the button to what we want it to do, whilst afterwards that technology shapes us in ways we could not have imagined before, even through the most minute changes (In both the button itself as well as it's marketing). The goal is bringing these design choices and their effects to light and make it possible to use these effects to our advantage, rather than as an exploitation as is often the case (See the chapter on Obfuscation in 'The Retrospective of the Button').

Project wise it relates to such projects as the GeoCam, a phone app which instead of taking new photographs, searches for relevant photographs to your location and camera orientation, allowing the recycle of existing imagery without need for new ones. It reflects on what we require from our camera and what we expect it to do, whilst questioning the need of the users requirements (And the abundendment of imagary).

Another, The Local Web app relates in that it makes clear how we've started to think differently as influenced by every day technology, trying to show how we've taken the wideness of the web for granted. By only being able to access websites that are stored in your local vicinity, one is confronted with the inability to access the 'world wide' part of the web. At the same time, it displays the physicality of the internet which is often obfuscated and hidden behind the 'magical' browser. How data is stored and more importantly where impact the contents of a website through various ways, for example, politically (The law of the hosting country applies). By forcing a person to (in theory) walk to Russia to access a website it becomes unavoidably visible that one enters their legal zone.

Relation to a larger context

The project takes a clear stance in favor of the Social shaping of technology concept, criticizing the idea of technology determinism as well as to some degree the social construction of technology. Whilst we also influence how technology influences us in return by how we use technology, the restraints put on how we have access to it (Through the means of tools and machines) is controlled by those who control the means of production, such restraints inherently influence our possible uses of said technology and thereby, logically, our influence on it's course.

It relates to the work of artists like Aram Bartholl, who in a project like Map places a google maps marker in what Google Maps defines the center of the city, thereby not only showing the influence of technology of us by transplacing the icon, but also bringing to question who they are to decide what is the center of a city and who actually has control here.

In a more practical way it relates to projects like Matt Richardson's The Descriptive Camera, a camera which doesn't take pictures but prints a small piece of paper describing what was seen through the viewfinder, playing with the perception of the user (Possibly expecting an actual camera) and making people a very visible part of the mechanism (The descriptions are written through the use of Amazon's mechanical turk).

On the theoretical side it relates most to earlier referenced works (Marshall McLuhan - Understanding Media and Langdon Winner, Philosophy of Technology) as well as that of John Tagg, The Burden of Representation (In how it questions who has control and how the effects of that on the photograph in turn influences us).

Thesis intention

For now I am focusing on one tool in specific: The camera.

By thoroughly examining the different ways of how cameras have evolved and have been altered and how they have influenced us throughout the years, both now and how we look back at the past (Through photographs) and how the social structures have influenced that development, I hope to directly be able to apply such changes and information in creating my own project. It will delve into the social and cultural constructions that influenced the shaping of the camera to what it is today and how that in turn effects us.

By focusing on the camera instead of the tool in general I want to be able to show more concretely this influence with examples, whilst making a text that is still applicable to the use and creation of tools in general rather than solely the camera, but also offer something more directed.

Practical steps

Researching the history of how the evolution of the camera (And in relation other tools) has shaped us, our view of the world and the technology of the camera will allow me to use these notions as a starting point for both my project and the final thesis.

By exaggerating, changing or adapting these same techniques as have influenced us in the past, I hope to create new cameras that can bring this to light. By continuously reiterating and using the camera I hope to gain an understanding of how my own camera influences the user, building further upon it and continuously refining it or trying new cameras.

This will physically manifest itself in a single or a set of cameras (or/and possible workshops), in a to be determined way of presentation, which will hopefully allow user interaction / participation to let the visitor be the operator.

References

Neil Postman - Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology

Donald A. MacKenzie, Judy Wajcman - The Social Shaping of Technology

John Tagg - The Burden of Representation

Marshal McLuhan - Understanding Media

Langdon Winner - Readings in the Philosophy of Technology

Aram Bartholl - Map

Matt Richardson - The Descriptive Camera