Waking Up Devon~

So, the ever advancing technologies of reading and writing are changing the way communicate, interact, and even think. This is intriguing. We've touched on this subject before, though I can never recall the specifics, on how education has evolved over time. Once upon a time there where manuscripts, very precious, only for those worthy of such sacred knowledge. At this point the teachers of men, where more like the masters of men. The student would never question the knowledge of the master, and only after a lifetime of faithful service, could one hope to one day reach the intellectual level of this master. When printing presses came about, this master/student relationship eased up slightly, now it was more master of the teachers who where in turn masters of their own students. Students are expected (or hoped) to be as educated as their primary teachers at adulthood, but extended education was still reserved for those with the money and good family names. We still have one foot in this system, however with the "digitization" of so much information, students are becoming increasingly empowered to educate themselves. Landow criticizes other authors who fear "the people unsupervised, and he cannot believe that reading without proper guidance-- guidance, that is from those who know, from those in institutions like Oxford--can produce any sort of valid education..." (pg 47) How lowly some must think the human mind is.

Perhaps their is a fear among more arrogant teachers, that one day all their time and money spent in educating themselves will prove useless. That a "punk" kid working fast food, who just happens to have an interest in Shakespeare will be able to "self educate" themselves above and beyond what any college could provide. This reminds me of something Janet said the other day, I probably won't get it right, but "the only difference between a degree and education, is that you have to pay to read the same books".

Anyways, I believe what Landow is going after in the first have of the book is that information, communication, and the way that we think are all intrinsically linked to technology. And together we/it is constantly evolving. It seems naive to deny that who we are is links to the machines we create, whether these machines are books, telephones, computers, or other technologies still to come.

Posted by Devon at 03:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

I made a feeble attempt at writing more of Geryon and his redness. I ended up trying to use the inside/outside approach that made so much sense in seminar, but when I started writing I realized that is not really what I was interested. It was someone elses thesis. Doesn't work for me...

So I turned in a revised paper from last week.

Stesichoros and his monster Geryon inspired Carson, and she created her own story of Geryon as not only a winged red monster, but also an artistic, talented and very introverted boy. Carson brings up a lot of common issues from an original viewpoint, issues of abuse, love, sex, and fitting into the outside world. On page 105, Geryon is reading a book Philosophic Problems, "...I will never know how you see red and you will never know how I see it. But this separation of consciousness is recognized only after a failure of communication, and our first movement is to believe in an undivided being between us..." Carson gives us a glimpse into the inside of one being and how it feels to view the outside world from these shoes.
It is an interesting path one takes to the inside of Geryon. We meet him on the outside, as all encounters are, Geryon is a monster, and everything about him is red. Like a circling arrow we see all the outside things that make up Geryon, and then his skull parts and the inside world of this red monster begins to take shape.
From the outside, this world of inner workings looks complicated, and makes no sense, but once we are inside, we know that it is the outside that complicates. Geryon is one of those unique individuals that rejects this outside world.

Posted by Devon at 12:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

At first I was completely confused about why the book started off as an essay about Stesichoros, I was not sure if the following story of Geryon was actually written by Stesichoros, or if Stesichoros was even a real figure. So I did a wee bit of research to find out if he was indeed born in 650 bc in a city called Himera. This appears true.

Stesichoros and his monster Geryon inspired Carson, and she created her own story of Geryon as not only a winged red monster, but also an artistic, (maybe a little autistic) talented boy. And since this is my blog, I can say, I LOVED IT! Carson brings up a lot of common issues, but from an original viewpoint, issues of abuse, love, sex, and fitting into the world. I really don't know where to start my paper. There are so many lines in this book that really sparked my interest.

On page 105, Geryon is reading a book Philosophic Problems, "...I will never know how you see red and you will never know how I see it. But this separation of consciousness is recognized only after a failure of communication, and our first movement is to believe in an undivided being between us..." I felt this little quote had everything to do with the relationship of Geryon and Herakles, and actually of Geryon and how he sees the world.

Another little part I really like was on pg 79. Geryon is on the aeroplane and smells "a delicious odor of roasting seal"
When he gets his food he "ate every item ravenously seeking the smell he had smelled a few moments ago but it was not there." I don't necessarily know where I’m going with this, but this seems like a metaphor for life to me. Ones senses tell you something is there and we seek endlessly, "ravenously" searching for something, only to be disappointed.

well, thats all I got for now, see you all tuesday...

Posted by Devon at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What is Art?

Posted by Devon at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ahh, finally a text in English!

Internet art was a great relief for me after that last book. For one it is filled with artwork, and despite the fact that internet, or cyberspace artwork is new to me, art is something I understand. I think Greene did a very good job detailing the birth and life so far of art (in its many forms) on the net.

Being an artist myself I have often been faced with the question "what is art, and who decides?” Also where do we draw the line between "art" and "craft"? Just because a person can do something well, does this automatically classify it as art? Many artists these days speak out against the powers that currently be, in forms of creative activism, but when do we go from ordinary activists, to artists, to flat out radical left/right wing zealots. I believe that in simply asking these questions, and getting others to do the same, these "artists" achieve their goals. Part of the beauty of the net as a new canvas, is how accessible it is becoming. Visiting art museums and galleries is not a normal part of most peoples everyday lives, but computers and cyberspace activities are becoming increasingly commonplace all over the world. While I didn't necessarily like, or even understand some of Greene's examples, I still wondered what was this person trying to do? What was going on in their mind? By visiting several internet art sites I got to personally interact with the art, which is just not possible in galleries. Also, perhaps because of how young this media is, many of these artists hold on to a youthful, rebellious flame. (stereotype?) That "cyberpunk" attitude is quite intoxicating. The idea that one individual can bring down governments, and evil corporate giants, with the right clicks on a keyboard is so exhilarating.
And was it just me, or was anyone else a little worried about going to some of these sites by artists known to have created viruses in the name of art...
I thought some of these were really funny! http://0100101110101101.org/

Posted by Devon at 07:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh, where to start...
My brain throbs from reading this book, and I have questioned more than once if maybe I got a mis-printed book...

"Digital Poetics" is completely filled to the brim with these metaphors, and examples that make absolutely no sense to me! Right from the start in the introduction, Glazier has to explain one of his metaphors. Does this not defeat the purpose of having used a metaphor?? Paragraph after paragraph is filled with beautifully chosen words, very poetic, but in mixing this poetic, metaphor filled speech with the technical computer lingo, Glazier has totally lost me. This is all in just the intro and 1st chapter...luckily it did get a little easier, but not much.

Glazier had to have been writing to a very limited audience. He assumes our knowledge of these many authors and poets. So I am stuck with crinkled brow and swimming head thinking "What the Hell??" I get a little annoyed, the author seems arrogant, pompous, or maybe it is me. I have always believed that poetry, as all forms of art are more successful when they evoke some sort of emotion in the reader/viewer/interactor. Many of his examples leave me completely dumbfounded. That’s not saying I don't like them, I think I just see them more as experiments in language, experiments with words, that will eventually lead to more. This book creates chaos in my head, sometimes I feel like I am about to grasp one of his ideas, that something is about to be revealed to me, and then in one word, it is gone. I think this is how much of the art world must have felt when abstract art began emerging.

And would it be too much to ask to give me a warning before jumping into some of these "poetic" examples. I seriously thought my book had miss-prints, several times!

Posted by Devon at 01:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It is the start of the new school year, and there was so much to think about in this book that I really don't know where to start. So I am choosing a quote, of Theodore Rozak on page 71.

"Simulations are a step away from the disorderly reality around us into the tidy fictions of the computer...the universe in which we can create on a computer screen is a small, highly edited simulation of reality. A universe created by a small highly edited simulation of ourselves...We do not bring the full resources of the self to the computer."

When I read this I thought of the first time I entered a chat group. I lied about my age, and my description of my self was more than a little misleading. Of course I was a silly teenage girl at the time, but even now I prefer electronically conversing with others as it allows me the time to edit what comes into my head. If I blurt out something incredibly stupid in face-to-face conversation, there is no way to erase it. Unfortunately it has happened a lot in my lifetime, but in emails, and now blogs, I can write my mind and then go over it to make sure I wrote what I meant.

So I wonder if Rozak is right in saying that "we do not bring the full resources of the self to the computer". All through the book Daniel Downes explores how we as individuals and as society in general react to technology, especially to cyberspace, and the Internet. He questions whether we are evolving into more intellectualized beings, by means of "pure communication", or if being "plugged in" all the time is destroying how we interact with each other face to face. When Rozak says that "we do not bring the full resources of the self to the computer", I think he refers to the "flaws" that we all supposedly have, and are constantly trying to hide from one another. Online one can be the societal perfect; it is all an act if I so choose. On the other hand, if my true self is the one I imagine in my head, the mind that is trapped inside this flesh, than perhaps online is the only way we can reveal the full resources of the self, (for good or bad).

That is just one of my thoughts on this book. I could rant on for pages...

Posted by Devon at 01:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)