Why does Steven our lecturer hate Wikipedia? Because it distorts reality. This concept of distorted, or contrived realities was the main theme of this weeks lecture. A key idea of this theme was the contention that reality is just a construct. Facts can be constructed, and accepted as truth. For example, Wikipedia is a case in point of reality or facts being tampered with - to create a believable yet ultimately untrue piece of information. Anyone can edit Wikipedia's articles, and the Wikipedia community is the only real vanguard of truth, it is given the task of fixing others errors, whether incidental or not. The lecture also covered the ideas of conspiracy theories as being given credence when information concerning these theories is proven as truth.
Virtual Reality was another form of reality discussed. Not just in the Virtual Reality apparatus that started in the 1980's, but also computer games - where an alternate reality is produced on the computer screen. But the real key to this reality existing and performing is you - the user of this reality.
This silopsistic philosophy was one touched on in our reading for this week. Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, written by Jose Luis Borges, is a fictional story about the discovery of an imagined world called Tlon, where psychology is the only practiced discipline. A group of intellectuals have conspired to create a a series of books about this world, even going so far as to create an entry in a real encyclopedia about one of Tlon's countries: Uqbar. Eventually, knowledge of these secretive books about Tlon is made common, and subsequently this knowledge is taught in schools to the point where the real world is being overtaken by it.
The information age we live in reflects the message of this short story pretty well. The internet has allowed people to get information on pretty much any subject imaginable. Yet nobody regulates what information is made available - anyone can claim to be an authoritative source. Sites like Wikipedia have had people take advantage of them because they know the articles of information they post could be potentially false.
This week our task was to discuss Walter Benjamin's theories in relation to contemporary digital media. Digital media has enabled artists to create art that can be distributed and copied perfectly - mediums such as film, CGI, Photoshop etc. It's easier now than it ever was to let the masses see your work. Youtube, for instance, allows anyone to create a piece of "art" which can be viewed by people all over the world. In Benjamin's terms, an artwork's aura is somewhat lost by mass reproduction. Does this mean Youtube videos have no "aura"? It is hard to say really, but according to Benjamin arts' cult value is entrenched by the audiences appreciation for its creativeness, its everlasting value and the mystique attached to it. In this way, you could see art created by average people to retain little relevance, unless it has attached to it a higher meaning or significance.
For instance, if one was to edit an original piece of art or any type of image using a computer program like Photoshop, it would no doubt lose its intrinsic value. The creator could try and give it new meaning and life to the edited image, but they could hardly lay claim to its authenticity or aura. Which leads to the question - do digital things even have an aura? In Benjamin's terms artistic works with unique existences had an aura due to their complexity and meanings only understood by the creator. The inquisitiveness of the observer and their appreciation of its mystique gave the art its aura. In this sense digital media could have a certain type of aura, though it would be better suited to the definition of art if its context and meanings remained clouded to the observer yet explicit to the creator. In modern times, this seems unlikely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment