Tuesday, November 18, 2003
"Human nature hardly alters"--William J. Mitchell
Guys, very interesting views expressed by William J. Mitchell in the book E-topia. How I happen to know this? Well, for our Monday reading assignment in the English 1101 class we had to read pages 71-77 of this book. That's how I know.
Lot of optimist expectations by Mitchell do not appeal my rationale, but one sentence that struck me is "long-established settlement patterns and social arrangements are remarkably resistant to even the powerful pressures for change; mostly they transform slowly, messily, unevenly, and incompletely, and human nature hardly alters at all (71)".
This is an excellent observation. I completely agree with it. From the history I have read, the industrial revolution in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was criticized and opposed, and today the technological evolution and revolution face the similar situations.
But the most important point the first part of this observation makes is the fear among human towards change. We human always have desired wealth, fame, beauty, and all these materialistic things. We, as Americans, valued freedom, equality, privacy, and so on when the nation was created and even today. Only thing that has changed is the extent and the degree of these desires. Still today we want a very comfortable life with awful lot of material wealth after the least possible effort and again awful lot of time for leisure. Our ancestors tried to invent new things for the purpose and brought the industrial revolution and today the technological revolution.
So, our actions are shaped by this greedy nature of ours, which is same since we exist: it was the same for our ancestors and it is same for us, and might be the same for the future generations. So, I completely agree with the claim that ‘human nature hardly alters’ even though several people in the class during the discussion cannot swallow the phrase.
Monday, November 10, 2003
In her essay “Reload: Liveliness, Mobility And the Web”, Tara McPherson was against the credit of ‘liveliness’ being given to the Internet. McPherson says that these two media of communication even though serves the same purposes of entertainment, information, commercialism, and others each have different characteristics. While Internet provides the sense of mobility, the Television provides the sense of ‘liveliness’. With Internet one can be in the 1800’s at one moment, 21st century another, and prehistoric era next. One can be in Washington at a moment, Tokyo another, and somewhere far in the solar system next. These capabilities provided by the Internet gives user the sense of mobility. Also, with Internet one do not have to fear about missing something because he or she can always get an access just by visiting the archives. Internet let one skip the part he or she does not want to see or hear, like horoscopes. On Internet if one has to find out his or her horoscope, just need to go to appropriate website and there click for the respective Zodiac sign. While on television one has to wait for the particular show, and then watch the show at least till the forecast of the respective sign is presented. Thus, a sense of emergency is added. Also, the scan-and-search feature of Internet makes one feel more active than the glance-or-gaze feature of Television. All of these make Internet ‘mobile’.
But this mobility is just virtual like while using the search engine one is just accessing about thirty to forty percent of the whole web. Also, with no fear of missing, the sense of liveliness is gone.
Tara McPherson also discusses the corporate involvement in conducting the wedding of the two media.
But this mobility is just virtual like while using the search engine one is just accessing about thirty to forty percent of the whole web. Also, with no fear of missing, the sense of liveliness is gone.
Tara McPherson also discusses the corporate involvement in conducting the wedding of the two media.
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Hi again!! I know it is another blog in less than 24 hours after 12 days without any. It is like as Hindi saying goes, "upperwaalaa jab bhi detaa, detaa chhappar phaadke" meaning whatever it be comes together and not evenly scattered, be it sorrow or happiness.
Anyway, we read some online reserve on photography originally written in French by (...oh man I forgot the author's name....let's say) French author and discussed about it during yesterday class. Warning!! This blog is pretty much about the reading and the discussion !!
The author seemed very critic of photographs and photography. The best way he explained photography was using a Sanskrit word 'tathata' with 'tat' meaning that like 'the gesture of the child pointing his finger at something and saying: that, there it is, lo! but says nothing else (page 5)". I fully agree with that reference and his point that photographs are like corpse ( i guess that's the word for dead body) which even though relate to the person it used to be, but is not that person.
The author is neither anti-photography nor is he who do not appreciate the photography. He pretty much criticizes the posing, an integral part of photography. With posing the originality is lost, which he better explained through his experience with his mom's photograph. The author says that when he look at his mom's photograph he knows the person photograph is his mom but he do not see his mom in that photograph. This explains how the lose of originality/naturality in posing deprive the presentation of the what and who the person photographed is.
In fact, I can go on about the article... in fact it is the book.... but one thing that surprised me was that the book did not touched the point of whether photography is art or not; the technical aspect of photography and the emotional feature of the photographs are very well presented. Rest? Go find out yourself!
P.S.These views are based on the parts of the book I read. I will add the name of the author and the book later on.
P.S. (11/06/03) Author with Book Name: Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida
Anyway, we read some online reserve on photography originally written in French by (...oh man I forgot the author's name....let's say) French author and discussed about it during yesterday class. Warning!! This blog is pretty much about the reading and the discussion !!
The author seemed very critic of photographs and photography. The best way he explained photography was using a Sanskrit word 'tathata' with 'tat' meaning that like 'the gesture of the child pointing his finger at something and saying: that, there it is, lo! but says nothing else (page 5)". I fully agree with that reference and his point that photographs are like corpse ( i guess that's the word for dead body) which even though relate to the person it used to be, but is not that person.
The author is neither anti-photography nor is he who do not appreciate the photography. He pretty much criticizes the posing, an integral part of photography. With posing the originality is lost, which he better explained through his experience with his mom's photograph. The author says that when he look at his mom's photograph he knows the person photograph is his mom but he do not see his mom in that photograph. This explains how the lose of originality/naturality in posing deprive the presentation of the what and who the person photographed is.
In fact, I can go on about the article... in fact it is the book.... but one thing that surprised me was that the book did not touched the point of whether photography is art or not; the technical aspect of photography and the emotional feature of the photographs are very well presented. Rest? Go find out yourself!
P.S.These views are based on the parts of the book I read. I will add the name of the author and the book later on.
P.S. (11/06/03) Author with Book Name: Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida
