For some reason, today I was thinking of Bill Buxton's DGPis40 talk, "40 Years: Almost Enough Time to Make a Difference."
In his talk Buxton delivered some scathing criticisms about the state of university research. The thrust of his critique was that university research is too close to corporate influence and thus in danger of loosing its creative edge.
He also touched on another topic, the one I was mulling over today. That is, he pointed out that technology rarely, if ever, undergoes a similar critical process that the various disciplines of art face. (You can watch his talk here.)
I think Buxton makes an interesting point. He suggests we deserve what we get if we don't attempt to make serious informed criticism of the things we make. Buxton mentions the "One Laptop Per Child" project, referring to it as the "most socially irresponsible" project that he's ever seen in his life. Buxton continues, he notes that the cost per child for this laptop is almost equal to the cost of providing water for a village and then asks, "Why isn't this part of the discourse?"
Good question.
However, Buxton is missing the crucial question. Throughout his talk Buxton's criticism is mostly directed at the quality of design and the neglect to ask what happens when a new device is introduced into the culture. He says, that no matter what, a new device, even a paper clip, will change the way things are done. Thus, his comparison to the art world is but half done.
Buxton essentially covers the 'aesthetics' of technology and it's social implications, but he never asks the quintessential question that art always faces. "What is art?"
The solution to Buxton's problem of why technology get's off scott-free lies in the question, "What is technology?" Investigating this question, not as easy a task as one might assume, would lead to the understanding of why intelligent discourse around technology is lacking.
There is a philosophical theory that suggests the objects we call "technology" are merely a manifestation of our thinking, i.e., that technology is a kind of thinking, or a mind-set and the the objects we make simply reflect our state-of-mind.
Therefore, to offer real critical analysis of technology as Buxton suggests, we would need to examine what we call 'thinking' and what we call 'mind.' Which probably explains why technology does not undergo the same critical analysis as art.
