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.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Tales from the Grocery Store Part 2
If it's Friday, it must be grocery night!
Sure enough, last night Kyle and I found ourselves at the grocery store, following our usual routine through the produce area, then over to the deli and meat counters and then up and down the aisles. It's not that we buy stuff from every section of the store, it just seems easier to do it this way. Something approaching grocery store etiquette perhaps?
We arrive in the chip and pop aisle and come upon Kyle's favourite chips, Kettle brand. Specifically, their hickory, honey barbeque flavour.
Another man is already standing in front of the chips and Kyle stops. I say to Kyle, as I continue to walk down the aisle, "You've already had chips this week - you got them when we were here on Monday."
I stop walking when I realize that Kyle isn't moving. I turn around and say, "C'mon Kyle, let's go. You don't need the chips." The other man turns to me and says, "Ah, c'mon. Let the guy have some chips." Kyle takes a step back from the shelves and starts to smile. I start to crack up! Kyle turns to the guy and then looks at me and suggests that I listen to this stranger.
The man goes to leave, he walks by me - I'm still laughing - he then turns and apologizes for being inappropriate. I turned to him and said, "No, it was funny!" Kyle and I continue to stroll the aisles. Every time the scene popped into our heads we'd start laughing.
In the end, Kyle got his chips. However, feeling that the occasion required something special, he decided to try a new variety - the buffalo bleu, krinkle cut!
Sure enough, last night Kyle and I found ourselves at the grocery store, following our usual routine through the produce area, then over to the deli and meat counters and then up and down the aisles. It's not that we buy stuff from every section of the store, it just seems easier to do it this way. Something approaching grocery store etiquette perhaps?
We arrive in the chip and pop aisle and come upon Kyle's favourite chips, Kettle brand. Specifically, their hickory, honey barbeque flavour.
Another man is already standing in front of the chips and Kyle stops. I say to Kyle, as I continue to walk down the aisle, "You've already had chips this week - you got them when we were here on Monday."
I stop walking when I realize that Kyle isn't moving. I turn around and say, "C'mon Kyle, let's go. You don't need the chips." The other man turns to me and says, "Ah, c'mon. Let the guy have some chips." Kyle takes a step back from the shelves and starts to smile. I start to crack up! Kyle turns to the guy and then looks at me and suggests that I listen to this stranger.
The man goes to leave, he walks by me - I'm still laughing - he then turns and apologizes for being inappropriate. I turned to him and said, "No, it was funny!" Kyle and I continue to stroll the aisles. Every time the scene popped into our heads we'd start laughing.
In the end, Kyle got his chips. However, feeling that the occasion required something special, he decided to try a new variety - the buffalo bleu, krinkle cut!
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday is Golden Beet day!
We get to the check-out and the cashier - a disinterested young man - proceeds to scan and pack our groceries.
The cashier picks up the bunch of beets I had placed on the conveyor and locates the tag. On one side of the tag is a barcode, he tries to scan that but nothing happens. He turns the tag over and discovers the PLU # and enters the number into the computer and receives an error message.
He then looks at me, still holding the bunch of beets and asks, "Do you know how much these are?" I replied, "No, but they are golden beets," thinking he would look them up on the price rolodex sitting on top of his cash drawer.
The young man pauses, looks at the beets and says, "ehhh," then he drops the beets into the bag and proceeds with the rest of my order!
Saturday, March 13, 2010
You say "tomato," I say "tomahto"
So, the other day I had a hankerin' for a good ol' toasted BLT.
I looked at the tomatoes sitting on the platter on my kitchen counter and could taste the bacon! Looking at the tomato there on the plate, knowing its fate, I decided to immortalize it in a painting first! The sandwich was better for it!
I looked at the tomatoes sitting on the platter on my kitchen counter and could taste the bacon! Looking at the tomato there on the plate, knowing its fate, I decided to immortalize it in a painting first! The sandwich was better for it!
Friday, February 26, 2010
This blogger is MIA
It's ironic really ... I have a blog entitled "The everyday" and I can barely get a posting up once a month. It's not that I haven't observed something funny, ridiculous or ordinarily human. It's probably because I have.
For instance, walking down Bedford to Bloor St the other morning, on my way to work. A condo building is being wedged onto the north-east corner. A sign man is on Bedford holding a "stop" sign. A forklift is moving palettes of plywood from a truck parked on the west side of Bedford, across to the building site.
The cars turning north on Bedford from Bloor are stopped. They are also honking their horns. Can't they see the guy with the "stop" sign and the forklift in the middle of the street?
Another example, on Feb. 6 I watched Sarah Palin's keynote speech at the National Tea Party convention. (What's with the sexy hair?) Coincidentally, or not, I happened to be reading Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem." I thought Palin's speech, like all of her speeches, was shrill and vacant of any sense or meaning. I wonder how can it be that this woman is so popular? Maybe it's the hair?
A day or so later, as I was reading Arendt, I came across something rather revealing in her observations about Eichmann. Arendt was describing the details of a police examination transcript (see pg 48-9, 1964 ed.). In the transcript, Eichmann tries to explain something to the presiding judge and uses "stock phrases or slogans" and the judge has difficulty understanding Eichmann's meaning. Finally, Eichmann apologizes, saying, "Officialese [Amtssprache] is my only language."
Arendt continues, "But the point here is that officialese became his language because he was genuinely incapable of uttering a single sentence that was not a cliché." She later added that "... his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think ..."
I realized when I read these words that they provided a fairly accurate description of what I experience whenever I listen to Palin speak.
Before continuing let me say that I am not calling Sarah Palin a Nazi, nor am I trying to draw comparisons to the political scene in the United States today with that of WWII Germany.
My point is about clichés and the inability to think. Clearly, Sarah Palin suffers from both, but what I'm curious about is, why we are so many eager to believe in these clichés? In fact, we all at some point fall prey to clichés - her's just seem to me to be so obvious that I ask in disbelief, "can't they see she's bullshitting?"
Is it a matter of convenience? The banter issuing forth sounds like what we ourselves believe, therefore we just agree? Is this easier or more more convenient than thinking for ourselves?
For instance, walking down Bedford to Bloor St the other morning, on my way to work. A condo building is being wedged onto the north-east corner. A sign man is on Bedford holding a "stop" sign. A forklift is moving palettes of plywood from a truck parked on the west side of Bedford, across to the building site.
The cars turning north on Bedford from Bloor are stopped. They are also honking their horns. Can't they see the guy with the "stop" sign and the forklift in the middle of the street?
Another example, on Feb. 6 I watched Sarah Palin's keynote speech at the National Tea Party convention. (What's with the sexy hair?) Coincidentally, or not, I happened to be reading Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem." I thought Palin's speech, like all of her speeches, was shrill and vacant of any sense or meaning. I wonder how can it be that this woman is so popular? Maybe it's the hair?
A day or so later, as I was reading Arendt, I came across something rather revealing in her observations about Eichmann. Arendt was describing the details of a police examination transcript (see pg 48-9, 1964 ed.). In the transcript, Eichmann tries to explain something to the presiding judge and uses "stock phrases or slogans" and the judge has difficulty understanding Eichmann's meaning. Finally, Eichmann apologizes, saying, "Officialese [Amtssprache] is my only language."
Arendt continues, "But the point here is that officialese became his language because he was genuinely incapable of uttering a single sentence that was not a cliché." She later added that "... his inability to speak was closely connected with an inability to think ..."
I realized when I read these words that they provided a fairly accurate description of what I experience whenever I listen to Palin speak.
Before continuing let me say that I am not calling Sarah Palin a Nazi, nor am I trying to draw comparisons to the political scene in the United States today with that of WWII Germany.
My point is about clichés and the inability to think. Clearly, Sarah Palin suffers from both, but what I'm curious about is, why we are so many eager to believe in these clichés? In fact, we all at some point fall prey to clichés - her's just seem to me to be so obvious that I ask in disbelief, "can't they see she's bullshitting?"
Is it a matter of convenience? The banter issuing forth sounds like what we ourselves believe, therefore we just agree? Is this easier or more more convenient than thinking for ourselves?
Monday, January 18, 2010
Blue Monday
On the morning news it was reported that today is the most depressing day of the year. In fact, it has it's own name ... Blue Monday. (I wonder if they'll make this a stat holiday?)
The question then becomes, "Really, is that true?"
The anchorwoman cited the following reasons: failed new year's resolutions; credit card statements; and (at least in this country) the weather.
On one hand, I would agree with the above. On the other hand, I wonder if the mere suggestion that today is the most depressing day is enough to make us depressed? In other words, would we be as "blue" today, if we didn't know today was Blue Monday?
So, I decide to do a quick internet search for "Blue Monday" and what do I find? A Wikipedia entry for "Blue Monday."
Apparently, according to the Wikipedia entry anyway, the name was chosen as a publicity stunt for SkyTravel. In fact, they even invented an equation for it!!!
We are so easily persuaded. Time for another martini.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
End of '09
As usual I've been delinquent with my posts! However, this time I have a darned good excuse ... I was in Costa Rica for the past month.
Yes, they have computers and the internet in Costa Rica ... but this trip was a time to unplug. No tv, no phone, no computer ... it's amazing what you can see when you're not distracted by so much noise!
I posted some pictures here.
Well, another year is about to end and another to begin. Let's hope 2010 is a good one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)