What's dead?

Why the Digital Computer is Dead

In this article Chris Chesner shares his thoughts on why he believes the digital computer is a misnomer. Chesner goes in to explaining the definition of computation, “The suffix ‘-puter’ is related to the Latin putare, for pruning, cleansing or reckoning. So computing brings things together and cleans them up for use in estimations. It takes data – literally ‘givens’ – and extracts them from the contexts out of which they were gathered” (Chesner, p. 3). Chesner believes the more correct way to look at this medium is to see that “what makes new media new is that they media powers of invocation: powers to call things up” (Chesner, p. 1).
In order to justify Chesner’s new word for this medium, invocation, he goes on to write about the three orders of innovation which explain in more detail why this word is more applicable than digital computer. The first order is fetch execute cycle which, “abstracts switchings to a point where individual invocations interleave and merge into a constant stream. With millions of invocations per second, early 21st century invocational devices have become platforms for all manner of mediated events: well beyond calculating equations, invocational media are called upon to support an enormous range of cultural practices: reading, writing, viewing, playing, conversing, controlling and so on” (Chesner, p. 9). The second order is invocationary act and refers to the users of the invocational devices and are “largerly unaware of most of the lower level processes that allow them to achieve their tasks at hand” ultimately having to deal with “the trade off between power and precision” (Chesner, p. 9). Chesner articulates this with the following example, “When I start using a new program I have to take some time away from my immediate task to learn how to use its features” and “I am called away from my usual duties by the software until I become competent to invoke what I want when I want it” (Chesner, p. 9). The third order refers to a “collection of cultural assumptions, discourses, ideologies or symbolic and material resources” which provide great anxiety for individuals when concepts like “artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and artificial life” are thrown into the mix.
I believe Chesner makes a good argument as to why digital computer is dead but I would really like to know why this term has not caught on and would like to discuss further why this is. Could it be a cultural issue, an ethical one or is this too thought out and precise that individuals are scared of it and do not like the idea of change.
A few questions I would like to put forth are: Are we ready for a term as Chesner describes or are we too scared of it? If we where to change over to this term would we have to educate all as to why or would they be excepting enough to trust the new name was the best for this medium?
This topic brings great relevance to my thesis because I am dealing with online social networking and the ties it creates for individuals. It makes me stop and think if we were to deem the digital computer as dead then how does online social networking fit into this new term of invocation? What exactly is online social networking invoking and how does it relate to the data elements of invocation as discussed in the article? This is great food for thought.

The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

Walter Benjamin writes a very difficult piece on how reproduction of art is producing new art. Benjamin is basically saying that technology lends a wonderful hand in reproducing art so now instead of having to travel to a certain city or spot to see a piece of art it can now be bought in a reproduction of itself and placed in a home. Even though on the surface this may seem like a wonderful thing Benjamin believes the more something has been reproduced the integrity of it or it’s ‘aura’ either lessens or transforms.
The aura of something, Benjamin explains, “We define aura as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be. If, while resting on a summer afternoon, you follow with your eyes a mountain range on the horizon or a branch which casts its shadow over you, you experience the aura of those mountains, of that branch” (Benjamin, p. 7). In addition the exhibition value of a work of art “becomes a creation with entirely new functions, among which the one we are conscious of, the artistic function, later may be recognized as incidental” (Benjamin, p. 10). The exhibition value of a piece of art changes depending on the audience in which is experiencing it and Benjamin believes this is due to the creation of photography and film because they make it possible to bring the art to the individual instead of making the individual go to the art. Lastly Benjamin believes the cult value of a piece of art “retires into an ultimate retrenchment: the human countenance. It is no accident that the portrait was the focal point of early photography” but “the cult of remembrance of loved ones, absent or dead, offers a last refuge for the cult value the picture” (Benjamin, p. 11).
One of the challenging aspects of this article for me was how do we encourage art and keep the original ‘aura’ of it but still make it possible for others to enjoy. With the reproduction of art at a vast rate and the creation of additional forms reproduction and sharing such as creative commons, which allows individuals to get around copyright infringement, how do we still get to preserve the ‘aura’?
How do we preserve traditional art and it’s aura as well as exhibition and cult value but still be able to reproduce for all to enjoy?
Is it possible to make traditional art replicable without stifling it?
This is a relevant topic to my thesis of online social networking because many individuals may form ties between each other based on some type of art they have experience. If the art was examined in person and the individual was able to experience the aura first hand and go back to an online social networking group maybe this experience can be shared with others. There may be a possibility that if the art was not experienced the same way as others in the group that the ties between the individuals may be weaker. In the end the weakness of the ties may be a good thing but you will have to read my paper in order to find out why.