Final Statement and Installation

Posted on

“Software < Hardware”, Installation, 2017

A work that explores the nature of technology and perhaps reverses the idea that we are a disposable culture when it comes to the devices we interact with everyday. The work incorporates technology that was overtaken by another technology that physically made it dead. Scattered around are Walkmans that were made redundant by MP3 download,, TVs that were left when digital antennas meant the analogue channels were cut off, and iPhones that with regular iOS enhancements that meant working devices were become slow and inconsistent. So is what’s killing technology and any future development the software element? Forcing the consumer e to purchase a new one and discard the original. Would you part with your phone if it would still work in 10 years time?This is something that I feel if some people didn’t HAVE to change, they wouldn’t. So I believe this works on a digital level. The digital software is perhaps what’s halting a lot of technology. So I looked into a technology that uses an abundance of software to perform the newest forms of technology and I stumbled into 3D printing.

3D Printing utilises millions of lines of code that are then programmed into a piece of hardware that releases a physical form. So my question is, as a technology that uses so much software to operate, can it survive? or will it be the destruction of so many other things we’ve had to now rely on photos or memories to enjoy?


Sam Noakes 4759485



Posted on Updated on


Item list:

2x Kumi projectors: each playing a set of code on loop. The projection onto the 3D printed artefact is a code from one of the components that is then sent to a printer to be turned into the physical. The second projection then comes through from behind onto a tv with a iPhone glued to the screen. The projection is an apple update that was the last update I downloaded onto it that eventually caused it to run slowly and eventually not turn on. This was the last apple update i performed before switching to android.

The tv at the back right + strobe: strobe sits in the bottom right corner to showcase static unresponsiveness. That was the last TV I had that was affected by the switch to digital TV channels and could no longer run off the analogue channel providers. This was made unusable through digital upgrades.

Miscellaneous Tech: scattered at the back…ownership of each of the items have been replaced by another due to software or digital upgrades.






process & showcase MEDA302

Posted on


This new approach see’s the physicality of the effects of updates from internal software. I want to dive into the questions surrounding the capitalist mindset of some companies within technology and what this means for future ownership of devices. And then are these implications going to surround all new technologies.

For context, the idea that I’m very sentimental with my devices has got me thinking about what it is about certain elements of technology and devices that people look and empathise with me. This can be cameras, phones, audio equipment, basically anything that was later replaced by something more digital.  eg. Phones were replaced by touch screen phones, walkmans replaced by ipods, ipods inevitably replaced by phones, PCs replaced by laptops again replaced by phones. The hardware still operates okay, as we see with people returning to old hardware such as vinyl records to keep the nostalgia alive.

So is what’s killing technology and any future development the software element? To focus on one particular device, the iPhone. The software updates have become known to be used by the company so that eventually the phone will run slower and the apps will not work unless you do so, causing you in shorter and shorter amounts of time to purchase a new one and discard the original. This is something that I feel if some people didn’t HAVE to change, they wouldn’t. So I believe this works on a digital level. The digital software is perhaps what’s halting alot of technology. So I looked into a technology that uses an abundance of software to perform the newest forms of technology and I stumbled into 3D printing.

3D Printing utilises millions of lines of code that are then programmed into a piece of hardware that releases a physical form. So my question is, as a technology that uses so much software to operate, can it survive? or will it be the destruction of so many other things we’ve had to now rely on photos or memories to enjoy?


Week11: 3d printing is the next to go…

Posted on

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.38.06 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.37.25 am

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 11.37.04 am

So a development in idea process. Instead of a mannequin-like set up that is showcasing technology dying into itself, I’m focusing on a particular technology that is new, but will end up dead. 3D Printing.

Everyone says how this is the next big thing, but track record of emerging technology suggests otherwise. I want to showcase this physically. Take out the mannequin hand that is looking for the next technology to sabotage, and use my 3D printed prosthesis. Then with the kumi, project onto the hand the STL code from the file I got it with. Essentially, the 3D printed hand is a piece of code taken a physical form. This will act as a catalyst for the humanisation of a device.

The dead technology will still sit behind it, however the idea is that the 3D printing phenomena is the “killer” in the momentum of futures. The STL code will loop over a period of time to show all components that go into the piece. The question I want to address is how can we stop this trend? Is a trend of the new futures going to be how quickly we can move onto the next emerging technology?

Iteration and installation will happen next week, this week I just sat within the space and literally looked at the devices. Questioned the motifs behind what it really is I want to understand and was really effective. I want to mind map this all out and basically just throw it up. The aesthetic nature comes last now.

week10: technology updates technology

Posted on Updated on

The direction for this installation has gotten me thinking about what it is I want to showcase in this work. Originally the idea I wanted to tangle with, was the notion that technology goes back and forth in iteration, in design, in trends and in functionality. I like the idea that the departure point for this last project was “futures”, and my immediate response was to showcase something that’s framed in the past. I think this is the basis of the work I want to display.

As non-human object, the technological devices we carry everyday constantly run at a pace determined by us. That, meaning they’re only function is determined by our use of them. Autonomy within them are seemingly not far away with the small increments being added to smartphones, however we can still choose most of their function. The thing that is seemingly out of our control though now is the way they’re manufactured to be replaced by the next evolution of the same thing. This leads most to expect another criticism of Apple,  however I want to go perhaps a little more broad with examples like the Record – MixTape – CD – MP3 evolution. Or the Film – VHS – DVD – Streaming trajectory of technology that include perhaps require a whole new hardware component to access content. Without discouraging the thought of this, nowadays this seems to have come t a relatively smaller halt, but the upgrades coming WITHIN the device, as a software update.

Consumers now are faced with a device that is in perfectly fine working order, in that it turns on, runs and connects them to content at a leisure. However to gain more or perhaps the most recent available services, the individual must update the device. NOTE: I’m going to be using the smart phone/tablet for this example as it is the most relatable for me. Once the software is updated, the phone has basically been given a no returns sentence. The update is designed to target newer app downloads, but also “laggs” the phone, decreases its swift functionality and tells the story of the device ultimately needing an upgrade.

Something this week that I want to explore is perhaps the trail effect or reckless understanding we have of this. Using the devices from my past, as a reminder of how much this trend of keeping updated and connected, leads to a media archeology of functioning devices that are tossed aside. Perhaps we wish we could stick to the one mobile phone or the one DVD player, but industry doesn’t allow us to. There’s possibility for batteries in devices to last 3 weeks, however corporate bosses don’t allow this to happen. Is there humanity to these devices that ultimately leads to its era ending?


week8: idea, reiterate & create

Posted on Updated on

Screen Shot 2017-09-18 at 10.05.50 amScreen Shot 2017-09-18 at 10.06.12 am

ONE side: dead tech, accumulation of broken things rewired with neon glow

OTHER side: working, automated technology that is upgraded all the time

  • think apple ads – one computer or screen playing AD on a loop


Perhaps something feedback suggested this week was that it was very hoarder like. The idea that everything was in a space that resembled a desk or office work space of someone frantically trying to build the next big invention. With this in mind, some of my tutors suggested messing it up, however when blocking more intimately, I found myself “tidying up” the space again. Here’s where my thinking and blocking has led me to…


  • Trying to compete
  • empathetic towards upgrading so fast
  • nostalgic

I’m going to try to encapsulate this for my next showcase using the building blocks i’ve already created.

Some questions for discussion and indeed reflection:

How does it make you feel? How do you feel about particular aspects of the work? What do you like/dislike? It makes me feel like I want to keep a conversation about all the old technology I used to collect. Ask others to start talking and observe where the conversation leads. Not necessarily ask them to showcase it or give me the devices physically, but I want this work to spark a conversation by the audience either to myself or each other and start reminiscing about devices they used to have. How can I ignite that with a space in the gallery. My trial this week is going to be with LED and NEON lights inside dead technology.
What is working? I think I touched on this towards the end of getting everything out on the table. People started to wander off into their own stories about what some of the devices I had on show. Perhaps what was working was the idea that the location of the
What possible paths could it develop along? The path I want it to navigate is the focus on how much value we place on these devices, and how it varies from person to person. Perhaps looking at how quickly we are to dispose of things, and being able to look at other peoples collections brings back memories. I really want to capture the idea that something isn’t functional anymore but can create a sense of joy when seeing it in a “life-like” state. This is where the neon/LED lights will come in handy, although the things they’ll be wired into are completely dead, they create the illusion of being “alive” with vibrant colours.

The Swaying light above will serve as a constant reminder of the constant switching between new working devices and the trends that bring back old technology.

This is something I want to play with.

“FUTURES” – symbolic representation with a swaying light, bringing a physicality to technological resurgence. Then it fading away as quickly as it came. VICE-VERSA to new technology and how quickly it is replaced or upgraded. i.e. Apple iPhones.


POSTGRADUATE > Trickle Down Theory> No Classes

Posted on

Some of the best ways I’ve developed a really solid idea into practise is to actually keep telling new people my departure points of thinking and judge their reactions and feedback to better understand my own project.

When doing this, I’m also reminding myself and being able to talk about it more confidently which I’m sure only helps when finding that niche goal, furthermore to this, I don’t mind personally if this takes the longest.

SO what is it I want to achieve in a physical space. I want to explore, simply, what it is that makes old or broken devices from the past, so interesting, popular or valuable. Take for example the vinyl. Why is this technology that a few years ago wasn’t supported by any means of production for their players and had been superseded, however now is one of the most popular trends of the last two years. Record players, vinyls and even the aesthetic of the cardboard it comes packaged in is now all more expensive than CDs, tapes or even MP3 downloads online. Why?

My own passion for keeping every piece of technology I’ve owned** and when it finally stops working, keeping a log of the reason and the date. I don’t know what it is but it’s satisfying and allows me to make the decision on my next model. I think this works into my own personal device that gives me great joy and the emotion i’m trying to unlock in this project, is the camcorder.

I was researching the idea of “trends”, and the culture associated with it. No doubt manufactures and musicians have caught onto it and started marketing Vinyls as a consumer product, even now we see releasing brand new records in stores like JB HI FI, that claim to be technology giants in retail. I stumbled across the idea of “Trickle down Theory” … thus:

Trickle Down

The oldest theory of distribution is the trickle-down theory described by Veblen in 1899. To function, this trickle-down movement depends upon a hierarchical society and a striving for upward mobility among the various social strata. In this model, a style is first offered and adopted by people at the top strata of society and gradually becomes accepted by those lower in the strata (Veblen; Simmel; Laver). This distribution model assumes a social hierarchy in which people seek to identify with the affluent and those at the top seek both distinction and, eventually, distance from those socially below them. Fashion is considered a vehicle of conspicuous consumption and upward mobility for those seeking to copy styles of dress. Once the fashion is adopted by those below, the affluent reject that look for another.

This is a term thrown around not only fashion, but also economics, in the way  a model of product adoption in marketing that affects many consumer goods and services. It states that fashion flows vertically from the upper classes to the lower classes within society, each social class influenced by a higher social class.

SO can we apply this trickle down theory towards technology to actively predict future trends, appliances or services? I mean if we take my post last week and focus on the Everything’s a Remix section, we can almost guarantee the next wave of potential huge ideas, big inventions and popular device will be taken and built from something popularised and forgotten. In this line of argument, therefore, I’d say yes, we can apply the trickle down theory towards technology.

Of course trickle UP theory, that is the example that red lobster used to be served as a prison food and is now an expensive luxury. Interesting connections to these things

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 1.13.32 pm

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 4.29.49 pm.png One friends account of something thats important to him, and my association on how it’s becoming a fad. They’re plenty of examples.

Another is the stack-hat


**excluding a house fire when I was about 10 years old that destroyed everything til that point.