“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
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Miscellaneous Tech: scattered at the back…ownership of each of the items have been replaced by another due to software or digital upgrades.
FEFO as it’s commonly known.
Simple fact. It didn’t work. It didn’t showcase what I needed it to. It didn’t convey a sense of nostalgia. It didn’t ask questions of why we are attached to technology. It simply just didn’t resonate with people and again gave off the impression of a workshop/hoarding set up that was filled with Xmas lights and cheaply assembled LED lights.
Thats okay. I’ve got a backup idea to try. Same direction of how we dispose of the technology quickly, this time instead of asking what it is that makes us attached to things, this time i’m asking the question is it the technology within thats making these devices disposable. Is it the embedded marketing within websites and product launches that actually makes us subconsciously upgrade and dispose. Is the idea of AI not a being that can think walk and talk, but switch and make us switch devices at will.
I want to tangle with the idea of automation. Not in that we switch something on and leave it to wander for itself, but within the idea of automatic response. Automatic trajectory of devices, that things are built to break quickly and we just abide this because these machines tell us to.
Stay tuned. Broken tech still stays. LEDs go.
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
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.
These were my notes from recently watching a video of Steve Jobs giving a speech at a graduation ceremony at Stanford in 2005. I started writing down the words that really resonated with me and stuck with me throughout the video and decided to create a short Lumen5 video for this. This platform allows me to reflect with a visual and audio assisted video that I’m able to then reflect myself as to why these particular parts of the speech are so powerful to me.
It is interesting when reflecting on words from others I’ve personally taken note to. I think theres a particular theme to my narrowing completion of higher studies, that the role of curiosity has played in my own personal development. The idea that my own trajectory isn’t going to be defined in a sense, by others saying yes or no, rather why or why not.
A lot of speculation is often applied to these kinds of motivational speeches and success stories, in the way that “perhaps if they didn’t get these opportunities or there fame wasn’t successful, would they still have that same mindset”. These criticisms are speaking to an attitude that if he (Steve Jobs) didn’t make the fortune from Apple and Pixar, he wouldn’t adopt the same mentality. I disagree with that, and instead turn it around and put myself in the drivers seat. Take an empathetic approach to the idea and use the success he has created for himself as motivation for me. If he can do it, why can’t I? This kind of thinking almost serves as personal motivation, and when asked to reel it back and be realistic about the future (suppose not everyone can be as lucky as Steve Jobs, and most entrepreneurial endeavours are impractical) I invite to read my previous blog on Luck.
I love the idea that we can use other success stories, motivational optimism and self direction to manipulate what we like. I have no doubt that if Apple or Pixar didn’t create the phenomena it has today, we would be all texting on our Uphones and using BananaBook Pro/Air’s instead, Steve never looked like giving up.
Neatly typed version of the scribble I noted down for the video.
Dropout – connecting the dots.
“I should be adopted by college graduates”
I have no idea how college was going to figure out my life.
Curiosity and Intuition was my best experience, fascination over helping with life application.
Looking backwards to connect the dots
Visions of the future vary
Love what I did, You have to find out what it is you love.
Can you wake up in the morning and honestly say you’re happy about what you’re going to do today
Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish.
One of the hardest decisions when walking into a communications store is which brand of phone is best for the type of content and use the user will produce. Two of the giants of this market are Apple and Android. The main difference between these two are apple being a Closed source platform, and the android being open source, which explains the way the device and services can be accessed, modified and used.
When the iPhone was released, Steve Jobs released a philosophy detailing his disinterest with the flow of content amoungst multiple platforms being available on his device. The app market for both platforms is a great example, as the android market allows user input with no gatekeepers to content, where As detailed by Jonathan Zittrain, ” the App Store has a catch: app developers and their software must be approved by Apple. If Apple does not like the app, for any reason, it is gone.”
The info-graphic I created is a simple comparison of known facts about both companies. I personally own an iPhone, however with these figures and statistics, it’s not hard to see why perhaps my next upgrade could follow the trend of freedom in the android market.
This week I would like to draw on the patterns of legacy media control and the way we are limited on the internet nowadays with surveillance and the idea of a “walled garden“. An interesting connection and almost cycle, is in comparison to medieval land ownership and the idea of obeying an authoritative figure, in comparison with brands like Apple and their attempts to stem the flow of information content.
“The Stack” is then reached when vertically integrated walled gardens form together to create a property organising system. This establishes limit-able viewing factors on how we use and distribute content. The idea that the internet is a free open system is challenged with the idea that ‘sharing is stealing’. The following Prezi allows users to see the effects of this idea, and goes into copyright, mass amateurization and the idea that the former consumers of content are now considered the biggest prodUSER.