“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Miscellaneous Tech: scattered at the back…ownership of each of the items have been replaced by another due to software or digital upgrades.
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.
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:
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
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.
Could a current technology showcase a dead technology? Can we give the illusion or magic feeling combined with a dead technology and lights that presents it as alive.
What is about the revisiting of old technologies? Is it that its:
- nostalgia ? Simple human reflection?
- Is it trends? Will the idea of grasping onto old materials come and go?
- Human development/ progression/dependance on devices
- Reverse magical? What is that feeling we have when we see something from our childhood in fully functioning condition. Is this the same feeling as when we see magic performed live? I want to investigate this feeling of connection and disbelief that something “works”.
- in order to think about the “future” and more specifically technological determinism, do we have to understand and credit the past ideologies of progression.
- We have to acknowledge human interaction and relationships with devices to create helpful trajectories in the future.
- How do I create a setting with dead technology?
Human – technological being – always been apart of evolution
These are some more points of return that look at the way we have used certain technologies or aesthetics once before and are revisiting them more and more. I think for the week returning to class, I’d love to gather all the devices currently in my possession and assemble them around a space. I’ve also got some of the neon wiring that i was to ultimately weave in and around the devices, so that they give the illusion that they’re full of life. Using perhaps a new technology in LED lights and wires, into the old technology giving them a resurgence.
- utopian – when we think back to that era, we had no worries/ no responsibility / fantasy
- synth music
A REMIXERS MANIFESTO: RIP
Some of these examples I want to reflect on within the technological sense of futures. It works nicely with this idea of a loop of attention to certain devices from the past influencing the work of the future. This foregrounds that some of the research we see in trying to create a brand new product or the next gadget or device to change our lives, really needs to take notes from the past, and the human relationship with the particular job its going to create, help or save.
This idea links very closely with some further readings i’ve looked in theoretically, but when comparing all things media, music, art, movies and of course technology.
Last week I spoke about research, craft and art being a trio of intersecting parameters in which we define our practises in media and technology. One could argue that, based off Terry Eagleton’s book Literary Theory: An Introduction, that theory is more than just a governing body to give reason behind things we do. Some interesting words came about when discussing a solid definition to “theory”:
- Discourse affecting Practise
- Contemplation and Speculation
- A morality behind a curiosity
So what makes theory vary from Research?
- Theory can spark a particular engagement element or a curiosity as mentioned, to perhaps gain an intention.
- I believe these two ideals DO compliment each other in terms of motivation and outlook. Research isn’t sparked on us without wondering the intentions of something.
I want to use my significance of last weeks post to dive deeper into this with my own experiences and try and grasp such a broad topic with the example I’ve had in practise. Suppose my passion for Drones sparked by a love of the skies. Or perhaps it was my interest to reinvent their storytelling narrative by turning them into an all in one robotic device that allows the operator to capture landscape, subjects and if so desired themselves with autonomy function. Actually, it was much more theoretical than that. It was a lecture room and a quadcopter was walked in sitting amongst other technologies that caught my attention and seeing it take off and land indoors with no real direction as to how it can be applied or what its purpose was. More that there’s a camera on the front, and it can fly, next move is yours. Already we have a research path, a craftsman path and a potential for an aesthetic (which was my initial response to how calm it hovered in the air seemingly by itself).
What transpired after getting involved with them, was the motivation and intention that I was going to build one for the intention of a purpose to extend the human potential that would ultimately create a safe environment for practitioners in engineering disciplines, as well as efficiently saving resources in time and money. This is how I intersected theory (my reason behind or rationale) and research (how do I access resources to get hands on in a technological inspired background). I believe that my research approach (whilst not industry professional stereotyped) was effective in that online tutorial and trial and error actually assisted my craft, which was, finding out everything I can about the hardware of robotics.
The Art side of my practise, which is, how was I going to satisfy my aesthetic motivation with these devices. In the years that I’d become interested in drones, so had every other media practitioner wanting to create visual experiences. This is why I get some people think the technology is fast becoming boring and repetitive (to a certain extent I agree, birds eye view of a landscape kinda has to resonate the video’s trajectory or its past its used by date) but I’ve created start to end projects using the lens of the robot in various forms of motion. Not always does the camera have to be hovering in the air to capture unique shots, this personal assistance allows people to Be Their Own Camera Crew.
The idea of futures, I believe relates to how theory can relate to a critical engagement or an inventive narrative that allows concepts to turn into projects through, again, research application. Perhaps we have an obligation, to continue all three aspects so that these technics live on and projected futures don’t become scarce.
Visiting the Powerhouse Museum’s display of ‘Materialising the Digital‘ as well as the accompanying exhibition of ‘Interface‘ allowed me to start design thinking and how a physical display can be showcased in a space. It can take the form of interactive, relying on audience participation, however what resonated with me was the nostalgic aesthetic with Interface. This exhibition examined the way “design has been applied to information technology products”.
These works for me showcased how individual consumers have slowly been given complex machines and technologies and have them designed over the years to make them accessible and appealing. It showcases Steve Jobs and his influence of devices being engineered to aesthetic and the reiteration process so that ideas can become products.
It perhaps got me thinking about the nature of devices being un-operational yet still a ‘graveyard’ aesthetic to showcase a timeline effect. I’ve, through my studies and personal works, gone through a few drones that have either partially or fully broken that I’m thinking could take my idea of iteration or physical showcase rather than video (digital) content. I think an arrangement, lighting and content arrangement could explore this notion of “dead” technology.
Even having footage from each one hanging with it could be a way of expressing a fallen device or broken device. The evolution idea wouldn’t be justified with each model perhaps being not an iteration of the other, but perhaps to get the perfect “digital video” these are the technological sacrifices needed.
IDEAS // Materials // Technologies
I’m very interested in the way this opens up E-waste, and how it’s represented as both as an aesthetic and a coded message. Perhaps this could ignite some more exploration in the kinds of devices, perhaps not limited to quadcopters, maybe use the history I’ve researched in previous posts to incorporate into a work. Cam corders, video cameras and even early aerial photography have all progressed and in turn left devices no longer functional. When these devices stop working where do they go and how are they treated?
Looking to the proposal I’d like to explore the material element of the devices we use in media art to produce screen based works. Perhaps the tools we use for our works need to be showcased as a trophy for the content it’s produced. I’d like to then see how this could tie into E-waste elements and the idea of non-working inanimate objects being the aesthetic.