“What are you doing?”
My Research Presentation – just trying to upload this has taken so much time – and the result is far from impressive – shoddy quality imagery (YouTube – bah!)- sorry everyone. I will attempt to fix this within the week, but for now, my soul is in flagging…
“What are you doing?”
Defining presence and interconnectedness within Twitter
Presence ~ Interconnectedness ~ Immediacy ~ Communication ~ Absence
[S] when someone or something is in a place
C usually singular] a feeling that someone is still in a place although they are not there or are dead
[U] approving a quality that makes people notice or admire you, even when you are not speaking[1]
“Every day, we swim in a sea of stories and tales that from our earliest days to our deaths. And our deaths are recorded in narratives, also – for that’s what obituaries are.”[2]
Abstract
Twitter, as social networking website which offers the seemingly shallow experience of observing, or rather ‘following’ people’s short updates – known as ‘Tweets’, has recently been reviewed in light of the Iran# Elections, where the people have taken to the streets, mobile devices in hand, documenting the events directly, immediately ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’. This recent use of twitter as a link to important world events has given us a new way to communicate, instantly, anonymously, allowing individuals censored by a repressive environment the freedom – and power to openly communicate – live and uncensored. Events such as the #IranElections[3] have shown us that Twitter can be used for so much more than just a tool for self promotion. This opens up the question of how we connect and the relevance of presence on such sites.
Introduction
As Human Beings, we are social creatures, born with an inherent desire to communicate and form relationships. This paper attempts to explore interconnectedness and looks at the question of ‘presence’ within the context of Twitter and other Web2.0 technologies and how it impacts on both the viewer/receiver (‘Follower’) and the ‘sender’ or ‘author’. How does this anonymity impact on the way we connect as human beings? What impact could/does this have on our relationships with each other? It is a given that in the natural world, we (as humans) rely on contact (the mother and baby ‘bonding’ via touch, smell, sight and sound, the proximity of closeness, etc, therefore enhancing the connection between the two). And much research has been written of how depriving human beings to these senses can cause long term mental health issues. Yet we seem to be in a new stage in human evolution here. We can (and do) connect with so many people, for so many places around the globe, in so many ways now – and can express ourselves instantly, immediately, simultaneously.
Twitter[4] could be likened to a continuously updating diary with millions of users uploading ‘Tweets’ (information via text) of 140 characters or less, informing the world in reply to the question: “What are you doing now?” This is an application which can appear relatively shallow and insignificant – at ‘face’ value, and yet in the right environment, can prove so vital and powerful.
Although primarily seen as a social interaction tool, for people to ask and respond to questions, give information and update their status (describe what they are doing), the vast use of Twitter as a source for second-by-second information during the Iran Elections saw it promoted into a respectable, useful and even vital communication tool, which led to people all over the world remarking about every breaking update, every news item, and every story they came across.
How does this kind of communication affect us? As we watch / observe / follow people and events such as these, what is this relationship we have formed? We experience the transfer of an event digitally that touches our base human instinct. We are given a window into a person’s deepest thoughts, we ‘feel’ her grief, but we do not know her name, have never seen her face, have never spoken, and we experience this information live – or at the speed of an internet connection.
A brief history of Twitter as explained from the Twitter website:
“Started as a side project in March of 2006, Twitter has grown into a real-time short messaging service that works over multiple networks and devices.
In countries all around the world, people follow the sources most relevant to them and access information via Twitter as it happens—from breaking world news to updates from friends.” [5]
To date, twitter has been used primarily for social networking, celebrity following, and self-promotion (both business and personal).
As the official Twitter website[6] explains, it asks only one question: “What are you doing?”
The answers to this question are for the most part rhetorical. In other words, users do not expect a response when they send a message to Twitter… This means you can step in and out of the flow of information as it suits you and it never queues up with increasing demand of your attention.[7]
I think that analogy of stepping in and out of a flow of information is very good at describing the Twitter experience. It is not attempting to be another office-like face-to-face simulation application (like email for instance – where your ‘mail’ arrives at an ‘inbox’ which gets larger with each unread email). Social network sites let us map our real-life connections to the Web. And these new tools deliver obvious social utility:- Facebook is the best way to get in touch with old friends, but Twitter is different. It is a totally new form of communication for us. It is fluid. It is in and of the moment. You can tune into it, or you can ignore it. It is living in the moment, in quite a Zen Buddhist way.
Twitter can be described as a sharing tool; a place to share your knowledge, share information, along with other such as Flickr, YouTube, del.icio.us, etc., places where we can pool our resources and learn from others. This ideal is the underpinning promise of the Internet / World Wide Web.
This kind of knowledge-sharing, was predicted or rather envisioned in a demo back in 1968 by the inventor of the mouse: Douglas Engelbart.[8] Hailing from Stanford Research Institute, Engelbart pioneered futurist ideas around video chat, video conferencing as well as file/knowledge sharing.
“In the middle of the 1960s, Engelbart had come to an uncomfortable realization: human culture was growing progressively more complex, while human intelligence stayed within the same comfortable range we’d known for thousands of years. In short order, Engelbart assessed, our civilization would start to collapse from its own complexity. The solution, Engelbart believed, would come from tools that could augment human intelligence.”[9]
Engelbart went onto work on the Online System or NLS, with the idea to pair up human beings, or network them altogether in the promise of increasing intelligence – his idea of intelligence augmentation. This is effectively exactly what we are using today, over 40 years later.
Twitter is now being used in educational institutes – in the classroom as another way of retrieving information instantly – from peers, lecturers and professional practitioners.
So let’s look at the presence of the author, the Twitterer’s ‘voice’ is present, though not audibly (unlike live television, radio), and in opposition to the planned, orderly style of a book, the voice is immediate. Intimate, yet uncensored (unless by the writer himself). It is akin to mind-uploading, but without any unnecessary software. It is a live recording of the mind, a person’s state of mind, at that moment. It is a narrative, not unlike a diary, yet broadcast to the world. I post my opinion, my thoughts, my knowledge, anonymously. Friends may know who I am, where I come from and what I am about, but to the rest of the world, I am pretty much as anonymous as I wish to be. I do not have a digital visual representation of myself available. I am taken at my word. I am reminded of the popularity of CB radios when I was a child, and how people felt comfortable and more confident to ‘be themselves’ when hiding behind a CB moniker. I would say that anonymity, presence and the absence of form are key here. We as humans are always going to be judged by our peers. But to be judged on our thoughts alone, with no interference or dampening of confidence from prejudice of physical appearance, would surely be more appealing. You can say your piece and then walk away. No pressure to be funny, intelligent, poignant (though these factors may earn you more followers!). Like post-it notes on your life, this is not vital information, these are more random thoughts, points of view and brief excerpts from the very basics of daily life. A tweet on its own could very well seem insignificant and pointless, but when added to previous information gathered, it can present to the viewer a sense of a whole, rounded human being, made up from text and transient thoughts.
This random, brief way of expressing oneself will almost definitely appeal to those of an artistic and creative inclination. Many artists, poets and writers now use Twitter not only as a medium to showcase their artwork, network and promote events, but it is also being used as a tool for artistic creative expression, and artists are relishing the free-flowing, fluid feel of the medium.
Artist An Xiao, for example, uses Twitter as “a scrapbook, a way to capture thoughts and share them”[10], and goes on to explain that the 140 character limit enforces “a discipline of thought and economy of language that encourages sharp ideas”. Many artists have embraced Twitter as a new tool / mediated artspace and have responded well to the limitations, seeing them more as a guide and as in An Xiao, often finding this restriction helpful in keeping things concise and simple. Galleries such as the Tate have signed up and regularly promote exhibitions, adding to the respectability of the site.
Founded by Short, Williams and Christie in 1976, many years prior to computer / mobile communication devices, Social Presence Theory was originally conceived to analyse mediated communications, although at the time, this was centred mainly around the telephone as a communication device.
The idea is that a medium’s social effects are principally caused by the degree of social presence which it affords to its users. By social presence is meant a communicator’s sense of awareness of the presence of an interaction partner. This is important for the process by which man comes to know and think about other persons, their characteristics, qualities and inner states”[11]
So how does this Twitter fit into this? Whilst Twitterers are aware of an audience, the information is not intended for one person, it is available for the world to view, yet this point is not foregrounded for most Twitterers (unless you are a big company trying to promote your wares!). A tweet can actually be inconspicuous, a voice amongst millions, yet there and present all the same, should you turn your attention to turn to it.
Whilst text-only communication comes out on the lower end of the scale of media ‘richness’ – as opposed to Face-to-Face communicating, with all its non-verbal cues, facial expressions, body language, gestures, gaze, etc., it cannot be denied that the feeling of interconnectedness is still very strong. I would argue that the narrow word count can actually encourage more direct communication and therefore have more impact, and the constant updated information acts as a mirror held to our increasingly busy and complicated lives.
Biocca and Harms take the theory further by defining Social Presence as the “moment-to-moment awareness of co-presence of a mediated body and the sense of accessibility of the other being’s psychological, emotional, and intentional states” [12]
Twitterers are aware of the presence of others as are they aware of their own presence and following. The brief (140 characters) nature of a tweet means they communicate quickly, frequently, immediately and often without editing / censoring. Although, the very fact that they are aware of an audience invites self-censoring and performance. The constant, at times seemingly banal communication, can indeed allow the follower to build up a well-formed picture of the person – as they gain insight by merely observing their daily life. There is a level of intimacy to be found here; a sense of kinship, and awareness that we are all connected. Knowing exactly what another is doing at the precise moment is something usually found only in an intimate relationship, or with another sharing your location / experience.
By sharing on Twitter, you can read the actions / thoughts of literally thousands of people – from all corners of the Globe: thousands of micro-worlds, all spinning at once, and all aware of each other’s existence. At no other point in history has this been possible. Many people are often able to recall exactly what they were doing at the time of the announcement of the death of a famous person (think JFK, Princess Diana, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, etc…). But celebrity deaths aside, it is impossible to say what you were doing at 4.30 pm on February 3rd 2002, unless you kept a diary of course…
So could we say that this a virtual diary really? Well, yes and no: A diary is often kept to keep memoirs, to keep a record and to express thoughts / feelings. It is (normally) not meant to be read by another. It is (usually) considered a private, intimate vehicle. Twitter can be used in a very similar way, but the very fact that the writer is aware of the audience, puts it in opposition to the personal diary. Yet it is still intimate. By knowing another, and letting another know us, we invoke intimacy. Yet paradoxically, this intimacy can be on a mass level. By revealing intimacy on a world stage, this is also a form of exhibitionism.
Whilst ‘tweeting’ we are both being ‘seen’ and yet invisible. We have a voice, and can be ‘heard’, yet are silent. The voice is the text, encased in Hypertext[13] (a term coined by Theodor H Nelson in the 1960s, referring to web text – ie hyperlinks, etc.) Intimate, yet self-exposed. Yet we are very much present, even though the physical body (or likeness) may be absent.
In ‘Mapping Benjamin’, Gumbrecht and Marrinan whilst discussing Walter Benjamin’s theories on the aura and the work of art, conclude that to Benjamin: “Distance, concealment and loss are not the same as absence: to “save” his theory from the social estrangement he condemns in ‘l’art pour l’art’, Benjamin shifts the terms driving our desire to “see and be seen” from lack and absence to invisibility and distance.”[14]
And we are very much seen, and our presence is felt, via the text Tweets we post. I would argue that immediacy marks the difference here. Immediacy is ‘now’ it is this moment, and this moment is fleeting. The present is fluid, ever-changing, never static. I believe that is the angle of Twitter. Like automatic writing, free-flowing thoughts, there is something profoundly freeing about releasing one’s thoughts into the ethers, presenting them to the world, for them to fall aside to make way for the next fleeting thoughts to appear. You are present, your presence is felt. It is the appeal of living in the moment. Expression feels raw, true, with no time to edit, expand, and reflect. There is nothing more live than now. Twitter is very much the ‘now’.
Unlike printed media, a post or Tweet does not have the same sense of permanence. It is not likely to be hanging around years from now (well, it could be floating in cyberspace as some sort of cyber-debris, but it is not going to be found on a library bookshelf). This in turn lifts the pressure of speaking your mind. It can be expressed, and at once forgotten, replaced by the next train of thoughts. I would say that the speed and limited text of Twitter discourage the writer from being overly-concerned with descriptive expression and self-critiquing.
It is interesting to note: when used in the context of ICT applications and devices, ‘presence’ refers to the ability to ascertain the status of contacts at a given moment, for example, I could be ‘available’ or ‘busy’ or ‘away’ on chat interfaces, etc. Twitter could be seen as merely an extension of this information.
Presence is viewed as a type of connectivity that supports multiple facets of what it means to be connected and how to be connected across various network services. The more information we can add up, the more we experience the social presence of each other. Presence is fluid. It is not static, it is ever-changing.
In ‘The Myth of Presence’, Gervais explains: “Presence does not, in any way, imply permanence; it does however indicate a certain dynamism. An inanimate body is not present; it is at the limit of disappearing. It hides in front of our eyes. The effect of presence can only be understood in terms of discontinuity, interruption, or imbalance. It can only be felt at the junction between appearance and disappearance”.[15]
Businesses speak about getting a ‘presence’ on Twitter, in fact most big business players are on Twitter now, terrified of becoming invisible if they do not, employing staff to tweet for them!
If we want to again turn to the Iran Elections, and compare the use of Twitter to gain information on the event, rather than watch the News on the television, or read about it in tomorrow’s newspaper, we can immediately see vast differences: This is self-publishing and the absence of the interviewer/ journalist is apparent. The words may not in themselves be as profound as a seasoned journalist, but the impact of this information coming directly from the person affected by the event, makes it so significant, so real and current. A journalist can only report on the event as an outsider. There are no fears over being misquoted or edited to distort words/views when you have control over your words. But of course, you cannot affect how someone else interprets your words. As it has been proved so many times in the past (and almost all email users have experienced this in some part) – words can be received in completely the wrong context – hence the invention and use of emoticons:- Icons which emphasize the emotion intended (ie, winking emoticon for a joke / text intended to be humorous).
And so what would be the viewer’s or follower’s presence?
Whilst I am job searching on the net, I can ‘see’ that my work colleague is still stuck on a train to London, whilst my old friend in the Florida is having a bad day at the office, my brother is getting ready to go out for the evening, my babysitter has broken up with her boyfriend and wants to talk, the gallery I visited in York has a new exhibition, my favourite celebrity is about to read a bedtime story to his child and the famous technologist/futurist I am following has added some interesting thoughts on mind-uploading… And all of this is delivered to me. It is unobtrusive. It is can be uninteresting, sometimes boring, often entertaining. It is life happening around me. It is other people’s lives, and I have a window in. But I am not peering in. I am not sitting poised with binoculars, waiting for something to happen. It is not the focus of my day, I can pay attention, and I can ignore. It is not a message purely for me. It is simply another form of expression.
So in conclusion, I would say that social sites such as Twitter instil a sense of presence of oneself to others, but in a very different way to our more familiar physical presence. Our presence is embodied in the ‘voice’ of our words. And these oft non-linear, free-flowing words are the link to the way we think as humans. These sites also open up the world of connections, of sharing information and knowledge, and of learning, collaborating.
We exist in relative isolation in our daily lives. We go to work, mix with colleagues, come home to our family, eat, sleep… But now we can see and are aware of the millions of micro-worlds out there. We are not isolated by time or location; we are connected mentally, emotionally, and digitally – to the world.
In ‘Understanding Media’, McLuhan writes that: “…our human senses, of which all media are extensions, are also fixed charges on our personal energies, and that they also configure awareness and experience of each one of us…”[16]
One blogger, writing about online connectedness, observes:
“While there’s significant evidence (aside from the obviousness of experience) that communication quality online is significantly reduced from in-person communication, I continue to be reminded of the inherent power within the simplicity of communication that the Internet has to offer.
Three times in the past two days, I’ve made new connections with people (One through Twitter, another through this blog, and another through e-mail) who I would consider highly respectable, and would have likely never had contact with otherwise. Are they high quality interactions? Not necessarily, but they were simple and as powerful as they needed to be.”[17]
I would say that through these applications, I am connected, but not fused with others. Communicating this way highlights our connections with each other. It reminds us that we all live in our bubbles, our micro-worlds, and that reality is relative. It connects us. It keeps us connected and interested in each other in a world where it is becoming apparent that we are increasingly working remotely – missing the human element, and I would argue that we are now finding different ways to communicate to make up for that loss.
Tom Peters, academic librarian and founder of TAP Information services states “We often hear that the digital age has resulted in a devaluating of time, space, and place. But… (t)he populations of most cities continue to grow… the dawn of the digital age has not put much of a damper on the human urge to congregate.”[18] Twitter could be seen as a congregation of people communicating and connecting with each other.
I can truthfully say that I feel closer to some of my online classmates, that I feel a stronger bond with them, than I do with some of my face-to-face work colleagues, even though I only spend a couple of hours a week with them. The comradeship and friendship is real. There is definitely a sense of sharing (links, information, knowledge) and this sharing is immediate, instant. The chat is fast, free-flowing, and open. Text chatting, blogging, tweeting is still expressive writing. It is all still narrative, and without visual cues, we are often apt to express more in words as text than face-to face.
I may not know the names of 95% of my neighbours on my street, and my family may be living in different corners of the globe, but due to Facebook, Twitter, etc., I am back in daily contact with long-lost friends, work colleagues, can check on the latest updates of family in Australia. By accessing these small snippets of information, I feel I am involved in their lives and therefore feel closer to these online friends than I ever imagined. A new and welcome way of communicating.
Bibliography:
Auslander, P. (1999), Liveness, Routledge
Benjamin, W. (1999), Illuminations: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Pimlico
Berger, A.A. (1996), ‘Narratives in Popular Culture, Media and Everyday Life’. Sage Publications
Biocca, F. & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the
Networked Minds theory and measure, ‘Proceedings of Presence’
Bolter, J. / Gromala, D, (2000), Remediation, Leonardo, MIT Press
Bolter, J. / Grusin, R, (2003), Windows and Mirrors, MIT Press
Bourriaud, N, (2002), Relational Aesthetics. Paris: la presses du réel
Bukatman, S, (1996), Terminal Identity, Durham and London: Duke University Press
Cambridge Dictionaries Online, http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=62578&dict=CALD, Accessed 09/09/09
DixDix, A., et al. (2003), Human Computer Interaction, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall
Georges, T. (2003), Digital Soul, Basic Books
Gervais, B., The Myth of Presence. The Immediacy of Representation in Cyberspace. Image [&] Narrative [e-journal], 23 (2008).
Gumbrecht, H.U. Marrinan, M. (2003) ‘Mapping Benjamin’, Stanford University Press
Haraway, D. (1991), Simians, Cyborgs and Women, 2nd ed., Free Association Books
Hayles, N. (1999), How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics, Chicago University Press
Hillis, K, (1999), Digital Sensations: Space, Identity and Embodiment in Virtual Reality, University of Minnesota Press
Landow, G.P. (1997) ‘Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology’The John Hopkins University Press
Levison, P. (2001), Digital McLuhan, 1st edition, Routledge
Manovich, L. (2001), The Language of New Media, MIT Press
McLuhan, M. (2001) ‘Understanding New Media’ Routledge
Morrison J. & Peters, T.(2005), http://www.innovateonline.info/. Accessed 15/02/05
Pesece, M. http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?tag=hypertext, Published 09/12/2008, Accessed 28/09/09
Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). ‘The social psychology of telecommunications’. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Twitter:
http:// twitter.com/thatwaszen, accessed 27/09/09
http://twitter.com/about#like , accessed 29/09/09
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23IranElection, accessed 30/09/09
Willis, B. http://nuudl.com/2008/03/29/the-remarkable-simplicity-of-online-connectedness/ ‘The Remarkable Simplicity of Online Connectedness’ Published on March 29, 2008, accessed 28/09/09
http://www.dougengelbart.org, Accessed 29/09/09
[2] Berger, A.A. (1996), ‘Narratives in Popular Culture, Media and Everyday Life’. Sage Publications, P1
[3] http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23IranElection, accessed 30/09/09
[4] http://.twitter.com, accessed 25/09/09
[5] http://twitter.com/about, accessed 27/09/2009.
[6] http://twitter.com/about#like , accessed 29/09/09
[7] ibid , accessed 29/09/09
[8] http://www.dougengelbart.org/accessed 29/09/09
[9] http://blog.futurestreetconsulting.com/?tag=hypertext, accessed 28/09/09
[10] www.twitter.com/thatwaszen, accessed 27/09/09
[11] Short, J.A., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). ‘The social psychology of telecommunications’. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[12] Biocca, F. & Harms, C. (2002). Defining and measuring social presence: Contribution to the Networked Minds theory and measure, ‘Proceedings of PRESENCE’ (2002): P14.
[13] Landow, G.P. (1997) ‘Hypertext 2.0: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology’The John Hopkins University Press
[14] Gumbrecht, H.U. Marrinan, M. (2003) ‘Mapping Benjamin’, Stanford University Press, P288
[15] Gervais, B., The Myth of Presence. The Immediacy of Representation in Cyberspace. Image [&] Narrative [e-journal], 23 (2008). Available: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/timeandphotography/gervais.htm, accessed 28/09/09
[16] McLuhan, M. (2001) ‘Understanding New Media’ Routledge, P23
[17] Willis, B. http://nuudl.com/2008/03/29/the-remarkable-simplicity-of-online-connectedness/ The Remarkable Simplicity of Online Connectedness Published on March 29, 2008, accessed 28/09/09
[18] Morrison J. & Peters, T., http://www.innovateonline.info/. Accessed 15/02/05
Slogging on with essay. ‘Reading ‘Mapping Benjamin’ at the moment as it has some relevant ideas in there, which should help provide some good quotes and support and shape my essay. Very tired. Juggling work, training/teaching, family and this essay- it’s a hellish month. I think I am going about this essay in a methodical manner (well, better than my usual bull rush!), but still not 100% happy with title – and still not sure I am not going too broad with this. Focussing on presence in Web2.0.
I have also missed out on the group chats for the last two weeks – and can only join in at the very end for the next two weeks due to work comitments- but that contract ends after that. ~I’m missing the interaction to be honest…
Ok, better go as my eyes are beginning to burn into my skull with exhaustion now!
So much to do – Summer’s over, essay deadline looming, project targets – not achieved – and the rush is officially on! But…. I have finally got my ‘new build’ PC – which is amazing! I can actually work on editing film now! Whoop whoop!
Have been trying to re-focus on my project – tighten up my ideas – may need to re-assess regarding the whole markerless facial tracking idea – not solely due to the huge learning curve necessary, but also need to look at how I will incorporate it as part of the project – will it look too gimmicky?
Anyway, essay due and much work needed – huge anxieties over how to fit it all in – it’s gonna be one busy old month! Onwards and UPwards…
‘Abstract for my research paper is too long, should be much more concise and needs revising before final draft. Will have to suffice for now to meet the deadline, but far from finalized truthfully. I need to refine the question itself as I am not sure that it clearly states exactly what I am trying to research.
Maybe I should be drawing specifically on the non-use of the body and on the use of text only (ie Twitter). This was in my first draft, but I elt at the time that this was too close to my project, when actually it isn’t – it is an important element (I think?)
OK, enough for now – need some space from it I think!
As the popularity of Web2.0 technology grows, what is the impact on how we ‘connect’ with each other, and how do we define ‘presence’ within this media?
My project is about disconnection, disembodiment, about the body and its place in cyberspace.
This research paper is concerned with the human connection in digital space (specifically lookingat Web2.0), stepping aside from the mind –body connection, and looking at how we connect with other humans. A person is now able to bare his/her soul to the whole world in an instant. His story, his thoughts, as he thinks, shared with the world, anonymously, instantly.
As a viewer and a user of Web2.0 myself, I am interested in the presence of the ‘author’ on sites such as Twitter, etc., and the experience of observing, of ‘following’ people, which admittedly (until recently) seemed quite a pointless, shallow application, bordering vaguely on stalking. An opinion which has been reviewed since the Iran #Elections, where the (mainly young) people have taken to the streets documenting the events directly, immediately ‘from the horse’s mouth’. No need for ‘the man on the street’ journalist. As those in charge struggle to contain the masses of information leaking out to the world, as the truth of the people breaks out, Twitter comes into its own, turning into a powerful tool against censorship.
I will be attempting to delve into that experience, in order to see how this kind of communication affect us. As we watch / observe / follow people and events such as these, what is our relationship with each other? We know their deepest thoughts, ‘feel’ their grief, but do not know their name, and we experience this ‘live’ – or at the speed of their internet connection. What is our connection to each other at this point, as humans, as we observe ‘them’, experience their world – through their perspective, via their words as text, through a computer screen or on a phone (Hypermediacy)? I am interested in investigating the significance of this presence. When there is no reference to the person, when the body/the individual’s image has become irrelavent, and the message is paramount and so personal, what is the impact of text-only communication such as this?
I intend to research theories around ‘hypermediacy’ (Bolter & Grusin), immediacy, and trasparency. I will also be reading Bourriaud and Manovich for theories relating to these issues. I would like to research any current digital artists utilizing Web2.0 as a medium for their art, in order to see how issues of connection and presence have informed their work.
As my project centres on disconnection of the body, I feel this research on connecting via Web2.0 can provide insight into how people relate – or connect with each other in the digital, and can therefore inform my project, giving it a rounder more holistic sense.
Bibliography:
Auslander, P. (1999), Liveness, Routledge
Benjamin, W. (1999), Illuminations: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Pimlico
Bolter, J. / Gromala, D, (2000), Remediation, Leonardo, MIT Press
Bolter, J. / Grusin, R, (2003), Windows and Mirrors, MIT Press
Bourriaud, N, (2002), Relational Aesthetics. Paris: la presses du réel
Bukatman, S, (1996), Terminal Identity, Durham and London: Duke University Press
Dix, A., et al. (2003), Human Computer Interaction, 3rd edition, Prentice Hall
Georges, T. (2003), Digital Soul, Basic Books
Haraway, D. (1991 ), Simians, Cyborgs and Women, 2nd ed., Free Association Books
Hayles, N. (1999), How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics, Chicago University Press
Hillis, K, (1999), Digital Sensations: Space, Identity and Embodiment in Virtual Reality, University of Minnesota Press
Levison, P. (2001), Digital McLuhan, 1st edition, Routledge
Manovich, L. (2001), The Language of New Media, MIT Press
So, in our last class ’chat’ , Andy helped me out quite a bit with putting a new slant on my Research Question – tipping it on it’s head and focussing on ‘connecting’ rather than disconnecting. Great. Fine. Really helpful (not meant to be read in a sarcastic tone – genuinely helpful and useful – thanks Andy!)
So now I have been playing with the question and essay substance (ie what I want to discuss / argue / research) forEVER!
I thought I had come up with a (half) decent question and started writing the abstract – very roughly and NOT adhering to the all important guidelines of how abstracts (and essays in general) should be written – AT - THIS – POINT! ; )
BUT
It seems I keep coming back and back to the same old question around the presence of the physical (too close to my project) – I JUST CAN’T ESCAPE IT = Aaaaarrrrgh! Groundhog Day (although it’s not February and I’m not in America, but you get the gist?). I think my ideas around presence are justified and fit the part of relating to my project, though not describing my project, but then once I start waffling, I somehow end up back there.
Let’s work it out here, gloves off, no rules, no ropes….
My project is around Dis-Embodiment, the role of the body in the digital world. It is about identity – or more-so the ‘sense of self’ and representation in the digital. It is about the flesh versus the digital. It is about leaving the phsyical, moving into and living the digital life.
By the way, I originally thought (incorrectly) that my project proposal was not only about my project, but that it would also lead to a Research Paper (rather than this paper, which requires writing about an ‘element’ of your project rather than supporting your project), so I understand why I keep coming back to the same are – it is purely becuase this is where my head lies whilst on this course and whilst trying to further my project, and I am finding it intensly difficult to seperate myself from it! : (
So, my current question now is:
As Web2.0 technology impacts on how we connect with each other, how do we define ‘presence’ within this media, and how is this impacting the world of Digital Art?
So far so good – focussing on Web2.0 and presence and connecting a different slant…
And then my unruly abstract (currently not cohering to any ‘good essay’ guidelines!) is as follows …
Abstract
My project itself looks at dis-embodiment in digital media and the role of the body in digital art.
And so for this paper, I aim to research how humans are now connecting with each other, specifically via Web2.0 tools such as Twitter, FaceBook, Blogs, etc., and in turn, I am interested in how this is impacting on the digital artist.
Where application software such as Video Conferencing, AV or Webcam chatting, Virtual Reality (eg Second Life), etc. is focussing on the need to retain the human form as a ‘presence’ (albeit digital) in an attempt to create a simulation of ‘face to face’ contact, it could be argued that we as a society are actually moving away from that simulation as a necessity in human communications.
AV/webcam chat would have been seen as the natural progression from text chat, allowing for a more ‘realistic’, more human feel to digital communication, yet it is becoming apparent that we seem more comfortable to return to the more anonymous world of text – for example in Twitter, etc. I would like to research the significance of text-only communication such as this.
I would like to look at issues around:
I will question the issue of ‘presence’ within the context of Web2.0 technologies and how it impacts on both the viewer/receiver and the ‘sender’ or ‘author’. How does this anonymity impact on the way we connect as human beings? What impact could/does this have on our relationships with each other? It is a given that in the natural world, we (as humans) rely on contact (the mother and baby ‘bonding’ via touch, smell, sight and sound, the proximity of closeness, etc, therefore enhancing the connection between the two). And much research has been written of how depriving human beings to these senses can cause long term mental health issues. Yet we seem to be in a new stage in human evolution here. We can (and do) connect with so many people, for so many places around the globe, in so many ways now – and can express ourselves instantly, immediately, simultaneously.
_________________
‘Noticed I haven’t even started mentioning the impact on the digital art world (to come), but I think I will post this now and then re-read – in the hope that seeing it published will awaken me from my slumber! #
Good job I’m the only one who reads/endures this madness! ; )
Think I have it now (the Research Question, that is…!)
The Digital Human Being:
Could it be argued that by immersing our ‘selves’ into the digital world we are simultaneously disconnecting from our physical bodies? Are we merely co-existing in another dimension (the digital), or is this the start of the ‘disappearing body’?
Issues ar0und:
Well… It’s a start – will email andy and see if any good! : }
Ahhh I have been messing around with this research question for over a month now… and STILL no closer really… I seem to have trouble condensing all I want to say into a nutshell sentance.
I think I need to do more research – I have many ideas all centred around the same issue, but cannot ‘nail’ the title / research question. It feels a little like having a discussion with myself – I think I need to bounce the ideas off someone else so I can get a clearer picture maybe?
Here are just a few of the ideas (they are all pretty much on the same path here):
Hmmm got a definate mind/body aspect and I really feel the whoel ‘disapearing body’ theory important – although need to research the origins of this theory more.
More scattered thoughts later (hold your breath!)
You are currently browsing the archives for the Research Essay category.
|
