Alright, This was a super interesting article that relates heavily to what I talked about in my previous post,(if you didn't read it I talked about the relation of humanity and electronics).  I thought the example of the camcorder was interesting, how automation of devices becomes a way to subvert human creativeness and put us on a path of cookie cutter creations.

Electronics are supposed to be a tool to help us shape the world in the way that we see it. However, automation has begun to lead us instead. The article mentions something about the necessity of human separation for technology, despite our biomorphic need to take in technology to ourselves, and how that is an extension of us looking to familiarize new technology.

There is also a strong argument in this paper for a non-utilitarian use of technology, though my exact understanding of the intent of the paper is limited.

An example of the utilitarian use of language is given in the context of poetry. However, I believe that poetry itself is utilitarian. It may not be the most efficient method of communicating information, but it still serves a purpose, it has no intrinsic meaning beyond what the author or reader impose on it. Even a meaningless act has intention, even if the intention is simply do it without intention. I'm getting stuck on semantics though.

Writing about this reading is pretty tough for me,( I get lost in the text after Design as Text), mostly because the language used is more akin to a scientific journal, and therefore inaccessible to a layman such as myself.  As a comment on the reading itself, it seems as though the author intended this to be more of an intellectual  masturbatory piece. It is an interesting piece and I learned some interesting things, but I feel as though I'm trying to grab water.


Popular Posts