1. What are some of the reasons for a surge in digital autobiograpical production from "home pages" to "wearcams"?
The reason is that in Western Culture, we pride ourselves on individualism. However, we want to inspire others to be like us, to inspire others to be unique and make their voices heard, to inspire others to be happy with themselves the way they are.
2. What is the role of autobotography vis-a-vis technology's "narcotic effect"?
Autobotography is a way for anybody to place themselves within technology that they and many other people use everyday--people can see a reflection of a person in technology. Technology already is an addicting thing, but when people can create themselves in the technology they are more likely to become even more dependent on technology to run their lives.
3. Are there dangers in Jennifer Ringley's work (or similar projects)? And what might those dangers be? Conversely, are there any pleasures in Stephen Mann's WearCams?
There is always the possibility of someone getting information on people through these projects and use the information for their own benefit, (for example, corporations' marketing and advertising divisions).
The pleasures are that we get to see people for who and what they really are and not them acting a specific way like they do when they are aware of the camera or even how they act when they are around certain people.
4. Explain how 2 of the blogging projects reshapes our sense of self, life, or writing.
Jennicam reshapes our sense of life in that because we see her doing something like sleeping in, we don't feel quite as bad for doing it ourselves or even admitting that we do it.
Also, Journals by Jason Pettus explores a similar theme as Jennicam, both are unabridged documentations of someone's life. In his onlive journal, Jason writes aobut every aspect of his life and makes us reevaluate the personal things that we usually keep private; should we keep them private or should we follow his example so that we can fully explore and discover ourselves?
5. Pick one of the "moving self-portraits" and explain how the project evokes the mystery of our contemporary lives. What kinds of issues does the portrait raise?
The Modern Living and Neurotica Series evokes mystery within our own lives because we have to wonder how much of the piece we relate to or are fascinated by. The issues raide by this piece is the fact that it is very graphic in nature and can deeply disturb most people (and therefore be unappealing to them).
Heavy Industries evokes mystery by making us think about how much "flashy lights" we need to be entertained (because it is minimalistic in design). The issues raised are merely the fact that the poetry content is about topics that people typically don't feel comfortable with (like erotic themes as an example).
6. How do the artists of this chapter create autobotographies of this "post-human" cyborg? Consider, for example Life Sharing and [phage].
In Life Sharing, the artists have shown that they can learn a lot about a person just by looking at the harddrive of their computer. This also illustrates how closely intertwined our lives are with technology (especially computers). The computers are becoming "another limb" in that we are so dependent on them that we feel the need to take them with us wherever we go and make sure to keep them close.
7. How do digital artists examine the commodification of the self? How has the self become another consumer good, or how does a human being get reduced to a "consumer"? Which digital projects raise theese questions and how do they do it?
Artists examine the "commodification of the self" by selling their belonging and even themselves in online auctions which show that humans are becoming goods and are viewed as such by corporations (or soon will be, at the very least). an example of this is found in the Cary Peppermint piece.
8. Describe the autobotography of "invented selves" or avatars. How do Female Extension and Darko Maver raise questions about the nature of digital selves. Why do they use invented selves and what are the reasons for doing so and the effects of their choices?
Invented selves are essentially personas we adopt/create when we go online and interact with other people on forums, chatrooms, etc.
Female Extension raises questions about the invented self by taking a persona and developing a relatively solid autobiography/resume for these personas (ie their address, phone number, name, etc).They used "invented selves" to even the playing field of the Internet Artist demographic for an upcoming gallery showing. The effects were that the judges did not understand the piece and how it worked and therefore did not recognize the piece as an entry.
1. What is a cyborg, or rather why is thinking about cyborgs useful for exploring identity? Is identity single? dualistic? paradoxical? What rolled does gender paly in cyborg identity vs conventional cultural identity?
Thinking about cyborgs are useful for exploring identity because cyborgs are part-human and part-machine and therefore we can explore the effects technology has and how it alters our lifestyles, habits, personalities, and our sense of self.
I believe identity to be dualistic as there is the sense of how we define ourselves, and there is also how other people may define. It can also be paradoxical in the sense that our definition of ourself may contradict others' definition for us. Or that we don't know how to define and identify ourselves and thus create a paradox that we exist but we cannot explain ourself and therefore cannot exist.
Gender does not have a role in cyborg identity whereas it does for conventional cultural and social identity. In other words, we are aware of gender in conventianal identity, but we are not aware or don't necessarily care about gender in cyborg identity.
2. Give two examples of cyborgs in books, comics, games, or films you have seen. Describe the cyborg, explain its role in the work, then explain what new perspectives it brings to identity.
One example of a cyborg is the anime Ghost in the Shell where people house the brain of a human, (and therefore their thoughts, memories, personality, and their identity), in a mechanical body or "shell". Anybody could be a cyborg but the main characters use it for their job (which is similar to what we know as the FBI and/or the SWAT forces). The new perspective is that we can still be "human" without all of our original "human parts".
Another example would be in a manga (comic) that I have read called Full Metal Alchemist where the main character had an artificial, mechanical arm and leg. The whole premise at first was that he wanted to restore his human limbs but had to learn to work with his artificial ones to get to his goal. Throughout the story, people reacted differently upon learning of his artificial limbs (most are of a negative nature so he hides those parts of his body from people). What this perspectives this brings to identity is that even though we run our lifes with our technology, we should not take our human selves for granted and to take time to appreciate our identities without the influence of technology.
3. What does Haraway mean when she writes “ the production of a universal, totalizing theory is a major mistake”? How does the metaphor of the cyborg undermine the totalizing theories or dualisms that Haraway feels are damaging to our society?
Haraway means that by immersing ourselves entirely in technology that we can lose our sense of reality and lose our identity to our cybernetic identities. The cyborg undermines the totalizing theories and dualisms by bringing unity to ideas that were previously thought to be polar opposites (or the dualism Haraway mentioned). The cyborg no longer fears putting dualism together as one thing (as in animal and machine becomes one).
4. How does her cyborg challenge the white, male, heterosexual bias of our culture? (this bias, for example discourages or punishes white males when acting feminine, or wild or gay; or it rewards women who act like men or like heterosexuals; it is not necessarily good for white male heterosexuals, as it boxes them into this role too). How does the 'monstrous' liberate us? How is this like code art "perversion"?
Haraway's cyborg challenges the gender bias in our culture simply because it has no gender and survives in a "post-gender world" and therefore would not know of or understand our gender bias. The "monstrous" liberates us because we can live without having to worry about petty things such as "women need to do this and this whereas men need to do this".
This is similar to the code art "perversion" in that it is taking the old ideas and changing them in a way that they no longer serve their original purpose but rather a new ones that does not necessarily fit into the original intention of their original purpose.
5. What is liberating, and what is dangerous about a human/machine symbiosis?
A human/machine symbiosis is liberating, again, because we no longer would have to concern ourselve with petty gender-roles and bias in our culture that stems from gender. Haraway also seems to claim that having absolutely no gender is liberating but I see this as dangerous as she does not promise a means for reproduction. Does she suggest that we fully commit ourselves to a cyborg run world where we as a species allow ourselves to die off into extinction?
6. Would you consider yourself a cyborg? Explain how you are or are not a cyborg. Would you like to be a cyborg (sometimes, never, only in play, only when serious)?
I would consider myself a cyborg only in the sense that I live in a world and a culture that heavily relies on technology in order to live. I find myself drawn to my electronics and I find it difficult to try to imagine living without my gadgets such as my laptop and my iPod.
I wouldn't necessarily like to live as a cyborg as described by Haraway; I prefer to live with my current identity (gender included). Granted I am not saying that I agree with the notion of gender biases and roles, I just see my gender as part of my identity and without it I would have a completely different sense of self that I don't think I would like.