Sunday, March 20, 2011

Lavin's Critical Annotated Webliography

Guiding question: ‘Why should our bodies nd at the skin?’ asks Donna Haraway. Discuss the idea of skin in relation to how we might imagine our future embodiment.

1.User Embodiment in Collaborative Virtual Environment

Benford, Steve, John Bowers, Lennart E. Fahlén, Chris Greenhalgh, and Dave Snowdon. "User Embodiment in Collaborative Virtual Environment." CHI '95. CHI '95, 7 May 1995. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. <http://www.sigchi.org/chi95/proceedings/papers/sdb_bdy.htm>.

This paper discusses about the issue of user embodiment in the collaborative virtual environments. It means how the users adopt with appropriate body image to represent them to others and to themselves. The writers also stated few of ways to let the body images represent on the virtual world and several things the users need to consider when they create their own images. However, they also raise a question, “when users can manipulate their image by themselves, should the body image represent a person as they are in the physical world or should it be created entirely at the whim or fancy or its owner?” It brings the other question which we always encounter in the cyberspace---truthfulness. In this paper, the writers use many passages to write about how to pretend people treating in the virtual world. They have not denied the future embodiment cannot separate the body from the skin and they have proved that Donna Harraways’s statement is correct. However, they are not support with this idea in virtual reality, because people will make use of the gray area of the virtual world and try to use a fake identity to represent themselves.

2.What Are We?

Clark, Andy. "What Are We?" Natural-born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. 115-142. Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Mar. 2011. <http://www.profesaulosuna.com/data/files/ROBOTICA/ROBOTICS%20EBOOKS/Natural-Born%20Cyborgs-Minds,Technologies,and%20the%20Future%20of%20Human%20Intelligence.pdf>.

This article is written by a philosopher and cognitive scientist Andy Clark. He writes cyborgs are not something to be afraid, because we already are cyborgs. He argues that our mind extends well beyond our brain and skinbag. In this chapter, he uses some solid examples which can support this argument, such as performance artist Stelarc’s Third Hand and an extreme form of alternate embodiment. He also says the skin is obsolete. The significance of the cyber may well reside in the act of the body shedding its skin. Clark also reports his experience with his control over the Third Hand and discloses the relationship between the brain and the non-bodily member. He states that when you want the cursor to move, use your will to control it. With the example of Stelarc’s Third Hand and the alternative embodiment, strong evidences will be provided to support Donna Harraways’s question. (Why should our bodies end at the skin?) Besides, Andy Clark’s arguments offer his own experience and observation to bolster Harraway’s statement. He also suggests that our minds can extend well beyond our skinbag and brain which is corresponding to the question


3.Cyborg Consciousness: A Visual Culture Approach to the Technologised Body
Campbell, Norah, Aidan O. Driscoll, and Michael Saren. "Cyborg Consciousness: A Visual Culture Approach to the Technologised Body." European Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 7. 344-51. 16 Mar. 2011. <http://www.linkpdf.com/ebook-viewer.php?url=http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/eacr/vol7/EuropeanVolume7_111.pdf>.

In this article, it discusses about how expressions of the future body are coded in marketing communication and imagined. This paper reveals the social codes that are created therein and how the technology generates luminal zones around body. The writers use the visual culture to see how the technological body is coded. It mentions the technologised body is regarded as ‘semiotic ghost’ and from a visual culture perspective, people will argue that there is no problem for a body to have physical reality body and a fictional body. Here shows the writers are support the idea of Harraway’s statement and they think redesigning the body is possible. It also mentions future is influenced and shaped by present and it is the imaginative resource for us. It suggests that what we see the cyborg images appear in the visual world can be human’s future image. It also mentions how the future embodiment works by using advertising as an example which provides solid evidence on Donna Harraway’s statement. The writer also reminds us something that we should aware in the embodiment process. Barbara Stafford notes that “such revolutionary embodiments or incarnated thoughts would demonstrate the independence and individuality of different types of expression.” It connotes that the writer is identify with the idea of body can have more possibilities without skin, and we are all designing the embodiment images through our imaginations. This reveals a great support on Harraway’s statement.

4.Cyborg Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in the Contemporary City

Gandy, Matthew. "Cyborg Urbanization: Complexity and Monstrosity in the Contemporary City." International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Vol. 29.1. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 26-49. Academic Search Complete. Web. 12 Mar. 2011. <http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk:8080/print-version/about-the-department/people/academics/matthew-gandy/files/pdf1.pdf>.

This article is mainly focus on how the cyborg influences the context of our contemporary city. It is suggests that cyborg challenges set of binary opposition which is happening in our society, such as nature/culture, body/technology and real/unreal. The writer also emphasize on the relationship of body and city. He suggests that if we understand the cyborg to be a cybernetic creation, a hybrid of machine and organism, then urban infrastructures can be conceptualized as a series of interconnection life-support systems which means our modern home become a complex exoskeleton for our body. The writer also states that a cyborg, the combination of bodies and machines, is an ontological strategy for extending the limits to human knowledge and ability. He also take Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner as an example to show the possibility of ones talent or memory can be simply the implanted memories of some else in future. This article is not only support body should not end at the skin, it also takes it further to explain that the relationship between the city and body can be seen as one and memory can be transferred to another individuals. He also supports the statement with the film Blade Runner. By using this example, we can see his standpoint is as same as Donna Harraway’s statement.

5.Our Commitment to Our Flesh

Stock, Gregory. "Our Commitment to Our Flesh." Redesigning Humans: Choosing Our Genes, Changing Our Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. 19-34. Google Book. Google. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
<http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=XLjJ4AkYWUgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Redesigning+Humans:+Choosing+Our+Genes,+Changing+Our+Future.&hl=zh-TW&ei=_76FTbXxHIWlcfPx0JcD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>.

The author of this chapter compares and contrasts about the “cyborg” and “fyborg”. He writes even the power of the computer is more brilliant than our brainpower; we will remain blood and flesh for the foreseeable future. He does not agree to implant technology inside our bodies. Although he admits that we human are deeply integrated into systems of machines, we will remain biological. He emphasizes that our body and mind are unique as well as we learn about the world through our senses. Besides, he states that people want to be a cyborg is because of the cyborg fantasies in the movies which create powerful and brilliant images. He claimed that it is not necessary for us to become a cyborg and fyborg is the suitable identity for us. He thinks body and flesh are the things that cannot be separated. We can see that Gregory Stock thinks that there is a special relationship between body and mind, human are unique. He opposes any kinds of implantation inside our bodies. The boundaries of human and machine should not be blurred. It seems that this author does not support Donna Harraway. However, in a certain extent, I think he supports Harraway’s statement “why should our bodies end at the skin?” . It is because Gregory Stock agrees human to extend their abilities by using technology, but he cannot accept the implantation only.

No comments:

Post a Comment