Pushing Boundaries of the Aesthetic and the Real?
Proviso: this is a crude, gestational idea--a thought piece. I do however believe it merits discussion.
Again, I suppose that I should have seen it coming. I do, after all, work with technology. On one level I'm sure that I did foresee this. I've certainly read enough Cyberpunk to imagine that we'll someday be constructing virtual worlds that will challenge our notion of the real while, in turn, feeding back into and changing our culture in unforeseen, potentially negative, ways.
What I didn't foresee, however, and something which frankly leaves me stunned, is the degree to which the photorealistic impulse tends toward representations of idealized beauty. This conclusion, of course, is based upon a relatively small sample size (the linked gallery). Nevertheless, it resonates with my experience living in this cultural moment. As the technology progresses and it becomes more difficult to discern just what is live and what is "Memorex," won't our expectations beauty--already extremely problematic--be driven to the boundaries of what is actually representative of human bodies, i.e., bodies that haven't been somehow mediated by technology?
Think, for example, of the psychic, psychological, and therefore spiritual impact of the waif look, or of heroin chic, or of the prepubescent, pubic hairless representations of women that have now become mainstreamed so that Salon.com advice columns are addressing the issue (or not).
I'm not articulating a neo-luddite argument here. On the contrary. What I am concerned about, however, is our seeming need to run from the real to technologically-enhanced. Because representations of our selves--however idealized--ultimately feedback into the culture and impact psychic space.
Does this make any sense?
Comments
Denben-
Have you seen this article?:
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens.php?page=1
It is basically an argument that as cultures advance they become so seduced by their media that they fail to do what they are designed to do (reproduce, survive, etc.).
I was teaching a new media class last semester and implicit in the texts was the idea that new media bring us back to our bodies. But this summer, after seeing some spectacular new media work I have to say that I think we just love techno-aesthetics for their mimetic potential. We are seduced by their realism.
As video games progress I can see a point in time when those early notions of virtual reality are realized and we won't want to be in the real world. (As a book nerd you know what I mean already).
It's coming. Check out this:
http://projectoffset.com/
I look forward to it with both fascination and fear. I once told you in casual conversation that I wouldn't mind living in a virtual world. Your reply was something to the effect that it may be alright as long as I was the one who created that world. Compelling thought.
Posted by: greg turner-rahman | August 10, 2006 01:42 PM
Greg,
An interesting, plausible, and altogether depressing article.
At some point my fascination with technology and the postmodern morphs into something akin to post-Cyberpunk. I want to argue for the authenticity of meat, of embodiment.
Now, I know, as a Buddhist, that the reality I'm authenticating is problematic, but more problematic is extricating myself from from a future and from worlds that I could construct wherein I would pleasure myself until death.
That narcissistic death trap, the one that Miller so convincingly describes, is so seductive, yet so onanistic that I reject it. There's no meaning in a perpetual dopamine rush, only addiction.
Ultimately, I think I'm a bit old fashioned.
Thanks for a the great read.
Dennis
Posted by: Peridyd![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://peridyd.terrorizedtech.net/nav-commenters.gif)
|
August 10, 2006 08:38 PM
Hold on. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say that the endgame of it all is the realization that our "reality" is simply an informational construct. Maybe entering the game (or what will replace the game) will have some benefits, some therapeutic dimension, some cathartic qualities. I'd like to think we will see some advance in storytelling that facilitates a more thoughtful, emotive, or otherwise life-affirming interaction with our media.
If by dopamine rush you mean that we vividly kill hyperreal things then I agree that we face a depressing future.
But Narcissus' fate is an another issue altogether. Why are we so seduced by the shiny techno-artifact and hyperreal digital image? There is something important in that relationship that needs to be studied more, I say.
Posted by: greg turner-rahman | August 10, 2006 10:33 PM