Sterlac, 1/4 Scale EarAlexander Chislenko, “Technology as Extension of Human Functional Architecture”
Question:
Both Bull and Chislenko discuss the evolution of technology that augments our body's "natural" abilities. How do you see Bull's discussion of the ipod fitting into Chislenko's argument regarding extensions and/or systems functions? After reading these articles, what do you think their overall arguments are regarding the way that technology influences the relationship between our body and our identity?
71 comments:
Nacia Schreiner - Group 1
Gothic Cathedrals were the staples of wants and needs existing within human beings a few centuries ago. As time moved on, wants and needs shifted to make way for the new cultural staples of the automobile, and furthermore towards the age of auditory technology (in this case; the iPod). Our current culture desires to put life to a sound track and the iPod, according to Bull, is the closest device we have in accomplishing that. Bull sates that, “iPod users move through space in their auditory bubbles. In tune with their bodies…” it has essentially turned into “The illusion of a fully private sonic envelope” that finds a balance against the over populated world. Chislenko emphasizes this phenomenon by explaining how extensions of the human body affect the way humans sense the world around them. Chislenko says technologies are use in a way “That includes collecting data from basically any source and location in time and space, and delivering it - if necessary, with change in representation - to human natural senses.” We can see through Bull’s description of the iPod and Chislenko's classifications of extentions that the iPod is a resource storage unit, a manipulator, a transporter, and a sensory unit that can be controlled, converted, artificially annotated, and filtered in ways that basic human limitations cannot perform. Both writers see technology as an extension of being and a means of through which we see/manipulate the world.
Eric Fritz - Group 3
Bull's view of the iPod as an extension of ourselves seems to fit snugly with our class discussion on cell phones as an extension of ourselves - our constant need to be reached. With this example, however, we are not extending our ability to communicate with others; we are staying in our pre-formed cliques and keeping our lives to ourselves; we no longer need to 'step into the cathedral' to be 'enveloped in sound', all we need is a pair of earbuds. We are making technology so small and manageable that we are (as I began to think while reading this) actually destroying our need for interaction. We have shifted this 'envelope' from large cathedrals to cars, ipods and cellphones.
This is definitely what Chislenko would describe as an augmentation device. We are using these devices to manipulate our perception of the world; to carry with us all of our thoughts and opinions - a 'storage unit, a manipulator, a transporter, and a sensory unit'...
Michael Schafer - Group 3
I ipod is just an evolved form of the cathedral. You used to have to go to the cathedral to hear music, but now you can have the music in the palm of your hand. All technology is created because we humans want to be in control, it's our nature. In Bull's article he talks about the "traffic deciding how quickly you get from one place to another, and your work telling you what to do and when to do it." The ipod is an example of a new technology that puts us into control. Retaining order out of chaos. We want to be able to hear the music we like and play whatever songs whenever so we created the ipod. The idea that technology is an extension of our body means that whatever we create reflects upon us. The music you listen to on your ipod can give others a sense of who you are. Bull mentions that the music on your ipod allows you to be "in tune with your thoughts, feelings, desires, and memories." Not only is the ipod and extension of your character but helps you internally and emotionally. Chislenko mentions the fact that technology can be part of us both physically and act as an expression of ourselves. There are certain types of implants that act on us physically. Chislenko also talks about how we use technology to better fit our human natural senses. This is another part of technology being thought of as an extension of our bodies. The ipod is a prime example of technology being used to better fit our human natural senses. It uses our touch sense with the navigation wheel, our hearing sense with the headphones, and we use our sight sense by watching the screen to pick what song to listen to. You can find in every technology a piece of its creator.
It's interesting to read about recent technology, especially the iPod, as I literally just play a new song on my iTunes library. For the longest time, I was against iPods, claiming that you're only buying them for the name (probably still are), yet people kept buying them and more and more gadgets and gizmo's kept coming out to make them better. It's crazy to know that it was only about 10 or so years ago that we were still using tape players and personal walkman's to play only 8 or 12 tracks! Now, however, with iPods and laptops, and cell phones it truly does feel as though we are living in a movie world set in the late 2000's!(the depictions of the future were always absurd!...now, however, if you look back some of those films might be pretty accurate).
I was intrigued by how Bull used a reference to old Gothic Cathedrals as a form of an iPod...music is music and music players come in all sorts of shapes and sizes I suppose. It's also interesting to read Chislenko and how he feels that technology is just humans adapting to our world, and how technology has essentially become one with us, almost becoming a new sense you could say. I know myself have become victim to it...I check my email 20 times a day, always always have my cell phone on me, and most of the time carry around my iPod, whether it be walking to class or working out, or what ever, I always have some form of technology apart of me.
In a way it's sickening really, yet, we do crave human interaction so often...it is funny though, my friends and I still laugh occasionally how in high school we had to call our actual homes to get ahold of one another!
Who knows what technology is in store for us in the future...however, when I think of our technological advances and our supposed high superiority(along with the Japanese) in technology I often reflect back on the scene in the film/book "Contact" by Carl Sagan...the scene in which the main character speaks to an alien and it tells the main character how far we have yet to come to reaching our full potential...I would love to live to see that day...
Lydell Peterson
Group 1 (Emir)
After reading the articles and posts from fellow classmates, I see that the Ipod really is an extension of our bodie’s natural abilities in the form of a technological device. As mentioned in an earlier post about our class discussion of cell phones being an extension of us, I think that Ipods fit into that category as well. Chislenko mentions “functional implants,” (implants placed outside the body, but augment its internal functions). I think that the Ipod fits in that category. It is an external implant that is placed outside the body but affects the internal body (in the Ipod’s case music to the brain and how our brain interprets music). I think that the Ipod truly is an extension because of how personalized it is and the abilities to have control over what music (or video) goes on it. Before the Ipod (and walkman) a person would have to walk into a cathedral, put money in a jukebox, or wait for a song on the radio. Like mentioned in an earlier post, the Ipod gives a sense of control of what music you want to listen to. In a world of stoplights, paths, and ordered directions the Ipod allows the user to immerse themselves in a world of their choosing based on the music they want. (Which in a sense is a part of their personality/identity). Along with the Ipod being used to express personality/identity the use of technology in clothing is a huge influence on how people identify themselves. Clothing has long been a tool used to express identity but is somewhat limited to one picture or dialogue. Creating LED lights or imitating the “clicking” of a stiletto is a step further into pursuing an even greater detailed identification through personal clothing. I can just picture it now, people wearing clothing displaying family movies or their favorite movies to give strangers impressions of what they are into, thus displaying a piece of their identify. I think that the arguments over technology influencing extensions of the body and identity are substantial. Basically, any technological extension is simply a better way to connect to a person’s identity.
The ipod has now become apart of the owner. it is like an extention added to us. our natural abilities are becoming more dependent on technology. we are now starting to base our world on technology and trying to find more ways to do it. we are using tchnology to identify ourselves. like the ipod, we can upload all of our favorite music into it, and people use music to define themselves, therefore we use the ipod to identify ourselves. not only does technology help us to do simle yasks in everyday life but it allows us to be in control. Like with the ipod we are incontrol of what we listen to. like Bull says in his article...we can listen to what we want and not what something like a store plays for us. we are in complete control with the ipod which gives more to a persons identity.
Hayley Schneider - Group 1
Ipods are getting around! I see them every where I go. Kids, adults, and teens all have ipods. My dad even has an ipod. Its crazy. But people love the ability to listen to only the songs they like, whenever they want. You do not have to fast forward or rewind like you had to with the tape player and you have more options than with a cd player. Ipods have become an adapted piece of technology. People can now choose colors, styles, and size. When could you choose the size of a cd player or tape player? These articles made me think of how now ipods are interacting with other material items like Nike Shoes. Nike and Apple grouped together to make an adapter that you can put in the bottom of your Nike Shocs while you are working out. If you slow down during your workout, your ipod will turn to a different more upbeat song to get you motivated. Why is this needed? Its completely not but people who love Ipods and love working out thinks its the best.
What Bull is writing about is so very true. How cultural icons progress over time but ultimately are related some how. On the second page he writes, "Gothic cathedrals were not merely to be looked at or entered for silent prayer, they were also cathedrals of sound in which sacred vocal music reverberated through massive spaces." This directly relates to the use of ipods and how private and reclusive they are. This also can compare to our use of concerts...cathedrals, one listened TO the music. Today you only go to a concert for the experience and the great music falls into the background, still important, but background music none the less. I believe this is what Bull is getting at on the middle pages. During the latter part of the writing (i.e. top of page 3) Bull begins to lose me. But the last line in the italicized section, "The ipod has given me some control back." I totally agree, radios, and I assume he means listening to the radio, are so hit and miss with they tunes. Especially "hit" radio stations!!
~Kurt Sensenbrenner
group 3
Michael Bull and Alexander Chislenko both describe that overtime technology is becoming a part of us or becoming one with us. Bull stated that “I have never cherished anything I bought as much as this little device.” In this quote Bull is referring to an Ipod, this simple quote almost shows a type of addiction to this new technology which Bull has purchased. This fits into Chislenko’s essay where he talks about the extension of technology and the affect it has on our race. Bull and Chislenko see technology as something that we are attached to and it has become a necessary part of life. For example the Ipod has created this extra feeling that only that person feels because they are in their own world when the plugs are lodged in their ears. I completely understand because I listen to my Ipod to and from class everyday, but when I forget my Ipod I feel empty walking to class. The Ipod has changed me.
Colin Sytsma, group 3, 115
As Chislenko describes what our bodies or what all organisms need to go through to learn new abilities and take on new attachments; Bull seems to be saying that the i-pod is inherently taking this role of human capable attachment functionality. Bull says that the i-pod does many things including organizing ones day through soundtrack-ed moments in ones day (if one saw a pretty girl while "don't think twice, it's all right" was playing on his i-pod; his mnemonic memory of both the girl and the song will be triggered each time he hears or sees that event again.
Does this mean that the i-pod or any new technology will soon be an extension of the human organisms basic motor skills of seeing,hearing, thinking, touching, tasting, or smelling; i don't know. If chislenko is right than the overwhelming turnover of technology won't allow for the time it would take for humans to ineptly adapt mechanisms into our own organic mechanism. We will already be exploring the new frontiers that are far removed from our bodies.
"Extending or perfecting the body's "natural" capabilites", using technology this truly defines what we as humans do. We develope glasses to make our sight better, develope hearing aids to improve our ears, develope all sorts of things to make every day life easier by "perfecting the body's "natural" capabilites." These "extensions", as Alexander Chislenko would put it improve our body's limitations, its like taking natural adaptaion into our own hands. Creating evolution that improves oneself, almost playing god for our own good.
David Ebner-Group 3
In his brief article, Bull sings the praises of the iPod. Its slick sophisticated, compact, portable and understated design, harmonizes beautifully with the fulfillment of what can be described as the “Sound Track Fantasy”. What is more magical than an all encompassing air tight universe where in you are complimented by a soundtrack for your life? You have a cinematic score for every aspect of life: a score for riding the bus, a score for walking your dog, a score for working out, a score for enjoying a drink with friends. Not only are your options seemingly infinite, but they are available at the touch of a dial the size of a dime. Chislenko discusses technology as extensions of the human body; the iPod is a prime example of such an appendage. The device is small, easily slipped into a pocket, as if it were actually part of your skin. It is also an issue of personality, status and identity. It is not the device itself per say, but what is stored in the device—your digital psyche. Our technology stores memories, music, data, statistics, pictures, phone numbers, addresses, world news, designs, business interactions, personal conversations as well as imaginary scenarios, social networks, intimate fantasies and secret lives.
In the Ipod article, it talks about the ipod being an extension of your body. It discusses how the ipod let’s you take control of your life by choosing what song you want to hear and when you want to hear it. The ipod is the “auditory world in the palm of the hand.” With the ipod, users move in tune with their bodies. Chislenko describes technology as an extension in two different types: attachments and implants. Attachments are on the surface of our body, while implants are internal enhancements. I think the Ipod article is arguing that most technology doesn’t give us freedom and it doesn’t give us control. For example, television forces us to find a program to watch out of what we are given. Cell phones don’t give us control because we are “interrupted by unexpected and unwanted calls.” I used to hate ipods and claimed I would never get one. I loved my cds and found no point in trying to fit all my songs into an ipod. Finally, I found the nice thing about having an ipod is that you don’t have to find a certain cd; it’s all just in one place, and I got one for a graduation gift. I think in ways they don’t give you complete control because you are limited to how many songs you can add to one. Mine is filled by now and when I want to add more songs, I have to delete other songs. I’m not sure if there is any form of technology that gives you complete control. There is always some sort of limits.
-Sarah Myszewski (Group 3)
Bull's discussion of the iPod fits into Chislenko's argument of extensions in that the iPod could be considered one. I would say it fits best into the 'wrapper' category, (or pseudo-category). It is an extension of our bodies' ability to hear/listen to music, but is 'wrapped' in a technical device. Our ears are the original system; the iPod is the mediating device. As for system functions, an iPod could be considered a manipulator or as resource storage. As a manipulator, it has the ability to enhance our environment. If you are walking downtown amid traffic and lots of people, turning on your iPod can take you to a rock concert or to a jazz club. It has the ability to manipulate your surroundings with the simple press of a button. As resource storage, an iPod stores songs, pictures and video for you. It is an external hard drive that you can access at any time.
If an iPod influences the relationship between our body and identity, then technically enhanced apparel definitely will. Just by looking at an iPod, no one can guess as to what your personality is like until they turn it on and look through it. Fashionable technology is definitely one step further. It's like everyone walking around with an iPod that plays out loud. It will be attention-grabbing and statement-making.
Devin Smith - Group 1
Jon Phillips
Group 3
Bull describes the iPod as a recent upgrade to a more mobile form of both the cathedral and the Citoren DS, a source of sonic stimulation. The main difference between the iPod and these older forms of technology which fulfill the same desire is that, with the iPod, we are completely in control of the sounds we hear, much like the parts of our own bodies. In this the iPod becomes an extension of our bodies, like Chislenko is describing. Unlike the cathedrals of antiquity or the radio stations broadcasting songs which are governed by other people's choices, the iPod, like our hands and feet, is completely subservient to our every whim (well, unless it bricks on us and we're forced to repeatedly, and quite fruitlessly, call Apple in hopes of getting them to exchange it even though our warranty has run out)
As I type this, the sounds of an early 1980's British ska band are being pumped directly to my ears by my iPod. I would also like to point out that I am currently at work. I never leave the house without my iPod, it goes everywhere with me, and if it isn't on providing me with 24/7 music, it is tucked into my messenger bag waiting to be. It has become an extension of me, I guess, and I use it more often than any other item I possess.
Bull argues that our iPods are tied to our bodies in a significant way. Having music in my ears all day long, despite being out in public has led to some fairly embarrassing moments for me (see: singing out loud, playing air guitar or keyboard.) In this way, the iPod is able to control our bodies (even if other people simply lip-sync along, bob their heads or tap on their knees while on the bus.)
Chislenko imagines a future where technology will supplant our own biology and make us into some kind of Cyborg, tied to the technology we use. In many ways, cell phones, and especially iPods are the first step to this reality. We are able to control the iPod in its elegant little way, but at the same time, it has the power to control us.
Bull's idea of the Ipod fits well with Chislensko's article. The Ipod is an extension of our aural capabilities. We can now hear what we want when we want or use it to escape from the outside and live to our music. Though the ipod may not be as advanced as filters for sight or devices you plug into, it has certainly set a standard in it's time and will only evolve to be even more personal. Our increasing usage of bandwidth will cause us to be more dependent on our extensions and the more mobile and personal the extensions will become. We'll need them for everything. We'll have seemingly limitless transactions of information, and we'll be in control of them...hopefully
I think their arguments are that, though convenient, these extensions might eventually take away the sense of identity from the body. In Chilensko's article he stated that, "All further increase in data traffic will happen between the machines, so in another decade the traffic received by humans may be relatively so small that it may be delivered for free." If our extensions are doing our thinking for us, everyone might become more of the same and our bodies would be more in sync. Essentially, we'd be cyborgs, like Chilensko mentions, and identity wouldn't matter.
-Eddie Roberts Group 2
The ipod fits into Chislenko's category of technology that functions as storage. It stores memory that is converted into sound when accessed. The ipod has had considerable success because it has vastly increased the amount of memory one can store in a small space; not only can you access all your music from one place, you can take that place wherever you go. For this reason,Chislenko would probably consider the ipod as also being a transport device. Not only can the memory be accessed on the go, but it can be transferred to other devices anywhere.
These articles argue that technology is having more influence on our identities which causes our identity to be less based on our bodies. Chislenko imagines future technology that will allow humans to see and hear better, to modify what they feel and when they feel it, and to taste without actually eating. In the third reading, Jenny Tillotson describes clothing that will allow humans to smell differently than they normally would without applying the scent directly to their bodies. These all make the body an obsolete tool through which to perceive the world, and since our identity is strongly tied to the way in which we understand and conceptualize things technology is poised to move right into that spot.
What is this obsession with creating our own bubble of isolating technology such as the Ipod becoming an extension of our pyshical space. It is important to realise that as we have become more technolocially advanced the more isolated we seem to become and yet we have more acsses to people and information then ever. we text,call,e-mail,or message anyone we want when ever we wish to.
Our advancment from the cathedral, a place were we humans had to gather in-order to worship,connect,and hear music, was knocked down a peg by the automobil Bull would say. Now we had control on how fast we could get to a place, the radio provided us with new cultural excitment and advancment & also news about our world and the people in it.
How many people do you see around campus listening to the music on their Ipods, or Zunes. This divices gives us an escape from the outside world that we must walk in and participate in. Does this create a minipulation of time and space around us? You bet it does. Time and distance seem to disapper when your ears are not hearing the world around you. when you are focused more on the reality on the inside of your head, you see the outside world, you feel the outside world, you are in the outside world. but your presents is in your own world, were you hear the music you wish to hear.
"Chislenko says technologies are use in a way “That includes collecting data from basically any source and location in time and space, and delivering it - if necessary, with change in representation - to human natural senses.”
This is true i think because we do have this option readily available to use at all times now a days. In this generation we have the most acess to the most information we want at any given time. The generation that comes after use will no doubt have more informationa dn more acess only faster. and possible will be able to bubble them selves off more so then we already,limitedly can. The minipulation of our world around us can already happen, pretty soon it will be common place to do so. You dont like something just upgrade it, edit it, download a new version, or create your own.
Matt Gonia Group 1
Everywhere you go today, it seems you can spot at least one person listening to an iPod. Bull says, "Pod users move through space in their auditory bubbles." It changes the way people interact with the world. Instead of street sounds people move to their own soundtracks. It is like an early form of some of the technologies Chislenko describes. He envisions extensions of our bodies, viewing the world for us. He describes technologies that can filter our view, such as removing advertisements or being able to "see" noise as fog. But he sees that if technology goes too far we may begin to lose our identities. Like he says, "if a person breaks some laws, and then replicates into lots of clones, and modifies himself beyond recognition, who should be punished for the crime?" In the future with all this technology we may experience what he calls a "death forward". A deth forward is a change beyond recognition when you lose out identity. In the future will we become machines? Will we become things without identities? Only time will tell.
Joe Simanis (Group 2)
I agree with Bull's view of an iPod as a technological extension of ourselves, however, I don't see how it relates to the example of Gothic Cathedrals. In my opinion, the Cathedrals were more of an extension of a community of people that shared the same views and religion. iPod is more of an extension of one individual, since you listen to the music that you want and the music that fits your lifestyle. I do agree with his view of saying that an iPod is an extension of a personal bubble of its owner.
At the same time Chislenko puts focus on how these types of extensions affect our view and perception of the world around us. He points out the fact that the physical abilities of biological organisms are limited, but we can extend our natural capabilities with the help of technology. Just like Bull, Chislenko believes that technology extends and enhances our capabilities.
Gleb Sergeyev
Group 1
Like all things, the pro's and con's of the iPod being an extension of the human body are quite important when discussing the relationship between the simplicity of an mp3 player and it's relationship with its owner. The aesthetics of the iPod, along with its ability to create a space wherein the user is free from the stress that is attached to their environment, not only allow one to play a soundtrack to their life, but also detach them from the environment that the soundtrack came from.
"Even being in public places forces me to
endure other people and their habits (the guy slurping his soup)
the brat crying for a piece of candy). I didn)t realize how much
I yearn for control and probably peace and quiet."
This quote enforces the idea that the iPod is more than just a walking private soundtrack player, but instead a barrier between the world and your "controlled" environment. If technology is to become an extension of the body, should it not enhance one's relationship with their environment, instead of deconstruct it? If the iPod is an extension of the body, it certainly is only the beginning of a whole new world of science that's goal is to create a physical relationship between technology and human beings. Their forms vary from Implants, sensors, attachments, and even resource storage devices. However, these types of physical extensions create a way for the user to control their environment to have new capabilities that a non-technology extended human would not have. However, at this point in technology, the iPod has only scratched the surface of humans interaction with the technology we have created.
--Tom Matthias Sec. 804
Troy Key
Group 1
Film 115
To preface this article, I find myself fascinated by the manner in which this article melds with the other articles that we have read as well as the manner in which it seems to contradict some parts.
Now, Bull's view of the Ipod as a type of extension on our bodies is indeed an interesting one. It is true that headphones and radios are all extensions of our bodies which, in truth, desire to hear the band sing whatever song that we are listening to. However, if we do look at it on another level, there are many people who do not like seeing concerts, they only enjoy hearing studio produced albums. That being said, since putting in your ear buds, or if you lack all sense of pop culture, super massive noise-canceling headphones, you make yourself extremely untouchable to most human interaction. Now, to further touch on the note of the Ipod substituting for a Cathedral, we see that not only are you extending yourself so that you may hear those wonderfully resounding Cathedral sounds, but you are cutting yourself off of everyone else who would otherwise take in the experience with you. On top of that, you can listen to any song that you feel like, so you're also detaching (generally speaking of course) yourself from the possibility of hearing any song that you don't like. (Although you may hear a few now and again that you simply are not in the mood for). This is intriguing to me because we look at the telephone/cell phone, the television, the computer, all of these things and they all scream for human interaction. It is almost as if we all have an innate need to relate to the infamous Hemmingway quote "Even in a crowd I was always alone." For when we are at home, or alone anywhere, we desire human interaction. We thirst for it, it shows in almost everything that we do, and we all know that when you're at home you always have your ear buds in or Itunes playing some music through your computer, but we still desire to interact indirectly with people. Yet direct human interaction terrifies many people these days.
The Ipod does indeed manipulate our own perception of the world. It makes our own personal universe more self-centered. We don't have to worry about having that awkward conversation where we learn all and tell all next to that overly-friendly old man on the plane. I say this, because even I am guilty of such reliefs, and when we find ourselves interrupted by our music we grow irritated despite the fact that we know we can just start the song all over and listen to it as many times as our batteries will allow us! But here we have something that can store information, manipulate it into any order we desire, transport it from our home to anywhere in the world and because we listen to it, it can be an extension of our ears. (Even if that extension is more inward, to ourselves, than to anyone else.)
In Bull's article, the iPod was described as a way to change a persons experienced reality, a filter that enveloped the wearer in their own controllable audio environment. This is an effective manipulation of the wearer's reality and would best fit into Chislenko's theories under the "Perception filters and enhancements" classification. The iPod is a perception filter because it allows us to mute the rest of the world and insert our own audio, or soundtrack, as one of Bull's references said. And thus our reality is enhanced by this cultural icon. It is like drugs, which is also a cultural icon that changes our reality.
I think that both of their arguments are pretty similar. As we use technology more and more to change our body's experiences, our individuality becomes oppositely more attached to our technology. iPod playlists express our individuality within music, but without an iPod no one could just look at us and know our music tastes. And with Chislenko's implants and reality filter, our identity suddenly goes external into our technology and in consequence, we lose a bit of our own identity.
Toby Staffanson
Group 4
Max Larsen
Group 3
After reading both Bull’s and Chislenko’s articles I began to see how Bull’s article fit into Chislenko’s. In Chislenko’s article he says, “Human role/interface with attachments becomes increasingly abstract. From finding and manipulating a tool we turn to communicating to it. Ideally, we may just express our needs, and the tools will understand which of them can do it, and how it should be done.” I think this passage closely relates to Bull’s because Bull constantly talks about how people turn to the iPod to get a sense of control back in their lives. Bull says, “In sum, the iPod puts users in tune with their desire to eke out some aesthetic control as they weave their way through the day.” This is a very conclusive statement as to what exactly the rest of Bull’s talks about. For many people the iPod has become an extension of their body allowing them to always have the soundtrack to their life, ready at their hip. After reading these articles I think their overall argument about technology influencing our bodies is to inform us rather than persuade us to think that this technology revolution is a bad thing. It is part of our growth and is bound to happen so we may as well accept and become prepared for it.
Jacob Feiring-Group2
There are clear connections between Chislenko’s and Bull’s discussion of the
evolution of technology that augments our body’s “natural” abilities. Bull
states “Surrounded by enveloping acoustics, iPod users move through space in their auditory bubbles. In tune with their bodies, their world becomes one
their “soundtracked” movements; they move to the rhythm of their music, not the rhythm of the street. In tune with their thoughts, their chosen music enables them to focus on their feelings and desires." In other words, this handheld technology allows us to create our own soundtrack to our lives instead of depending on the soundtrack of the noisy city streets, or the sounds of the
music playing from department stores enticing us to purchase their products.
Chislenko's ideas play into Bull's ideas of technological extension as he
explains how people's perceptions about the world change depending on the type
technological extensions that are used. Chislenko states that "To maintain
competitive efficiency, systems have to develop certain features, such as
complexity, integration, and [what I call] liquidity. They also should be able to utilize the legacy of system structures that were developed earlier and often for quite different purposes.
Human extensions in different technological formats are important for
efficiency and thus shape our identity, the way we view our surroundings and
perceptions, similar to Bull's take on the ipod.
To some extent I agree that technology has the ability to influence the relationship between our body and identity. When an Ipod creates our own
little bubble of sound, our mood or mind can shift when the external world of
noise and chaos is blocked out. These extensions have the ability to allow us
to concentrate on other aspects of our lives.
The iPod has become a part of our everyday lives. I see Chislenko’s argument fitting into Bull’s discussion because they both discuss how technology is becoming an extension of our bodies as we use technology like the iPod to hold files, music, and games. We have become more dependant on technology as a whole. We need objects to extend our natural function so we can better perform in everyday life. Not like in the past we no longer have to go to a cathedral to hear music of the lord or live performances to have it at the tips of our hands. We are in complete control of what we listen too. Like Bull said “In the head and mind of the iPod user, the spaces of culture have been redrawn into a largely private and mobile auditory worship.” When you have the iPod you are connected to the music world and now with the introduction of wi-fi with the iTouch you can now be connected to the internet. So now you have the whole wide web in the palm of your hand.
-Judith Marker-
Group 1
Bull described the iPod as a way of getting time and control back in his life. You can block out any noise that irritates you and enjoy your own music while going about your day. And with Chislenko's he was discussing how he understands the way his body works externally. In a way holding that small iPod in your hand makes you feel a sense of comfort and a place to escape. In class we talked about how our generation is lost without technology, where would we all be without cell phones, laptops, and iPods? With all those devices we wont ever need to talk to anyone face-to-face anymore. So in a way those extensions are slowly killing our interaction with others, as Chislenko said our “human abilities in communication our limited”. Our natural perception of reality becomes blurry and it’s taken over by devices that we think we need to live by. Like without a cell phone when would we talk to people? Or even text messaging, it takes away from the cell phones natural purpose of talking.
A.Gray
Group 4
Bull's discussion of the ipod correlates with Chislenko's ideas of technology integration and the relationship between individuals and technology. As technology advances the relationship between people and technology becomes more and more personal. New technologies are turning into extensions of our body. People had to physically go to cathedrals to experience the resonated sounds. Now people have ipods. We can take them anywhere and many people feel the need to take an ipod everywhere. Ipods have become an extension of our bodies so that we may change our surroundings; blocking out the sounds of our environment and replacing those sounds with more personal preffered music. We can even put video on our ipods now, if one's surroundings are dull or boring one can put on a video and delve into a personal world between an individual and what they choose to view. Chislenko also talks about system functions and how they are growing. Everyday technology advances and we can do more and more. We rely on technology to do things for us. Ipods entertain us, cars move us, calculators do work for us. Also transportation has grown in technology, we can take our music everywhere with ipods, we can move memory and signals with new technologies. People have started to identify with technology and technology is becoming part of each individuals identity. Ipods portray our likes and dislikes through the music and videos we put on them. Technologies are becoming attachments to our bodies.
Veronica Mosley Group 4
Bull’s discussion of the ipod is that it has taken the place of the Gothic churches that were once made, and the cars of yester year. He’s arguing that the ipod has become an icon because it gives people choices on what to play or not play. He’s opinion fits nicely into Chislenko’s argument because for some people, the ipod has become an extension of them. From personal experience, I know several people who can not go plays unless they are playing their ipod as it’s the thing that has their playlists on.
I think that the overall arguments from both men are that technology influences the relationships between a person’s body and identity greatly. An example of this would be the class discussion last week about cell phones. A lot of us in class stated that we didn’t know how to function without a cell phone, as it was an extension of us. It made it able for us to communicate with others who were miles away, and yet at the same time, it isolates us from people who are only two steps away.
I do agree with Eric Fritz that ipods are destroying our needs for interaction, but I think it’s got more do with how society treats interaction vs. the new technologies. If you were to look at the commercials of the new technologies, the companies are trying to sell the fact that any person can get coverage anywhere in the United States, have the phone in any color, updated in all the new gadgets and have it be cool.
To me, there seems to be these Pro’s of being able to control what you listen to at anytime you choose, and having the chance to communicate with others but these Con’s of : Your isolated from others and your running the risk of losing your identity.
Tony Lopez, Group 3
Ipods are the beginnings of putting the digital universe in your hands. Chrislenko actually placed an ear on his arm that could, one day, potentially have the ability to hear. These are both examples of evolution. My first impression of Michael Bull's essay was that he was wrong. However after a while I got what he said. We used our cars to travel faster. We use cell phones as a form of an almost telekinesis-like fashion. We use hand held digital objects in the same way. It is an extension of our limbs as we know them.
Chislenko had sort of a more literal meaning to the term evolution. He put an actual ear on his arm as if to jump start the slow dawdling everlasting process of adaption. To actually put another body part on yourself is almost the same statement of the ipod. We are using both as separate processes physical and digital to advance.
I first must say that the fashionable technology article is the most interesting I've read, most likely because I'm a girl. But we wear light up shirts or headbands for holidays, and belts with a scrolling message buckle are on sale. I can't wait for The Puddlejumper.
Bull is saying that the iPod is a technological extension of our bodies. It is. It's like having your personal inner soundtrack running all the time with music you like. By putting something else in our ears and listening to it instead of the outside world (which I don't consider a bad thing) the iPod has become a part of our ears. The music playing in our head is actually there, but it feels like sometimes we're imagining it. Sometimes I forget my iPod is in and I end up making a sudden movement and ripping the earbuds out. We get lost in the music. Some people are lost without music. I think the articles are saying that technology is becoming so personal that it becomes a part of us and we don't even realize it's there. Old technology, like the kaleidoscopes we reconnected with in class, took a little longer to get used to. If I looked through the 'scope long enough I'd think my eyes had turned crazy colors. But with smaller technology made to fit our needs, we forget about it and adapt very quickly.
-Julianne Arnstein G4
Amanda Zimmerman Group 1
Bull states that “I have never cherished anything I bought as much as this little device.” Doesn’t that seem a little scary? For one to say that they cherish their ipod more than say, food or their refrigerator which keeps their food from getting spoiled and then they wouldn’t be able to eat? Interestingly enough, I have to assume that millions of people said that about refrigerators when they first were invented. Although it may seem a little scary, that shows exactly how addicting the ipod really is…that people are now, in a sense, comparing it to how important other things are that really are necessary to keep us alive. This is brought up in the readings. Both Chislenko and Bull see technology as an extension of our bodies and a as a way we can manipulate the world. The ipod is customized really, with the music and video of an individual’s choosing, and then allows you to pick which song you want to hear and when. Technology is then able to show one’s identity by the type of music and videos that one has on their ipod. I agree that the ipod is an extension of our identity. You can tell a lot about a person by looking at their iTunes library, almost in the same way you can tell a lot about a person by their appearance and the way they carry and present themselves.
I do believe that technology has become fashionable. For example you can go to any retail store and get decorative covers. You can go to the Apple store and get skins or socks for your iPod to protect them. It has become an addition of our bodies. Personally I feel very strange when I walk out of my dwelling with out my cell phone. It is starting to be the same with my iPod. I like how Alexander Bull put is that we now have more control over out musical abilities than we have before. Being able to cram hundreds of compact discs onto something a little bit bigger than a deck of cards is a tremendous feet.
People in the present day have become obsessed with technology. It is in their mind that the smaller the piece of electronics the better. That way it is easier to make your information and data more mobile.
The above comment is from Theresa Ennis Group 4
Bull's discussion of the ipod fits into Chislenko's argument regarding extensions as a form of implant. Take for example the person in Bull's article who uses the ipod to live by his own schedule and take back control. Just as the cochlear implant let's the deaf hear, so does the ipod allow people to hear whatever they want. Before the invention of the ipod people had a soundtrack running in their head, but never was it so vast, or real. And I think that this simple sonic invention has really helped people better connect with themselves both mentally and physically. After reading all of these articles I think that the overall argument is that technology has, and will continue to show ourselves and the world who we really are. Wheter that be reflecting internally when a certain song comes on at a particularly poigniant moment, or letting a stranger get a sense of your personality when they happen upon your shared itunes folder. I guess technology is a facilitator for all relationships, and communication, just like the cathedrals once were.
David Lewandowski 115 GROUP#2
Nate Meads group 2
Bull views the iPod as something like our cell phones and computers. Although, this seems to be on the right track. ipods are much like cathedrals, except more evolved. Back in the day, you had to actually go somewhere to hear music. Now, all you need to do is press a few buttons on a little gadget and you have music right there. I agree with what Kurt said, that 'icons progress over time but ultimately are related some how'. This is very true. Chislenko talks about Functional Implants, which are implants placed outside the body, but augment its internal functions. This works jsut like the iPod.
If the iPod is coming out now, and is a huge step in technology and humans. I can only imagine what will be in store for us in the near future. Both writers see technology as an extension of being, but also rapidly changing ways in which you do almost everything in our lives.
Whether you like them or not, iPods are here and they are not going away any time soon. They will only get smaller and more advanced over time. As someone else mentioned, the iPod has become a part of us - like an extension of our bodies. In his article, Bull talks about the iPod being alters a person's reality and environment. When someone walks around listening to an iPod as opposed to walking without one, the two experiences are dramatically different. Bull is very much in love with his iPod, he has a sort of addiction to it. This just shows how technology can become an utter part of us as people. The human race has been and always will be obsessed with pursuing and acquiring new and better technology. The iPod definitely fits into Chislenko's idea of extensions - it is an extension itself. Chislenko's theory of a future where technology is actaully a biological part of our bodies (like cyborgs) might seem like something out of a science fiction film, but we are certainly taking steps (though small steps) in that direction. As things like iPods and cell phones get smaller and more portable, they could hypothetically be attached to the body. Hopefully, this won't happen for a long time - I don't really like the idea of turning into some kind of half-man, half-machine entity. Again, as Bull says, the iPod gives us complete control over what the technology does for us - we pick exactly what music to listen to, in this case. As time moves forward, we will just have to see what comes next on the frontier of technology. But for now, things like the iPod (as other have said, and I agree with them) have given people more of a personal identity.
I am in the Group of Four.
Bull describes the Ipod as sort of a getaway from everything else, using sound. He says that Gothic Cathedrals and automobiles before them were used in this manner. However, you can't take a Gothic Cathedral with you everywhere. Same goes for your car; it can go a lot of places, but it has limitations. The Ipod is the next step in this chain as Bull describes it. It can pretty much go anywhere and with it you can have virtually anything you want to listen to. During the time of Gothic Cathedral's it was religious hymns that people went to go listen to and fade into and now its whatever 20,000 songs you want.
This fits in perfectly with Chislenko's idea of extensions, particularly attachments/interfaces. That is what Ipods are becoming after all. With these attachments comes perception filters, the most intriguing and most closely related to Bull's Ipod is the "World Improvement" filter. Chislenko says that this filter can "paint things in new colors, put smiles on faces..." all of which music has been doing for thousands of years, but now its with us at all times.
I think the way they are saying technology influences us is by the fact that we are able to choose how we see the world. Our music or different filters and attachments; these define who we are. Just like how you can tell something about someone from hearing the music they listen to in their car, in the future you may be able to tell by the music they broadcast themselves while they walk down the street.
Derrick Markowski - Section 3
Bull and Chislenko's thoughts are both along the same line of thought because these inventions that Bull listed: the gothic cathedrals, the five seater car, and the ipod are all extensions from our body. They might not be immediately connected to us physically, but we are still connected to them in a way if we are drawn to them. Bull's arguement was that technology affects our bodies which is true. Long ago when gothic cathedrals existed it allowed people to experience many things all at once. With the cathedrals it allowed people to socialize with family and friends, worship and pray, as well as listen to music that fully surrounds their bodies. However once one of the first five seater cars came about it allowed families to stay together, but now they are able to go wherever they'd like. Instead of staying in the cathedral, they could stay with their friends and family all while travelling. Also, they were still able to surround themselves with music in this automobile since they came equipped with stereos. Most recently then with the ipod I would say it allowed people to continue to travel where ever you like still and be surrounded by music, however I feel it limits people's connected with their families. One could argue though that since ipods can be connected to cars they still then allow families to be together in that way while travelling. As for Chislenko's arguement with technology being extensions on our bodies, the ipod most definitely is this. We physically put the earbuds in our ears to listen to our music and we attach the ipod to our clothing or hold it in our hand. The music almost seems to "implant" itself, just like Chislenko was discussed, inside of our bodies through our ears. I can definitely relate to that because many times when using the ipod earbuds it feels pretty awkward and unique to have the sound embedded into my earlobes instead of having traditional headphones that cover your ears or rest nicely on them.
ryan fox.
group two.
Timothy Sienko, group 4
The human body was given its user, a beta release with bugs and glitches that do not always have patches. Whether physical disabilities, mental short-comings or social difficulties, there is very little the user of a human body can control. This does not, however, make the body a useless piece of technology. With a wide variety of add-ons, or implants as Chislenko names them, the body becomes a very versatile piece of equipment beyond its usage as in industry. The Apple iPod, according to Bull, turns the body from a participant in daily routine into a sanctuary of its own routine. Users traditionally attended a sanctuary (of varying size depending on generation) to receive visual and audio input. The iPod, however, allows users to directly input those stimuli into the body on a individual basis. the human body is no longer at the whim of outside influences, but rather at the whim of the singular user.
I think that the technology we as people use individually says a lot about our personality. I think by finding out what music a person listens to, one is able to must of the time place that person into a category of some sort, distinguishing them from other and relating them to those who are partially the same. The thing that seems to keep changing with technology the most over time is the size of an object. Technology keeps getting smaller and more compact, like the ipod, and its many other versions. If an item is more compact and smaller, people seem more drawn to it. But really, how far can this go?
I think by the object being smaller, we feel more control of it. it seems to us easier to manage. And often, being in control is something that peeks most humans interest. it feels comfortable to be in control and the ipod gives us this chance. we no longer have to wait with hope that a good song will come on the radio next. we are able to choose the next 1000 songs if we so please. i have grown to love my ipod. it took some getting used to but now i go absolutely everywhere with it....and its so nice because it fits in the palm of my hand.
-Tyler Hudson
Group 1
I think the ipod, like the Gothic Cathedrals are a staple of what man has and can achieve at the time of their greatness. They are cultural icons that fuel the needs of the people at that very moment. Bull states that they are a an “extension” to ourselves which is a good point; ipods have become a hot commodity for people and have defined a generation. Cell phones alike, many people feel they are one with their devices and that they define them. You wouldn’t catch me dead with a pink Motorola Razor phone, yet my sister cant leave the house without hers. In the second article, Chislenko describes technology as extensions and implants. I wouldn’t go as far as saying these technologies change our physiology; I think they are merely fashion and generational statements. I don’t feel because we get x-rays or bone implants that our bodies will change. Furthermore, ipods in my opinion will only taint the sense of reality, getting lost in your music. I don’t think identity is at risk because frankly everyone is doing it, it is part of the 21st century.
Basically Bull and Chislenko are saying that communications are evolving in our time. In the past, any advancement in technology was a Godlike experience. The Gothic cathedral was a way of feeling connected to God, and the origial clock, as we read before, called us to prayer to God. Now, as we move further alon thechnology, we are beginning to separate ourselves from God. We want control of everything our body does, separate from God. One of Bull's quotes dealt with the IPod users being in tune with their bodies. A few of the users said they felt in complete control over their lives, actually moving their feet to the ryhthm of the music. They were basically ordering their lives around this new technology. Chislenko also mentions this, that we use tools to extend our intelligence and memory. I would take that one step furhter, adn mention Chislenko's saying that we are becoming tools in this new technology system. We are no longer human in a sense, because the computers need us less and less. We are merely a facilitator. This new placement of humans puts us as far from God as possible. Not only does our technology no longer bring us closer to God, but we are creating technology that hardly needs us.Our existence has become a way of worshiping machines and getting smarter and more reliant on self, instead of on God.
~Jackie Bentley, Group 3
I feel that music and the ipod have huge impacts on our bodies and identities. Just take a look at the different people you see when you walk around campus. You have your cloneish, fake-baked girls and guys who listen to pop, the jam-band hippies, the rap-listening gangters and your deathmetal goths. Just this explanation shows that music has a mojor influence on people because we can tell what kind of music they listen to by how they dress or carry themselves. I totally agree with Bull's explanation of the evolutionary path of portable music. I believe people today need their own "auditory bubble" because of how stressful life has become. It lets people escape.
Ryan Laing
Group 2
Both Bull and Chislenko are basically talking about how with the advancement of new technologies, people are becoming more introverted as a society. This is largely because technology, as they both describe in their own way, is generally meant to make things easier for us to do; give us quicker and better access to the world, which in return makes it easier to shut out aspects of life that maybe seemed normal 20 years ago, but now is a burden. Some quick examples, obviously the ipod as Bull talked about; we have libraries of music literally at our fingertips, coming through headphones. We can choose what we want, when we want, play it as loud as we want, and not effect anyone else. Chislenko, being more confusing then necessary, says "collecting data from basically any source and location in time and space, and delivering it - if necessary, with change in representation - to human natural senses.” Which basically means, we use these new technologies to make like easier and more pleasurable for ourselves. Almost all technologies are like this; while we become more introverted as a society and more focused on our immediate wants and needs, it does focus in on our personal desires and our identity.
I would agree with Bull when he says the IPod is the most perfect technological extension of our bodies we have come up with so far. The only way it could be more perfect is if it could be actually inserted into our bodies or minds and I think we are not that far away from that moment. I can see the invention of a I-Chip, a microchip that can be inserted into our minds and would play the music we would want to hear. One can see the evolution of the cathedral to the IPod; the desire to listen to music being satisfied slowly with technological advances. But in many ways this technology has evolved in different directions. Unlike the cathedral, a communal experience, the IPod offers a much more personal and unique connection. The IPod and the music you listen to are extensions of yourself, your personality. In this heyday of technological advances we as human beings are beginning to define ourselves by the technology we use. People have internet personalities, many people talk on cell phones more than real people, IPods allow people to be entertained individually, all these are common examples of the digitalization of humanity. Will technology eventually make our bodies obsolete; will we as humans exist only as the extensions of our technology? I think about cars and how they have made walking obsolete. I feel that as we continue to evolve in this direction, the direction of technological reliance, we will become more and more integrated with the technology we have created.
Matt Smaglik Group 1
Michael Bull’s discussion of the ipod fits into Chislenko’s argument regarding extensions perfectly in the sense that the ipod has adapted to the human body just how Chislenko feels that technology is just humans adapting to our world and how it has become one with us. Bull states that the ipod is just an auditory bubble in which humans travel in while they are going to work, going to school, or exercising. The world becomes one with their “soundtracks” and instead of going to the rhythm of the street they are moving to the rhythm of their music. This is just another extension of our selves to the world. We can express who we are through technology, whether it’s communicating through text messages, e-mail, fax, or phone or having a certain type of music on one’s ipod; it all expresses who we are. We can see through Bull’s and Chislenko’s arguments that the ipod is a manipulator, a resource storage, and communication with the new iphone.
Mike Terrill
Group 4
I think Bull’s discussion and Chislenko’s argument can synch up well. The ipod is and extension of the human body not only of the hand, but of the mind itself. Normally we can imagine a song in head as if we had an internal radio. With the ipod, we can plug in the earphones and hear whatever song is available for real. Chislenko talks about machines that are biologically inserted or connected to the human body. I think the ipod is one of the closest things to that available today. I believe that the articles are showing the pros and cons of these technologies. Consumers want more functions out of their products, so things will become better, cheaper, and faster. Why not clothing? However, this may have a negative side. As new technology rises, human interaction changes. People are too engrossed with cell phones or ipods to pay attention to people or the environment around them. It may also create a dependence on such technology. One might feel helpless with out a computer or cell phone.
This may be way off base, but while I was reading these articles I couldn't help but think about the role that technology has in human evolution. The term evolution is thrown out all of the time when talking about changes in technology, but do we ever really think about how technological evolution may effect physical evolution? When we study evolution in it's biological context, it is usually categorized in changes in outer physical appearance (different beak shapes on birds, the appearance of wings on mammals like the bat, etc.). For humans, however, these biological changes cannot be the only ones considered, because through evolution we have developed the ability to use our brains in a more advanced way. This advantage, has changed the course of our evolution, by allowing us to create things outside ourselves to help us survive, therefore eliminating the need for physical evolution. That being said, let's go back to the topic at hand. Both Bull and Chislenko talk about how technology is this extension of ourselves and we use it to augment and change the experiences around us. So, in a way this evolution in technology, from cathedral to car to ipod (as put forth in Bull's article) is in some way the new means of human evolution. Instead of physically adapting, we are able to create this cooperative lifeform (technology) which evolves for us at a much faster rate. The work we looked at in the fashion design article is an obvious interpretation of this idea of technology and the physical. Anyways, this is a rather out there tangent, that would take a lot more than this paragraph to work out, but it was on my mind as I read the articles, so I thought I would throw it out there.
Kristen Gibb Group 3
Bull's article describes how humans have slowely been developing a more and more personal control over their personal lives, and slowely cutting out unwanted outside influences.
He begins with the Cathedral, stating that in the olde times it was the center of your personal life, its what you went to and did when you weren't working. It cut out the unwanted political bickering and wars of the time (at least for a little while) and gave you some personal space to exist in. However, this wasn't "pure" per say, as you still had to deal with other people and nuissances.
As time goes on, we invented things such as the car, which gives you even more personal freedom, such as the ability to go to a wider range of areas more quickly, and to have your own music and people in your car.
How we have things like the Ipod and personal computers, where you have close to complete control over what you put on them. There are still aspects of outside control, but this are slowely being chipped away at. In the end, it is all about humans wanting complete control over their personal environment.
Chislenko discusses different categories in which humans are constantly changing how they see and interact with the world. I can see the Ipod fitting into categories such as "resource storage," storing mass ammounts of movies and songs, as well as "Manipulators," with humans manipulating their own personal space.
I think both articles end up hinting that our bodies are not necessarily our identities, as we are constantly changing how we percieve and interact with the world. We are still evolving as a species, but not so much with our natural bodies as with technological "add-ons" as well as a huge knowledge base.
Edit to my above post:
Jon Hillbo - Group 1
In both Bull and Chislenko's articles they discuss that recent technology advances (iPods), along with other technologies such as the automobile allow for us to adapt to these extensions into our daily lives and give us the ability to control something, or perform inhuman abilities, while going on with our lives. These various extensions to humans allow for gratification through something that was previously impossible. iPods allow us to control our daily environments, and there are hardly any places where you are unable to use them at your own will. They influence our body like craving an addiction. I do not personally own an iPod yet, unfortunately, but I have borrowed my brothers and my roommates enough times while working, walking to class, or even while relaxing. It seems after using it to walk to class so much that something is missing when I walk without being able to listen to music. It allows you to have a medium that is your own personal time, and the songs you have chosen typically correlate with your present mood. I'm sure when I have walked to class and I had some music playing that was intense my expressions probably looked pretty intense as well, directly influencing my identity.
Chislenko describes types of external extensions as pseudo implants, which are external tools that feel like natural functions. I believe that an iPod would be an example of a modern pseudo implant because to iPod owners I'm sure it feels natural to have it with you, or to at least be able to readily choose to use the extension. Controlling an iPod is not very difficult either, so after using it over an extended period it becomes very natural to go to a different artist or album that you want to listen to. iPods connect our inner emotions to be in tune with our bodies, as Bull discusses, in a heavily populated world it gives you the ability to be in your own "private sonic envelope". It extends our physical capabilities to be able to control the "background music" or the soundtrack, so to speak, to our own lives. To music/movie enthusiast's, like myself, who have always enjoyed the thought through cinema of having background music in your actual life would be really amazing, this is almost a way of attempting perfection for ourselves beyond our physical capabilities, through finding technological ways of making these dreams come true. One problem that comes with these luxurious controlling powers is that we become isolated from external events such as conversation because we have the music blasting through our headphones putting you in a bubble. With the ability to have more control of our surroundings, we are gradually developing into a more isolated era.
--Nick Reindl, Sec. 802
I think Bull and Chislenko have very good points, that technology, like the ipod in Bull's article, become another appendage and we start to identify ourself with it. There are people out there who constantly use their cell phone, that is the same. People identify now with their technological devices cause these devices have become more identifiable and are sold to particular people. As a result of the us of these things, they effect our daily actions. Bull explains how iPod users act differently and are in a totally different world drifting around, not in touch with the real or communicative. It's kinda sad.
Noah Therrien
Group 4
Bull's argument of the IPod seems to fit into Chislenko's essay in the context of functional implants. The IPod is an external device being used to affect us internally. We create this auditory bubble that we float around in from class, to work, to the grocery store. In essence, Bull seems to be arguing that this specific technological device is shaping our identity by creating "soundtracks for our lives". Chislenko similarly argues technology has increasingly become more advanced in forming a relationship between our body and our identity. He gives the thermometer as an example: being able to look at external device to tell us something about our internal selves. The scale is another example, using an external technological device to learn something about our internal identity. In short, I believe both Bull and Chislenko argue that technology continues to move forward in the direction of body/identity interconnectedness.
Brian Dunigan (Group 1)
Human’s greatest assets to survival are not found in our physical abilities. We are slow, weak, and poorly equipped to brave the elements. From a purely natural standpoint, we rank very low in the sense that we cannot adapt our physical make-up as to better synthesize with a natural environment. We excel however, in formatting the environment and its resources to match our needs (which have made us easily the most dominant species). We can not yell loudly but we can create arenas and microphones that raise our voice potential to a completely new dimension. We cannot run fast but we make cars and planes that can jet us around the world in hours. These innovations manipulate or perceptions of the surrounding world. Bull discusses the immense power and mystique the iPod holds and even considers the tool as the 1st defined “cultural consumer icon of the 21st century” He says “The Ipod offers the user unfettered auditory freedom of movement from home to street to automobile to office. Time is woven into a seamless web of controlled sound and space.” The author is emphasizes that there were times when humans could not dictate the sound that they were absorbing. It was all relative to the noises that surrounded you in public, the music that was being dictated by live musicians, and further on into radio, where the listener still had very limited control of the sounds they heard. Now, however, any normal individual has the great power of manipulating the sound they hear in ANY area, by just turning a wheel and clicking a button. Now people move “To the rhythm of their music, not the rhythm of the street. Chislenko’s thoughts draw many parallels to Bull’s argument. He stresses the physical limitations of humans and how our technological evolution helps us to maintain an illusion of control. “If a complex functional entity permanently incorporated all useful functions in one physical body, it is clumsy; the person would have to carry all specialized implements everywhere, even when just one of them is needed. Evolving such a body would also be difficult, as mutations in each function would have a smaller and smaller influence on the survival of an organism, slowing the evolutionary process.” I believe Chislenko’s thought process here is that humans are essentially an all-in-one power tool. Alone, we are poorly equipped and basically useless. However, we have created many temporary, disposable tools that when linked with us, the basic (near useless) power tool, have a vast and monumental potential to drastically affect us and our environment.
Sam Slater
Group 2
Kyle Smith
Group 2
Bull views the ipod as an extension of the human body in a way similar to the way cathedrals acted in olden times as a place of sanctuary and immunity. In a sense the ipod protects from the outside world. The difference in the technological age is that the ipod is a portable form of immunity. This coincides with Chislenko's idea of a system function, most notably a manipulator. "Manipulators, or effectors, allow people to modify the environment." With an ipod, a person can manipulate their audio reception and block out, or protect themselves from the outside world. Often I look around any one of my classes and see many people on their ipods. In a way these people are taking their sanctuary or immunity to place they may feel unease or boredom. The ipod acts as an extension of the body, almost an auditory armor that cloaks the wearer in a world they choose. This reflects an extreme amount of personality and individuality because of the mass spectrum of music one can choose from to cloak themselves in.
Living in the 21st century, it is hard for us not to 'evolve' within the technological community. Along with cellphones, laptops, and video game systems, we are constantly trying to keep up with the rapidly growing portable music device industry. Within the last decade, we've gone through tapes, compact discs, and mp3s. With each devices demise, a new device outshines the last with many user-friendly characteristics. Tapes became obsolete once the compact disc became the primary form of music playback because it was much more compact and could hold a much larger amount of music. With the birth of the iPod, users can hold an entire library of music at their fingertips. Thousands upon thousands of songs at one's disposal at all times. A portable jukebox, if you will. Because of this feature, one can listen to any of their music easily at any time of the day... anywhere. With these characteristics, it is understandable that Bull would consider the iPod an extension of ourselves. Like the cellphone, people carry their iPods anywhere because of its versatility. I believe the iPod helps to improve on the body's natural capabilities to listen to music.
Andrew Huggins
GROUP 1
I believe that these two arguments, about the inevitable mash of technology and routine organization of human systems already in effect, will end with negative outcomes. If technology continues to indulge on our lifestyles, it will consume our worlds and our regular schedules, and then, when the smallest of effects causes our "techno world" to alter (since technology is such a fragile life as it is), we will be thrown into a chaotic confusion, once solvable in normal lifestyle, but no longer understandable. One example can be seen if looking at Chislenko's essay concerning implants. The stories and tales of futuristic societies with unlimited control over their people is just a mass-implant away. We've come very far in the development of luminescent garments and bodily adaptations to reverse the effect and retain what civilized simplicity once made living consistent. With the evolution of "body-augmenting technologies," we've passed a point where systems and dependencies (such as certain technologies that can "make life easier") cannot be discarded. By providing ipods, bodily manipulators, and other types of advanced technology of leisure and pleasure to humanity, society will no longer retain it's disciplined and independent nature, more likely ending negatively than positively.
-matthew balz Group 3
Chislenko developes his idea about technology as human extension in great detail, and personally, I had a minor vocabulary lesson on these variations of technology as extension type and function. Bull's comments on the ipod as a modern-day cathedral fit in nicely with Chislenko's theory, simply because Bull elaborates the transformation of technology from a third-party, so to speak, now shifted as a first party congruent with ourselves. As I digressed about the article last week regarding 'Second Life', I again feel that this is another example of technology going too far, not explicitly in the words of the article, but rather as what the article implies. I'm not against iPods, but I am against iPods getting in the way of living. I'm also not against cell phones, heck, I have one. I am, however strongly against having a cell phone as an accesory that could be associated with the way you look; 'always on their cell phone'. I don't really applaud those designers who want to integrate technology into fashion or other obviously impractical purposes. I have to believe that there are countless and more meaningful ways to improve technology, if not a dozen truly worthy purposes. Who said it had to be expounded on in the first place?
AshLeigh Brown Group 2
Post a Comment