Re: [-empyre-] RE: Mobile Media debate

[Lucas Bambozzi <lbambozzi@comum.com>]

At 10:40 +1200 21/9/06, Simon Taylor wrote:
> i.e. increased speed of transfer - beyond physical limitations - entails
> both a progressive reduction in friction and a dematerialisation - in order
> that notions like ubiquity may be advanced - another 'work in progress'.
> The appeal of technology has something to do with the appearance it gives of
> having overcome natural physical laws - the mirror-struckedness of the
> tool-maker.


After Brian Holmes has pushed me for a sort of "hey, 
get-to-work-on-that! not-just-think-about it" (at iDC list), I should 
stick to more engaged actions outside in the public affair. As I can 
not afford that yet, I will keep wondering about representational 
artifices that has been shaping reality aesthetics and affecting our 
notions of intimacy and privacy.

A not so recent announcement by Microsoft emphasizes what is still 
about to come in the context of mobile mediating technologies:

*Cool stuff you don't know you need yet*
SenseCam, touted as a visual diary of sorts, is designed to be worn 
around the neck. It can take images when there are abrupt movements, 
temperature fluctuations, variations of light or even changes in the 
wearer's heartbeat, capturing moments of joy or tension of one's 
life. Microsoft suggests that the diary can also help people to 
reconstruct scenes, remembering where an object was forgotten or 
special moments, such as a nice dinner. The diary is capable to take 
about 2.000 pictures automatically and works 12 hours a day. 
(USATODAY.com 04/03/2004)

Beyond its representation capabilities, the camera suggests that the 
boundaries between private and public life really not only tend to 
disappear, but the pervasive immersion of such technologies  in 
public environments would empower the individual as a sentient 
'cyborg', replacing any active participation in public life with a 
passive documentation about ordinary incidents. What was once 
dominated by the mainstream offer of private-to-private 
communications, reaches strategies to relate to street level 
activities. I wonder how bad it is...

As any commodity, intimacy features an aesthetically constructed 
significance, which becomes clear when it is connected to the idea of 
proximity or is a result of technological mediation processes 
(instant access to privacy). I understand that intimacy aesthetics 
are related to how separated domains are mediated, or as an effect of 
experiencing 'reality' as a mere aesthetic understanding, an 
intangible occurrence. To accept 'fabricated', 'semiotic worlds' 
(Holmes and Lazaratto, thanks) as a real experience is to fall into 
the traps of representation. Does it still sound naive to consider 
that the abundance of images produced by the media each day may 
compromise what we deem to be 'real'?

Lucas