This week, we looked at Lynn Randolph's Cyborg as a model for interactions among "cosmos, animal, human, machine, and landscape."* We also discussed how we are in many ways, "cyborgs", exemplified in Stelarc's performance art, but also in our daily interactions with technology. Referring to J.P. Telotte's "Trajectory of the Science Fiction Film" and our screening of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times (1936), compare the two different visions of human/machine interaction embodied in the film and painting. In particular, what transformations does the human body undergo and how does its response (for instance, the tramp's acquisition of speech) reflect a particular attitude towards technological advances as a sign of progress? What is the role of nature or the natural environment in both representations?
*Donna Haraway, From The Promise of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The image "Cyborg" shows a unique depiction of the natural world towards the expansion of space. The human figure acts almost as a representation of mankind transcending towards a higher technological goal. One might consider the human as a representation of Mother Nature, or Gaia. With the image showing electricity flowing from what appears to be a stone keyboard (showing an ancient surface as a piece of technology), it can be taken as human discovery and evolution into the unknown - much like the characters of Voyage to the Moon as they attempted to explore the unknown. One aspect of the picture that I found especially interesting was the three images of space above the figure, and one image of a black hole – one of the most unknown objects in space that we have discovered. This black hole concept shows a unique idea of the future being unknown in the painting.
-Matteo Garcia
“Cyborg” is a representation of a natural amalgamation between humans and technology. The striking image of the woman literally becoming part of the computer through her hands and her stomach isn’t a negative one at all. The detail of it being a woman is very significant. One can relate this to “Mother Nature” as sort of the beginning of it all: a new breed of human and technology. Also, woman are almost always representation of a calmer persona rather than male. This joining together is rather different from the presentation in “Modern Times”. From the get go, Charlie Chaplan is rejecting technology by refusing to use very much sound tech in his films. He probably felt that the human identity needn’t be cheapened by using technology; true human nature can be seen and felt through actions and good expression. “Modern Times” goes between the new technology being a positive, as in giving people jobs, therefore making less crime, and a negative because humans lose themselves in this technology. The people in the society change depending on the technology in their lives. The change is not as natural and smooth as it is in Lynn Randolph’s painting. In “Cyborg” the human presence brings a sense of humanity to technology to make it more relateable and not such a terrifying change into innovation. While in “Modern Times” the human presense somewhat corrupts the techonology by relying on it so heavily.
-Julianna Pierandozzi
“Cyborg” and “Modern Times” exhibit themes of becoming part of the machine and control. In “Cyborg”, the person is literally attached to the computer. In “Modern Times”, Chaplin is at one point physically moving though the machine. Chaplin is also indirectly connected in that he is detached from it but needs to be near and working with it to make money which ultimately leads to survival. Who has control in these pieces, the human or the machine? In “Cyborg” it appears that it would be the human with the control since humans are freethinking rather than a machine, which must be programmed ultimately by the freethinking person. Chaplin similarly has control of the machine in “Modern Times”, yet the machine is the source of his income. So in the end, the machine has control over Chaplin’s quality of life. The progress that is made within both of these pieces goes hand in hand with its interaction with nature. “Cyborg” suggests that humans are becoming technologically in-tune with nature and can now have a better understanding of how nature works. “Modern Times” suggests that humans have become so dependent on machine that our natural instincts of survival are no longer needed. Then when the machines are taken away, humans don’t know how to survive. In reference to J.P. Telotte’s, “A Trajectory of the American Science Fiction Film”, he discusses the scientists and inventors in history, saying that, “All of these figures eventually suffer the consequences of their actions.”
The painting "Cyborg" and the film "Modern Times" both show a connection between human and machine. The film takes place during the machine age when "machines were everywhere." The Tramp in the film works on a line tightening bolts for hours on end and when he’s done he can't stop himself from twitching which later leads to his breakdown. At one point he is pulled into the machine, becoming a part of the machine itself. The painting is a bit more literal. It is of a human with machine parts and her hands on, or attached to, a keyboard. When it comes to the role of nature, the painting depicts ancient Egyptian times at the bottom leading up to a futuristic world, with a screen with space age images, up top. In the film, the natural environment for the Tramp seems to be when he is in jail where he is comfortable, or when he is living by the water. The factory he works in is very modern/hi-tech. The foreman of the factory has surveillance screens placed throughout the factory so he can keep an “eye” on everything. The Tramp transforms a bit throughout the film as well. For the first half, he communicates in only gestures. Toward the end, however, he begins singing which is unexpected. Throughout the film he also starts acquiring trouble and finds himself being arrested left and right. The film is definitely a social commentary of the time.
-Shannon Ambrowiak
The human machine relation in the painting seems to be more holistic in nature. It almost seems that the woman in the painting is part of the system around her. She seems to be part of the keyboard which is looking over the universe, including the earth. On the other hand the film's relations of human and machine are more separated. They can be seen as being separated because the society needs the machines, but the machines are still a machine in itself, and have no human traits to them except that the humans run them. By using the machines the humans can also grow as a society by being more efficient. The role of nature in both the movie, and the painting would be that humans are going to use an outside source (machines) to help them grow as a society. By accepting this statement as a fact it could further be said that humans are naturally cyborgs in a sense.
“Modern Times” and “Cyborg” show power struggles between humans and machines. Cyborg shows a woman attached to a machine, and the film shows the tramp getting sucked through, beaten and absurdly humiliated by them. The female in Cyborg seems content or pleased to be part of the machine and shows human instinct having control over machines, but sacrificing herself for the power. Modern Times contrasts this because the tramp is controlled by the machine. He does some of the work by turning the bolt and the machine dictates how fast the tramp must work. The Cyborg has a headdress of an animal, which indicates this human instinct, but the natural land and space looks to be conquered by her rather than on neutral grounds. The way the nature is juxtaposed around the machines gives me the impression the humans controlling machines leads to control of nature. Telotte writes, “Chaplin starkly suggests not what life might be like a thoroughly technologized society, but rather what it already becoming.” The tramps work life is surrounded by machinery and the place he calls home is a rundown cottage. It’s also mentioned that the most relaxing place for him is when he is in jail. It seems that his natural human instinct is always battling technology rather than bettering his life. I suspect Chaplin knew technology was already shaping the future and even if he thought it was for the better good, he decided to capitalize and make a mockery out of it.
Desten Johnson
One of the first things I noticed about Randolph’s Cyborg was the sort of cyclical style between all the images. Between the pyramids (an old example of progressive technology) and the monitor with glimpses of space (the present technology) we see what looks to be a woman. At first glance, I wasn’t sure what the animal was supposed to represent. It’s possible that it’s there to depict the “animal” part of a person. The image almost even looks like a sort of evolution: animal; woman; and technology. The portrait itself seems very receptive of this relationship and seems to indicate that being progressive and seeking to understand the world and universe is a very natural, even primal, human endeavor. However, when I showed this picture to a few people in my family, I mostly got responses of, “weird” or “creepy.” I wondered if these knee-jerk responses had anything to do with the way Telotte describes the view of the development of Western science. For example, Telotte writes, “…a long line of overreachers after knowledge – of scientists, inventors, or creators who have sought to explore forbidden territory, of curious humans who have tried to uncover what they are not meant to know…” (Telotte, pg 64).
In Modern Times, Chaplin’s character is in a sort of “sink or swim” scenario with his job at the factory. He is so caught up with his frantic workplace that the viewer wonders whether the machine is working for him or the other way around. Telotte describes the consequences of this when he writes, “…of these physical manipulations of the human, is a complete psychological collapse, as the Tramp goes crazy and is carted off to jail – ironically, the one place in this ‘modern’ world where he can find peace and comfort” (Telotte, pg 82). So, while the role of the natural environment in Randolph’s picture is all encompassing, the Tramp’s world is one that only offers peace in jail; away from technology of the modern times.
-Joseph Belknap
J.P. Telotte's declares in "Trajectory of the Science Fiction Film" that "American science fiction ...represents such a melting pot of influences..." and I believe the painting "Cyborg", discussed in class, greatly expresses Telotte's thoughts. The painting seems quite unusal though at the same time not disturbing.
The elements in this painting are like the hands of a mother and child. The mother's hand represents a strong ancient history filled with knowledge, nature and experience whereas the child's hand represents a brightness of hope in the unseen, a greatness in discovering what could be possible and an imagination that has no limits and creates a fantastic world.
Together these hands co-exist in a world that can sometimes clash but overall will result in harmony.
The woman in the painting really shows no emotion but she is draped with an animal skin. She sits in the midst of what seems to be tools used to communicate. From the "keyboard" where her hands rest, to the graphic displays of the galaxy, she sits calmy and in acceptance.
Her behavior in this painting is very opposite that of Chaplin Chaplin.
The screening of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, exemplified the struggles humans have with the urgency of technology.
Chaplin's work on the assembly line shows the viewer that technology not only speeds up everyday deliberate actions but also never once haults for those who need more time to adjust.
As Chaplin sees the developments and progress occuring in technology he very wildy rejects them.
J.P. Telotte's declares in "Trajectory of the Science Fiction Film" that "American science fiction ...represents such a melting pot of influences..." and I believe the painting "Cyborg", discussed in class, greatly expresses Telotte's thoughts. The painting seems quite unusal though at the same time not disturbing.
The elements in this painting are like the hands of a mother and child. The mother's hand represents a strong ancient history filled with knowledge, nature and experience whereas the child's hand represents a brightness of hope in the unseen, a greatness in discovering what could be possible and an imagination that has no limits and creates a fantastic world.
Together these hands co-exist in a world that can sometimes clash but overall will result in harmony.
The woman in the painting really shows no emotion but she is draped with an animal skin. She sits in the midst of what seems to be tools used to communicate. From the "keyboard" where her hands rest, to the graphic displays of the galaxy, she sits calmy and in acceptance.
Her behavior in this painting is very opposite that of Chaplin Chaplin.
The screening of Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, exemplified the struggles humans have with the urgency of technology.
Chaplin's work on the assembly line shows the viewer that technology not only speeds up everyday deliberate actions but also never once haults for those who need more time to adjust.
As Chaplin sees the developments and progress occuring in technology he very wildy rejects them.
-Monica Salazar
Lynn Randolph represents a model of a cyborg that I seem to not be as familiar with. When I hear the word cyborg I would generally picture some type of figure similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in James Cameron’s The Terminator. In that film the cyborg figure is a robot with human flesh whose mission is to terminate a woman named Sarah Connor. After seeing this film the image of the terminator was what would come to mind when I heard the phrase cyborg. In Lynn Randolph’s picture Cyborg it seems to give the word a somewhat different meaning. In her illustration the woman seems relaxed and almost giving a Mother Nature type of appearance. She is one with technology and nature. This greatly contrasts form the image of the Terminator.
It is also interesting to compare this woman’s relationship to technology to that of Charlie Chaplin’s character in the film Modern Times. You will notice that in the movie Modern Times, Charlie Chaplin has a rough relationship with technology. He once gets trapped in the machinery at his job. The woman’s relationship with technology in the picture Cyborg seems much more relaxed. It is not often that you would see women in a situation where they would have a rough time with technology similar to Chaplin’s problems at his job. That shows how the relationship with technology differs by gender.
-Logan Lovett
The "cyborg" image to me seems very grounded in earthly matters while "Modern Times" suggests that the two are completely apart from one another. "Modern Times" is a fight with machines. When I first saw the "cyborg" image is was completely reminded of the indian shamanistic ideas of being one with nature and how everything is some sort of energy flow. The woman in the picture even looked like she could have been from some sort of tribe. I really think this type of imagery is an interesting look at how technology and nature exist. It seems like we're taught that 'metal and trees' don't mix, so to speak.
In the painting "Cyborg" the human body seems to take on a few transformations in the form of the circuit board on the woman's chest and the circuitry that seems to be running through her hands. Seeing as how she is already seemingly integrated with nature and technology at the same time, it would seem to say that the integration of humans, nature, and technology is like a natural step that was meant to be taken. Our bodies would eventually become inferior to our minds and technology could be the help we need to reach the rest of the universe that is in the back of the painting.
In modern times however, the transformation is more forced and in terms of speech, acquired out of necessity. He needs to acquire the technological skills to keep up with his job and it ends up making him more of a machine too. In terms of the natural environment, there isn't much natural anymore. Everything needs to integrate with technology to survive.
Derrick Markowski
The image of the particular subject, whether it be a machine or a human, seems to be most prevalent in my perception when either viewing 'Modern Times' or reading the Telotte article, or appreciating 'Cyborg'. To expound, the 'machine' is a dominant factor; large and seemingly in charge. In a generalization, we can all attest to the cold, hard kiss of metal when it comes into contact with the human body. It's not forgiving, relentless in it's pursuit of mechanized mayhem. The organic being that is human seems helpless when faced with the behemoth machine as depicted by the enormous size and complexity of the factory in 'Modern Times'. But, just as seen in 'Metropolis', the machine can not survive without human input. Both films show a progressive world, all thanks to the futuristic approach of machine and robots, but in contrast that lifestyle still isn't possible without the human element. This I find to be fascinating, mirroring the lack of computer technology or artificial intelligence in the society of the time. This is also depicted in 'Cyborg'. Again, having been created in 1989, a somewhat young timeframe for computers and the like, the translation of technology is shown in many forms, most dominant being the keyboard. But once again, this technology must have a human for input, hence the terminology 'cyborg'. Referring back to the assembly line in 'Modern Times', I find it interesting that Telotte, speaking on the subject of film in general originally penned by Tom Gunning, 'Modern Times' and the "cinema of attractions" were essentially the same, that "often involved a kind of assembly-line procedure for turning out a predictable product..." Was a technological marvel being used to portray the evils of another technological marvel?
After viewing the movie modern times, and taking a glance at this image, I have come up with two very different ideas on the interaction between human and machine. In the film Modern Times, Charlie Chaplan's character seemed to struggle with the machine. He was not working well with the technology and did not seem to have any control. The image on the other hand, portrays a woman cyborg who comes off as being very much in control; it even looks as though she may be meditating.
The role of nature appears to play a big part in the image. From the pyramids to the sky, nature is taking up the whole picture.
-Ryan Bender
The image "Cyborg" illustrates the human interweaving with that of the machine. It shows harmony, where both the human and the machine coexist and work together for a common cause. It also works in the harmonious theme of nature, and all things in the universe. The woman illustrated became one with the machine.
This is, however, different than what was depicted in "Modern Times." As an example was his interaction with the automatic food dispenser. A job where a machine was not needed at all, and actually made the job more difficult. Throughout his work in the factory, he struggles to coexist with the machines, which dominate everyone in the factory and many aspects of their lives. It is a harsh, rough and coarse interaction between the human being and the machine. There was never an element of harmony, only turmoil.
In the “Cyborg” painting we see a sense of calmness with the humans interaction with technology while as we see a sense of struggle in “Modern Times.” This comparison is made by the way the characters in each are played out. In the painting the female looks relaxed, seems to have technology even inside her body and also has a bobcat around her to influence nature. In the movie, however, we see the humans run ragged by the machines and the struggle of life without the work they provide. As Telotte examined in “A Trajectory of the American Science Fiction Film” Charlie Chaplins Tramp character shows the “end product of these physical manipulations of the human, is a complete psychological collapse as the Tramp goes crazy” and “develops an industrial tic.” The whole movie shows that after all our “advances” we will lose individuality. It seems the only time in the movie that Charlie Chaplin speaks is when he is a complete unique individual and sings ad-lib to a crowd.
-Jay Schweitzer
Post a Comment