Virtualization of our daily tasks, as well as of communication processes, social activity, production, economics, media consumption, etc. probably have more impact on our temporal and spacial awareness and sensorial processes than we normally realize.New Media master students Sarah and Marta came to this conclusion during the research that they decided to undertake for the seminar Scopic Regimes of Vituality.  Their final project for this seminar attempts to focus on our altered perception of space and time, as a consequence of our frequent use of new (digital) media. Expanding on Munster’s book (2006), in particular on her chapter on digitality, where she discuss the idea of a “global digital time” and refers to the 24 hours economy, they aim to realize a work of performance to expose multiple layers of our distorted perception of time and space, which are produced by our use of digital media.

They want to argue that this new distorted perception of the space and time of production, and relative changes in our idea of “location”, “presence” and “distance”, alienate us from the physical space and time in various ways, some more subtle than others. First of all, we are barely aware of the technical infrastructure that is needed to support our daily virtual activities and the costs of its maintenance (in money, energy, power, physical space for servers, employment in developing countries). We tend to lose sight on the impact that our virtual activities have on economics and on the environment.

On another level, increase of virtual activities have great impact on our private lives as well. Our exploration of reality becomes increasingly mediated, abstracted from physical space, confined to few actual locations and simultaneously multiplied in new experiences we gain virtual access to. This results in a “colonization” of our time by activities whose relevance and value are arguable (Virilio, 1997) (e.g. surfing the web, jumping from one website to another, from one chat or SNS to another, literally sucked into a vortex of connectivity).

The Cubinator Project

Their project consist of two parts: one is mainly theoretical and the second part will result in a practical component that aims to expose the clash between space and time that we virtually experience while using digital media, and the real space and time of production and interaction that we tend to devalue more and more. Also the concepts of “location” and “distance” are hence involved.

The idea of time and space are profoundly intertwined in the new media experience. Anna Munster observes how speed more or less consciously becomes our new unit of measure for distance in the virtual realm. We tend to experience closeness when response (from a machine or another person using the medium) is very fast. Consequently, lag in response creates the effect of remoteness. In the globalized 24 hours economy, strongly supported by digital media, we are also prompted to believe that everyone or everything is always working and available for use or contact. Our interaction with a computational device somehow erases human constraints (our biological rhythms, our physical distances) in our imagination.

With their work (performance) they aim to expose the regimes of perception that virtuality engraves in our sensorial system. After exploring bodily perception, the relation between bodily perceived space (and time) and new digitally created space/ time parameters with a theory study, and analyzing other works of art that have been dealing with the same topics, they will try to produce a direct experience of these collisions between the physical and virtually perceived space.

Realization of the work (live online performance)

Their work will consist of an online performance in 24 hours. Therefore, they will need to design the following elements: web interface (where the audience can easily interact with us), the real physical space (room) where the action will take place, the action that will be produced as a result of the interaction, and how to exhibit, if so, the end product afterwards.

Their performance will take place in a room, where they will build some pointless structure with small origami paper boxes, according to the instructions of the participants. The participants can follow them for 24 hours straight, live on webcam on the webpage and they can “order” them to make a box and put it in the structure through a simple button on the same webpage. Likely, the performance will produce a paper construction that will be destroyed afterwards, with absolutely no utility. If only few people will participate, the paper structure will be smaller, while the larger the number, the performance will be even more exhausting for us.

With the performance, they aim to produce commentary to the actual time, space, and labor that occurs on the Internet, symbolically materialized in ourselves, as well as on the use of time online, oscillating between the illusion of productivity and voyeurism. There will be a clear, almost literal reference to the 24 hour economy visualized in our 24 hour performance. This is also a commentary to crowdsourcing, democratization, and amateurization of the web where anyone can make something, build something, and is present in the work, which questions creativity and democratization in produsage.

The performance will take place online on the 17th of April, at 19:00. You are kindly invited to participate!

More information on: www.cubinator.nl

References:

• Munster, A. Materializing New Media: Embodiment in Information Aesthetics. 2006 (Digitality)
• Virilio, P. The Vision Machine. 1994

Blame the WWW

For all that has been written about the Internet, little consideration has been taken in account about the way the Internet reprograms us [1]. Nowadays we have become surfers, trippers from one link to another, navigators of the WWW through search engines. With a few Google searches, some clicking on result pages you have the right piece of information you were looking for. While working we most likely interrupt ourselves to respond incoming e-mails (viva the e-mail notifiers!), scan RSS-feed, look at videos or listen to podcasts and react to messages from colleagues or friends on IM clients. According to Nicolas Carr:

The Net has become a universal medium, the conduit for most of the information that flows through the eyes and ears and into my mind. The advantages of having immediate access to such an incredibly rich store of information are many, and they’ve been widely described and duly applauded. [1]

How Internet use affects our cognition

But this development has a price we have to pay for. According to media theorist Marshall McLuhan [2] technology shapes the process of thought. And this is basically what is going on right now. Search engines like Google are chipping away our capacity for concentration and contemplation of information. We expect to take in information just like the Internet (read: Google) distributes and presents it to us ’in a swiftly moving stream of particles’. [1]

A study – conducted by scholars from the University College of London – covering among others our online reading and research habits, suggests that we, the ‘Google Generation’, are in the middle of huge changes considering the way we read and think. We are exhibiting more and more a form of skimming activity, read horizontally through titles, content pages and abstracts to search for the quick wins, ‘scan, flick and ‘power browse’ our way trough digital content, hop from one source to another and rarely return back to the original source. Besides, we make very little use of advanced search facilities assuming that search engines ‘understand’ our queries and read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before we loose our focus and hop to another website. ’It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.’ [3]

We are not really readers

This kind of reading suggests that behind it lies a different kind of thinking. And unfortunately this may weaken our capacity to develop a deep kind of reading. According to Maryanne Wolf, development psychologist at Tufts University, we have become ’mere decoders of information’ [4]. Our ability to interpret text, to make rich mental connections that are formed when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged [2]. But actually we are dealing with a problem here that we have to cope with because our ancestors, like Plato, believed that writing and reading was a good thing.

But is it really so? Actually not. Reading is not an instictive skill for human beings [4]. It is not etched into our genes the way speech is. We have to train our minds how to translate the symbolic characters on the screen into a language that we understand. And the media and the technology we use transform the way we write and read. And thanks to our brain we have the ability to reprogram ourselves on the the fly, altering the way our brain functions and adapts to the technology we use [3].

So, well I hope I was able to grab your attention until this last paragraph. And if not, I don’t blame you. Taking in account the way the Internet reprograms us may help e.g. webdesigners and webwriters understand better the importance of how we must write for the web. We have been saturated with the inheritance the WWW has given us. And due to this inheritance we have to be aware of how we make information available for the ‘Google Generation’.

As posted on Dancing Uphill.

- -

For further reading on this subject, take a look at the following sources:

[1] N. Carr (2008), ‘Is Google Making Us Stupid?’ Atlantic Monthly, July / August.

[2] M. McLuhan (1994), Understanding media: the extensions of man, MIT Press.

[3] Ian Rowlands et al (1998) ‘Information behaviour of the researcher of the future.’ University College of London

[4] M. Wolf (2007). Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain, Icon Books Ltd.

• Equals partly conversations and shared documents. People can communicate and work together with richly formatted text, photos, videos, maps, and more.
• Any participant can reply anywhere in the message, edit the content and add participants at any point in the process. Then playback lets anyone rewind the wave to see who said what and when.
• A wave is live. It is realtime. With live transmission as you type, participants on a wave can have faster conversations, see edits and interact with extensions in real-time.

Yesterday I got my long awaited invitation for Google Wave thx to @Zuurstof. The invitations for Google Wave are somewhat scarce so it is pretty cool that I can take a look at it now. My first impression of this new communication tool was in one word: WOW. Edit: it is pretty complex at first, I didn’t have any idea how to get started so I had to take a closer look at some demo videos on Youtube (I was not in the mood to see to the looooong vid) and had to visit the Help section of Google Wave, but what the heck, when I got it it was: WOW! But one of the greatest reasons that I found it so WOW is because it creates a totally new way of creating online dialogues.

A new way of creating dialogue

After a little chat with a friend of mine – who also got an invitation for Google Wave – we came to the conclusion that Google Wave has brought a totally new way of creating dialogues between a group of people. Why? It is realtime! While one of the users in the ‘wave’ it typing a message the remaining users can see what he or she is typing. And this creates the urge to respond immediately to what is being said. It is a more immediate way to respond to the thoughts of others. But this has some side effects…

Translation: I think it's really vague that you can see what someone else is typing!

Some caution is advisable here

I rarely used the Enter / Done button while ‘waving’ with my friend. Why? Because she already could  see and respond to what I was typing. This way of chatting or ‘waving’ – don’t know what you prefer – creates in my humble opinion a new mindset. And it has effects on the way we write things down. One of the effects is that you have to be really careful when selecting your words before typing them in. What we write down has to be structured in our minds before before writing them down. Even the speed and the pauses someone takes while writing down a ‘wave’message can be meaningful in a conversation.  And that is what I found so interesting about Google Wave.

These quick findings got me thinking. A while ago I read a very interesting blogpost of a colleague of mine on the Masters of Media blog. She argues if technology influences what we write and uses the work of media theorist Friedrich Kittler and Professor Alan Lui. In her conclusion she states that Alan Lui proposes that:

…we can only create, share, and write things that can be structured. The technology does not only influence how we write, but also what we write or what we can write. I agree with Liu that the technology disciplines our writings and communications in a technical manner, … but I don’t think that it disciplines in what we write or what we say [2]

You can relate her findings to the Google Wave platform in a way. From what I have seen of Google Wave it is a technology that influences how we write things down; you have to structure your sentences carefully in your head before writing them down. In a way you can compare this to a face-to-face conversation. You structure the story that you want to tell in your head before speaking out the words.  That is why to me Google Wave seemed a more natural way of creating dialogues online.

However, Google Wave also influences what you write and can write down. Sometimes you will deal with users in a wave that you do not want to share particular information with. ‘Fortunately’ Google Wave has a delete and edit function, but in most cases the damage is already done. Besides, the playback function of Google Wave may serve as a function to unhide the deleted and edited messages in the wave anyway. In this example you can see that with the playback mode you can retrieve messages that were deleted:

To conclude: in a way I think that Google Wave is a communication tool that strongly disciplines us in what we write due to the immediate causes of our actions. So the disciplinary factor is inherently present and could be of influence on human behaviour.

Can’t wait to try Google Wave?: Get your own invitation!

—

Sources:

[1]

http://wave.google.com/help/wave/about.html

[2]

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2009/10/15/discourse-network-2000-does-technology-influence-what-we-write/

The interpassive subject

There are two types of ways in which we can react towards cyberspace. According to Žižek the first reaction involves the one in which the end of Oedipus stands central. Cyberspace functions as an environment in which:

‘Individuals regress to pre-symbolic psychotic immersion… (the idea that the computer functions as a maternal Thing that swallows the subject, who entertains an attitude of incestuous fusion towards it).’ [1]

The second reaction involves a view in which the aspect of freedom is central:

‘In cyberspace, ‘you can be whatever you want’, you’re free to choose a symbolic identity (screen-persona) … but you must accept representation in cyberspace by a signifying element that runs around in the circuitry as your stand-in.’ [1]

Both reactions towards cyberspace are basically wrong according to Žižek. Instead of choosing one of these visions we should rather take the middle position. This middle position is coined by Žižek as ‘interpassivity’. Interpassivity involves the transfer of activities and emotions onto e.g. an object like an avatar that acts in place of the user. In other words, the user enjoys himself and feel emotions through an object.

Interpassivity, or in other words our ‘surrogate self’, is explained by Žižek through the example of the ‘canned laugh’. Agency is mediated by auditory technology. We do not laugh ourselves, but the ‘canned laugh’ laughs on our behalf and through this agent we can enjoy ourselves and get some kind of relief.

‘The emotions I feel and “feign” as part of my screen persona are not simply false: although (what I experience as) my “true self” does not feel them, they are nonetheless in a sense “true”, just as with watching a TV mini-series with canned laughter, where, even if I do not laugh but simply stare at the screen, tired after a hard day’s work, I nonetheless feel relieved after the show.’ [2]

When we engage with a game through an virtual object like an avatar e.g. the avatar becomes a stand-in for our real-space selves, a representative of ourselves. One’s self is extended or projected onto the screen enabling agency on to the virtual world. A plurality of shifting selves is created which lead to disembodiment and identities can be build up on a fantasy or dream that user has in real life.

Interactivity versus interpassivity

Interpassivity and interactivity are two different kind of ways in which digital technologies position users as responders [3]. Interactivity can be seen as:

• Interacting actively with the medium instead of being a passive consumer.
• Actions proceeded by the user that lead to in-game actions. In this type of interactivity the user perform some tasks and on the basis of these tasks the game takes over control so that the user can ‘sit back and remain passive, just observing the game.’ [2]

The second type of interactivity is the reversal of interpassivity. The user is actively engaged with the game while his avatar is fulfilling the game’s demand.

The Sims: when interpassivity comes in to play

The game ‘The Sims’ is a fascinating simulation game in which the daily activities of virtual persons, Sims, play an important role. Objective is to organize the time of the Sims in such a way that they can achieve their goals. Users are encouraged to design their own avatars but there are some pre-made characters you can choose from. Even the type of personality and skin color can be chosen out of a dozen of options. Important thing to point out is that the user is in control of basically every activity that the Sims perform (sleeping, eating, taking a bath, playing, etc.).

Somewhere I always thought of The Sims as being a very interactive game in which I could totally control every aspect of the game. But the notion of Žižek ‘interpassivity’ has shed new light. Instead of talking about interactive usage I speak now of interpassive usage

Through ‘my Sim’ I transfer a little bit of myself onto my Sim. The Sim acts on my behalf and through the Sim I can really enjoy myself. Ofcourse, otherwise I wouldn’t play it anymore. I really can feel sad or happy for ‘my Sim’ and in a way it represents me but I have also exaggerated the Sim a little bit. Would that be like Žižek stated the dreams and fantasies I can not pursue in real life? Maybe…

—

Sources:

[1]
Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. ‘Is it possible to traverse the fantasy in cyberspace?’ The Žižek reader, eds. Elizabeth Wright and Edmond Wright, 102-124. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

[2]
Zizek, Slavoj. 2002. ‘The Interpassive Subject.’ The Symptom, 3, Autumn, <http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-interpassive-subject.html>

[3]
van den Boomen, Marianne et al. Digital Material, Tracing New Media in Everyday Life and Technology. Amsterdam University Press, 2009.

[4]
Wilson, Laetitia. ‘Interactivity or Interpassivity: a Question of Agency in Digital Play.’ University of Western Australia, 2003.

—

Further reading & documentaries:

• Zizek, Slavoj. ‘The Cyberspace Real.’ The European Graduate School, 2009. < http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-cyberspace-real.html>
• Turkle, Sherry. ‘Who Am We?’ Wired Magazine, June 1996. < http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html>
• Taylor, Astra. Zizek! <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478338/>

Some quick facts about Twitter

Within eight months after launching Twitter – back in April 2007 – it had reached about 94,000 users [1]. Pew Internet & American Life Project stated that:

“As of December 2008 11% of online adults used Twitter or updated their status online… Just a few weeks earlier, in November 2008, 9% of internet users used Twitter or updated their status online and in May of 2008, 6% of internet users responded yes to a slightly different question, where users were asked if they used “Twitter or another ‘microblogging’ service to share updates about themselves or to see updates about others.” [1]

Twitter usage and demographics (09/02/08 – 02/28/09)

However more recent research has shown that the growth of Twitter is not increasing but rather decreasing. Back in 2008 Twitter had grew with 422%, but research conducted by Hitwise indicates that the rise of Twitter may be decreasing. ‘In September of last year, it was around 0.01%. Then growth skyrocketed to a high of around 0.20% in June 2009. Since then though, it’s been dropping, and is now at 0.17%.’ [2]

Twitter usage decline

Despite the numbers we can not deny it: services like Twitter are booming business. But why do we want to share every minute of the day what we are doing with our online followers? Where does this urge come from to keep in touch with each other every moment of the day?

Our social being and needs

Humans are social beings with social needs. We need each other to grow as well. Rom Harré describes in his book ‘Social Being’ that we exist as persons for ourselves and other people. We exist solely by the virtue of networks of relations in which we stand to other human beings of our kind. We are partially created by other people and our actions and interactions are jointed actions. [3]  Twitter in this case would be a platform on which network of relations are enhanced. Networks are created and the followers you have and you follow are people you have shared interest with; they are ‘humans beings of our kind.’

Aristotle on the other hand speaks of how achieving the good life. We all have social needs and to have a good, successful and happy life we need to socialize with others. And because humans are by nature social beings it is good to live in a society in which the social life is mostly based on a community. Social life in a community is a necessity for a human’s complete flourishing as a human being. Another aspect that Aristotle addresses is friendship. This mutual admiration between two human beings is a necessity. This moral admiration for one and another is essential in friendships and taking advantage of these friendships can make a person fully human. [4]

The Maslow’s hierarchy of needs also addresses this fact. After physical and safety needs we all have our social needs. According to Maslow these social needs involve emotionally based relationships such as friendship and intimacy.

Maslows hierarchy of needs

Technology enables or increases or needs?

Both Harré and Aristotle seem to agree on the fact that we are social beings that need networks / relationships to become fully human. Twitter seems to enable this need to keep our networks updated on our status; our well-being in other words. Back in the old days we would make time to catch up with our friends and family in a more intimate way. We would gather together with friends to discuss the latest developments. Unfortunately society is speeding up and time is not always on our side.

Applications like Twitter enable us to maintain our social relationships and nourish our social needs on an easy, direct, mobile and faster way. But a question raises: is this a mass medium that only nourish our basic needs or is it meant, like Adorno states, to manipulate the masses into passivity? Is Twitter it in other words enslaving us to keep other updated every moment of the day? Or are our existing social needs nourished by web-based applications like Twitter?

A small empirical research I conducted showed that we have this urge to keep in touch with each other. Respondents stated that they twittered because they wanted to share information, thoughts, simple or bizarre things that happened in daily life.

‘I love to twitter about personal things that happen in my life, about new media, jokes, pictures, interesting things I come across on the Internet, twitterevents, things that happen in the world and that grab me, songs…’

Maybe I am a little bit skeptical but why would we want to share this kind of personal information on platforms like Twitter? The openness in which quite some people Twitter about there whereabouts is stunning. And all this information is visible to everyone if you don’t have a private account. But why are we posting this information for basically everyone who wants to read it? Are we only nourishing our social needs or is something elso going on?

On the one hand I think that the basic social needs we have to keep each other updated is nourished with the help of Twitter, but at the other hand I keep asking myself where this urge comes from to keep each other updated every moment of the day. Answers could be looked in the sphere of ego boosting for example , but more emperical researched is recommended. Any ideas on specific methodologies for reseach in this field?

—

Sources:

[1]
Amanda Lenhart, Susannah Fox. ‘Twitter and status updating.’ Pew Internet & American Life Project. February, 2009.

[2]
Ben Parr. ‘STATS: Has Twitter’s Growth Peaked?’ <http://mashable.com/2009/09/25/twitter-traffic-ceiling/>. September 25th, 2009.

[3]
Rom Harré. ‘Social Being.’ 1993

[4]
Edward W. Younkins. ‘Aristotle, human flourishing, and the limited state.’ <http://www.quebecoislibre.org/031122-11.htm>. Montreal, 2003.

The fun starts when filling in the characteristics of your perfect match. This is where you can try to make the dreams and fantasies you have had about your perfect match come true. At least, that is what dating sites promise. The matchmaking algorithms (that are being) used seem to get close to the ‘perfect match’, but there are a lot of factors that contribute to a mismatch. The variables used in profiles can seduce users to fill in incorrect information about themselves [1]. This is somewhat understandable. No one is going to fill in that he or she weighs over 150 kg, loves to eat at McDonalds and has 10 cats and 5 dogs because this can decrease the number of matches found.

Another aspect is the misrepresentation that can be encountered on dating sites [1]. You can display yourself in another way than you are in real life to increase the number of matches. It is perfectly understandable that users try to influence these these variables, but it makes finding a ‘perfect match’ much harder with deception as result. So how can you get to know your ‘perfect match’ on a more personal level and in a more natural way before getting on a first date?

Gelato: A new way of dating?

Gelato is a new way of dating that relies on the concept of Friendfeed and uses among others your Facebook-, Last.FM-, Twitter-, Netflix-, Flickr-, Hulu-, Seesmic- and Amazon-account to give potential matches a good impression of the type of person you are instead of reading a profile that you created especially for the purpose of on-line dating. Updates on social networking sites form a stream of real-time activities on your Gelato account. If you are looking for someone that is also crazy about the new Quentin Tarantino movie ‘Inglorious Bastards’, you can search for users that are Twittering or Facebooking about this.

I recently created a profile on Gelato with a little help of Facebook, Twitter and LastFM. Personal information that I have filled in at Facebook is used by Gelato. Personally I found  it an interesting new way of connecting to people with the same interests. Matches were found in no time with a little help of input from Facebook, LastFM and Twitter.

But while researching this some questions came to mind. On different social networks you take different identities. You use Facebook for different purposes than for example LinkedIn or Twitter. And while Twitter shows real time updates it gives a fragmented impression of you. In most cases we have reasons to keep these social networks apart from each other. Facebook is for friends, students among each other and family while for example LinkedIn is for business purposes. When you bring all these networks together, a full impression of someone can be created. So, what effects can these mergers of identities have for the field of on-line dating? Does it enrich your self-representation on dating sites? In what extent can it increase the ‘quality’ of matches created?

Interested in how Gelato works? Check it out for yourself or visit my profile for an impression.

—

Sources:

[1]
Ellison et al. ‘Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), artikel 2, 2006. <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue2/ellison.html >

[2]
Toma et al. ‘The Truth about Lying in Online Dating Profiles’. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, 28 april – 3 mei 2007.

[3]
Toma et al. ‘Separating Fact from Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-Presentation in Online Dating Profiles’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2008.

In my opinion Wikipedia relies too much on the fact that entries have to have leads on the Internet. So, what happens if we do give them some leads to the Internet and link on Wikipedia inaccurate information to information that is most definitely accurate? What other means are used in these situations to check on the accuracy and on the basis of what arguments do entries get eventually deleted? Or does the reliability increase (according to Wikipedia) on the basis of the fact that links are created between different (screened) pages and more information can be found on the Internet?

First step in this research was to create two posts on Wikipedia containing accurate information partially found on the Internet. Wikipedia immediately approved my first entry but the second entry has to be improved in two weeks due to the fact that it wasn’t encyclopaedically written. So, it wasn’t due to the inaccuracy that it was flagged but due to the fact that it wasn’t written according to the conventions of Wikipedia.

Second step will be to create crosslinks between the pages I’ve created, a page containing fictional information, existing pages on Wikipedia and a webpage to see what happens whenever a fictional article is linked to reliable information. Does the reliability increase?

I’m planning on continuing my research so I’ll keep you up to date with my findings.

Sources –
Wikipedia conventions: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conventies

The paper ‘Love At First Site’ [Dutch] provides insight in the influence of social and technological affordances of dating sites. What effect does this have on the self-representation? What does this mean for the relationship building? In addition to this research an analysis was made of the registration process of website Parship due to the fact that this registration process forms the fundamental basis of the self-representation on Parship.

For fun: CHECK out the epic I-net love story cartoon.

Rituals are known to take place in a certain private sphere. They are never detached from their culture, consequences, power and desire. But these rituals that formerly have taken place offline are now being held in the public sphere op web based settings. Hillis argues in his book that these online rituals have been adapted to online settings and that they facilitate new possibilities for ritual that otherwise wouldn’t exist. These practices have been renovated though the new media, and according to Hillis, web based rituals are more than just useful use of utilitarian tools online. These rituals create meaning to the user and most of the time users experience rituals in basically the same way as rituals held in the offline world. We are using these online settings as a virtual surrogate from the ‘offline’ world.

The above statement is supported by the idea of the sign/body. Avatars that are often created and used in web based settings – or in other words the sign/body created by online forms of signification – reveal to have a broader meaning. They are placed between being something more than just an image and the autonomous object. Avatars have become indexical traces of the actual human being. People can identify themselves with their avatars but also distance themselves from their characters.

Interesting observations looked at how settings like Second Life are really starting to feel like having a ‘second life’. Looking at my own experiences with Second Life it seems to me that a huge factor in determining whether or not we can relate to our avatar is determined by the setting in which we are and the individuals we interact with; because I can relate myself to my avatar but this is in a less deep way as when having a conversation, ritual, with a acquaintance or a friend through for example a webcam facility. So from my point of view the web based setting and the figures that we interact with play a role whenever we distance from or identify deeply with our sign/body.

The questions set out in Hillis’ book are more ore less in line with the observations made in a Dutch program called ‘My second life’. In this documentary, that takes place in Second Life, Douglas Geyton investigates the life of Molotov Alva from California. Molotov had disappeared from the real life, or like some call it ‘The first life’. After his disappearment he appears in a series of video diaries in Second Life. Questions are: can the virtual world be the same as the real world? Or does the line between the real and the online experience blur? Interesting is that the thoughts of Hillis and Geyton eventually differ. Where Hillis arguments that rituals created and experienced online come close to the ‘real experience’, Geyton concludes in his documentary that it is hard to see the virtual as ‘real’. So this example shows just how complex the theorization of the field of virtuality is.

The book has also a ‘mission’, if I can put it that way. According to Hillis scholars need to reshape the way they think about how they perform internet studies and how these studies cross with media studies. They need to fill the gap between the object oriented approach and the theoretical approach.

“One goal of this volume is to help shift the emphasis in internet studies (and related fields interested in digital humanities) toward research organized around objects but also more centered in critical, philosophical, and theoretical engagements.” (Hillis, Ken p. 31, 2009)

Hillis has tried to fill this gap by dividing this volume into two sections. In the first section Hillis discuss the theory about rituals, fetishes and signs. Hereby Hillis uses a wide range of theories. The second section is dedicated to two studies of web based settings as the chat-application of Second life . It weaves together the historical account, the application of theory introduced in the first section and analytical, political and the subjunctive interpretation of practices of users.

To be honest Hillis had made a good effort in trying to fill the gap between these two approaches. And this is what makes the book very interesting in my opinion. You don’t have to read the first section to have a clear understanding of what Hillis is trying to explain through his examples (studies) in the second section. Both sections have a clear link with each other. So this book is a keeper, you should try it!

According to Benjamin a shift has taken place from the cult value to the exhibition value due to the technical reproduction of art. Art has been taken out from it’s ritual and religious context and brought to a broader and more critical public. Massively distributed reproductions have been incorporated into the personal context of the observers instead of retaining a distance by their aura.

Benjamin objects against the thought that art is unique and unrepeatable, l’art pour l’art, or otherwise said that art has no higher purpose than itself. He explains that the technical reproduction undermines the idea of the aura and l’art pour l’art. Instead, indistinguishable reproductions replace an art object and convey a less weighty testimony than that conveyed by the unique original which existed before any copy was made. With the technical reproduction the aura moves into the political domain. Since the aura is very linked to time and space and thus significant in rituals, with the aura destroyed the link to rituals become obsolete and therefore moves into the domain of political struggles. The technological reproduction leads to new forms of observation by both the artist and the public.

As stated, in the reproduction process the aura of the original artwork is lost according to Benjamin. The term aura is described by the dictionary of the Oxford University as:“the distinctive atmosphere or quality that seems to surround and be generated by a person, thing, or place : the ceremony retains an aura of mystery.” However, in Benjamin’s essay the term aura has a slightly different meaning. According to Benjamin the aura is what makes an artwork irreplaceable, unrepeatable and unique. Besides it is placed in the here and now. This concerns the place and time in which the artwork was made and it determines the authenticity of the artwork. Shifts in ownership and physical changes are part of the aura.

With the reproduction of an artwork the aura and it’s authority and authenticity is lost seen that the reproduction is made under other circumstances. Due to these facts it stands further away from the original artwork. It also lacks the ‘here and now’ that the original artwork possesses. But according to Benjamin this isn’t necessarily a negative thing. With the technical reproduction, art can be reproduced identically and endlessly. It can even exist solely in the realm of the reproduction. This will make it possible to create a radically other experience of the artwork because you can take the artwork out of it’s original ‘framework’ and place it in a different ‘framework’. The cult value the ritual / religious value that an object has for a group of persons, decreases, but the exhibition value is increased. It becomes part of the mass culture; it’s becomes more accessible. By increasing the exhibition value the aura is lost but it opens an opportunity to politicize art.

Benjamin thoughts have become largely reality. An example of an reproduction of its original is the website Fabchannel (it’s down now but this example is striking) which allows you to experience a concert at home. You don’t have to be there to ‘experience’ it. But the level in which you experience the show differs from it’s original. However, it allows you to see the show on another critical level. You get to see the work of art from another angle than others would see it. This allows you to see the things differently from the others.

But hey what are your thoughts on this matter? Which other examples do you know? And in which way do you think the thoughts of Benjamin are still relevant or not?