Plastic Bodies and Bicentennial Man

“The Rise of Cultural Bodies” (2008), written by Ollivier Dyens examines the concept of plastic bodies. A plastic body is a being that has been separated from its biological origins or natural state (p. 58). The plastic body relies little on biological parts and can easily be reproduced (p. 58). Dyens provides the example of a clone to represent the concept, which is grown and literally "a being made of plastic" (p. 58). As stated many times throughout my blog, we are constantly surround by technology as we use it to live our lives, work and engage with others. We have discussed multiple examples of humans incorporating machines into their body, but what about a cyborg transforming into a human? If a machine became more human like, would this then make it a legitimate human? What defines a human then?

This week’s reading reminded me of the 1999 film, Bicentennial Man (Christopher Columbus) because it illustrates ideas from the reading, but from the perspective of the machine as it follows one robot’s journey to become a human man. The film represents a machine's evolvement to a plastic body. Andrew an android used as an appliance in the family home tries to become part of the biological realm throughout the film. He inhabits “a world that is exclusive, personal, and without ties to our organic world” (p. 60). However, Andrew attempts throughout the film to create emotional ties to humans, and become part of the exclusive human world. As a robot he is far from humanity, but as the film progresses he develops emotions and creativity, typically traits allocated to humans. At the end of the film, Andrew's plastic body wins over a court ruling to be labelled a human, however I wonder if one day we will be comfortable with interchanging labels like in the film, calling humans cyborgs or machines humans. The end alludes to the idea we all are machines, as Portia, Andrew’s wife, has to be unplugged at the end of the film to die just like Andrew. The film represents the idea that we will go beyond what the body is, and look at humans as defined as thinking entities with emotions and creativity, be it in mechanical or biological bodies.

We seem to be increasingly comfortable with acknowledging the notion that we are all somewhat cyborgs, however the idea of machines becoming humans is an uncomfortable idea that has not been at the forefront of discussion. Bicentennial Man represents the imitation of the human and as Dyens asks, “is one a human being if one is a perfect imitation of it? Is one a human being if one is, or becomes, a living and breathing simulacrum?” (p. 60). So, I conclude that Andrew is a simulacrum, an imitation of a human being, who has created his own body and system to look like a human (p. 63). The film raises interesting questions about the definition of what a human is. As in the clip below, Andrew asks a man what makes them different if a human uses prosthetic organs as he does? The answer is they both have plastic bodies, bodies that exist outside the biological world (p. 58). As more and more people develop plastic bodies, bodies that no one else has experience before, they will open up the definitions of what a human being can be.

Check out the following links

Bicentennial Man Clip- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnKFEOCO4T8&feature=related

Ending of Bicentennial Man- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDcDxteH_oY&feature=related

Fashion for the Future

In this technologically driven society it is difficult to separate oneself from technology. As we are always connected to cell phones and Ipods, it becomes almost impossible “to locate ‘being’ outside of technology” (p. 284). Jaimie Smith-Windsor investigates this notion in her article, “A Breached Boundary” (2008), where she discusses her daughter, Quinn, who was born three and a half months premature and was placed in an incubator. Smith-Windsor describes this as a “posthuman, cyborg moment” as her daughter became a cyborg, part human and part machine during her time in the hospital (p. 278). It seems these “cyborg moments” are becoming more common in society (p. 278). It is necessary to briefly discuss how technology is creating these cyborg moments apart from health examples. This is apparent in fashion designer, Hussein Chalayan’s work as he combines fashion with technology.

Fashion is a realm always looking towards what is next, and designer, Hussein Chalayan, known for his intellectual and futuristic fashion shows, has breached the boundaries of what is fashion by incorporating technology into his clothes. From the hats that double as table lamps, the automatic rising hemlines to crystals embedded with lasers on clothing, Chalayan never fails to think outside the box. For Chalayan’s 2007 fall/winter collection, he created a set of video dresses. The dress was created from 15 000 LED lights that form changing video patterns across the dress. This combination of fashion and technology showcases the fusion of machine and body. Furthermore, fashion is often used as an identity tool. Here technology is used as an external device to represent identity as the dress has the ability to change patterns and colour of dress.

The video dresses do not quite make women cyborgs yet; it is merely an example of a “cyborg moment” (p. 278). This is because some argue that fashion is part of the creation of identity, thus wearing a Chalayan video dress makes them part machine and part human. By wearing technology on the body people are participating in their own cyborg moments. Like Quinn, whose body was altered for the machines that kept her alive, Chalayan’s video dresses redesign the body and mask the body (p. 280). It is no longer about the physical body, it is about the technology worn and the body becomes distorted. Chalayan’s work humanizes technology; it allows people to accept how it can be a part of fashion. This may be a movement towards a cyborg lifestyle, where we dress our bodies in technology and the physical body is breached and distorted by technology. There always will be an interface between technology and humans; this is merely another way it is entering our lives. It seems as technology enters realms that do not necessarily call for its need, like fashion, “being” outside of technology will become virtually impossible (p. 284).

Check out the following links:

Hussein Chalayan Website- http://www.husseinchalayan.com/

Fashion Television Clip on Chalayan’s Work- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCJVtAWzLic

Is everyone a cyborg now?

Donna Haraway’s “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s” is a dense and confusing piece of feminist work, however it is undeniable influential in the realm of digital cultural studies. According to Haraway, a cyborg is “a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction” (p. 28). For Haraway the cyborg represents the idea of otherness; it is a symbol for the changing structure of identity. Technology challenges identity because “it is not clear who makes and who is made in the relation between human and machine” (p. 36). Haraway argues there is no longer a separation between machine and organism, and consequently, the relationship and connection to our technological tools is heightened (p. 36). However, according to Haraway these connections with technology are unnecessary as technologies are merely “prosthetic devices, intimate components, friendly selves” (p. 36). I agree with Haraway that the relationship to technology has been heightened because the boundaries between machines and organisms have become blurred. People are constantly connected to technology. This can be further discussed by looking at information appliances.

Discussed briefly in this week’s class were information appliances, which are invisible technologies that have become so overused that they are taken for granted. This leads to the notion that everyone is ultimately shifting between their biological and non-biological parts, stemming the idea that everyone is born a cyborg. From cell phones and iPods always in hand to laptops being toted around all over campus, people work with their biological and technological parts simultaneously. In my previous post, “My Modified Body”, I discussed my relationship with my insulin pump and sensor. My pump can also be described as an information appliance. This is because I do take these pieces of technology for granted everyday. The idea of taking a needle in the middle of class, instead of pressing a button is completely foreign to me. I no longer notice and think about the critical impact this small piece of technology is having on my life. I can no longer imagine or differentiate my body without the pump, I have grown a heightened connection to the pump as my physical body works with my technological parts. I have this connection because this technology has made my life better, even though it is simply a prosthetic device. So, does this connection between our biological and non-biological parts mark our bodies as something different, as living cyborgs?

The concept of information appliances argues the notion that we are cyborgs because we have a heightened relationship with technology that often goes unnoticed. Wearing my insulin pump does mark me as different as it is not a highly known piece of technology and acts as an open invitation for people to ask me questions. In this technologically driven society it is acceptable for me to wear my insulin pump on the outside of my clothing as it often passes as a mp3 player or beeper. It is not much different from someone who wears their cellphone on their pants. However, I like all people still have the option to disconnect from digital technology and am not yet quite "a hybrid of machine and organism" (p. 28). My insulin pump may be part of my identity, but there is still a separation between my body and technology. The notion that someone who uses a cellphone is a cyborg is not quite evolving into part human, part machine as one disconnects from this technology several times a day. This is why technology challenges identity and it is difficult to define people as cyborgs already because we can no longer define what we are and what technology makes us into. Does technology make us, or do we make technology? I do not think cyborgs have become a part of social reality yet, they are still "a creature of fiction" that will continue to be worked towards in the future (p. 28).

Has videogame violence already gone too far?

Since videogames launched onto the market a great deal of fear has surrounded the consequences of what violent games can do to its players and what the repercussions will be of this play. From first-person shooter games to games like Grand Theft Auto, many videogames now feature disturbing violence. Many videogames and issues surrounding gaming have crossed over into cinema; an example of this is seen in Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor’s Gamer (2009).

Gamer follows death row inmate, Kable, who decides to take part in the slayers game where inmates are given a chance to compete in 30 battles for their release from prison. These slayers are implanted with nano cell technology that allows for remote access functioning. This remote access functioning allows for other humans to control the slayers and play them as they are set in a type of large-scale videogame setting. Keeping with the course's theme, Gamer demonstrates similar concepts raised in cyberculture works, specifically the issue of materiality. Like eXistenZ, (David Cronenberg, 1999) Gamer “offers no escape from materiality: the gaming system merges with the players’ nervous systems” (Hotchkiss, p. 24). This is because technology is implanted into the brain of slayers, fusing their body with the gaming environment. The slayer is a "voluntarily mutated cyborg" (Hotchkiss, p. 26). Their body becomes part of the videogame world. The object of the game is to compete in a sort of war setting, and to kill or be killed and arrive safely at the checkpoint to continue onto the next battle. Gamer is a great example of videogame violence blending with reality, however it seems recent years have also witnessed the gaming industry take the concept of play and violence too far into reality.

On October 31^st 2007, the videogame Manhunt 2 was released onto the market, however the public had already heard a great deal about the game as it was scrutinized by media outlets prior to its release. The game grew such media attention because months before its release it was banned in Britain. The Britain Classification Body banned the game because

Manhunt 2 is distinguishable from recent high-end video games by its unremitting bleakness and callousness of tone in an overall game context, which constantly encourages visceral killing with exceptionally little alleviation or distancing. There is sustained and cumulative casual sadism in the way in which these killings are committed, and encouraged, in the game. (Parfitt, B., 2007, para. 4).

The video game is the sequel to Manhunt, a game released in 2003. Manhunt 2 allows the gamer to be an escapee of a mental institution who embarks on a killing spree. The game was released on playstation and Wii, but it was the Wii version of the game that had many in shock. Wii asks the player to physically act out the motions of killing someone in the game. It is the player who must create the physical motion of stabbing someone with their Wii controller. The idea of creating the motion of killing had many question whether this was an acceptable game to be on the market because it offers a gamer an opportunity to simulate murder.

As disturbing as this game is, it does raise the question of what is acceptable gaming? Are first-person shooter games ok because players are not actually doing the motions of killing as the Wii game console asks the player? The media attention surrounding Manhunt 2 may just be the “great ambivalence over the transformation of human experience” (Hotchkiss, p. 18). It seems it was the fear of technology and the unknown that made so many panic over the videogame. It seems the closer we get to realistic technological experiences, the more disturbed audiences get, like the Uncanny Valley theory discussed last week in relation to Final Fantasy. Gamer and Manhunt 2 show the great possibilities of the gaming world, however Manhunt 2 illustrates that a more realistic aspect added to the gaming world, creating the motions of killing as opposed to pressing a button, will disrupt people’s acceptance of a game. Getting too real is going too far. Spectators are over saturated with disturbing violent media. Because of this many spectators are now desensitized to gruesome violence. Spectators would not consume violent media if they did not enjoy the spectacle and pleasure received from participating in these games. Manhunt 2 is merely the evolution of gaming, but it is necessary to keep in mind how far the gaming industry is willing to go to shock and keep gamers playing.

Check out the following links for information about Manhunt 2:

CBS Evening News YouTube clip discussing Manhunt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ExNxpob-_A&feature=related

BBC News Article- “Manhunt 2 release saga continues” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7209766.stm

MCV Article- “BBFC rejects Manhunt 2”

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/27545/BBFC-rejects-Manhunt-2