A New Millenium of Techno-Terror

Lia M. Hotchkiss relates Videodrome (1983) and eXistenZ (1999), both David Cronenberg films, to each other in the sense that Videodrome demonstrates a frightening fusion of human with technology through forced circumstances, and eXistenZ as an extension of similar fusion through voluntary means.

As stated in the previous blog, the television and video world of Videodrome operates like a prehistoric internet, where entertainment and communication is done so on a mass means. Television gives also to this extent, one an ability to live out fantasies. Being an extension of the theatrical experience, with television, one is not so much engulfed the image, but is allowed the opportunity to experience the image in a much more private area, the home. The viewer then is allowed to experience the image and by extension live out their fantasies as they are seen on the television, without the inhibitions that one may feel in a theatre.

In the case of Videodrome the broadcasting feed that the movie title is named for is a display of a female being tortured, something heavily related to violence and sex. The main character Max Renn, eventually in the film, ends up hallucinating and literally interacting with his television fantasies. Yet this is not done voluntarily, Max Renn’s body has been invaded with a tumour from the broadcast and it eventually leads to him become part of the video image. Through the Videodrome broadcast Cronenberg is acknowledging the brutal base desires humans may have and revisits this idea in eXistenZ to the pre millennium year.

Already comfortable with technology, the mass public does not see it as a threat. In conjunction, the place of Television has been taken, in a large percentage by the internet and video games as venues to act out desires. Through eXistenZ, Cronenberg morphs video games and a sort of internet network connection to something that becomes part of the anatomy. The pods that people use to play video games are now connected to their bodies, through an orifice at the bottom of their spine. The pods themselves are fleshy masses that one has to “turn on” by massaging or playing with the pods body or nipple like areas. The video game played in the film  is one of violence and a single sexual interaction that stands out.

Through the orifice, the gamer is in a way having sex with the game pod, stimulating it sexually in order to play the game. We learn in the film that inserting the pod into the spine is also a pleasurable experience. The effects are somewhat shocking though. The gamer once out of the pod is unsure that the “real” is actually real, and as a result can murder real people, and do things they otherwise wouldn’t, as is shown in the film.

Where Videodrome takes place, is in a world where people were still fearful of machines and eXistenZ seems to still be part of the same world of techno-terror. The terror here, however, is not the threat of attack, but the ability to go beyond ones point of comfort and never come back. The internet or capabilities of games, allows a person to go further and further into a chosen path, or perhaps “perversion”. Especially with the internet there is an almost endless path one can take down any road never reaching an end.

Cronenberg addresses the fear of self induced corruption heavily in eXistenZ, presenting it as attractive but dangerous. Of course it is not the technology itself that is dangerous but the human behind it.

Videodrome and Digital Bodiless Lives

A former bodied existence, now operating without one, is what is explored in the O’Blivion character and theories of Max Renn’s death in the film Videodrome (1983). In establishing such an existence one is also describing the possibility of computer animation of today’s cinema to possess an existence place amoung real life.

At the end of Videodrome, the lead character, Max Renn, played by James Woods, does not die. It’s apparent that he shoots himself and destroys the life in his body, but as Jason Sperb relates in his article Scarring the New Flesh: Time Passing in the Simulacrum of Videodrome, Max Renn has perhaps transcended the living world and now lives in a virtual world. This is not a virtual world like Jobe enters in Lawnmower Man (1992), one that many people are familiar with, taking place in “cyberspace”: the intricate world that holds the internet. The internet as we know it today was not invented by 1983, rather the virtual world Max enters is that of television broadcasts and videotape playback. In the 1980s video cassette distribution and TV broadcasts were a predominant form of mass communication and distribution of information, entertainment and the like.

The character of Brian O’Blivion is shown in the film as being only alive in the world of video as a series of tape cassettes and video loops, etc. Living through video isn’t such a imaginative stretch as really anyone who is ever caught on video lives on in the video and therefore in a sense remains living as long as there is still a copy or copies of the video in existence. Of course in Videodrome although this aspect does apply to O’Blivion’s existence, he also has the ability to act things out that were not previously recorded before he shed his body.

Relating to the idea of people currently living a bodiless life is the same as current computer animation. Certain characters created through computer animation have a great verisimilitude to actually human being, similar to those living through video and also formerly were attached to bodies. As an example, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) is a film that is entirely computer animated, looks very close to a realistic world. The characters especially look almost as if there were actual actors up on the screen. However, they are not. But they are real and they do exist, but live life in a bodiless existence much like the characters in Videodrome. All the characters did also possess a body, but not a single specific body. Their attributes are all references in human anatomy somewhere, the body build, hair, facial features have all been part of a body at some point, and if they hadn’t been then they would cease to look as realistic as they do.

There is also the argument of movement, and certain visual details that keep these beings from being considered alive, but these are just advanced differences like those in Videodrome. As in Videodrome the tapes or television signals that make up the existence of the characters have their own disturbances in appearing real. A tape would have static or picture imperfection, and a broadcast could easily have a fuzzy transmission. The characters were not of regular size, they were confined to the size of the screen they were on. Similar to these in a digital world, movement rendering and other minor details much the same make the characters appear unreal.

Finally we have the issue of the eyes. Lifeless and/or soulless eyes are one of the detractors from people seeing the advanced computer animation as real or living. This however is relative to whether or not a human who transcends their body and enters the world of the video image would retain their soul or possess a certain life in their eyes. If they did still have a soul of sorts, where would it go? If a soul is housed in the body, or to the same extent, life is shown in someone’s living body, then the video life would not show any more signs of existence.

Whether or not one believes that someone still lives on in a video or film image, is not the point. Rather it is as plausible for a recorded human to live on as it is a computer generated image. Both subjects were formerly attached to a living body, have their own differences to our current reality, and exist in the same way, as essentially playback. So much like video, when we are watching computer animated characters, we are watching human lives living a life apart from their real body.

Augmented space and Fringe

We are living in a time of augmented space. An idea written about by Lev Manovich, augmented space differs from virtual space that engulfs one entirely into a technologically created space, and instead, technologically enhances one’s actual space.

For example a GPS works to augment one’s space by giving one a dynamic locating system in one’s own hand that augments the user’s ability to find geographical areas.

I would argue that by the same extension a modern personal computer is an example of augmented space as well. A computer turns a user’s living area into a source for information and entertainment, among others. It enhances ones abilities to write more efficiently, a mistake can be erased with little effort or sign that it was even created. Work in many sense of the word can be saved in files, and save room as they are stored within the space of the computer. A personal computer in the right (or wrong) context can even be used to see different geographical areas. It could be connected to a visual surveillance system and therefore one could augment their space by being virtually in two places at once. A more static version of being two places at once, are programs like Google Street View that can be used to see what the street level of a certain place looks like, if that certain place was frozen in time.

The computer as augmented space is shown well in the episode of Fringe watched in class. Computers are the center of the plot, and we see many people augmenting their space with them. As communication, we see a computer used in a scene with an instant message session between two people. Its use for entertainment is also shown when a child plays a game on a laptop. Surveillance is shown, as the “good guys” attempt to track an internet virus of sorts that kills people. We also see the controller of the virus watching the victims through his computer via webcams on their computers.

It is in the idea of the killer virus where augmented space is brought to such ultimate ends. In a reverse to how computers enhance reality for the user by combining the right arrangement of ones and zeros that appear as a game or webcam image, the source of augmentation, the computer, expels a series of “ones and zeros” that change the actual reality of the user.

The virus, once executed plays certain sounds along with images that halt the human from moving, force them to see a hand reaching out of the computer screen, and actually liquefy their brain.

The science behind this idea is fuzzy at best, but the idea that much like augmented space works for us for pleasurable and positive things, it can also be manipulated to “augment” our reality to morbid results in a similar way.

Of course the hand that one sees when their brain is liquefying is not in actual reality a hand, but it is seen as such by the users. This is interesting in that a sort of virtual world in this case in entering the actually world. A case where virtual space enters augmented space.

This is not something that has happened yet but with the right “ones and zeros” perhaps augmented space could now only enhance reality but affect it as well.

Technology. That’s all.

What is technology?
The  definition of the word, from the American Heritage Dictionary, gives one  a decent reply, simply:

1. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
2. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.

Once you cut out the inclusion of “commercial” and/or “industrial” elements to the definition, you simply get: the application of science, or the use of the scientific method.

A better question to ask then, is: what is not technology?

Science dictates that when rubbed together with a certain amount of force, with a certain amount of speed, for a certain amount of time fire will be produced from wood. Although this is a simplified explanation, essentially rubbing two sticks together to make fire is technology. The process of creating fire has place in science. Through discovery, hypothesis, and experimentation, we get the scientific method, one that was no doubt applied, although not formally so, to the discovery of fire.

Extrapolating from that, one’s own body could be seen as technology as well. When a human is an infant, learning to move, walk, touch things, etc are all at the result of  discovering, hypothesizing, and experimenting to find a conclusion. To bring a toy closer to you, you would have to discover that your hand and arm can be used as a tool of extension to reach the toy in front of you. One could imagine a baby experimenting with different methods of reaching and grabbing their toy, in order to bring it closer, concluding with a satisfactory method of doing so. The scientific method is within that action.

Therefore, we are technology. Everything we do is a result of technology.

A human, naked, with only the use of what he or she have in them “naturally” is what writer Mischa Peters defines as a “natural body”. Peters identifies four different bodies, natural, modified, enhanced, and cyber body. Peters defines these bodies as separate entities, yet they are not so separate, in my opinion. What is important, however, is that she defines them all as a part of the body or a body in itself, not less of one.

Going further into technology, we now have machines and tools for performing tasks and the like. Devices like computers, cell phones, music players (that are now computers in themselves) are part of a growing technology that is around us. Someone engaging with one of these devices, according to Peters, would be engaging in an enhanced body. Much like a baby brings a toy closer, one could use the internet to bring themselves closer to someone with the chat or actually talking and seeing the person with internet capabilities. One brings themselves closer to a musical concert by hearing one on an ipod. In doing this, however, we are enhancing our bodies. We are adding to the technology our bodies already have to create bodies that do more and do more differently.

The last body Peters defines is the cyber body, one that is far separated from the natural body and only exists in a “cyber” world.

It is in the second to last body where things get interesting. The modified body encompasses bodies that have implanted technologies inside of them. Where an enhanced body would wear glasses to improve vision, a modified body would have corrective lenses directly implanted over their eyes.

One sees a lot of modified bodies in the literary works of William Gibson. In Johnny Mneumonic characters have weapons implanted into their body, such as blades under fingernails, strange wired weapons in their thumbs, people even have shaded lenses implanted over the eyes. Neuromancer, similarly, has individuals being able to plug themselves into machines to power them and the like.

These people are not less human, but just expanding on the technology of their natural bodies. Adding technology changes us but we are innately technology.

Stretching the idea further than humans, organic beings, utilizing mechanical, and/or foreign devices to their bodies is the idea of machines implanting organic implements to their bodies.

Such a thing is seen in the film Screamers (1995). In this film robots used for weapons, have developed their own intelligence resulting in them being able to essentially create humans out of themselves. They have life like skin, they bleed, but have mechanical moving parts.

Where this idea becomes interesting is in the notion that these robotic human are no less human than actual humans. Although we today are not as modified as  the world of William Gibson, we heavily use mechanical technology in and for our bodies. Of course as established  above, this is just an evolution of sorts of our natural technology. Even if we were Gibsonian humans, we would still only be humans with evolved technology.

Therefore, if machines became like us. If they had organic parts, and as established are  not necessarily more technological than us, then perhaps they are also human. Or by this extension are we robots.

Perhaps, simply everything in living existence is technology, when one boils it down. The distinctions between machines, humans, etc, are just on the surface.

Essentially we are all the same.

Slowly becoming a cyborg

Jeffrey Sconce presents the “Tulip Theory” in his article of the same name.
This theory, based on the history of tulip, relates to new technologies that are proposed or created, happen to look appealing or “sexy”, get a hysterically positive reception. This reception often involves many people investing time and money into these technologies only for them to eventually fall out of “style” and become obsolete.  This is not a new phenomena,  but it’s an occurrence that deserves pointing out, because these tulip like techno-innovations that have been developed over time have given us so  many devices, machines, etc that render much of the work we do in our day to day lives as easy as pressing a button.

However as Stanley Aronowitz points out in his article Technology and the Future of Work, these new technologies are taking away the need for humans in labour. These machines now do the work a human used to do. The human now is only needed to press a button, as stated above. Using General Motors as an example, in 1955 an automated machine had been installed, one that installed and attached parts together to make a car. Years later, we now have almost fully automated factories where very little human labor is need, compared to pre-1955.
However, this eliminates jobs, but of course helps  progress humanity to a state where laborious work is not so laborious.
Humanity has also adapted to the technological advancements  and tulip-like sensations to create more jobs. Although, the more we use these technological devices, as Aronowitz puts it, we enter in the state of being a cyborg. We are at the point where we are dependent on machines to aid us in everyday life.
If there was suddenly a need for human to build a car, not many would have the abilities to do soby hand.
Although, with humans now possessing the ability to repair the machines needed to do the work that human hands can no longer do, we don’t have to worry.
The idea of machines doing our work does give rise to the idea that machines control us, but as Aronowitz posits, machines don’t need to be looked at as something apart from us, but rather a part of us. Since we are, in this day in age, linked to machines for day-to-day life, the machines are a part of us, a part of our bodies. We are just evolved human beings who attach these parts to ourselves, making them almost an organic being, like us. A part of nature, if you are to look at it as human evolution.
In connection to this, when one reads the comic book Ex-Machina, by Brian K. Vaughn, Tony Harris, Tom Feister, and JD Mettler,  one sees the main character being able to “speak” to machines. By his command all types of machines obey accordingly. For example he at one point commands a gun to jam, saving his own life when threatened by a would-be assasasin, and at another time, just by his voice tells the lights in  his room to illuminate to 50%.
Wracking my brain around the possibility that someone could communicate with machines, the only “possible” theory I saw was that, extrapolating from the thoughts of Aronowitz, all machines are organic and somehow send out or receive signals on some wavelength unaccessable to the normal human. Once the hero of the story gains access to this wavelength, he can “talk” to the machines.
Ex-Machina addresses the idea also that his communications have consequences. For example, he stops the motor of a criminal’s car during a high speed police chase, however the sudden action cause a 10 car pile up. Thinking further we can also say that he has power over humans, as we are linked to machines. How could someone stop another if that person could jam a gun or any sort of mechanical aid one may use to apprehend someone. At the same time why would someone use a gun if they could just as simply stop someone’s pacemaker, or any other technological impliment that maintains life.
Although the tulip theory has resulted in many great innovations and eased our lives in our quickening advance to becoming cyborgs, machines, like life, break down. Sometimes easily so. We are essentially machines ourselves, therefore if someone were able to stop machines, would we stop too?

Forget our bodies, we have VR.

“[Virtual Reality] provides the technological means to construct personal realities free from the determination of body-based (“real”) identities”, as Anne Balsamo states in Chapter Five of her book Technologies of the Gendered Body, which is e a good thing for society.
It’s not an everyday occurrence to find someone who is genuinely satisfied with their body or lifestyle. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to any one who was perfectly happy with themselves. Even if someone is completely fine with everything about themselves, there is normally at least some desire to experience things as someone else, perhaps  somewhere else as well. Therefore,  realities created through virtual reality can be very beneficial. If you don’t like your body, live in another one, experience another life.
In our modern times we have technology only as advanced as being able to play as someone else in a video game, either in first or third person. Although they are not as much a full body experience as in the film Surrogates (2009) where people have realistic looking robotic human surrogates, these video games, be it World of Warcraft, Second Life or Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, have very refined graphics creating a decent verisimilitude. This enables those would desire to live a different life as a different person the chance to virtually do so. In some cases a very fantasy based reality, yet this in most case, one where interaction with other human beings through the same apparatus is possible.
Although with people being able to choose their avatars, someone in the virtual world would not be able to tell whether or not the avatar reflects the actual being in reality. As shown in the Surrogates, a young slim women with model-like looks could in actual fact be an older overweight male. This, although should not matter, as it is  only a virtual world, and only the avatar should count in the virtual world as although it is an escape of reality, virtual reality should be kept seperate from the definite article.
Where the real problem with virtual reality would arise, is when a user of the apparatus for “VR” would be neglect his or her actual life, deciding to live primarily in the virtual world. Although virtual reality is great for those would may desire to live outside the constraints of their own body, it does not however mean that virtual reality should become more than a escapist leisure activity.
Although as stated above many people are unhappy with their own bodies and lives,  working to become satisfied should not stop once virtual reality becomes apart of their lives. Escapism can be good,  but as is commonly said “everything in moderation”.

The difference between reality and not reality.

Advances of technology and propositions involving advances in technology via film and TV seem to have been blurring the lines between reality and non-reality calling into question: what is “real”?
For example, thanks to modern digital imaging technology, we can take high resolution pictures of objects, be it things in the environment around us or otherwise, that vividly capture the subject. Once an image or likeness is captured, discussions of its realistic merits arise.
It’s no groundbreaking theory to express how once you take a picture of say, a flower, the image you look at representing said flower is no longer “real”. At least, not “real” in the sense that it is not organic, nor is it the definite article of which it is representing. It is simply an avatar of sort made represent the image of a flower to our eyes.
However, if one is to determine the flower at the time the picture was taken as the “real”, then it is only “real” for the moment the picture was taken, and perhaps the short time surrounding it. The flower represented its real self to the person taking the picture as reality. If one were to visit the flower after the picture was taken, it would no longer be “real”, as it would have changed, perhaps lost a petal, changed colour, etc. Therefore the “real” of the photographer would not correspond to that of the person visiting the the flower at a later date. In that sense the “real” of the photographer would also not be the reality of someone who saw the flower before them.
In short, despite how real something may feel or seem, i.e. a high resolution picture of a flower, it is not real, yet at the same time one could argue that the flower is never real, accept to the subjective experience of a viewer viewing the flower and how they would define “real” or the realism of the flower.

Once again, this is not a new idea, but one that arises in our modern world of technology and advances represented through film and television. Taking the pilot for the television show Caprica (2009) an an example, visors connected to computers are used in order to engulf users into realistic seeming space with similarly realistic people. This is shown when the character of Joseph Adama, played by Esai Morales, wears a visor and he sees a recreation of his late daughter. He can touch her, hear her, talk to her, but as he concludes, she is not “real”. Similarly in the film The 6th Day (2000), Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character encounters a projection used for sexual purposes. She sits on top of him and he notes that he could feel her going for his zipper. But the audience “knows” that she is not real, yet he can physically feel her. Once again who’s to say that to the right person these technologies would not be “real”, as discussed above, it’s all subjective.

In summation, although advanced technology, and suggested technological advances blur reality in “real life” and fiction, there is really no distinguishing between what is real from one moment to the next. As Plato thought objects encountered in everyday life are simply copies of the perfect ideal. Much like a high resolution picture of a flower.