Seven record players. While one of them continuously plays the LP Programme Radio that was composed with Rainier Lericolais and Christel Brunet (reference OS.000) the six other turntables are switched on randomly and we can hear the sudden jumps and clicks of purposely scratched 45’s of light variety music.
This audio installation is … well I wish I could have seen it in person. It’s fascinating.
It’s no secret that people studied under, and often imitated, Leonardo Da Vinci. In this case, though, there is something more significant going on.
As far as the major art historians can tell, this newly discovered ‘copy’ of the Mona Lisa was painted at the same time as the original by one of Leonardo’s star pupils. At this point the identity of the hand in question is still up in the air, but *top men* are working round the clock to figure out who painted this 500 year old painting.
It’s interesting to me to see how much of a difference not being considered one of the most important paintings of all time has on preservation efforts. This ‘copy’ is as old as the original. It hasn’t really been well cared for (for 200+ years most of the painting was covered in black lacquer) but, thanks to the fact that it wasn’t a terribly important painting, it hasn’t been ruined by state-of-the-art-in-1850 ‘restoration’ techniques. Because no one was horrified at the thought of losing this painting we haven’t lost it.
In the beginning, they both had eyebrows; they both had a twinkle in their eyes. In all likelihood, they both had on red dresses. Think about that.
Look at the two of them side by side. If you didn’t know anything else about the works, at a distance at least, which would you consider to be superior?
“Documentary vision is kind of like the “camera eye” photographers develop when, after taking many photos, they begin to see the world as always a potential photo even when not holding the camera at all. The habit of the photographer involuntarily framing and composing the world has become a metaphor for those trained to document using social media. The explosion of ubiquitous self-documentation possibilities, and the audience for our documents that social media promises, has positioned us to live life in the present with the constant awareness of how it will be perceived as having already happened. We come to see what we do as always a potential document, imploding the present with the past, and ultimately making us nostalgic for the here and now.”
Is this a bad thing? I’m honestly having a hard time telling from the tone of the quote if we should be viewing this a good thing or a bad thing. I personally think it’s great.
Photographers and artists, by and large, have a greater appreciation for natural beauty as a result of their intimacy with their craft. Journalists learn to explore their environment in ways that are beneficent them well outside the scope of their career.
Why don’t we embrace the idea that everyone is a potential documentary maker in the making. Why don’t we encourage (teach, even) the coming generation how to embrace the idea that everyone has the ability (the duty?) to capture and record that which is noteworthy.
At a show filled with more than a million square feet of exhibit space packed with brand-new gizmos, I’m lugging around what’s got to be the oldest relic actively being used in the press room: An IBM R50 ThinkPad. That’s IBM, the company that hasn’t actually made laptops since 2005.
It sounds like you want Lenovo’s Thinkpad ultrabook.
I used a thinkpad (Pentium I, 32MB RAM) throughout highschool, (04-08) It’s still in daily use (as a dedicated solitaire machine for an aging gentleman that can no longer shuffle cards by hand). They are, as you said, indestructable.
If Lenovo has managed to capture any of IBMs legendary build quality, I will be all over the Thinkpad Ultrabook.
Here’s the thing: while some try to paint comments as a form of democracy, that’s bullshit. 99.9% of comments are bile. I’ve heard the counter arguments about how you need to curate and manage your comments — okay, I’m doing that by not allowing any.
I welcome feedback. Just do it on your own site or on Twitter, Facebook, etc. That small barrier alone removes most of the idiots.
Let’s be totally honest here: anyone worthwhile leaving a comment should do so on their own blog. Very few read blog comments anyway. I’m sorry, but it’s true. Commenting is a facade. It makes you think you have a voice. You don’t. Get your own blog and write how you really feel on your own site.
Earn your voice.
There are few things in this world that I find more stirring than a blogger (whom I have a healthy respect for) issuing such a clear and polarizing call to action.
“Earn your voice.”
What a powerful sentiment, really. I have the right to speak, but do I have the right to be heard? Have I earned the right to have people pay attention to me? Have any of us? People keep telling me that the internet has democratized speech. I have to wonder if that is true. Has the internet made it equally easy for you to hear me as to hear everyone else, or has the internet made it as easy to *ignore* me as it is to ignore everyone else?
Are they the same thing?
Or does that largely meaningless semantic shift also subtly color our perception of those phrases?
I guess the time has come to earn my right to be heard.
When it comes to content that isn’t legally available digitally my mantra is the same as it is with any other out of print media: if you won’t let me buy it, I won’t feel bad about downloading it for free.
I already own physical copies of all of these books. That means that I am entitled to read them however I please, right? Why shouldn’t I head over to #bookz or demonoid and grab a copy that someone else (with a kind soul) has taken the time to digitize.
Is it theft for me to download a digital copy of a book for which I own a physical copy?
(Is it theft for me to download a copy of a computer game that has been out of print for 25 years? Is it theft for me to download a vinyl rip of an LP or a single that was never released on CD? Should it be?)
Lumus is offering a pair of light, wearable glasses that will display 1280 x 720 HD video and allow you to interact with the world via augmented reality.
Light pumps in the earpieces send and refract light down the lens. This moves the electronics away from the eyes, offering a lighter, more streamlined experience. The lenses are transparent and display an apparent 87-inch screen about ten feet away. Because each eye display works independently, you can also view 3D video.
How do you think the Internet has changed the way people take pictures?
It’s the ideal way to share photos but a horrible way to experience them. The pendulum always swings to the extremes first, and I think we are experiencing that now with the internet and photography. With independent books and zines on the rise again I kind of feel a balancing out happening.
Such an interesting point. Books and magazines aren't dying, they aren't going all digital, they are changing. They are becoming personal and customized. Unique is the name of the game, how long will it take big companies to catch up to that.
Print on demand technologies mean that I can have books and magazines that are completely unique to me, one of a kind, and still affordable.
Why has no one embraced that? Copyright laws are one problem, software is another. In the publishing world, the ability of our hardware far outstrips the ability of our software. Managing huge amounts of data (and the metadata and copyright information that goes along with it) isn't an easy task. Once it's been accomplished, turning that data into physical goods should be easy as pie.
I'd love to do it, but I can't do it alone.
Who wants to help? (Hell, who wants to beat me to it?)
A reader reblogged yesterday’s post with some great points and thoughts. Here is how I’d respond to this if we were in a conversation:
Reader: Computers are cheap and getting cheaper. Everything is a computer. The internet is ubiquitous. To say that the future of the internet is to be the…
Thanks for the response. You’re posts tend to be incredibly articulate and I appreciate that you share them. It’s interesting for me to see how other people view technology, as I don’t get that opportunity often. I’ve only been following you for a few weeks now, so I will certainly have to dig back through the archives and see what else you’ve got to say.
I think that you might be right about the populous being unable to bring about real change with regard to internet policy. That frightens and upsets me. Now I have to think of a way to change that.
It seems like I spend so much time around people who are in the “The Internet will change EVERYTHING for EVERYONE” camp that I lose a bit of realistic perspective. The internet has yet to dramatically change the way people interact with each other, just the ease, frequency, and scale of those interactions. At the end of the day, it’s still “What’s up?” and “Check out this great new [piece of media] that I found from [curator]. ” Perhaps it is overzealous of me to expect technology to be able to affect any real change in these behaviors on a large scale.
That being said, you and I would have never been able to have this conversation in the days before the internet. This is, in many ways, a new kind of interaction in itself (or at least a new way to find people to interact with.)
I can interact with people around the world in something akin to the same way that I would interact with them if they were sitting in front of me. The interactions might be the same kind of interactions I would have if they were here with me; We might, for example, watch television together or collaborate on a creative project.
Isn’t the fact that we can communicate and collaborate and consume from anywhere at any time with anyone a new kind of social interaction? A new model, if you will?
Again, thanks for the response. I didn’t expect it and I do appreciate it.
I’m not a fan of Apple. I admire many of the products that they have released, but I do not like their walled garden approach to hardware and software. I’m a linux user. I like to have the right to get inside my machine and make it stop working, and make it work differently.
That being said, Apple could win me over really quickly. Here’s what it would take:
A new iPod Touch with the following features
Same rear-camera as the iphone 4s (or an even higher quality video and still camera!)
32 GB (or 64!) for less than $400
Ideally, the ability to sideload applications (Specifically, I want DOSBox, Frotz (with infocom games) and a SNES emulator. I realize that’s not going to happen, but I can always jailbreak, right?)
14-16 hours on a charge (with no accessories connected)
And these assesories:
http://www.tascamcontractor.com/product/im2/overview/ That’s a set of highquality mics with a built in pre-amp that plugs into the dock connector. With that I could record high quality concert bootlegs, feel comfortable shooting production video with on camera sound (on an iPod, that’s crazy!) and generally do the things I want a good portable audio recorder to do.
That’s a case with a keyboard. I don’t want the ipod to have a keyboard. It would be bulky and annoying. I do want the ability to add a keyboard, when appropriate. And I really dig the way this one looks.
A battery pack. Something that can deliver 24-36 hours of extra juice and not add to much extra bulk to my bag.
Nothing even close to a device like this (with accessories comparable to the ones listed) exists for Android or WebOS. I wish that it did. I’d spend the money on that device in a heartbeat. As it is though, it seems like I’m more likely to get what I want from Apple than any other company in the world. That’s a strange position for me to be in, but if they can deliver a product like this, I’d be a fool not to buy it.
I don’t want an iPhone. I don’t want these features in a phone. I’m beyond satisfied with my $50 android phone from MetroPCS. It’s laughably under-powered, and the network is slow and patchy, but it gets the job done. It’s a serviceable phone with a decent browser and good software. In two words, Good Enough.
This iPod would be a step beyond good enough. It’d be Fscking amazing. It’d be a different kind of device, something that is more portable than a tablet, less of a communications device than a smartphone, and can do *So much more* than a typical computer.
For recording audio and video in the field, for the web, it’d be a near perfect device.
Make it happen, Apple. I can’t be the only one that wants one of these.