creativity/machine

In response to a bit of discussion going on about the ads reinforcing stereotypes, mainly started by Jill, who kindly linked to my last post on the topic:

The Mac is one sort of instantly recognisable, vaguely urban, effortlessly cool white American guy, the PC is another, deeply unattractive, old economy nerd sort of (much whiter) American guy. Yes, because they’re stock characters, they’re ’stereotypes’, and so is the supermodel in the ‘better’ results’ ad.

My issue was more basic than that, but also more problematic, if that makes sense. It’s simply that at this level of communication, when a human body is made to represent a global brand community via the process of standing in for the whole computer system associated with that brand (including its design and its ‘thingness’, its GUI, its applications, its users and its cultural meanings), that body has to be white and male.

Jill says:

If you were in any doubt that men are the default and women the aberration (or, on occasion, the creation or possession of men as in this ad), you might want to note how men’s naked bodies are “human anatomy” while women’s naked bodies are “female anatomy”

But in the specific context of the ‘get a mac ads’ it’s not just ‘by default’, it’s not really possible any other way, except in first year communication studies ‘commutation test‘ posters. That’s the first thing. The second thing is what kind of female and ‘non-white’ bodies can appear at all, and what kinds of technologies they get to be* when they do appear.

It’s all so obvious and completely expected and even making comments about it makes me feel like I’m writing a first-year communication studies essay, but that’s why I wondered if, instead of being just crap, it’s ‘really’ super-clever and an invitation to parody? Otherwise I’m just depressed.

*In fact the supermodel only gets to be ‘content‘ anyway, whereas at least the cute young Japanese woman got to be a fun little digital camera. We could say the counselor (sic) is a particular construction of ‘mediation’ where communication is disarticulated from ‘technology’ altogether, but that’s going way too far, even for an eager undergraduate essay.

See also how to dress like a mac.

Just in case I was too subtle last time about the race and gender politics of the personification of technology in the ‘Get a Mac’ ads, here are two new ones (one, two). I’m speechless. Thanks Anne.

There are about a bazillion spoofs of these ads, of course - in fact, they positively beg to be parodied (as in, on purpose). Has anyone seen any good/funny/clever videos that do a good job of taking on the cultural politics? I mean something other than the ubiquitous geeky hilarity of introducing a Linux character and/or having the computers be secretly gay and in love with each other? I am so not allowed to be trawling YouTube all day, so recommendations would be most welcome.

From the introduction to what Geert Lovink et al call ‘new network theory’, presented as part of the first call for papers for a conference next year under the same name. This passage, under the heading ‘Dawn of the Organised Networks’, stood out for me among many other interesting and provocative ideas:

Community is an idealistic construct and suggests bonding and harmony, which often is simply not there. The same could be said of the post-9/11 call for ‘trust’. Networks thrive on diversity and conflict (the notworking), not on unity, and this is what community theorists were unable to reflect upon. For them disagreement equals a disruption of the ‘constructive’ flow of dialogue. It takes an effort to reflect on distrust as a productive principle. Indifference between networks is a main reason not to get organised, so this aspect has to be taken seriously. Interaction and involvement are idealistic constructs.

Passivity rules. Browsing, watching, reading, waiting, thinking, deleting, chatting, skipping and surfing are the default condition of online life. Total involvement implies madness to the highest degree. What characterizes networks is a shared sense of a potentiality that does not have to be realized.

Millions of replies from all to all would cause every network, no matter what architecture, to implode. Within every network there is a long time of interpassivity, interrupted by outbursts of interactivity. Networks foster, and reproduce, loose relationships – and it’s better to face this fact straight into the eye. They are hedonistic machines of promiscuous contacts. Networked multitudes create temporary and voluntary forms of collaboration that transcend, but not necessary disrupt the Age of Disengagement. The concept of organised networks is useful to enlist for strategic purposes.

Interesting to put this in dialogue with the dominant idealisation of ‘naturally’ determined chaos, no?

Someone in our AoIR panel on Friday asked me if I was ‘using’ Bruno Latour and/or ANT, and I more or less denied it, probably misinterpreting the question slightly, under the influence of adrenaline. Anyway, afterwards I realised that I was far too flippant in my response. Because of course, at least implicitly I kind of am ‘using’ it.

Quite by accident, I ran across this Dialogue on ANT by Latour soon after having the thudding three-fold realisation that:

1. the reason my word count isn’t screaming along as fast as I know it could be is that I’m being far too parsimonious in regard to description;

2. I should avoid the endless roadblocks I create for myself by ‘reconceptualising’, at least for the moment, and just write my way through all the stuff of my case studies; and

3. that’s how I’ve finished everything else I’ve ever finished writing.

Since that head-slapping thunderbolt hit, everything’s going smoothly again. Perhaps the infamous word count picometer may even return soon.

So, anyway, here’s Latour in Socratic Professor mode:

Student — May I politely remark that, for all your exceedingly subtle philosophy of science, you have yet to tell me how to write one…
Professor — You were so eager to add frames, context, structure, to your ‘mere descriptions’, how would you have listened to me?
S — But what’s the difference between a good and a bad ANT text?
P — Now, that’s a good question!
S — At last?
P — At last! Answer: The same as between a good and a bad laboratory. No more, no less.
S — Well, okay, um, thanks… It was nice of you to talk to me. But I think after all, instead of ANT… I was thinking of using Luhmann’s system theory as an underlying framework— that seems to hold a lot of promise, autopoiesis and all that. Or maybe I will use a bit of both.
P — …
S — Don’t you like Luhmann?
P — I would leave aside all ‘underlying frameworks’, if I were you.
S — But, your sort of ‘science’, it seems to me, means breaking all the rules of social science training.
P — I prefer to break them and follow my actors.

Last week was super-intense, what with presenting the paper on Everyday Creativity as Civic Engagement, which I co-authored with Marcus Foth and Helen Klaebe at the Communications Policy and Research Forum in Sydney, then zooming back to Brisbane to get my AoIR paper happening and throwing myself into conference mode for the rest of the week. I had organized a panel with Mel Gregg, Christina Spurgeon and Sal Humphreys called Creativity and Its Discontents.

Quite unexpectedly, our session ended up being totally packed out - we almost, but did not quite, achieve the distinction of having an actual mosh pit type situation happening, but we did have people sitting on the floor. Rock stars or not, I felt it went very well, and we had some good feedback. But then again, the impression of it going well could just be a result of my excellent mood. I’ve uploaded my own paper (well, the script for my presentation) Vernacular Creativity, Cultural Participation and New Media Literacy: Photography and the Flickr Network as a pdf. It was the first time I got to rehearse my interpretation of the idea of a tension between ‘usability and hackability’ in the socio-technical construction of vernacular creativity, kind of comparing the ‘Kodak moment’ with the ‘Web 2.0′ one.

Somehow I avoided conference fatigue, enjoying most of the papers, having an awesome time at the dinner and the inevitable after-dinner drinks, feeling very excited about converting blog friends into real friends. And easing out of conference mode by watching the AFL Grand Final at the pub with a hybrid crowd of friends and loved ones, new conference acquaintances and complete strangers (i.e. the ubiquitous old-men-perched-on-bar-stools, with whom I always seem to strike up interesting conversations) at the Royal Exchange Hotel. But after finally allowing myself to get emotionally invested in the footy, was quite gutted to see the Swans lose by one lousy point.

Technorati tag: aoir2006
Flickr photos are/should be tagged with: aoir2006