Bryannn   My blog!

1. What are some of the reasons for a surge in digital autobiographical production from “home pages” to “wearcams”?

   – People feel that there is an imbalance between ordinary citizens and organizations and institutions that use cameras. It plays around with the ideas that people tend to behave more when they know that they’re on camera as opposed to completely private. People want to record their lives, every little detail of it, and show what their life is to the world.

2. What is the role of autobotography vis-a-vis technology’s “narcotic effect”?

   – Autobotography helps people see what they’ve become while using the internet or new media. “…thus they disrupt the new technology’s narcotic effect.”

3. Jennicam gives us an example of the pleasures of self-disclosure, Mann’s WearCams give an example of the dangers of surveillance. Are there dangers in Jennifer Ringley’s work (or similar projects)? And what might those dangers be? Conversely, are there any pleasures in Stephen Mann’s WearCams?

   – There could be danger in a project like Jennicam, since you’re essentially putting your entire life on the internet. Your house, relationship, everything you do throughout the day is completely public, and some people watching may start to think that they have a more personal relationship with Jennifer. This could cause trouble if the person is psychologically unstable and does something like show up at Jennifer’s house. As for Mann’s project, I think the danger is more on a legal level than physical. People don’t like being recorded when they don’t know they’re being recorded, and may want to take legal action against him when they find out they’ve been recorded without their permission.

4. Explain how two of the blogging projects reshapes our sense of self, life, or writing.

   – “Blogging a Birth” has a lot of potential for reshaping someone’s sense of self or life. You take a very intimate, important moment such as giving birth, and record and put it on the internet. People see it and it effects them emotionally. It shows the pain of giving birth, the happiness of holding her baby, and the intimacy of one of the most private moments of a person’s life. If someone sees that, it’s probably going to change them.

5. Pick one of the “moving self-portraits” and explain how the project evokes the mystery of our contemporary lives. What kinds of issues does the portrait raise?

   – It’s possible that any of the moving self-portraits describes something that is going on in the man’s life, illustrated in such a lenient way that it becomes difficult to determine exactly what aspect of his life we are seeing. On a literal level, you might not have a clue as to what’s going on in the portrait. It’s very subjective, but if you look close you may see some hints as to what’s going on in Hoogerbrugge’s work. There is the literal issue being raised of what’s going on in the portrait, but also there is a more subtle issue of what purpose Hoogerbrugge had when making it.

6. Katherine Hayles speaks of the “post-human” in describing the cyborgian entities we have become. How do the artists of this chapter create autobotographies of this “post-human” cyborg? Consider, for example Life Sharing and [phage].

   – In Life Sharing, people record every detail of their lives and put it on the internet for people to see. This is essentially using the internet, and the computer, as an extension of their lives. This can be taken a step further and you could say that the computer is an extension of the person’s body, which is there the “cyborg” part comes in. This new technology is being used to accent or emphasize a person’s life, almost like an augmentation.

7. How do digital artists examine the commodification of the self? How has the self become another consumer good, or how does a human being get reduced to a “consumer”? Which digital projects raise these questions and how do they do it?

   – In a project like Jennicam, where every detail of someone’s life is put on the internet for the public to see, someone may use it as an excuse to profit. It could be a subscription where someone pays to watch another person’s life. This would be commodification of the self, because the only thing being offered to those paying is a view of the person’s life and actions in their everyday life. A human being can get reduced to being a “consumer” because in that sort of relationship between customers and the person they’re buying from, the only motive is money. The person whose life is being shown is interested in money, and the customers are interested in giving their money to watch someone’s life. Any project where there is not something physical that is being made for customers can be considered a commodification of the self, where someone is displaying some part of their life for either money or some other kind of compensation, whether it’s physical or maybe just personal satisfaction of being able to say they did it.

I did think the part about the clerk and the camera was interesting. She had implied that there is no reason to fear being on camera if you weren’t doing anything wrong. When the man revealed to her that he had been recording her, she got very upset. I don’t think it’s just her, I think everyone is like that today. They think that because it’s the corporations doing the recording, it’s okay, because they wouldn’t possibly do anything bad with it. It would seem odd if some random person off the street started a conversation with you and then revealed that he was recording you, but it would seem okay if you walk into a store and notice that there are cameras everywhere, watching your every move.

Just because a corporation is the one taking the video of you does not mean it’s perfectly safe or acceptable. Sure, it could be to stop thieves, but it could also be an invasion of privacy, of sorts. The corporations didn’t ask for permission to record you, they assume that by walking into their store, you are giving consent to be recorded.