A camera with a view
JenniCAM, visual representation and cyborg subjectivity
Hi this week I am doing my presentation on Krissi M. Jimroglou 's reading, A camera with a view.
Summary of the reading:
Jennifer Ringley started her website JenniCAM in 1996, the website allowed people to view her daily life, including her working, sleeping or even having sex. (Which is said to be the first reality show.) The website became a big hit, there were about 3 to 4 million of people visiting her site daily, some even willing to pay US$ 15 per year to subscribe her site. So, what's the point for people to see the daily life of an ordinary people? And, why JenniCAM has became so popular?
My opinion on the popularity of JenniCAM:
* First of all, Jennifer is the first person to start this kind of website in 1996, when, there were no twitter, no facebook and blogging was seen unusual . People tend to be more curious about this new technology which allow them to view a person 's daily life continuously.
* Second, and which I found it very significant is the way the jenniCAM crossed the boundaries between : "Body and Machine, Private and Public, Real and Fiction."
* Third, viewers of jenniCAM seemed to connect with her at some level, the way she allowed the audiences to read her body in different part and they can even shared her feelings by reading her poetry.
* Last but not least, is the great pleasure that bought to viewers from her loss and return, JenniCAM then operates Freud's "fort-da", the back and forth, the loss and return of objects.
Questions:
There are 2 major questions that I wanted to think about:
1). Donna Haraway defines a cyborg as "a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as creature of fiction." If JenniCAM is considered as a cyborg because of the way it due with technology, then should those people who use twitter or facebook everyday to upload their status and photos to show other people about their daily life, considered cyborg as well?
2). What if JenniCAM is transformed to PeterCAM with the gender change from female to male, Will the change of gender affect the way that JenniCAM being perceive? For instances, the nudity in JenniCAM is said to be the reason for its popularity, if it happened that it happened on a male body, will the scenario change?
if you want to know more about JenniCAM, check this youtube video :)
Thanks for your time, and see you in the tute :)
In response to the first question, if JenniCAM is considered a cyborg, as she ‘is at one’ with her computer/webcam, then how far can this be extended into our lives today? As we are living in an age of rapid technological advancements, where the most commonplace of occurrences are “twittered” or made one’s facebook status, we have to wonder – are we becoming cyborgs as well?
ReplyDeleteTechnology is such an integral part of our lives – from using a pen or chair to the internet or Iphone. Regardless of the type, technology has become an ‘extension of ourselves’...although just not in the extreme form that JenniCAM displays.
I love how in this tute there is never a silent moment, so different from all the others. We just need one question and then we are off.
ReplyDeleteI had a thought after the tutorial about 'peterCAM' and the kind of subject that we pictured as we thought about it. I was the one who had to be different and said Latin American as oppossed to white and i justified it by saying that I found them to be more willing to put themselves on show and a bit more flamboyant.
I then realised that I was baseing this on someone I know, who is homosexual. This is now what I think of be it white, latin American, Asian or African, I think gay. I also think think of the veiwer, as being homosexual, whether or not they have a knowledge of the sexual orientation of 'Peter,' perhaphs because because the taboo surrounding homosexuality and the private nature of the voyeurism
Hi, this Guia.
ReplyDeleteThe PeterCam question is indeed interesting. Personally, if I were to watch someone online I would want someone who's really appealing to me. So if there's someone out there who has a body like Takeshi Kaneshiro's, lips like Tamaki Hiroshi's, eyes like . . . (well, you know what I mean), by all means, get online. But as an Asian, I don't think a male Asian (born and bred) would be crazy or confident enough to do something like JenniCam. Perhaps I'm getting biased here but that's how I feel. Asians (at least Filipinos) are generally old-fashioned and too family-oriented to just let themselves "go" on the internet. Like going naked online? A distant relative is sure to tell your mother/father about it. If I were a Jenni wannabe, my dad would probably disown me.
Hi, Guia here
ReplyDeleteAbout the first question, if we're going to based it on Haraway's definition of a cyborg then yes, people who use Twitter and Facebook are cyborgs. I guess we are all cyborgs then. I don't think it's a big deal though because technology is pretty much a part of our everyday lives.
Hi everyone..
ReplyDeleteFor the issue of JenniCAM being a cyborg, I guess the question should be what makes you a cyborg? It's probably a question with an ever-changing answer. I think it was mentioned in the tute that in the past, people would have viewed humans wearing technological implements like prosthetics or even say.. night vision goggles.. as cyborgs, but not anymore. JenniCAM might have been considered a cyborg because webcams were relatively new then. But what about now? The definition of what a cyborg is will probably change in time. That probably implies that a cyborg will always be viewed as inhuman.
do you think that the definition of human is changing/changes?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Johnothan when he says that JenniCAM was considered a cyborg because webcams were a new technology back then. Looking at Haraway's idea of a cyborg being a hybrid of machine and organism then yes I spose JenniCAM is a cyborg but Im not sure how I feel about that idea. As humans we are constantly developing technology for 'survival' or to make our lives easier. When I first hear the word 'cyborg' I automatically think Robot. And i wouldnt say that those humans with prosthetic limbs or JenniCAM for that matter is a robot. I think its just humans using their knowledge and developing technology to survive. Im not afraid of it. For example the new iPhone... There is a video phone. One of the marketing campains/advertisements is that now deaf people can make phone calls as they can see each other and use sign language. Using Haraway's definition I guess that are cyborgs. But to me this is just technology advancement to allow deaf people to communicate over large distances.
ReplyDeleteLooking at your question Tarsh, I think the definition of human is definitely changing. It changes as technology advances. This is just a generality, Im not sure if I think that our increased use of technology makes us less human...
I agree with u Emma, I think the definition of human is changing as the advancement in technology. Just like the definition of cyborg, cyborg in the past might mean half human and half robot, but if look at Haraway's definition of cyborg, most of the human race nowadays (except people who still live in the isolated forest or village, which have absolutely no contact with technology) are considered cyborg. Looking at myself, I took a bus to uni [the bus in the extension of my feet], I used a iphone [the phone definitely allows me to access to different online information, I have GPS, FaceTime], I use a laptop, etc. Most of the people nowadays are thus considered as cyborg. As a result, I think the definition of human is changing as the technology continue growing.
ReplyDelete