Coelynn McIninch

AIB MFA

Paper #3 Spring 2008

Tangibility

If the body is a sign for self, what happens when we remove the senses that establish the location and state of our body? Baudrillard talks about the nostalgia that follows hyperreal dissatisfaction implying a predictable return to childhood entertainments and memorabilia. In our digital culture of intangible possessions, I wonder if this nostalgia might extend toward much more basic needs such as the tactile, the physical presence of an object, face-to-face human interaction and the desire for technological silence. In reference to the art world, this might translate into a resurgence of physicality, presence and tactile permanence in creative works.

“Our sensorium is more mediated today than ever before. Yet it bothers us less.” (Jones) In the interest of global connection and communication, we have done away with physical representation. Letters have been replaced by emails, notebooks by word processors. We download e-books and store them in digital libraries. The sketchbook has been replaced with Photoshop and a seemingly infinite collection of “brushes”, “filters” and “tools”. It is possible snap digital pictures all day on one Compact flash card, deleting memories on the fly because there is no guilt over wasted film. We upload, store and share images with the entire world in a matter of minutes from the comfort of home. Years worth of memories are stored online instead of in physically present photo albums. And for our listening pleasure, the newest iPod can hold 40,000 songs allowing five straight months of listening pleasure without ever buying a CD.

What was once created and manipulated by hand is now coded into intricate streams of information. Not only has the object or message been removed from the constraints of its previous medium but also it no longer sustains any direct reference to the real world. Regardless of intangibility, we perceive these collections of data as personal possessions to be coveted and catalogued with the same mental attachment afforded solid physical objects.

We no longer need to posses objects merely the codes that give us access to our personal hoard of representative data. We have creative casings for all this information but in reality, there is very little physical proof that any of it really exists. Any loss of virtual possessions does not indicate a physical displacement but a mental gap in information access that needs to be reset or re-loaded.

As inhabitants of the information age we invest, time, energy and money in technologically mediated modes of learning, communicating, and creating that separate the physical body from the senses. Touch is confirmation of an object’s existence in relation to the self. With out tangibility, we are forced to rely on other senses that we have learned, through our participation in digital culture, are easily manipulated. We eat artificially flavored foods, smell chemically generated smells, listen to synthesized music, and watch computer-generated movies. Everywhere we turn our senses are fooled into believing in a new and interesting version of reality. The lack of verifiable sensory input creates a mental uncertainty that needs to be compensated for in order to alleviate the anxiety of a heavily mediated and increasingly intangible reality. There is a constant battle between our physical sensorium and the validity of our enhanced inputs.

“Tactile implies a denial of the distance or “reflection” that is “always possible” in the “virtual universe.” (Andrew Darly) The Internet offers real connections and real information being generated and traded back and forth between real (in most cases) individuals. We utilize physio-spatial terminology to help us create a familiar mental picture of our interactions with virtual data. The mental dislocation and discorporate anxiety of our age is compounded by our attempts to picture the self as a part of this perceived technological space. We are instinctively visual creatures with two hands, two legs, two eyes, and two arms. To create this virtual self is to invest in the creation of an ego outside of the physical self that is incapable of direct interaction or sensory reception and yet embodies all the capabilities of a virtual presence. The lure of existing within this intangible realm is the freedom to act beyond the boundaries of the physical being. It is a self-deification by implied omniscience and virtual omnipresence.

Artist such as Ryoji Ikeda create art that uses technology to exaggerate the human sensory experience while at the same time redefining the experience by projecting technological terminology and ideas onto the functions of the human body. The senses themselves are reduced to codes and tools in such a way that the human body is exposed as a predicable sensory machine. There is still the question of weather or not this reinforces our attachment to technology by placing the human body on the same functioning level as a machine or signals a desire to reconnect with the basic physical reactions of our own human shell.

With apparent global connectivity across physical, legal and temporal boundaries, the shear vastness of the physical world becomes both awe-inspiring and oppressive calling for increased security and re-affirmation of personal space and unique place in society. This need for re-affirmation has inspired several artists and performers to utilize the connective nature of the Internet to effect real-life objects and situations. Long-distance collaboration and group involvement in seemingly spontaneous public performances, coordinated nationwide productions and global interactive installations all help to reinforce the validity of the world beyond the data. The experiments also confirm the artist’s unique influence on reality. It is this effect of the intangible that defines and validates the intangible.

It is not just the Internet that has changed our perception of self. It is every piece of technology that attempts to augment or replace our senses. We “design our technologies to foster the fantasy that our bodies are separate from the minds that “control” them” (Jones) Under normal circumstances, sound can be physically felt. At a concert, when the music starts up, you can feel the bass in your bones. The chairs vibrate, the air is thick with sound waves that reach every part of the body and make listening a whole body experience. When you strap on an iPod and blast the music, the sound only reaches your head. On a crowded city street amidst the tide of bodies, you can listen to your music full volume, cocooned in your own “acoustic envelope.” (Bull) With no physical sensation to establish the sound as existing physically, the sound is internalized as a sort of personal, mental soundtrack. It becomes a self-induced isolation and direct manipulation of personal reality.

We live our lives surrounded by prosthetic devices that enhance our physical bodies and senses. To help assimilate these devices and incorporate them into our daily routines, manufacturers are tailoring technology to feel more like a physical extension of the human form. The designs are sleek, sensual, interactive and compact ensuring portable sensory enhancement. Terms like “Palm Pilot” and iPod “Skin” are marketing tools that use human terminology to reinforce the physical/mental need for these items to enhance or complete the Digital Age body. “We are joined to the sensory tools we have made to amplify and accompany the self.”(Jones) Existing in a “comfort zone where the prosthetics are supplemental and habitual” (Jones)

A somewhat extreme reaction to the incorporeal tendencies of our society may be seen in recent trends regarding physical modification, genetic engineering and bio art. Modification of the physical form is a much easier mental step to take after living within a society that is continuously redesigning the virtual self. The constant disassociation of physical and mental self makes the merging of technology and physiology much more acceptable. Advances in medicine, biology and genetics are making it possible to explore the definition of human by using actual living tissue as a medium. Because self is no longer defined solely by physical form, experiments and creations using the physical body are less shocking to the mental concept of self.

With massive advances in interactive technology occurring every year, the separation between man and machine is getting thinner and thinner. The virtual world and all its intangible accessories can very appealing but there is no doubt that interaction with false sensory inputs has altered the way we perceive reality and our place in it. Since the commercial world so convincingly extols the virtues of each new device that hits that market it may be a long time before we are fully aware of the consequences of our personal diffusion.

“Welcome to the Hell of artifice.” (Doty)

Bibliography

Jones, Amelia. “decorporealization”. Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and

Contemporary Art. Ed. Jones, Caroline A. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006.

Arning, Bill. “prosthetics”. Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and

Contemporary Art. Ed. Jones, Caroline A. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. The Body, in theory. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press, 1994.

Bull, Michael. “ipod”. Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and

Contemporary Art. Ed. Jones, Caroline A. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006.

Darley, Andrew. Visual Digital Culture Surface Play and Spectacle in New Media

Genres. Sussex studies in culture and communication. London: Routledge, 2000.

Doty, Mark. “artificial”. Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and

Contemporary Art. Ed. Jones, Caroline A. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006.

Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books, 1984.

Jones, Caroline A., and Bill Arning. Sensorium: Embodied Experience, Technology, and

Contemporary Art. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006.