D&AD - The drenched out new bloods

Drenched out? well not all of the participants/exhibitors at the D&AD this year felt drenched out. Most of them were full of spirit and enthusiasm. An outstanding level of work displayed, and i must say i envy most of the designers at that exhibition.

Today i'm not going to talk about the whole exhibition or review the works that were on display. (I suggest you check the Creative Review blog for that). Instead i'm trying to talk about an issue i've had with my own university's stall at the exhibition this year. Being a 2nd year student i've learned to look up to the senior students and learn from them and try and follow their footsteps. But, after looking at the final year Graphics exhibition held in Brick Lane last month, and the D&AD exhibition recently i'm starting generate some doubts. Why? because i genuinely feel that i can out-do them. Coming from a 3rd world country i've seen exhibitions with exhibits displayed and presented in a much higher standards with exceptionally low budgets and minimum fundings from the university. This being the UK, with local students spending almost £3000 a year and international students spending £10000 a year, i'm utterly disappointed that my university couldnt plan an execute a set of decent stalls for the D&AD exhibitions.

Below are a few images of the Maidstone UCA stalls.

In the image below, what was the deal with the white boxes below the tables? and why are the portfolios which needs to be showcased stashed below the table on top of the boxes? (the white boxes were used at the Truman Brewery near Brick Lane, which were used as furniture, which btw was a great idea)

In the image below, 2 macs. nice. so many numbers of works, just 2 macs. The mac in the left showcased a D&AD newblood nominee's work (the iphone app for BBC), but how would some one know? see any signage? you probably dont see it in this picture, but there's a small piece of paper almost hidden under the keyboard of the mac in the left. most of the other uni's had a nice yellow sticker with the official D&AD logo next to the nominee's work.

And oh, what's with the two small boxes under the table? and couldn't some one lay that extension power cable below neatly?

So what do you see in the next picture? probably you guessed right - business cards. Instead of being next to that specific person's work, it's all kept on one table all together. Reminds me of Pick n' Mix. Imagine the amount of work and energy that would be put in a potential employer when he sees a work he likes and needs to take that person's information? no one likes extra effort. with hundred of stalls around, this one is just one small spec. when that one important person has gone through all hundred stalls and comes to this, being all tiered, could we expect him to use that little energy thats left in him to figure out who's business card matches with who's work?

Last Click

So let me stop complaining for the sake of complaining. I've said so much, now when it's my turn next year i'll have to deliver what i say!

Anyhoo, there were some outstanding work at the exhibition, and will have my views on a selected number of works in a future post (that's if i get some time to blog again!)

How Real is Reality TV?

“Television works through reality, processing it and worrying over in order to define, explain, narrate, render intelligible, marginalise or speculate about reality” (Ellis 1999)

In this essay I’ll be focusing on the origins of Reality TV and how its ‘realness’ has captured its audience. Reality TV has overtaken other genres of TV shows and reached to an extent of popularity where the candidates – who were just ordinary people – are made into immediate celebrities. While I’ll be discussing this aspect I’ll also be discussing what ‘real’ actually means and how far this ‘reality’ is from the absolute reality. Finally I’ll be talking about how this television genre thrives to survive as a huge success despite its lack of ‘information’ and why it’s a successful medium of ‘entertainment’ - “We aren’t in an information age, we are in an entertainment age” (Robbins)

Origins

In the ancient times when entertainment was needed performers would be summoned to play out well scripted plays, or dance routines. As time evolved we humans have found various new methods of entertainment, and the radio and television are inventions that has almost reached to the top of the food-chain of entertainment. Through these mediums a new genre of shows were given birth, which have clenched its audience tight and faithful to itself. These shows which had unscripted actors put in a controlled setting over a certain periods of time and filmed 24/7, was called – Reality Television.

What is Reality TV? – Richard Kilborn defines it as

“a) recording ‘on the wing’ and frequently with the help of lightweight video equipment, of events in the lives of individuals and groups

b) the attempt to simulate such real-life events through various forms of dramatised reconstruction

c) the incorporation of this material in suitable edited form into an attractively packaged television programme which can be promoted on the strength of its reality credentials.”

(Kilborn, 1994 p421-39)

So how did this all begin? In my research it was quite hard to find which exactly was the first ever Reality TV show, but the roots seem to have been drawn from the genres of documentary and anthropology.

(Figure 1 – Lumiere’s Train arriving at the station)

Screening ‘reality’ can be dated back to the 28^th of December 1985 – which in history is dated to be the first ever film screening to the public by Auguste and Louise Lumiere in the basement lounge of the Grand Cafe on the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris with a device called the ‘cinematograph’. The reaction the audience gave to the screening was astounding that they were found screaming, ducking and running away when they were viewing a footage of a train approaching the station, thinking that the train was literally pulling into the theatre! (Holonet) This was at the time when people were not familiar with moving images, and the short films of everyday situations by the Lumiere brothers brought a ‘literal’ sense of reality to them causing their reactions – even when the films didn’t have any script or story. They were mere footage captured in a form of documentary. Later on fact and fiction were mixed into the making of productions in the line of cinema and TV, while the documentary survived as the true ‘real’ portrayer – but not for long.

“On an average Clark Street, I would shoot about five times more material than I would use… So four-fifth of the filmed truth would be thrown away, as decided by me” (Clark 2002 p5)

Clark Street, a programme in the 70s, produced by Bernard Clark, captured the people in the neighbourhood of the street in day-to-day situations. This was an idea which was generated from a challenge he was set onto – “A good director can make a film about nothing – anywhere, anytime with no research and no story” (Clark 2002 p3) Despite the success of the documentary programme Clark discusses the level of manipulation in the films that striped out a portion of the ‘reality’ in the programme. Despite having lost the ‘realism’ the documentary genre survives, not a the true ‘real’ portrayer, but a mere genre.

However, the audiences kept on wanting more ‘real’ programmes onto which they can cling on to; to drown themselves from such programmes and forget all about their own real life for that moment. While at his son’s cricket match in 1996 Clark led on to almost initiate the idea of Big Brother while on a telephone conversation with a Channel 4 lawyer – “It would be easier to hire an old army camp, sign up a few volunteers and pay them to pretend” (Clark 2002 p11)

(Figure 2 – ‘An Americal Family’ (1973) considered to be the first Reality TV show)

While Clark’s idea would’ve possibly led into the invention of the Big Brother television series, the idea of Reality TV did not appear as late as 1996. An American Family a TV show which was broadcasted in 1973 could be traced as one of the first in the genre to have unscripted actors filmed in real situations. Producer Craig Gilbert shot almost 300 hours of footage over a period of 7 months of a family in a homely setting, of which only 12 hours were telecasted. (Rowen, 2000)

Before the origination of the current Reality TV we know of there were many programmes aired which could be associated with the category. America’s Funniest Home Videos, where parents filmed their little toddlers and kids doing unexpected things on their home videos, which were submitted to the show for a cash prize, has a sense of reality in it too. (Rowen 2000). Similarly game shows such as Crystal Mania, Who wants to be a millionaire, Amarican Idol, Pop Idol and X-Factor had real people compete, while portions of their real life situation related to the competitions were covered on the programme.

(Figure 3 – A frame from a clip from America’s Funniest Home Videos)

What all these game shows had in common were that the contestants were brought onto a stage where there were a few members in the audience. America’s Funniest Home Video’s had the ‘victims’ being filmed at their own homes or holiday location performing unscripted – unaware of the fact that they were performing. On the other hand programmes such as X-Factor and American Idol had ‘real’ people compete well prepared. Yet, all these programmes offered a degree of control to the audience – to elect their winners through SMS or teleprompters. This level of control, where the audience could control who wins, has brought a ‘realness’ almost as real as any political elections.

In 1992 Charlie Parsons created a new format of Reality TV, which shook the whole television industry. Parsons created the now eminent ‘Survivor’ TV series. (IMDB)

(Figure 4 – Contestants in Survivor Micronesia)

In the Survivor contestants were put in a deserted island where they had to split into tribes and compete one another. Each week the tribe who is defeated has to elect a person who’s sent home. Their time in the island, including the build up to achieving a certain task is all documented, and presented in a 45-minute programme.

Subsequently over 70 reality TV shows were aired, which all had similarities and parallels to the so-called ‘fathers’ of Reality TV – Survivor and Big Brother. (Namey, 2002). Networks are flooding their schedules with sequels to hits like Survivor – and the episodes cost less than half of what it takes to crank out a single vapid instalment of any other well scripted television drama or sitcom.

The Addiction

With all these Reality TV shows representing ‘real’ people in unscripted situations, masses of audience have been faithful followers. In the summer of 2000 the final episode of the American Survivor won an audience of 51,000,000 (Brenton, Cohen, 2003 p2). In 2001 22.5 million votes were cast in the weekly polls for Big Brother 3. Two weeks into the series over 25,000 had signed up on the Big Brother website to watch the live video casts. (Brenton, Cohen 2003, p70). Driving School – a docusoap featuring real people attracted 12 million viewers when it was scheduled against a popular fictional drama The Bill which had already had 6 million viewers. (Bignell, 2005)

What was the secret recipe? Why would all these masses of people be interested in watching a bunch of people in a certain setting? Is this voyeurism? One possible answer to all these questions is – all these programmes had one thing in common – portraying realism. Film and television was crowded by all the fictional and fantastical stories, and when something novel was presented people reacted to it much similar to how they reacted to Lumiere’s Train film, except not in such a dramatised way. The realism captured the audiences because they felt that they could relate to it, or felt that they could be in that position – giving a very personal touch. Geoffrey Beattie of Manchester University, the celebrity psychologist on the British reality TV show Big Brother, has proposed many theories as to why humans like watching TV.

“One idea is 'the fairytale factor' where people are interested in the lives of celebrities in much the same way stories such as Cinderella or Snow White are popular -- maybe they too can go from rags to riches. Conversely, another Beattie theory is called 'the Schadenfreude Effect' and this is described as taking pleasure in a celebrity's suffering.” (Kaufman 2005)

This ability to live a fantasy life through the characters of Reality TV may be one aspect, yet some of the viewers enjoy the so called ‘celebrity’s suffering’.

“Was this pain or pleasure?... I watched the Friday night show with a Big Brother virgin. “This is horrible. Horrible. I hate this.” But we remained glued, because there’s no doubt the show brings out the car crash voyeur in us all” (Mapplebeck, 2002 p29)

(Figure 5 – Nasty Nick confronted in Big Brother)

Though many of us choose to hide it, we humans possess a certain degree of voyeuristic nature. Even though it is clear that what we see on the TV was meant to be broadcasted publicly with the consent of the actor, we still tend to have a slight guilt towards certain things. One of the classics in reality television history is the eviction episode of “Nasty Nick”. Nick Bateman a housemate in Big Brother tried to influence the housemate’s nominations, whereby breaking the rules. Eventually he was confronted by fellow housemates, and brought to light of his actions. “After what seems like hours of real time humiliation… Nick retreats to his bedroom and breaks down.” The cameras caught Nick’s tears in full frame, and this was shown on the web, which became the most viewed web event in the UK within 24 hours. (Mapplebeck, 2002 p28) This moment and the emotions captured is real as it can be – no actor can replicate what he had gone through. But what was shown on TV, just a portion of the whole story, led us to believe that nick was indeed ‘nasty’.

“Viewers overwhelmingly believe that people overact for the camera, and part of the appeal of the reality TV experience is waiting for the mask to slip, in moments of stress and conflict, revealing the concealed ‘true self’ or ‘real face’ of a contestant.” (Brenton, Cohen, 2003 p51)

Being voyeuristic, or being addictive to the programmes for reasons such as procrastination, either way Reality TV has proven to be a winner amongst the viewers. Fundamentally the ultimate reason for enjoying the genre could be stripped down to – entertainment.

“The audience can sometimes be manoeuvred into eavesdropping positions and allowed to witness events in ways which pander to less desirable traits in human nature. There is, in other words, a quite understandable fear that Reality Programming if taken to the extreme, embodies the worst kind of lowest common denominator” (Kilborn, 1994 p427)

While targeting the ‘lowest common denominator’ as the base audience has been one of the core points in Reality TV, this format of television has excelled and almost dominated its place in amongst the television networks. In order to remain in it’s position on the top of the pyramid the producers would go to extreme extents to win the hearts of the audience, and by the end of the day making vast sums of money.

Manipulation – the deceptive art

“Broadcasters control all the airtime and have all the money… It is not a chicken and egg, the broadcasters are both, and they frequently cited ‘competition’ as a kind of tyranny to pressurise the producers to cut corners and sensationalise.” (Clark, 2002 p13)

Clark argues that the ‘realism’ in his programmes were lost due to the fact that only a fraction of his shot footage were broadcasted, and he himself had the choice of editing and manipulating the content to his will and desire. Any footage could be edited in such way where the sequential order could be changed so that the ‘story’ being told would be different. Therefore, even if the footage were of real people shot in real situations and real reactions captured – the final product is manipulated to show something completely different, which is far from what really happened.

Furthermore Clerk explains how ‘ordinary’ people conspired with the producers to play roles and ‘act-up the part’ in varying degrees of falsehood. (Clark, 2002 p12)

A similar example can be drawn from magician and illusionist Criss Angel’s TV show Mindfreak. Angel performs unbelievable stunts in front of who appears to be members of the public. What was later revealed through online forums and demonstration videos, is that while the stunt was actually an illusion, the spectators could see how the tricks worked from the angle they were viewing it from, but still reacted to the camera as if they hadn’t seen how it worked. These spectators’ reactions, who we believe as ‘real people’, adds to the final illusion making it more believable. (Ellusionist)

(Figure 6 – Criss Angel in Mindfreak)

The lies of reality: “We lie in the lap of immense intelligence” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

If hours of footage is forced into a few minutes no doubt the final representation would show a condensed, distorted and out of context view of the real. Does this conclude that what we see in reality television is all a lie? Raymond Williams argues that the term ‘real’ is used to contrast with ‘imaginary’ referring to already existing programmes which were fictional or fantasy based. (Williams 1977 p61-74) When Williams’ argument is taken to consideration Reality TV can be seen in a whole new perspective. Housemates inBig Brother and the tribesmen of Survivor may keep saying that what was shown on TV didn’t represent their true-self or their actual character. Yet, may be this is the closest to ‘real’ that could be achieved via the medium of television. The television, is afterall a box with wires and electricity which conjures images that is brought to the living room. The instrument being unreal at this basic level: it could be said that the challenge to convey realness through it has been met to a certain extent via the genre of Reality TV.

“There is a third compelling critical perspective form which to view the rise of Reality TV – and that is through the theory of simulation…” (Dovey, 2000 p88)

Jon Dovey argues that what is shown through the medium of electronic media (television) is a mere simulation. ‘Moreover the materials which are projected into our interior spaces have lost their claim as signals of the real, since realism itself depended upon maintaining the distance between the inner and outer world. This distance has collapsed leaving mere simulations’ (Dovey, 2000 p88-9) In this process of simulation led by manipulation to showcase ‘reality’ has cased the ‘realism’ to disappear.

Conclusion: Content with entertainment?

If the producers of Reality TV programmes create situations that would not have existed, so that observational programme makers can shoot them (Bignell, 2005 p68) what conclusions do we, the audience, have to make out of it?

Human emotions such as grief, anger and lust, conflicts and crisis – all these are a part of our identity and our experience. Having to see this presented in a different form, and for us to be able to view them from a voyeuristic view is the new form of entertainment.

As a member of the Magic Circle in Sri Lanka, and a practicing magician for several years I have learnt to tell lies as if it were true while performing. The majority of the audience know for sure that a coin can’t vapourise into thin air, yet they choose to believe it. Even after they find out what the secret of the trick was they choose to cling on to that moment where they were amazed, and believe the ‘unreal’ as if it were ‘real’. Parallels can be drawn between my performances and Reality TV. The audience might be aware of the fact that the setting in the reality TV show was simulated, manipulated or unreal, yet the ounce of reality that is in these shows keep holding them onto the show, as they – the audience – wish to ‘believe.’ By believing they would be entertained.

“Lord Rieth was the founding father of BBC, and associated with the idea that broadcast ought to aim just above the level of the average viewer, in order to improve audience.” (Cummings 2002 p. xiii) Furthermore his ideology at the BBC was that they should Inform, Educate and Entertain. Reality TV does not provide much information or education, but does offer heaps of entertainment, which is exactly what the audience wants. Even though the unreal overpowers the real in Reality TV, the entertainment factor makes it the most powerful genre in television.

List of Images

Cover Image – Big Brother from the movie 1984

Figure 1 – Lumire’s Train Pulling into a station - http://www.holonet.khm.de/visual_alchemy/lumiere.html

Figure 2 – ‘An American Family’ (1973) (John Dominis)- http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/reality-tv2.htm

Figure 3 – A Toddler being fed - a clip from America’s Funniest Home Videos – www.youtube.com

Figure 4 – Contestants in Survivor Micronesia - http://realitytvworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/survivor-fans-and-favorites.jpg

Figure 5 – Nick Bateman or “Nasty Nick” confronted in the Reality TV show Big Brother – www.youtube.com

Figure 6 – Criss Angel in Mindfreak – From the official website of Criss Angel – www.crissangel.com

Bibliography

Brenton, S. & Cohen, R. (2003) Shooting People – Adventures in Reality TV (London: Verso)

Bignell, J. (2005) Big Brother – Reality TV in the Twenty First Century

Clark, B (2002) The Box of Tricks – Reality TV, How Real is Real? (Hodder & Stoughton)

Cummings, D. (2002) Introduction – Reality TV, How Real is Real? (Hodder & Stoughton)

Dovey, J. (2000) ‘Freakshow’ – First person media and factual television (London: Pluto Press)

Ellis, J. (1999) ‘Television as working through’, in J. Gripsrud (ed) Television and Common Knowledge – p55-7

Ellusionist – Members only forum for professional magicians http://forums.ellusionist.com

Holonet - http://www.holonet.khm.de/visual_alchemy/lumiere.html

IMDB – Internet Movie Data Base - http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0663789/

Kaufman, R. (2005) Television Addiction Identification and Self-help guide – Article published in TurnOffYourTV.com - http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/healtheducation/addiction/addiction.html

Kilborn, R. (1995) – “How real can you get: Recent developments in Reality Television”, European Journal of Communication, vol. 9, no. 4

Namey, A. (2002) . Reality Programs Continue to Rise [Article posted on web site The Opinion Network]. Retrieved October 4, 2002, from the World Wide Web:http://www.rateitall.com/realtv/index.htm (http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/tcom/faculty/ha/tcom103.fall2002/gp16/#history)

Mapplebeck, V. (2002) ‘Money Shot’ – Reality TV, How Real is Real? (Hodder & Stoughton)

Rowen, B. (2000) – History of Reality TV http://www.infoplease.com/spot/realitytv1.html

Robbins, A. http://quotationsbook.com/quote/20947/

Williams, R. (1977) Screen – ‘A lecture on realism’

Her Invisible Cage

I'm tired of being here,
all locked up in my head.
Every day I hear a whisper,
and I'm closer to being dead.

Something taps me on the shoulder,
something I can't fight.
When it talks in that low voice,
my eyes are shut so tight.

Once it gets to a point,
and I'm still sitting on the ground,
it tells me to do things,
I'm trying to ignore the sound.

Its voice is harsh and filled with confidence,
and I can hear a hint of sorrow.
Even when it's telling me,
I won't live to see tomorrow.

I don't know what to say,
and I don't know what to do.
I'm still hearing it now,
and I'm still suffering too.

I can't tell what its weakness is,
but I know I hear some lust.
I just have to get through this,
and have no one to trust.

Break-in

As many might already know, I'm studying a BA course in Graphic Design at UCA, UK. One of the main attractive thing about this course was this specific unit that allowed you to select any other field in the Creative Arts and experiment with it. I chose to do Video and Sound. Looked quite promising. Even though it didn't turn out to the way i inteded it to be, the course turned out to be the perfect platform where i can harness and hone the skills i need in the Video Arts by experimentation.

So, for 5 weeks i had been working on my video project. Did an extensive amount of filming, a lot of time on editing, and managed to put together some sound to create a decent sound track to go with the video. To keep up with the unit's theme - 'Hybridity' i decided to present my video in a form of Video Installation, creating an atmosphere to the audience by forcibaly engaging them to the feelings and emotions of the video narrative through the use of space. (More on this on another post in the future :) )

Things were going well as planned, every thing was alsmost set and ready. Projectors rented, studio booked for screeing, video almost finished editing, sound track done - and just had to do the final touches and burn the DVD.

Just as things seem to be going smoothly, this happened -



Yes, it was a break it at my University. A bunch of thieves broke into the Time Based Media section, and stole 25 of the high end brand new Apple iMacs. Besides the fact that all these machines had high capacity of hard disk space and memory for hardcore video editing, they also had more than 100 students' work. I happen to be one of the 100 students.

I lost all my work that i had done within the week before the break-in. In a way it was my own fault that i lost the work, as i wasnt careful enough to back it all up. But on the other hand i had almost 40 Gigs of data to back up every single day, and my portable hard disk can hold only so much. Luckily i do have all the original footage, and a little bit of the editing i had done. But the sound track works and everything else is lost.

I'm not sure if i should grieve about it, or just carry on. I've been given an extension of 3 weeks to redo all my work. But that will be eating up time from the next semisters work, which has already begun.

So having said that, i guess i have to look forward to a VERY busy month coming ahead! Hope i don't go insane!

We Are All Cyborgs Now

This is my first year at university. First year here in uni, but 2nd year in the degree. As it appears, like everyone else has to, i have to write a 2000 words essay. I'm not much of the essay-type person. As a matter of fact i used to hate writing, but - the topic i got was quite intriguing. I spent some time, and had my essay finished on time, and even better - handed it on time as well. Done.

So here it is to those who might be interested in reading it. Yes - i talk a lot about mobile phones and cars. And no - i couldnt get all the conspiracy theory and the Orwellian Big Brother theories into it. I was tempted to, but couldn't.



Most people have accustomed themselves to using many technological devices as second nature. Visiting a town 100 miles away would mean driving a car to that place within a few hours. Getting in touch with someone in China from Germany would be a matter of pressing a button on a cell phone and facing towards the in-built camera to engage in a live video call. Buying a new product would mean to log on to the internet via a mobile phone or a computer and clicking a button which says ‘buy now’. Sliding a maganatised card into a machine would allow a person enter a high security building. Making new friends has reduced to saying “Add me on Facebook.” Technology has taken many phases in the history of mankind. From the invention of things that are simple as the wheels to specifically engineered nano robots made to run on human bloodstreams, mankind have had many perceptions towards how such inventions could be of use to one. Many of the earlier findings were merely found as a result of trying to get a basic need or function done. This ‘inventing’ for basic requirements has long evolved in to many forms of necessity. This extent of evolution could be predicted to reach a point where the human created it will have nothing to do, except sit and watch while technology does everything for him. This prediction may or may not come to reality in the near future, however the dependency of the present generation on technology has embedded right into our subconscious routines we hardly realise that we have devoted our souls to machines that take care of us and do things for us, and this could pose a fair question on ourselves – are we cyborgs now?

There are many definitions for the term 'Cyborg', furthermore the origin of the cyborg is unclear. Fiction or non-fiction, many have different views on what a cyborg is.

'The term cyborg is used to designate an organism which is a mixture of organic and synthetic parts so designed to enhance its abilities via technology.'1

While this remains to be the more general definition, this does not limit to cyborgs of the form taken by fictitious characters such as The Terminator played by Arnold Schwarzenegger or all other robotic attachments or implants to the human body we see in the fields of medicine, engineering and space.

‘Gaia is the name that James Lovelock gave in 1969 to his hypothesis that the third planet from the sun, our home, is a "complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet" (Lovelock 1979:11)’2

Lovelock's idea was that the earth and the atmosphere was a living system designed to maintain an optimal environment for its own support. In short, the whole earth was a dynamic, self-regulating homeostatic system. Lovelock's earth - a form of cyborg clearly defies the idea of cyborgs being purely part man-part machine. Comparing the earth to be a cyborg has given a fresh perspective of the many forms the cyborg can take.

In the past there were many attempts to invent robots or cyborgs that could live by them selves or a dependent, but most of it was for pure entertainment and was hardly used for any scientific or practical use. One classic example would be the Digesting Duck made by the inventor Jacques de Vaucanson in 1739.

‘Vaucanson's Duck marked the turning point in these developments. It produced the most organic of matters; and Vaucanson made the imitation of internal process explicitly central to his project. .... his "Design [had been] rather to demonstrate the Manner of the Actions, than to shew a Machine" ("L," pp. 22-23, 22). These were connected with different parts of the Duck's skeletal system to determine its repertoire of movements, which included drinking, playing "in the Water with his Bill, and mak[ing] a gurgling Noise like a real living Duck" ("L," p. 23) as well as rising up on its feet, lying down, stretching and bending its neck, and moving its wings, tail, and even its larger feathers.’3

Even though the Vaucanson's duck could mimic a real duck in many ways, the duck alone was of no use but just an object of display merely to entertain people. Quite surprisingly many of the present day technology could be categorised in to such 'objects of display' that were initially something that was a novelty and entertaining to look at. However, little did we know that this technology has attempted to take control the habitual lifestyle of the ordinary man in subconscious levels.

The first car - a form of movable machine - was built around 1672 by a French inventor, Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot. 4 Initially the motorcar or automobile was intended to move a person or object from point A to point B. If one was to ride on a carriage pulled by horses and had to give directions to tern left or right this would be by saying to ‘turn the carriage’ or to ‘turn the horses’. But this changes to a personal level when we are in a car. We tend to associate the car as ourselves.

'If one was to give instructions to a driver, he may say "turn right at the next junction". However, 'turn' could be used in the intransitive sense "turn the car" or transitive "turn yourself". If you were asked what you were doing as you drove the car, you would almost certainly use words such as "I'm turning at the next junction". You are unlikely to say "I'll turn the car at the next junction".

You have come to intimately associate your physical actions with movement on the road, the car has become an extension of your body. When turning the wheel ceases to turn the car, it is like a limb that has ''gone-to-sleep at night, a part of your body that has become separated.

There is an extent to which the car has become an extension of ourselves ­ the driver and the car together are a cyborg.'5

This subconscious extension of the car to the human is something that many of us wouldn't realise at first. The car becomes our primary mode of transport, and eventually moving from point A to point B would be impossible to imagine without this transport-machine.

William Mitchell a professor at MIT Media Lab believes that through our mobile devices we are all becoming mobile cyborgs. In his book Me++: The Cyborg Self and the Networked City which he discusses in an interview with James Harkin Mitchell describes how the new communications technologies have overlaid our city spaces with central nervous systems connecting us into the wireless ether via our mobile devices which act as umbilical cords to anchor us into the information society's digital infrastructure.

‘Mitchell's theory is that the city has always been moulding us into technology-dependent cyborgs, but that the new communications technologies have made all this more vivid by overlaying on the urban landscape a kind of central nervous system that plugs us deep into the wireless ether. Mobile phones, for example, have become so intimately a part of ourselves that they are a kind of umbilical cord, anchoring us into the information society's digital infrastructure. A whole ragbag of new gadgets and wireless technologies hold up the promise of navigating our way through cities in exciting new ways.’6

While mobile phone serves the primary purpose of contacting a certain person from a remote destination these devices are already quietly improving human coordination. ‘Schoolchildren, for example, are increasingly going out comparison shopping by exchanging text - messages, like a little consumer army.’6 The latest mobile phone technologies are designed to make the human life easier. Text messaging, mobile internet and email, tv, music, online purchasing, mobile maps and the list goes on. All these features are meant to provide a service, yet by using these extensively the human ends up depending on the mobile-machine.

‘Mobile addiction in the UK is on the up, with 26 percent of users now classified as 'cyborgs', or people who can't imagine life without a mobile and feel lost without it.’7

Similar to Vaucanson's duck the modern mobile phone and it’s features once were a novelty and some sort of an amusement. But this amusement has turned into addiction and much more – a necessity and an integral part of human lives.

This way of integration of machine and man might not be significant in our generation, but could be so in future generations.

‘Another group the academics have just discovered is the 'm-agers'. These are the 10 to 14-year-olds who have never known life without a mobile. They are much more likely to be aware of advanced features on mobiles but, due to cash shortage problems, are unlikely to use any that cost money.’ 7

Though these ‘m-agers’ have limited use to the various applications of the mobile phones they could begin a whole new phase once their cash shortage problems deem to be a problem.

The car and the mobile phone are tools that the human uses as a form of extension to the body. Whether these extensions will evolve into the utopian cyborgs we see in fiction and art is uncertain.

‘the original organism forms a generic core that accepts attachments and extensions on a permanent (learning) or temporary basis. The attachments get tested and evolve independently, which dramatically speeds up the development. Also, this allows specialized personality configurations useful for social division of labor.’8

As the human role with attachments becomes increasingly abstract, from finding and manipulating a tool we turn to communicating to it. Ideally, the human could suggest certain needs and the tools would respond to it accordingly.

‘We're starting a new chapter in technological history. Chapter one - machines built out of something; chapter two, machines built out of nothing. Merely enacted, temporarily embodied by an irrelevant hunk of metal, plastic and silicon called a computer.’9

It could be argued that these ‘machines built out of nothing’ may not limit just to physical hardware, but to virtual software. One of the fast growing trends today in the Internet – social networking – could be catagorised as a form of a cyborg. Websites such as Facebook and Myspace allows a user to create a profile page enabling them to represent them selves virtually. The ability to represent a person through a virtual identity is an evolved form of human interaction that is maintained and run through machines. While this idea of social networking remains to be an option where a person can choose to have, the digital form of identity is inevitable. Many governments of developed countries have identity related information tabbed on each an every citizen. Deleting certain files would mean making a person non-existent, not literally, but on paper. In this way, we humans are forever linked with our digital-identity, creating a clear, but forced link between man and machine, in a way making us cyborgs.

This technological dependency appears to have put a sudden halt to human evolution. Instead it’s created a sub-route – the cyborg evolution. Currently all technological devices may act independently, but this may progress to a point where everything will be interlinked. This could benefit mankind, as this means the work on the hands of humans have reduced as the machines could take care of it. While the advantages are many, technology causes the average human being to be less competent. Before introducing the use of calculators to the school curriculum students would work on mathematical problems mentally or manually. This method is still used in a few countries such as Korea, China, India and Sri Lanka, where calculators are prohibited to use at all within their academic curriculum. Students who do not use calculators could make simple calculations instantly compared to those who use calculators who might take longer.

The machines used today are fully controlled by humans, and thus far the machine is not taught to think by it self, in other words artificial intelligence is not a reality. It may be yet questionable if modern day technology has made us into full cyborgs. We are habituated to the use of mobile phones, and this has become our primary tool of connectivity. The car, to many has become a main mode of transport, and has become something ‘natural’ to drive on. Satellite navigation, online shopping, Internet banking, credit cards and electronic security systems are a few other technological advancements that we humans rely on a day to day basis. The inability to run a single day without these technological devices clearly shows how dependant the human is on the machine. Without the human the machine wouldn’t be able to survive by itself, nor would it be of any use. This brings us back to our original definition of the cyborg, making it arguable that we, in fact, are cyborgs.





Bibliography

1. Thomposon, Ken. (2007) Mobile phone users: are we now cyborgs - http://www.bioteams.com/2007/03/28/mobile_phone_users.html
2. Haraway, Donna J (1995) - Cyborgs and Symbionts - Living Together in the New World Order, The Cyborg Hand Book, p xii
3. Riskin, Jessica. (2003) "The defecating duck, or, the ambiguous origins of artificial life." Critical Inquiry 29, no. 4 : 599-633. (Sub Quotes from Chapuis and Gélis, Le Monde des automates, 2:149-51, and Chapuis and Droz, Automata, pp. 233-42.)
4. Setright, L. J. K. (2004). Drive On!: A Social History of the Motor Car. Granta Books. ISBN 1-86207-698-7
5. Dix, Alan (2002). Driving as a cyborg experience (working paper)
http://www.hcibook.com/alan/papers/cyborg-driver-2002/
6. Harkins, James. (2005). Cyborg City -William J Mitchell, advocate of the wireless world. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2005/nov/26/news.comment
7. Coates, Ron (2004) Mobile users – Are you a cyborg or a denier http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,1000000091,39158479,00.htm?r=41
8. Chislenko, Alexander (1997) Technology as extension of human functional architecture
http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/articles/techuman.html
9. Gelernter, David. Mirror Worlds. p11.