Comments on: Scar Tissue and the New Self http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/scar-tissue-and-the-new-self/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=scar-tissue-and-the-new-self English 738T, Spring 2015 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 04:10:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kyle Bickoff http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/scar-tissue-and-the-new-self/#comment-1291 Kyle Bickoff Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:43:25 +0000 http://mith.umd.edu/eng738T/?p=1330#comment-1291 Maura Kate--thanks much for this really thought-provoking read. I also feel that your blog post is a continuation, in a way, of some of your discussion from class, which was really interesting. I believe that in class you also integrated the notion of the uncanny into your thoughts on 'scars,' 'ugliness,' 'monstrosity,' and other topics. I really feel that you've made some powerful connections, and I'd like to poke around a bit and ask a little about our 'uncanny' notions in relation to scars and marks, some of which might be read as 'ugly,' or perhaps <em>ugly</em>. I've been following some of the discussion that's come out of the TED 2015 conference in Vancouver, and have seen some really interesting articles <a href="http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-31931914" rel="nofollow">today</a> and <a href="http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-31918215" rel="nofollow">yesterday</a>. These articles direct my thoughts towards our changing considerations of what <em>technological marks</em> are considered appropriate and what are considered inappropriate, or abject, or uncanny. I'm visiting the the University of Colorado's Media Archaeology Lab this week, and in light of your post, want to pay special attention to those markers of technology that we might see as uncanny. In <em>Blade Runner</em>, the red-eye effect visible in the replicants eyes mark them as 'other,' at least to the viewer. Similarly, the voight-kampff test looks into one's eyes to sense a physiological difference between humans and cyborgs. Perhaps these instances in <em>Blade Runner</em> function as modes to create uncanny senses--they mark the replicants as non-humans, as different, as atypical, and as creatures that are meant to imitate humans, but can never <em>be</em> humans. Again, I consider the ways in which Olympia in "The Sand-Man," Jackson's Patchwork Girl, and Victor's Creature are all physically marked. It makes me curious to observe our technology: if our android and iOS devices are considered 'current' do the technological markings of the car phone (do you remember those?) or the early cell phone mark them as other? Do these devices become monstrous to us? Or do they embrace the vintage aesthetic? On the other hand--the vinyl movement in the contemporary music scene is strong--what is so attractive about the contemporary phonographs, or even the early cylindrical phonographs? In the past few years, cassettes have even become an unsurprising part of the DIY music scene. When is the technology that is marked as 'other' become embraced, and when is it rejected? How are the visual marks of a robotic car and different from the our phones and music players of the present? Should cyborgs/androids be considered any differently? In the distant future, should the old T-1000 'terminator' robotic companions will be retired in a lab, finding a nice cozy space in between an Apple IIe and an Edison Phonograph--or will be bury them alongside ourselves? Do these 'marks' of technology really mean anything, in the end? Maura Kate–thanks much for this really thought-provoking read. I also feel that your blog post is a continuation, in a way, of some of your discussion from class, which was really interesting. I believe that in class you also integrated the notion of the uncanny into your thoughts on ‘scars,’ ‘ugliness,’ ‘monstrosity,’ and other topics. I really feel that you’ve made some powerful connections, and I’d like to poke around a bit and ask a little about our ‘uncanny’ notions in relation to scars and marks, some of which might be read as ‘ugly,’ or perhaps ugly.

I’ve been following some of the discussion that’s come out of the TED 2015 conference in Vancouver, and have seen some really interesting articles today and yesterday. These articles direct my thoughts towards our changing considerations of what technological marks are considered appropriate and what are considered inappropriate, or abject, or uncanny. I’m visiting the the University of Colorado’s Media Archaeology Lab this week, and in light of your post, want to pay special attention to those markers of technology that we might see as uncanny. In Blade Runner, the red-eye effect visible in the replicants eyes mark them as ‘other,’ at least to the viewer. Similarly, the voight-kampff test looks into one’s eyes to sense a physiological difference between humans and cyborgs.

Perhaps these instances in Blade Runner function as modes to create uncanny senses–they mark the replicants as non-humans, as different, as atypical, and as creatures that are meant to imitate humans, but can never be humans. Again, I consider the ways in which Olympia in “The Sand-Man,” Jackson’s Patchwork Girl, and Victor’s Creature are all physically marked.

It makes me curious to observe our technology: if our android and iOS devices are considered ‘current’ do the technological markings of the car phone (do you remember those?) or the early cell phone mark them as other? Do these devices become monstrous to us? Or do they embrace the vintage aesthetic? On the other hand–the vinyl movement in the contemporary music scene is strong–what is so attractive about the contemporary phonographs, or even the early cylindrical phonographs? In the past few years, cassettes have even become an unsurprising part of the DIY music scene. When is the technology that is marked as ‘other’ become embraced, and when is it rejected? How are the visual marks of a robotic car and different from the our phones and music players of the present? Should cyborgs/androids be considered any differently? In the distant future, should the old T-1000 ‘terminator’ robotic companions will be retired in a lab, finding a nice cozy space in between an Apple IIe and an Edison Phonograph–or will be bury them alongside ourselves? Do these ‘marks’ of technology really mean anything, in the end?

]]>