“Cataloguing Change: Women, Art and Technology” was an eye-opening read
for me. Although it did not surprise me that women have been overlooked in
the field of technology, it was enlightening to learn about the innovative
early works done by female pioneers and the shift of the gendered dynamics
within the field over time. I learned about information that I was not
aware of before—such as how Ada Lovelace was the first computer programmer
who, in some ways, has paved the way for those who worked at the forefront
of computing technology and digital art. Furthermore, it was also
interesting to admire the physical prints of women artists’ digital work.
It made me take a step back and recognize the importance of archival
materials, ephemera, and other items in recording and documenting parts of
history that might otherwise be overlooked or erased.
Discussion questions:
1. How can we further acknowledge and honor the pioneering
women and their works as we continue to expand women’s presence in the
male-dominated field of computer programming today?
2. Acknowledging the
importance of documentation when it comes to history, what can the
process/system of preserving and archiving the digital artworks of today
look like?
3. Considering the accessibility and advancement of technology
and the internet, how do the digital artworks we see today differ from
those in the past (method of creation, subject of focus, ways of
circulation, etc.)?
“Black Gooey Universe” by American Artist was an enlightening read. I became more informed on the history and continued prominence of whiteness in the digital space. Certain facts around this history also surprised me, such as how Silicon Valley created a space for “straight cis white men in business ties to sit on bean bag chairs and embrace consequential ideas without fear of retribution.” I’ve always looked at these seemingly ‘free’ and ‘relaxed’ working spaces with admiration, but this reading has definitely reminded me to reflect on the deeper origins and concerning intentions behind its facade. I also liked how the reading discussed blackness in both technical and theoretical/philosophical senses, describing the computer interface’s transition from black to white screen as a metaphor for the erasure of blackness in the field. Besides educating me, it also evoked deeper thinking and reflection within me as a reader and a creative.
Discussion questions:
1. When it comes to high technology and the digital space, how are consequences and retributions handled and who are affected by it? How does it vary for people from different social/financial status?
2. How has Graphical User Interface affected the development of technology and how does it contribute to the advancements we continue to make today?
3. How should we recognize the importance of blackness within the history of interface development and what can we learn from when it comes to combating the lack of diversity in the field today?
I was surprised to learn that the narrative “computers are for boys” actually developed later in time as the salary rose and was not always the case since the beginning. It was empowering to know that before then, lots of women were in the field of computer programming. Yet, the fact that this part of history was heavily dismissed to the point where I had not heard about it till now is also frustrating. As someone who’s also currently learning about pre-war period female directors in the CAMS program, it was eye-opening to recognize the ‘man-washing’ parallel between the computer programming field and the film industry. It made me aware of how important it is to know who has power over the things that are essential to my everyday life and what their intentions are behind the scenes. “How to Internet” was a heartfelt, nostalgic, yet informative read. It gave me a glimpse of the internet’s utopian atmosphere in its early stages and urged me to reflect on how it has changed into a more accessible, yet somehow less open and less free space within recent years.
Discussion questions:
1. The internet is a shared space made for sharing. In what ways can individuals contribute to and shape the internet? What can individuals do to build a secure and safe space that people can put their trust in?
2. How can our knowledge about the history and development of the internet inform us when it comes to making our creative projects (selecting topics, medium, tools, etc.)?
3. Some people (especially those who have experienced the internet in its early, utopian stage) are rather disappointed by the development of the internet and pessimistic about its progression in the future. How can we honor the sacredness of connections like people once did in this age of overwhelming information and social media?
Lauren McCarthy’s “Feeling At Home” Eyeo talk shared some of her unique and interesting approaches to the subject of surveillance. Projects like the one using Amazon Mechanical Turk involves McCarthy herself being surveilled by others, whereas projects like ‘Follower’ and ‘Lauren’ involves the public and plays around with the idea of applicants volunteering to be surveilled and followed by McCarthy herself. One thing she pointed out that struck me is that we live in a time where surveillance feels pervasive and out of control, yet at the same time, we may also feel an intense desire to share and be seen. It was admirable and inspiring to learn about how the goal of p5.js is not centered around technology but more so around creating accessibility, community, and homeyness.
Discussion questions:
1. How can we actively and efficiently reflect on or even resist the practice of invasive surveillance when we’re living in an age of social media and constant spectatorship?
2. How does artworks such as ‘Lauren’ and smart pillows help induce active thinking among the public on topics such as home privacy instead of passively allowing technology to cross the boundaries?
2. Aside from incorporating different languages and being open to different communities, what other aspects can help programming sites such as p5.js become more accessible and inclusive?
I found Steyerl’s evaluation and interpretation on what poor images are and what they symbolify extremely intriguing. The writing was informative yet poetic, lending me scholarly insight and analysis on what possibilities the ‘poor images’ that I see on a daily basis can bring in terms of increasing accessibility, liberating images, forming culture, and more. The reading also touches on the interesting class positions associated with images with different levels of resolution, how works of cinema can be resurrected as poor images, privatization and circulation via piracy, as well as poor images’ similarity to ‘imperfect cinema.’ I was especially enlightened by Steyerl’s concluding thought that points out poor images are less about originality or content but more so about their form—their conditions of existence and process of circulation—which reflects the true reality of their time.
Discussion questions:
1. How does poor images decentralize power through its way of creation and distribution?
2. How can the economy and possibilities of poor images be used for more progressive ends/geared more towards advocating for the general good as opposed to spreading hate and negativity?
3. Would eliminating/aiming to reduce negative use of poor images defeat what it stands for?
Joy Buolamwini’s Ted Talk “How I'm fighting bias in algorithms” focused on the inherited bias and lack of inclusion within the algorithms and the softwares we use. She explains that because softwares are created by people, their way of functioning is imperfect, resembling the systemic and structural issues present in the society that created them. She points out that it is important to think about who is in power and control of these algorithms and who does it learn from. It was enlightening to learn how specifically digital bias can lead to discriminatory practices that play out on bigger issues in the real world, such as facial recognition used by the police, college admissions, and even risk scores that determine one’s prison time. It was also heartbreaking and impactful to see the effect of exclusion play out in the real world on a real person. It has definitely allowed me to see the issue from a different perspective and reminded me of the prominence of this problem.
Discussion questions:
1. What are some specific methods or feasible approaches that can be used to ensure and expand diversity in the digital arena?
2. How can we determine if an algorithm is ‘fair’ and ‘equal’? What are the essential elements that need to be included or excluded for an algorithm to be ‘fair’?
3. How would either further advancing or banning the technology of facial recognition help create a more equitable environment in certain practices?
Olivia Ross’s “How to Write Non-Violent Creative Code” was detailed and in-depth yet easy to understand. It urges one to consider things that are often brushed aside when creating a project, such as management of waste, mindfulness of the body, use of language, prioritizing community, etc. It also reminds the readers to reflect on the questions of ‘who is in power?’ and ‘what can be done with such power?’ as both consumers and creators. This topic of power is also touched upon by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in her talk “The Danger of A Single Story”, where she explains that whoever/ whatever possesses the power often gets to tell the single side of the story, causing only one narrative and diminishing the variety of voices from the community.
Discussion questions:
1. What are some ways we can be more aware and perceptive of different perspectives and stories?
2. How can we be more cautious of and intentional about our use of large company sites in our daily lives?
3. How can languages other than English be reimagined and incorporated more in the digital space?
In Ari Melenciano’s talk, she advocated for onni-specialized design and presents several case studies of projects she’s been a part of. She points out that it was difficult for her to find communities that are thinking about technology and race and culture in tandem within the current space as even though they’ve started to become more individually discussed, they are hardly ever merged together or put into conversation with one another. Therefore, she wanted to create a place for celebration of black culture within the tech space, which resulted in a festival, school, and summer camp. She also suggests that design should not be viewed as something done by a single individual. Instad, designing requires collaboration across communities and disciplines and should be done with consideration for our environment as well..
Discussion questions:
1. How might the pressure of feeling like they need to create art for activism/ against social injustices impact minority creators (regarding their artistic practices/ voices/ focus, well-being, etc) ?
2. What would creative processes look like if we were able to create beyond our identity and activism purposes?
3. How can we incorporate the idea of circular design into the process of digital design (aside from the design of physical products)?
Christine Sun Kim’s Ted Talk on the beauty of sign language was very informative and eye-opening for me. I was aware of the importance and necessity of sign language as a communication method and in terms of inclusivity, but I never really thought about it as a ‘musical language’ or a unique possibility of artistic expression. The Ted Talk, with the examples Kim demonstrated to the audience, really made me recognize the wide range of possibilities that sign language carries. Kim’s point on sign language being similar to music due to its spatial and non-linear qualities as a language was also very thought-provoking. I also especially liked Kim’s drawings that incorporate the concepts and movements of sign language.
Discussion questions:
1. How does ableism relate to the power structure of our society when it comes to sound?
2. What are some ways to motivate the public to become more informed about sign language?
3. What are some creative possibilities of the spatial quality of sign language?