Through this post I'm trying to sure up
some of the points from this weeks reading. Lather's call to undo
and recompose our foundations of current undertsanding is one that I
can identify with -although I'm sure I don't undo enough of what I
think I know as often as I should. So, in searching for an object
that objects to what is said about it my thoughts fell on my iphone.
I began to think of how we contextualize this object, and what null
elements we ignore when doing so. If I remove the object from the
frame in which it exists, I can begin to see that its meaning is far
more complex than the object that defines it.
Much the same as Wilkes' work offers
parts of a whole to be examined the iphone could similarly be
deconstructed to examine what the technology might mean beyond its
intended function. Yes, its a phone, but its also a book, a
calender, a map, a clock, a computer, a games machine and a music
player. Its primary use may even vary between its owners, with one
using it as a music player first and foremost, while another may
triumph its social media capabilities. So, why do we still feel the
need to call it a phone? Is this even an adequate name anymore, even
if we acknowledge that it's smarter than those phones preceding it?
The idea gets stranger once you begin
to consider the other members of the i-family. Each one is capable
of very similar things, but we contextualize each one in a different
way, own one for a specific purpose and choose to use it over the
other. Yes, this is over-simplifying things a little, but the idea
is still intriguing never the less. And this idea returns me to
O'sullivan's idea that, after discussion and clarification of
something -art or otherwise, there always remains an excess of
potential left unexplored. In a world that seems content with its
been there, done that, same-old, same-old mentality, what
possibilities await those who allow themselves the opportunity to
stop, turn away and continue?
