i-ndefinable

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?