In considering technology and change, I began with a definition of technology as a process or method of producing a desired result or function. When I began to look through the images on the SEFT-1 website, I immediately was drawn to images that expressed technologies that exist beyond the human trajectory of obsolescence and constant change. (I would post the images here, but the SEFT-1 website doesn't change its url as you browse the images)
For example, an image of the SEFT-1 vehicle under a starry night made me consider the technologies we base on the stars: navigational and time-keeping. The machines that use the stars for information may change, but the actual information the night sky holds is timeless and not subject to obsolescence.
Another image of the vehicle under a bright blue sky captioned "Traveling below the speed of light" reminded me that the actual technology of the universe- the laws of physics and biology- does not become obsolete. In this case, the speed of light is an upward boundary that constrains the universe and reminds us of the ultimate unsustainability of linear systems.
A third image that stuck out to me is of terraced crop fields. This is another example of technology that does not become obsolete in the way human technology does- the biological processes of transferring energy from the sun, water, and soil into food crops is subject to evolutionary change, but is a fundamental technology that doesn't become obsolete overnight.
In this project, I find myself drawn to timeless or natural technologies, in an attempt to seek stability in a world of ever-changing technology.
In connection with Ian's images, the one's I concentrated on also had to do with the almost juxtaposition or abandonment aspect of technology, whereas nature in the image still consistently exists. Looking at these I thought right away of the story of the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis..The idea that technology is a product of our need to aspire to new heights and continually raise the cap on our limitations-in the story could be a negative means.
The two images in Ecuador of the overgrown with brush bridges that had railways seemed to remind me of this story...and the monochrome image in Mexico of the aftermath of a fire gives me the notion of the possible consequences in connection to the bible story. But closely connected and nearly contradictory, is the story of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. With the use of advancing technology, the people built a grand stepped platform to which a new kind of agricultural method was used. This was a beneficial and aspiring structure that utilized technology in hand with nature.
Image #1 In looking at the SEFT-1 website (also not able to grab any images off of there), I’m drawn to one of the images of a bridge (Ecuador page, 05 July 2012). It’s made of stone and rain-streaked and grown over with greenery. This is the same image that Juliet referenced. Here is something that was built to last, and it has. The image strikes me in two ways—1) of an example of a technology built to last, and 2) in the metaphorical sense of building bridges between people, between communities, with simple tools. * In what ways do we reinforce or undermine human connection with the technologies we use?
Image #2 There is another image from the Ecuador page on 05 July 2012 that I find striking. It is of 3 children sitting on the ground. It is not clear what they are doing, but they appear to be playing. The images remind me of well-to-do children playing around the turn of the 19th to 20th century in America, or children in less affluent communities playing all the way up to today. Children can play an elaborate game with only a stick, their bodies, and their imaginations. The kids in this picture may or may not be playing; the only object visible is a silver bowl. But I’ve been thinking, When did toys start being made of plastic? How have the toy manufacturers made it seem that children need plastic toys in order to play? Could we bring toys with us to El Paso?
Image #3 Last but not least, there is an image from the Mexico page (dated 04.04.2011). It is a picture of barbed wire. In response to this image, I think about the time limits set on boundaries, like barbed wire fences (or the fence put up around the Alvarado Farm in downtown Albuquerque). What conditions are necessary for people to feel that putting up a boundary is necessary? When do boundaries aim to keep people in (as in a prison), and when do they aim rather to keep people out (as in the U.S. border checkpoints in this country)? When does the need for a boundary become unnecessary, so that the boundary may be taken down (e.g. The Berlin Wall)? In short, how does obsolescence apply to boundaries?
In considering technology and change, I began with a definition of technology as a process or method of producing a desired result or function. When I began to look through the images on the SEFT-1 website, I immediately was drawn to images that expressed technologies that exist beyond the human trajectory of obsolescence and constant change. (I would post the images here, but the SEFT-1 website doesn't change its url as you browse the images)
ReplyDeleteFor example, an image of the SEFT-1 vehicle under a starry night made me consider the technologies we base on the stars: navigational and time-keeping. The machines that use the stars for information may change, but the actual information the night sky holds is timeless and not subject to obsolescence.
Another image of the vehicle under a bright blue sky captioned "Traveling below the speed of light" reminded me that the actual technology of the universe- the laws of physics and biology- does not become obsolete. In this case, the speed of light is an upward boundary that constrains the universe and reminds us of the ultimate unsustainability of linear systems.
A third image that stuck out to me is of terraced crop fields. This is another example of technology that does not become obsolete in the way human technology does- the biological processes of transferring energy from the sun, water, and soil into food crops is subject to evolutionary change, but is a fundamental technology that doesn't become obsolete overnight.
In this project, I find myself drawn to timeless or natural technologies, in an attempt to seek stability in a world of ever-changing technology.
In connection with Ian's images, the one's I concentrated on also had to do with the almost juxtaposition or abandonment aspect of technology, whereas nature in the image still consistently exists. Looking at these I thought right away of the story of the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis..The idea that technology is a product of our need to aspire to new heights and continually raise the cap on our limitations-in the story could be a negative means.
ReplyDeletehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg/350px-Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg
The two images in Ecuador of the overgrown with brush bridges that had railways seemed to remind me of this story...and the monochrome image in Mexico of the aftermath of a fire gives me the notion of the possible consequences in connection to the bible story. But closely connected and nearly contradictory, is the story of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. With the use of advancing technology, the people built a grand stepped platform to which a new kind of agricultural method was used. This was a beneficial and aspiring structure that utilized technology in hand with nature.
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Hanging_Gardens_of_Babylon.jpg
Image #1
ReplyDeleteIn looking at the SEFT-1 website (also not able to grab any images off of there), I’m drawn to one of the images of a bridge (Ecuador page, 05 July 2012). It’s made of stone and rain-streaked and grown over with greenery. This is the same image that Juliet referenced. Here is something that was built to last, and it has. The image strikes me in two ways—1) of an example of a technology built to last, and 2) in the metaphorical sense of building bridges between people, between communities, with simple tools. * In what ways do we reinforce or undermine human connection with the technologies we use?
Image #2
There is another image from the Ecuador page on 05 July 2012 that I find striking. It is of 3 children sitting on the ground. It is not clear what they are doing, but they appear to be playing. The images remind me of well-to-do children playing around the turn of the 19th to 20th century in America, or children in less affluent communities playing all the way up to today. Children can play an elaborate game with only a stick, their bodies, and their imaginations. The kids in this picture may or may not be playing; the only object visible is a silver bowl. But I’ve been thinking, When did toys start being made of plastic? How have the toy manufacturers made it seem that children need plastic toys in order to play? Could we bring toys with us to El Paso?
Image #3
Last but not least, there is an image from the Mexico page (dated 04.04.2011). It is a picture of barbed wire. In response to this image, I think about the time limits set on boundaries, like barbed wire fences (or the fence put up around the Alvarado Farm in downtown Albuquerque). What conditions are necessary for people to feel that putting up a boundary is necessary? When do boundaries aim to keep people in (as in a prison), and when do they aim rather to keep people out (as in the U.S. border checkpoints in this country)? When does the need for a boundary become unnecessary, so that the boundary may be taken down (e.g. The Berlin Wall)? In short, how does obsolescence apply to boundaries?