Mona Lisa's Smile

One of the things I found fascinating about one of this week's readings, Remediation by Bolter and Grusin, is that though it is much newer than some of our other texts it seemed - to me at least - singularly outdated.  The analysis and examination of virtual reality, a term I don't believe I have actually heard

since 1997, dated the text and made me question it's relevance in today's socially networked world. Of course the themes that Bolter and Grusin explore are evergreen in their nature. The ongoing cycle of re-interpreting, ie remediating older media onto new forms is timeless and especially relevant in the digital space. However I found their particular vehicle of analysis distracting. Interestingly I found the work of McLuhan, written some 50 years ago, prior even to the introduction of the personal computer, infinitely more relevant to discussions of emerging media. How interesting?  

The purpose of this post, however, is to explore the goal of remediation. If remediation could be said to have an overarching "goal" it would be to improve upon preceding media in some tangible way. Of course this is a grossly simplified definition that assumes a collective participation on the part of technological innovators worldwide. However, generally when new tech toys are sold to the public marketing claims never fail to tout how they improve upon prior technology. The smartphone improves upon the cell phone, which improved upon the wired phone, which improved upon the telegraph and so on.  Naturally the definition of "improvement" is highly subjective. However remediation in it's attempt to transcribe older media onto new forms often amounts to not much more than an attempt make  it better in some way. Consider for a moment the Mona Lisa.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what came to mind at the mention of Da Vinci's

seminal work. The talking Mona Lisa is an animated interactive piece currently

on display in Singapore's Alive Gallery. The goal of the Alive Gallery is

literally to bring historical works of art to life.  Viewers can actually

interact with the paintings and ask them questions and the paintings will

respond. Here are a few of the questions one can ask Mona Lisa:

Why don't you have any eyebrows?

Why is your smile so popular?

Where were you painted?

What is in the background?

All inquiries that if posed by anyone other than an eight year old talking to an animated object might be considered quite rude.  My question is: Is this an improvement or an abomination? I suppose it depends on whom you ask.  This particular gallery came up for discussion in a previous semester with about half of the class thinking it quite cool, and the other half ready to tar and feather the gallery owners. On the one hand I can see the appeal of making high art accessible to an audience that it has never reached before. However I do have serious concerns as to that audience's ability to appreciate the work if it literally has to be able to talk back to them first.

The traditionalist in me says that paintings aren't supposed to move or talk. (Also I can't help but picture Da Vinci spinning in his grave at what has been done to his work.) But is this interpretation completely lacking in value? Maybe. Maybe not. I can envision a youngster getting some knowledge out of being able to interact with a work of art, like gaining historical context, or learning about the artist. The problem, at least as I see it, comes in that exhibits like this also foster a disrespect for the aura of the work. A large part of the value of the piece lies in it's ambiguity. Who's to say that whomever programs Mona Lisa's response to the question about her smile has any idea why it's so popular? Or if she is even smiling? Art historians have been debating that for centuries. The answer to that particular question could never be anything more than a highly subjective interpretation. I doubt, however, that an audience of small children, will be sophisticated enough to make that distinction for themselves. Moreover, I wonder if in presenting talking works of art we are setting these kids on a path to a lifetime of disregard for the intrinsic value of the piece, and art itself. I'm not so sure that remediation worked here. Yes it did make the art interactive but at what cost? For me one thing is for certain, my kids (when I have them) will never have a conversation with Mona Lisa if I can help it.

Actors 2.0: Humanity in the Age of Digital Reproduction

"The stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role. The film actor is often denied this opportunity. His creation is by no means all of a piece; it is composed of many separate performances." (p.10)



The quote above pulled from this week's reading of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin immediately brought to mind the movie Avatar. Specifically I was reminded of the raw emotion evoked by the character Neytiri when she discovers Jake's duplicity, and indeed throughout the entire film. If, according to Benjamin, a stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role - an opportunity that is denied to the film actor - how does that interpretation change when the actor is digital?

All of the awards and accolades heaped upon the film Avatar had in common that the film presented a very realistic vision of a very make-believe world.  Certainly everyone I know raved about how "real" the characters and settings read on screen. That is quite a remarkable accomplishment given that the characters are 10 foot tall blue humanoid beings who have tails. And live in trees.  What struck me about the film, more even than the lush opulence of the cinematography, were the absolutely human performances of the digital actors.  When Neytiri rips into Jack for deceiving her and her dooming her people I knew exactly how she felt. The emotions evident in her facial expressions are exactly what a woman deceived and betrayed by her boyfriend - and whose betrayal threatens to wipe out her entire race - would feel.  The clip above shows a tiny bit of that scene and then goes on to explain how the filmmakers achieved such realistic effect. How did they do it? By very closely recording the actual facial expressions of the human actors. As Benjamin further elucidates, "Experts have long recognized that in the film 'the greatest effects are almost always obtained by 'acting' as little as possible...'" (p. 10)

In this example these digital actors (in the final theatrical presentation) are completely divorced from their human counterparts however to produce an authentic performance it became necessary to closely record and augment their humanity.  Applying Benjamin's model we see that the same rule applies. Though denied a live audience to react to, the film actor, even the digital one, still draws on the universal human experience to convey his performance.  I wonder if the same rule will apply when it becomes commonplace for films - not just kiddie movies - to use completely digitally rendered characters with no human actors ever involved in the process?

On Writing Well

While reading this week's class assignment the following exchange between Phaedrus and Socrates practically leapt off the screen at me:

Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.

Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.

Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.

Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?

Phaedr. How so?

Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?

Phaedr. True.

Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.

Phaedr. Very true.

Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.

Phaedr. No doubt.

Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?

Phaedr. Very true.

Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?

Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.

Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Phaedr. Clearly.

In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:

Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.

While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet  I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying.  That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary.  However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?