Re/Think(ing) Memorials
Synthesizing all of today’s reading it seems to be a call to re/think memorialization. By that I mean not only the process of making memorials, but also the notion of considering what should be memorialized and how this might best be captured. For this to work we need to be more creative (I’m saddened by how hollow that sounds). This innovation will not come from inside any discipline (3), but as egents in an electrate age we should be free to draw on all forms of experience in order to create.
Building from the tragedy of 9/11 Ulmer constructs the notion of MEmorial which is ultimately an electrate memorial. What is the difference? “MEmorial visualizes at least a part of this formation of coherance in which electrate society is held together not by a master narrative but by collections of meaningless signifiers” which materially emobody the sinthome (symptom). (Ulmer 28) What does that mean? I’m not 100% sure. But, I am reasonably sure that it calls for us to re-think what we think. By that I mean that our general assumptions about things (in this case memorials) are not necessarily sufficient in the age of electracy.
This idea seems to be supported when Ulmer states that the purpose of this experiment is to “invent a role for digital technology in general” (34). That is to say, that all to often I feel that we assume that things are already set in stone and we are reacting to them. I think the point of the MEmorial is to ACT on something instead of re-acting to that thing. We do not yet know what role technology is going to play in society, but we can un-do the fact that it is here. We can, however re-think the way we use it. Further than that I opine that we must constantly consider our use of things. As Turkle cautioned us to be careful in our use of technology or at least cautioned us with regards to accepting technology. So too do I feel that Ulmer is calling us to re/un think the way we do things right now.
At one point in the book Ulmer describes an assignment he was given in a class. He was told to “Draw Kierkegaard’s laugh and integrate it into the model of Nietsche’s eternal return that you constructed out of cardboard last week” (38) I’m not sure I would know how to respond to that. I think that’s the point. Most of us do not know how to respond to things that are so strange. Yet, it can hardly be denied that many of the most important things, if they are to be re-thought, will be re-thought in strange ways.
“This consultation is conducted in the spirit of the musical sense of chora: music associated with the muses and hence with general (economy) rhythms absorbed unawares through the musical experience by the young were to be made explicit by means of philosophy” (39). This statement goes on to further support my claim. I expect that we could suggest any number of metaphors for a MEmorial. Music is particularly interesting because it plays into his description of the Traffic Sphere MEmorial.
Traffic Sphere
The notion of the ear in the sky is particularly fascinating because Ulmer remarks that this device does not need to be built in order to be effective. Ultimately, The goal of traffic sphere was to “make highway fatalities perceptible, thinkable, recognizable as sacrifice” this is to be done by shifting them away from the “private sphere of one at a time” (43). Ultimately this ear will reveal the rhythm of crashes.
The reasons for conducting a MEmorial are almost as numerous as you can imagine. Individually I feel that each thing has plenty of room for memorialization. However, at one point Ulmer comments that automobile accidents would take on their “proper significance” (45) if they were given their own section of the evening news. I find this troubling, because firstly it assumes that these things are inherently valuable (I’m not asserting they are not) but secondly if this is important that certainly numerous (NUMEROUS) other things are equally important. At this point the tv news would be flooded with everything. I’m reminded of Henry Jenkin’s re-thinking television as something akin to a giant user specific swirl.
To wrap things up, this chapter calls for a reconsideration of how we memorialize things. The chapter also goes into discussing what a memorial is and how we can use different ideas to impress the memorial onto an individual and to the collective.
What is a memorial?
How can we re-think this memorial?
Do all things deserve to be memorialized?
Is it possible for something to be un-memorialized?
Ulmer, Gregory. Electronic Monuments . 1st ed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minesota, 2005. ix-280.
Synthesizing all of today’s reading it seems to be a call to re/think memorialization. By that I mean not only the process of making memorials, but also the notion of considering what should be memorialized and how this might best be captured. For this to work we need to be more creative (I’m saddened by how hollow that sounds). This innovation will not come from inside any discipline (3), but as egents in an electrate age we should be free to draw on all forms of experience in order to create.
Building from the tragedy of 9/11 Ulmer constructs the notion of MEmorial which is ultimately an electrate memorial. What is the difference? “MEmorial visualizes at least a part of this formation of coherance in which electrate society is held together not by a master narrative but by collections of meaningless signifiers” which materially emobody the sinthome (symptom). (Ulmer 28) What does that mean? I’m not 100% sure. But, I am reasonably sure that it calls for us to re-think what we think. By that I mean that our general assumptions about things (in this case memorials) are not necessarily sufficient in the age of electracy.
This idea seems to be supported when Ulmer states that the purpose of this experiment is to “invent a role for digital technology in general” (34). That is to say, that all to often I feel that we assume that things are already set in stone and we are reacting to them. I think the point of the MEmorial is to ACT on something instead of re-acting to that thing. We do not yet know what role technology is going to play in society, but we can un-do the fact that it is here. We can, however re-think the way we use it. Further than that I opine that we must constantly consider our use of things. As Turkle cautioned us to be careful in our use of technology or at least cautioned us with regards to accepting technology. So too do I feel that Ulmer is calling us to re/un think the way we do things right now.
At one point in the book Ulmer describes an assignment he was given in a class. He was told to “Draw Kierkegaard’s laugh and integrate it into the model of Nietsche’s eternal return that you constructed out of cardboard last week” (38) I’m not sure I would know how to respond to that. I think that’s the point. Most of us do not know how to respond to things that are so strange. Yet, it can hardly be denied that many of the most important things, if they are to be re-thought, will be re-thought in strange ways.
“This consultation is conducted in the spirit of the musical sense of chora: music associated with the muses and hence with general (economy) rhythms absorbed unawares through the musical experience by the young were to be made explicit by means of philosophy” (39). This statement goes on to further support my claim. I expect that we could suggest any number of metaphors for a MEmorial. Music is particularly interesting because it plays into his description of the Traffic Sphere MEmorial.
Traffic Sphere
The notion of the ear in the sky is particularly fascinating because Ulmer remarks that this device does not need to be built in order to be effective. Ultimately, The goal of traffic sphere was to “make highway fatalities perceptible, thinkable, recognizable as sacrifice” this is to be done by shifting them away from the “private sphere of one at a time” (43). Ultimately this ear will reveal the rhythm of crashes.
The reasons for conducting a MEmorial are almost as numerous as you can imagine. Individually I feel that each thing has plenty of room for memorialization. However, at one point Ulmer comments that automobile accidents would take on their “proper significance” (45) if they were given their own section of the evening news. I find this troubling, because firstly it assumes that these things are inherently valuable (I’m not asserting they are not) but secondly if this is important that certainly numerous (NUMEROUS) other things are equally important. At this point the tv news would be flooded with everything. I’m reminded of Henry Jenkin’s re-thinking television as something akin to a giant user specific swirl.
To wrap things up, this chapter calls for a reconsideration of how we memorialize things. The chapter also goes into discussing what a memorial is and how we can use different ideas to impress the memorial onto an individual and to the collective.
What is a memorial?
How can we re-think this memorial?
Do all things deserve to be memorialized?
Is it possible for something to be un-memorialized?
Ulmer, Gregory. Electronic Monuments . 1st ed. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minesota, 2005. ix-280.
No comments:
Post a Comment