Reflections on a subject that uses outside your body prosthesis as a way of establishing a direct relationship with the world has caught-and long-minds of intellectuals and artists, whose relationship to reality is defended by a desire to decomposition and recreation and visualize what we are denied the mechanistic logic. The image of a subject (which is considered "natural" to the extent strictly morphology has suddenly given at birth) provided symbiotic device (computer interfaces) or implatandos (prosthesis) takes us to some spectral areas, so atavistic, as far as our certainty or security. The image of the cyborg appears in the focus of debate because we are a reality in full swing and this "supposed" to put in check essential elements of our being. Today, we seem to perceive a blurred reality that consists of infinite objects, all subject to a chaotic law and migration speed, a moving object involves a correlation in how we look, we perceive and how we develop our strategies at the time of capture, define and describe what "gets us" before the eyes. Therefore, in reality, the discourse on the prosthesis has to do directly with the level of representation, because deep down it's how to show what is in motion. And is this perhaps a major reason for this is made particularly intense debate in the field of visual expression, artistic experimentation, how to get things look? Moreover is it really necessary to make things "appear" when things will never be defined as "themselves" but in terms of where they occur or from where we see them appear?
A world view leads to a dizzying vertigo. The urge to capture what which is subject to the speed means that, as observers, we also put in motion, that we are able to design strategies that allow us to play "parity" with what surrounds us. It comes to my head, for example, the movie "Predator." The vision of the alien is equipped to detect movement instantly and symbiotic nature is defined by its willingness to adapt and survive. Deleuze, Whitehead's hand has touched these issues in a very suggestive. He spoke of objetiles (objects as projectiles) and superject or subject prepared and trained to cope with the extreme mobility. To fix the image of a car Formula 1 racing circuit, not enough with a simple camera, we adjust to be able to take a snapshot of the object that is defined and not blurred contours. Similarly, a myopic glasses needed to establish reliable relationships with what he senses in his eyes. You need to "correct" an imbalance, it creates a set of anamorphosis to the Baroque style. The subject, with a fleeting reality, must take action. Basically measures affecting the performance, the means by which UNAE defines the appearance of things, the way defined UNAE himself to them, because if we see the world as a fleeting cloud, hopefully that the world can see us in the same way. So what can exist if a firm voice, speaking of appearances, we do know that we ourselves are apparent? The interfaces were legitimized as placebos to that anguish.
0 comments:
Post a Comment