“Buy it, use it, break it, fix it, trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it, charge it, point it, zoom it, press it, snap it, work it, quick - erase it, write it, cut it, paste it, save it, load it, check it, quick - rewrite it, plug it, play it, burn it, rip it, drag and drop it, zip - unzip it, lock it, fill it, call it, find it, view it, code it, jam - unlock it, surf it, scroll it, pause it, click it, cross it, crack it, switch - update it, name it, read it, tune it, print it, scan it, send it, fax - rename it, touch it, bring it, pay it, watch it, turn it, leave it, stop - format it. Technologic.”
- “Technologic”, Daft Punk
Last week, on a work trip to Orlando, several co-workers and I got to discussing technology, its importance and its effect on our lives. The conversation was a haphazard debate on whether technology - specifically websites like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, et al - are good or bad for society, art and culture.
One co-worker, a self-proclaimed techno-junkie, argued that such sites helped to make the world smaller and allowed him to stay in contact with a vast network of friends - many of whom are spread out across the nation. Valid point notwithstanding, I can help but note that it seems as though such sites have decreased our ability to interface (a word that once had a human connotation and has since taken on a technological one) with one another.
I have a MySpace account. However, I rarely use it. It contains no photographs or personal information - it was actually created so I could look at a friend’s page. I’ve withstood subscribing to Facebook, and refuse to upload videos to YouTube. The latter is a decision that was prompted by the thinking of author and thinker, Andrew Keen. I don’t share Keen’s extreme criticisms of the internet. However, I do share some of his sentiments regarding YouTube. Keen argues that sites like YouTube have made the production of art too accessible - allowing anyone to produce so-called “art.” In his book, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture, Keen asserts:
“…the free, user-generated content spawned and extolled by the Web 2.0 revolution is decimating the ranks of our cultural gatekeepers, as professional critics, journalists, editors, musicians, moviemakers, and other purveyors of expert information are being replaced…by amateur bloggers, hack reviewers, homespun moviemakers, and attic recording artists. Meanwhile, the radically new business models based on user-generated material suck the economic value out of traditional media and cultural content.”
At what point does technology start to hurt us? When does information lose its value? How far should we go with our use of online social-networks and information sharing sites? The Guardian had an interesting article last month by writer Tom Hodgkinson, on his disdain for Facebook. Hodgikinson writes, “Doesn’t it rather disconnect us, since instead of doing something enjoyable such as talking and eating and dancing and drinking with my friends, I am merely sending them little ungrammatical notes and amusing photos in cyberspace, while chained to my desk?” Valid point.
Of course, I can’t say that I fully agree with any of the thoughts written within this essay. You are reading a blog - a product of the internet. I could be dumbing down information, or as Keen calls it, “superficial observations of the world around us rather than deep analysis, shrill opinion rather than considered judgment.”
Maybe technology has become just like the Daft Punk song - an endless list of rote, that never seems to have a profound impact on the strings of human existence. Then again, maybe everything I’ve written is superficial crap.
