Week 6 : Confused Coffee Beans - Neumann and Turing

Across “The Computer and the Brain”, John Von Neumann developed his own critic and conception for the concept of “computation”. Mainly inspired by the work of Alan Turing (Turing Machine) and Claude Shannon (Shannon’s Theorem), Neumann brings five important key ideas of the information age. The first idea of communication through channels and we can all agree that this is quite the basis of computation. Shannon’s theorem gave a remarkably useful way to handle massive chunks of digital data with the minimum loss of information. The second idea, the universality of the computation, is also extremely relevant to the distinction between the human computer and the machine. According to the Church-Turing thesis, a human brain is restricted by natural law, which makes it automatically less powerful than the machine in terms of information-processing, for example, encryption and decryption of digital Nazi languages or data during WWII. The third key idea and probably the most important aspect of computational machines is their architecture. The way machines process with their inputs/outputs, programs, operation codes and the general serial connectivity makes them arguably incompatible to the human’s brain, being an analogue circuit and not digital. The fourth key idea, however, is a contradiction to Ada Byron saying that computers couldn’t think creatively. This concept was already countered earlier by Alan Turing and the “Turing Test”. Neumann’s correlation of the computer and the human neuron system led to the connectionism, which described that computers are built on a neuron model in both hardware and software, so is the human? The final point of Neumann is the concept of “singularity”, a quite scary vision of the runaway of technology over the human race.

For the text of Alan Turing, the approach of what he calls: the “imitation game”, is just impressive. Although many of the digital machines are especially designed for the test, the result are amazingly relevant to the question of : Can machines think ? A digital computer as to learn the instructions to remember it (softwares), however, this is the same principle for the human computer. Turing refers this concept to “instruction tables” or discrete machines. He uses this word because machines are set for a limited number of possibilities, whereas human have more options. Turing brings out many well developed arguments to determine the reliability of the “imitation game”. This sorts out many trust issues around the test, therefore giving the results a certain fiability to show how close the machine computer is from the human one.

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

VAPC - Week 6 Kurzweil and Turing (Computation II)

Kurzweil's text on the work of John von Neumann investigates an essential equivalence between the human brain and a computer and delves into five key ideas underlying the information age. One of the five core ideas Kurzweil discusses is Turing's concept of the universality of computation, which gets applied to the human brain; essentially, the information-processing capability of a human brain can be matched by that of a machine but can never exceed that of a machine. Or, as is expounded on later in the text, a computer is theoretically capable of simulating the workings of the human brain, but not the other way around. Turing himself discusses the challenges this might present to a machine playing the imitation game, needing to potentially hide it's superior mathematical processing power.

According to Kurzweil, von Neumann was ahead of his time not only as a pioneer in computation, but in terms of his understanding of the field of neuroscience. A central message in Kurzweil's text is the success of applying biologically inspired methods to computation. We discussed the ways this related to both Turing and last week's Penny text. Turing’s text theorizes that a computer can learn and grow “organically” if it were programmed to be raised like a child. The fact that machines can make errors when processing information also adds to their “organic nature”, as it shows that they are imperfect and require improvement. Penny discussed the need to move away from dualist cognitive models towards more embodied understandings of intelligence, highlighting the benefits of modeling machines after humans while warning of the dangers of the reverse. However, in order to model machines biologically, to what degree to we require a computational understanding of biological processes? Is there a way to preserve human experience as the starting point in how we define our relationship to machines, or will attempts to produce artificial intelligence necessarily result in an understanding of ourselves that is more machine-like?

Kurzweil himself believes that the project of artificial intelligence will not displace humans but 'expand the reach of what is already a human-machine civilization'. We wondered what Kurzweil's optimistic view of an expanded civilization might look like, in a context where artificial intelligence can can be assumed to not only match, but exceed the capacities of biological beings?

C+ Gang - The Computer and the Brain | Computer Machinery and Intelligence - Week 6

Question of the week: Is the machine inadvertently superior to the human brain?

We started unpacking this question by differentiating between what machines can do similarly and things it cannot and as we found out, the texts contained more evidence to what can be replicated and imitated. For example, the Kurweill reading says that — among other things — the concept of the universality of computation (his second important idea) can be used in computer intelligence (his fourth important idea) to "conclude that a von Neumann machine can simulate a brain's processing". With that point made clear, we then discussed how the reverse — that a human brain could simulate a computer — is not really possible in most cases. To support this idea, we argued upon the idea of human memory being pretty limited in the sheer amount of things it could remember, a problem not present in machines. For example, there is almost no way someone could remember the contents of every single one of their birthday dinners as we constantly forget unnecessary information of the like. However, a computer would be able to remember right to the amount of strawberries on your 5th birthday cake.

Following that, we also dived deeper into Turing's text, specifically the imitation game and the section on digital computers. When it comes to the imitation game, we understood that it was strictly an exercise in having machines try and behave as a human and not the opposite. In fact, Turing makes it clear that "If the man were to try and pretend to be the machine he would clearly make a very poor showing.", simply because complicated mathematical formulas would be solved instantly by computers whereas a human being would take much longer, among other things. On top of that, the three parts of the digital computer — store, executive unit, control — provide a much better framework for understanding patterns than human memory. So, when it comes to doing a variety of tasks, computers will always be superior. Finally, most of the oppositions we had to the idea, such as machines lacking emotions, were addressed in the section called "Contrary Views on the Main Question".

Week 6: TETRA - Turing and Kurzweil

Are we back in circular thinking that machine computation is projected on human behaviour?

WEEK 6 - The Computer and the Brain - 2ESDAYS

We were really amazed by the foresighted and precedent opinions on the relationship between the computer and the human brain. Von Neumann found that the parallel processing of a great number of neurons in human brains gives human a remarkable power to process information while Turing found that both modern digital computer and nervous system are both electrical. Both of them mentioned Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine and Lady Lovelace (Ada Byron)’s conclusion that “a computer cannot think creatively.” and “the machine can only do what we tell it to do.” Until today, the machines are still not able to jump off of this rule completely. Turing concluded that the machine can be equal to the brain only when they start to realize what they have done and they are doing it because of their own thoughts and feelings. Maybe the machines in the future may have self-awareness, however, we can never prove it. According to solipsism, “the only way by which one could be sure that a machine thinks is to be the machine and to feel oneself thinking.” In Turing’s fifth arguments from various disabilities, he mentioned that the machines can never have characteristics like beautiful, friendly, have initiative, and have a sense of humor, etc. If we take a look at some recently created robots and AI, their external looking can definitely be described as beautiful, and they can be programmed to be friendly and have a sense of humor. Turing asked at the start of his article that, “Can machines think?”. We believe this question can be rephrased to “Can machine imitate if they are thinking?” And this is also the emphasis of the Imitation Game - it doesn’t matter if the machine is actually thinking, instead, can it pretend to be conscious. We also find the test is meaningless as chatting through machine only shows a very little aspect of information and thinking. The machine functions like a filter that affects our cognition of the information. The interpretation of the same information varies even during human to human communication. Turing’s opinion was too focused on human thinking, he thinks intellectual thinking is the only thing that matters and ignored how important is embodiment and sensations to human. However, the example of Helen Keller was well-made to bring up the connection between the child machine and the children whose senses are being disabled. Both articles finished up on singularity and had an impressive prediction of the outlook of the machines.

Week 6 - “The Computer and the Brain” and “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” by The Visually Impaired

In Alan Turing’s “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” he discusses the idea of computers, current and future, and their capabilities. At the time, he spoke of computer’s with limited storage and in the imitation game, where computers were to have conversations with an interrogator whom would figure out if the conversation they were having was with a computer or a human. An interesting point he brings up is how the computer must think and act like a human but yet it does things even better than an average human could, for example, quick math, and chess. He speaks of a computer which will be able to add storage to called “infinitive capacity computers” and will be able to imitate humans so well that the interrogators won’t have more than “70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.”

He then proceeds to discuss the objections to his points that a machine can think. Some that we found interesting is the objection that God only providing thinking to humans only because they have a soul. Though there are complications to this argument regarding animals and women being seen as soulless, thus making them none thinking beings. Second, the consequences of what machines could do if they could think, which he argues that if humans are superior above all then we shouldn’t worry about machines. Third, it discusses that a machine can not provoke or create pieces that will provoke emotions and thought on its own. Though Turing argues that that the imitation game contradicts this statement, computer’s can provide answers that are personal and can provoke emotion such as “ ...By a winter's day, one means a typical winter's day, rather than a special one like Christmas.” “The Computer and the Brain” by Ray Kurzweil discussed computer and the people behind the computers we have today. Our group discussed the history we found interesting. Charles Babbage's Analytic Engine used the idea of the Jacquard loom (which used punched cards to create patterns), as a way to store memory. Sadly, Charles did not have the technology to create his computer and it was lost in time. The great thing that came out of it was the creation of software programming. Lovelace was the first to think about how we can create programs, and the first to start thinking about AI, and started writing programs for the Analytic Engine. She also created the idea of table checking, which is basically debugging in your head. The von Neumann came along and created a form of what we use today. He basically talked about the structure of the brain and how similar it is to a machine/computer. Obviously, he didn't have the correct structure of the brain, but for his time it was pretty miraculous. He outlines Von Neumann discusses neurons and how their output is digital and neuron’s cell body is analog, which is the model software and hardware are built based on. Another thing von Neumann believed was that the brain had the capacity to remember every single detail or our lives. So basically, von Neumann thinks the brain works with memory as 1's and 0's, whereas our brain actually works with recognition. The writer gives a good example of how recognizer recognizes the structure of the letter A, and how at a higher level they recognize the word Apple, and at a comparable level it can recognize the object, and on a higher conceptual level, it can recognize the term "that was funny". When we recall an experience, we know that it's not just a video in our head. It's impossible to remember every single detail because when we revisit the memory, we tend to fabricate some of the events that happened. Also, von Neumann correctly defines the brains powers about how our neurons are able to process information at the same time. It's impossible for one neuron to work, that's why all work is spread throughout all our neurons. The expansion of information is going to grow super fast with our rapid progression with technology. Before brains were a lot more intelligent than computers, however, supercomputers have changed this.

We also compared and contrasted the two texts. Summarizing that Ray Kurzweil is focusing on understanding human intelligence to understand AI and looks more into the human brain itself. While Turing's approach is the imitation test which is used to determine whether or not AI is achieved by a human level of intelligence.

Week 6 - The Computer and the Brain/Computing Machinery - Ars-onist

Is there a definite limit for a computer to imitate the human brain?

The fourth important idea of the information era, according to Kurzweil's introduction to Von Neumann's book, is to "endow computers with intelligence", i.e. to give computers the same thinking capacity as the human brain. This idea is centrally based on Turing's own paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". In his paper, Turing claims that instead of questioning if machines can "think" (which could lead to a complicated philosophical debate on the nature of thinking), we should instead consider on whether or not a machine can imitate the human thinker. This is then further elaborated in von Neumann's book, which Kurzweil claims to be exploiting on the computer's potential capacity to accurately emulate the brain’s processing. Turing also makes a brief claim that our conceptions and criticisms of the limits of the computer is just a parallel of the limited storage capacity of decades past, when the typical storage of today were unthinkable. It is still a big debate in our days, however, if computers are (or will) be able to perceive emotions and express them when provided with increasing storage capacity.

On the other hand, Von Neumann underlines that the speed of neural processing is extremely slow which contradicts the race for higher computing power by the use of supercomputers. In order to underline the parallel nature of neural processing, he contrasts the individual neuron latency of the computing in the human brain to its high bandwidth in the throughput of 10^10 neurons simultaneously. By this means, he demonstrate an actual flaw in his computer architecture model which is not imitating the parallel nature of computing in the humans. Nevertheless, he estimates that the supercomputers will be able to simulate the human brain with 10^16 operations per second with the supercomputers in 2020.

Week 6 | S.H.A.M.E | Turing & Kurzweil readings

The first subject that was discussed in this week’s group discussion was the differences between two texts. Kurzweil is interested in how the brain thinks (which would require defining what thinking even is), whereas Turing, believing this question to be fundamentally unprovable, is more concerned with the practical, and provable, question of whether a computer can appear to be thinking. Both approaches are interesting and in our opinion can be considered either together or apart, that is they are not mutually exclusive but consider different parts of the question of artificial intelligence. At its core many elements of the question of artificial intelligence are philosophical and subjective rather than objectively provable scientific fact. For this reason, like with other areas of philosophy, it is important to learn about various perspectives from prominent thinkers, but the final answer can only be a personal one.

Simon Penny - Making Sense - Fantastic 4

Key Question: Penny claims that computation relegates visual and performing arts to second-rate intellectualism. Do you agree?

Penny suggests the dualism between mind and body does not translate into computerized input and output. The material relationship between our mind’s thoughts and our body’s actions is in fact abstract. In the 1980’s due to the surge in microprocessors, technologies got into the hands of those who didn’t fully understand its effect. Thus incorrect assumptions were made about technological culture and how it should be socially integrated. Penny also tactically disarms the notion of cognitivism or mind/body division and discusses the embodiment ideology of sensorial and cognitively being inexorably linked. In how this embodiment fit into the realm of AI Penny explains the notions of intelligence in computers has historically been approached in a Mind over body, penny explains that a logical engine is not capable of processing a world without rules. As humans we problem solve quickly and are adaptable through our senses, true intelligence in AI would have to master the things we do simply.

The visuals impaired~ week 5~ Making sense: cognition, computing, art and embodiment by Simon Penny

In "making sense; cognition, computing, Art, and Embodiment", Simon Penny talks about how computers are cognitive machines. We are one with machines and they are an extension of us. He also talks about how "computing offers new possibilities for new kinds of cultural practices such as social media, online gaming, online chatbots, and global multimedia information exchange" (xxviii). He also talks about dualism of computations, the slang created from computations, and the problematic nature of the dualistic mind frame that is continually promoted because of computation. Essentially, we took words from ourselves to describe machines, and now we are using those changed words to define ourselves in computation terms.

SHAME Penny Simon Reading

Defining cognition for computers and for humans are two different things. The duality explained in the reading comparing body and mind was one of our main topics of conversation during our meeting. How we compare our body and mind with software and hardware. We discussed what are the different stages of life, thinking and cognition and their difference between different animals and robots. The idea of emergence was discussed as being a basic idea of behaviour and basics of intelligence.

Week 5 : Confused Coffee Beans - "Making Sense" by Simon Penny

“Making Sense” of Simon Penny really exploits the concept of mass production in the era of computational devices and technologies. If there is one point we can all approve is the fact that capitalism has a massive impact on the crystallisation of these technologies, for example, Apple, who is just abusing of the IPhone users. However, this has participated to the development of the accessibility towards the use of computational devices around the world, which gained a humongous amount of popularity, especially for multimedia or interactive purposes. This is why Penny’s reflexion is so important to consider : Can we compare the human’s brain to machines?

Our response is no. As Penny mentions, machines have imposed capacities and are made to think logically (e.g. chess game) rather than cognitively. In fact, biological cognition is made to perform in a world without rules. It relies on more than mathematical interpretation, but on embodied experience, which machines obviously don’t have. Viewing the brain as a computer (and vice versa) originated from a wrongful attempt at defining intelligence, even though it was considered as information and symbolic representation that happens in one's head or a computer (cognitivism). Just like Mitchell suggested in “Image”, cognition (or the interpretation of images by the mind) is a sensuous experience. Both Mitchell and Penny claim that recent performances by digital media help raise awareness of this embodiment. Where Penny really closes the case is when he brings the Western worldview. With the concept imbedded with dualities (mind/body, subject/object, physical/immaterial) that veil the qualities of selfhood, computational devices were discard of these dualities due to their incapability to imitate common sense.

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

C+ Gang - Simon Penny's "Making Sense" - Week 5

We started this week's session with a fierce argument pertaining to Penny's Chess analogy. One of the members of our group argued that Penny's argument was 'self-indulgent' and that as opposed to what Penny was saying; we program computers to think like us and thus they are structured the same way. Another member of the group then argued that this member was looking at it from 'machine to human', whereas Penny was looking at it from 'human to machine' and saying that while there may be similarities, "human memory is creative" (5) and among other reasons, don't necessarily operate in according to such a "system of logical rules" (10).

Going back to the broader topic addressed in the book, we all acknowledged that Penny was trying to "revalorize artistic practices in terms of embodied and situated cognition" (xxix), among other things. From what we've read in chapter 1, he made a point that ideologies that equate the human mind and machine thinking used self-reinforcing evidence to support their claims of the brain being the same as a computer. Our group had mixed reactions to Penny's arguments on the matter — thus resulting in the aforementioned argument — but in the end, we all came to see that his points certainly had some validity. Following that, we asked ourselves whether or not the military already had a computer system that includes the elements that Penny feels are missing. On that same line of thought, we also considered his points about the metaphors being adopted into our language as if they weren't metaphors anymore and wondered what these would become as our technology shifts further and further forward.

Week 5: TETRA - Making Sense

After discussing this text, we came to the conclusion that it shared many similarities with the work of Marshall McLuhan as seen prior in this course, and can even be deemed a generalization of the latter. Both of their subjects of research concerns technological innovations and their impact on human behaviour; they both give insight on what has been internalized and embodied through this process and bring this into the spotlight. However, the argument of Simon Penny is more general as it concerns technology in a broader sense rather than simply focusing on media like McLuhan did; perhaps McLuhan would have instigated an even greater revolution if he had approached the subject in the same manner. Still, the questioning that they brought up is as fundamental as it is sometimes overlooked: it allows for a powerful way of rethinking ourselves and our relation with technology.

Penny’s general approach is still somewhat controversial to us. First, he uses a very specific vocabulary which requires a particular background in philosophy when his goal was to offer something for everyone. Consequently, his text is less accessible and less impactful on other fields, which can also be seen as an expression of how other disciplines have an outdated concept of sociology, rooted in Western history. Nevertheless, he is slightly provocative through his unambiguous positions and does not offer much place for nuances on still-debated subjects, in opposition to the modern scientific method. Similarly, he is slightly biased concerning artists in opposition to engineers, suggesting a rigid dichotomy between their respective approaches. He seemingly pushes aside his own stance against dualism and does not even try to bridge the two fields or to explain the origin of their differences, which is critical when discussing the impact of technologies that stem from those same engineers. Still, we can ask ourselves: how can we change the way we understand ourselves as we are surrounded by crystalized skeuomorphic technology?

MC Lariviere, Miha Eftene, Etienne Bolduc, Madison Hunt, Miko Yassa

Week 5 - Making Sense - Group 2SDAYS - WenYue Liu, Eugène Fournier, Michael Watts

Our discussion revolved around the aspects of identity that the reading talks about. It seems that humanity and technology are in a codependent relationship where our sense of self derives from the needs we have and technology we create to fulfill those needs. The metaphors we use to describe ourselves have evolved in time, not only with tech but also with nature, spirituality, art, and many other dimensions of our existence. We found a correlation regarding the notion of mind/body separation is false, just like signifier and signified must be one in the same if either were to exist. The information is not separate from each other. Perhaps this is also highlighting Penny's thoughts on how understanding cognition and the development of computing systems needs to embrace the holistic, embodied approach and practices of the arts. 

Today is seems the definitions of a human and computer dilute into each other. Our learning curve is much longer than that of the computer, let alone the rate at which, for example, software is developed and put out into the market. We wondered how memory would have been described as a metaphor before there existed any type of storage system (library being the first type of logical storage system). Dream? Fantasy? Art? How do other, non-western cultures view the brain/computer analogy? 

We agreed that intelligence is not just logic and the ability to store information. Humans are much more complex creatures. Not only is our body and all its parts an endless cavern of discovery, but our relation to the environment, weather, planets, plays a key role in how we behave, feel, and exist every day. None of this is completely comprehensible. We have simply learned ways to define and predict certain aspects of life. But until the weather person gets it right, we are far from cloning our twin self.

Week 5 - V.A.P.C. - "Making Sense" by Simon Penny

Simon Penny’s texts warn the reader that humans accommodate technology too much into cognition. Many people liken the brain as a symbol of intelligence and the single most important organ in the human body. This heightened importance is due to the fact that many think that the brain operates similarly to a computer. However, cognition should be seen as more of a sensual experience where every body part operates independently and in harmony, instead of the mind solely sending signals to various body parts to perform tasks (similar to how a computer is given various instructions to perform). Moreover, this task-based way of thinking and decision making cannot function in a world where emotion and irrationality dominate. With this in mind, would it better to simply see the computer as just a tool? If everything it does is just a series of assignments, then it can’t really “think” or “feel” for itself. An A.I. that responds to questions by saying “I’m happy” or “Here are some solutions to your problem” is really just performing a series of responses that it was programmed to do. In this context, any witty response feels like an illusion; the machine doesn’t actually realize what it’s saying. With this in  mind, it is important to remember that human beings are defined by more than just reason and logic; emotion, growth and unpredictability also shape who we are.

Week 5 - Making Sense - Ars-onist

Is digital computation interdependent to its material embodiment?

Digital computation is deeply ingrained in our society, yet when it comes to understanding their nature and impact on our culture and science, we only seem to see the tip of the iceberg. In this week’s reading, Simon Penny brings up what he calls the “key issues” in the era of computationalism: how our culture keeps assuming the power of computing without solid theorization, and how the nature of arts practices are separate from computation.

In the academic STEM fields there is a clear segmentation of the fields into subdomains to ensure their modularity aiming for a certain computable goal. However, Simon Penny argues that this fragmentation implies the dualism between the computation and its materiality. This particular nature by the means of cartesianism has a chain effect causing the invalidation of the computation by separating the mind from its body. Separating the senses, hardware serving as the primary inputs to its computable mind would cause its structure to collapse by suppressing its foundations. Another assumption on the nature of computation in comparison with the human intelligence is that we tend to assimilate two fundamentally different processes. Such idea implies that our human brain - like the computer - can process in an enclosed, immaterial environment separate from the outside world; the “human brain is a computer” theory is a veiled dualist argument that should be criticized. At the end of the reading, one question remains in our group: Is the computer functioning dualistically (i.e., is the computational processing separated from its physical body) and how its functioning makes us question our own cognitive process?

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Key Question: To what extent do you agree with the sense of alienation that Benjamin associates with mechanically reproduced art like film? 

Benjamin’s use of Paul Valery’s opening quote establishes the modern disconnect between art and it’s original physical value. Valery believes new methods of craft (more precisely methods of reproduction) threaten what is defined as “the Beautiful” as the essence of originality is jeopardized by what can be technically reproduced. This being said, art itself has been redefined through our perception of it’s intrinsic value.

Benjamin develops Valery’s observation through providing different examples of reproduction techniques in relation to an artworks physical and traditional identity. The physical value is determined by its’ “presence in time and space”. This being said, the concept of authenticity plays a key role in determining an artworks value. By proving an artwork is the original version, you must physically analyze it, which gives firstness a physical value. This is interesting as  the techniques for reproduction and forensic analysis have both evolved to combat each other. Regardless the nature of an artworks originality and how we attest it reveals we place indirect value on the processes rather then the final product. 

Benjamin does a great job of linking his ideas to historical precedent; when speaking of arts aura and its decline in the contemporary he introduces the concept of the Ritual with examples such as the Greeks statue of Venus and how no matter it's original purpose be it (magical or religious) its connection to ritual enriches its aura and gives it uniqueness. Benjamin says”artistic production begins with ceremonial objects destined to serve in a cult”

Here he discusses the shift that reproduction has caused the change from cult value to exhibition value.

Benjamin examines two primary forms of media in his article that serve to illustrate the changing nature of art photography & cinema. The latter of which he goes into great detail explaining the details and the new realities in this medium, how for example the audience observes more critically and testing since we are observing the film through an actual lenses. This testing goes against the ritual and serves as evidence for Benjamin that mechanical reproduction has helped separate art from its basis in the cult.

WEEK 4: The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - The Visually Impaired

The reading have risen many arguments in our group, we agreed that sometimes the writer makes perfect sense but he can also be wrong at some points. First, he talks about the reproduction of the work of art, which was very compelling with all forms of reproduction such as the Greek’s founding and stamping, pupils replicating artworks, the woodcut graphic, lithography, etc. In addition, the fact that “a work of art has always been reproducible” is very much controversial, we could get a poster of the Mona Lisa and it would be an exact replica or man-made crafts are built to look alike but there would still be some differences in details.

The work of art shifted greatly when the technique of reproduction entered, any original piece lost its history and value, it can be understood that the unique existence of one’s work of art is evaluated by its presence in time and space in history. However, the writer pointed out the lack of the reproduction is “its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be”, a replica or a copy could never have those features, simply because they are reproduced, they are made after the time of the original. This leads us to the term “aura”, as defined in the text, means “the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may be”, like a shadow of something in nature. Benjamin is talking about the loss of aura which means that mechanical work is replacing authentic work and devaluating traditional art work. The aura is the original and authentic art such as painting that is not reproduced by machine. For example, painting is an aura and photography is not because the image has been captured by a mechanical invention.

 Moreover, when he's specifically talking about architecture and stage, there's something incredibly true about that, maybe it's due to the placement of it, more than anything else. A stage play has an aura, because there's a distinct connection between the audience and the players, there's this sense of realism, which we don't have with film, because the actors can't see us, and we only see them and architecture has an aura because of the size and grandeur.

Furthermore, while talking about film on the last section, he says "the public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one" as though there can't be any sort of deep thought or commentary put into film. He is entitled to the assumption that film is merely for the sake of distraction and art demands a sort of concentration, which seems redundant because art can also be viewed as a "distraction" while film takes "concentration". However, there are lots of frames that are going by so fast that the viewer don’t have enough time to think about each frame. The idea is that with machines everything gets easy, we don’t have to reflect on art, to think about it, or to paint.

Week 4: Fantastic 4 Walter Benjamin Text

It's important to keep in mind that Walter Benjamin is writing in 1935. His historical perspective comes at the time of communism & fascism in Europe and his words come through a filter of the deep societal change that was happening at the time of writing. Benjamin’s use of Paul Valery’s opening quote establishes the modern disconnect between art and it’s original physical value. Valery believes new methods of craft (more precisely methods of reproduction) threaten what is defined as “the Beautiful” as the essence of originality is jeopardized by what can be technically reproduced.

Benjamin develops Valery’s observation through providing different examples of reproduction techniques in relation to an artworks physical and traditional identity. The physical is determined by its’ “presence in time and space”. This being said, the concept of authenticity plays a key role in determining the value of an artwork. By proving an artwork is an original version, you must physically analyze it, which gives firstness a physical value. This is interesting as the techniques for reproduction and forensic analysis have both evolved to combat each other. Regardless of the nature of an artworks originality and how we attest it reveals we place indirect value on the processes rather than the final product.

Benjamin does a great job of linking his ideas to historical precedent; when speaking of arts aura and its decline in the contemporary he introduces the concept of the Ritual with examples such as the Greeks statue of Venus and how no matter it's original purpose be it (magical or religious) its connection to ritual enriches its aura and gives it uniqueness. As for traditional value, the context in which we frame an artworks value also transcends from pre-existing generations alongside their customs and beliefs. Benjamin explains there are two planes in which value art. Benjamin defines cult value explaining art originated from ceremonial objects and there symbolic value. This completely ignored the artistic function which defines our modern perception of art. Benjamin echoes a similar message to other past readings “art forms aspires to effects which could be fully obtained only with a changed technical standard, that is to say, in a new art form” art forms are couched within other art forms and through exploration and art challenging its limits do we better understand those new mediums.  

C+ Gang - Week 4 - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

This week's question: Does the concept of "aura" that was present in traditional art forms reappear in interactive artworks?

To start things off, we identified that many examples throughout the text showed that aura disappears from artwork when it faces mechanical reproduction. As shown when Benjamin explores the idea that "authentic" art is viewed within specific context through tradition, which is what gives it its unique quality, "aura" is created in the eyes of the spectator. Moreover, he also says that "technical" reproduction can put the output out of the reach of the original concept. So, what does that mean in regards to interactive artwork? To attempt answering this question, we took a closer look at quotes such as:

"The painting invites the spectator to contemplation; before it the spectator can abandon himself to his associations. Before the movie frame he cannot do so. No sooner has his eye grasped a scene than it is already changed." (17)

Discounting the occasional very original interactive installations that create their own "aura", we quickly agreed that interactive artwork in general fails to recreate the concept. Ergo, the "aura" of artwork fades due to the lack of physical presence. When discussing it, we felt like most of the objects that would have an "aura" would be things that are very unique and have a distinct presence in the physical realm and that recreations of such objects lack that concept as they don't have the same "firstness" that Mitchell introduced, when exploring the image. In other words, an original artwork has a history that determines the presence of realism that is lost in most interactive art. Furthermore, to explore the idea in even more depth, we talked about that for Benjamin, a film actor loses his aura, his body is as if stolen by the cinematographic apparatus, he becomes nothing more than an image subjected to public scrutiny, or a simple accessory. Following that idea, interactive artworks would only be accessories when taking into account that the whole is simply a gathering of virtual images within interactive installments.

Week 4 - V.A.P.C - ''The Work of Art'' by Walter Benjamin

Walter Benjamin’s essay is mostly centered around the concepts of mechanical reproduction and his definition of aura and how it affects art. Before print appeared in the 1900s, it was impossible to perfectly reproduce any work of art. Every piece was unique and had its own historical background, but they were also hidden to the public because of their religious implications, since art originally emanated from objects meant to be used in rituals or ceremonies. Because of mechanical reproduction, such artworks were now available to a much larger audience and therefore changed the purpose of art itself. Now, ‘the exhibition value shows its superiority to the ritual value’ and the way artworks are created revolves around this statement. Art gains entirely new functions. In response to this new era in the realm of art and to the new range of exhibition brought by mechanical reproduction, Benjamin introduced us to his definition of aura, which is basically the uniqueness in time and space of an original work of art.

It is impossible while reading this text to avoid questioning whether or not an piece of art loses its aura when it is being reproduced. Benjamin seems to be convinced that a work of art’s aura depends on its uniqueness, meaning the time and place in which it was created. He argues that mechanical reproduction diminishes these aspects of an artwork and therefore makes it lose its authority. While part of our team agreed with Benjamin and supported his opinion in saying that the unique historical context of an artwork makes it even stronger and meaningful and that reproducing it industrially makes it lose its very essence, some of us disagreed. Those who disagreed introduced the idea that there could still be a sentimental value to an art piece, even though it is the copy of an original. A copy is often the only available version of an artwork for the public and can be purchased as decoration. The person buying it might feel profoundly connected to the artwork and be able to appreciate its quality even if it is not the original, and even if they are buying it in a completely different context. They are in a way creating their own version of the aura of the work. A new birth for an already existing artwork.

At the end of our meeting, one of our teammates pointed out a really interesting question that we did not get the chance to elaborate, but we think is still worth mentioning. It goes like this: If a unique and sacred religious statue that was preserved for many years were to be destroyed and reproduced, would the copy still be worshipped?

Week 4 : Confused Coffee Beans - "Work of Art" by Walter Benjamin

In “The Work of Art”, Walter Benjamin argues about the arrival of digitization affecting the reproduction of art in the modern society. He gives a lot of importance to the technique of film and how it has brought a whole new sense to the concept of artwork. He insists on the fact that films and other digital techniques have opened a new door to the mass production of artworks around the world. For this, he compares the natural distance between a painter and a cameraman with the one who is the closest to reality in its functions. The digitization restrains the viewer from the time and space relationship he could have with the art. Benjamin calls this relationship : the aura. Therefore, it’s even worse with films since the viewer is forced to watch it from a single perspective instead of having fully control of its views and reflections.

The authenticity of a work of art has its basis in its cult value. Technical reproduction of an artwork pushes its cult value and liquidates it for its exhibition value. Cultural items, like a crucifix, once represented the trust, the faith and the protection of god on you. But with times, they became a symbol of wealth and the more valuable it looked, the more important the possessor became. Benjamin scores a point when he says that the reproduction of art is affecting the uniqueness of natural artworks. The craft and human touch cannot be reproduced by machinery, thus leading to the loss of authenticity in the art process. Like films, you lose the aura of the actor by seeing too much images at the same time. You can not process all of the information presented on time, which reduces the cult value of the shock effect.

How can we separate media that has a shock effect on us from analogue art forms?

Dana Ryashy, Sol Paul, Xavier Champoux, Rose-Marie Dion

Week 4: TETRA - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Innovations are able to transform the technique of the arts, therefore changing the notion of art. In this reading, the author discusses the ideas of reproducing forms of artwork to keep up with each other, the process of reproduction, as well as what makes an object unique. Some questions that we gathered from these ideas were: does reproduction destroy uniqueness and the authority of the artwork? What was the importance of aura in art? How exactly does this reading persist today? In the reading, we felt that some of these concepts as well as these questions were not fully explained or answered, such as the aura and reproduction in keeping up with different art media. We understood that perhaps what the audience truly looked for in an artwork was for the aura of the artwork to be linked to the artist.

However, with technical reproduction such as photography, this idea that the original has a certain aura fades away. With various processes, photographic reproduction is able to perceive with the lense certain details that are unattainable to the naked eye. So in this sense, would there still be an aura and what exactly is the original versus reproduction? The author’s whole argument is based on this principle of aura, which is itself not explained: it is thus hard to point out the aura in an artwork. In conclusion, even though these were a bit jumbled and confusing to understand, the author did present some references to how people understand and value artwork, and how that has changed through emerging and past technologies.

Key Question: What is an aura exactly?

Week 4 - Walter Benjamin - 2esdays

After reading Walter Benjamin, we were most interested in his discussion of reproductivity’s impact on media consumption and on the idea of originality. We found enlightening the contrast Benjamin draws between modes of art consumption: he explains that art required concentration. One would contemplate art and be consumed by it, whereas in the age of technical reproduction one distractedly consumes art instead. Walter compares it to the consumption of architecture through usage, almost unnoticed. This insight hints at the speed of media today, where we rarely stop to be consumed by media anymore but rather quickly absorb it. Benjamin’s concluding commentaries state that there was a discrepancy between the power and speed of technology and the sociological adaptations to it and that this led to war. In a way, people were not ready for the power of their own creation, and we wondered if it is still the case today.

The question of originality as it relates to digital media also intrigued us. Benjamin argues that with photography, the notion of an original loses its sense, as there is no real sense in arguing that any print is more original than another. We think this loss of the spatiality and temporality of the original is even more pronounced with modern digital media. Benjamin also remarks that there has been another shift in production, where now almost everyone can consider themselves a writer. For us the rise of social media is an example of this, which we also link to the democratization of media discussed in earlier weeks. Nowadays, anyone can produce and reproduce their own content. To us, this may be the phenomena by which “one could expect [the capitalist mode of production] […] to create conditions which would make it possible to abolish capitalism itself”. The absolute reproductivity of digital media eliminates the necessity for scarcity in the digital world.

Week 4 - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction - Ars-onist

Does the mechanical apparatus suppresses the authenticity and the aura of the art works?

Mechanical reproduction accelerated the process of art so ‘that it could keep pace with speech,’ which was something unprecedented before and during the time of the essay’s writing. The authenticity and ‘aura’ is argued to be disappeared because the uniqueness of an artwork loses its meaning by means of reproduction. But has the aura truly disappeared? Decades after the essay’s publication, Andy Warhol created his first silkscreen piece of the Marilyn Diptych. Recreated 50 times but not exactly the same, the work was a nod to the mass production of goods about a ‘manufactured’ star. Her suicide and celebrity status created an iconic figure in Marilyn Monroe, which brought an ‘aura’ to the work: the idolization and cult status of a dead, romanticized figure.

Walter Benjamin discusses the tension between the attention span of the individual as opposed to the one of the masses. In a context of a gallery an individual would take a greater amount of time to let himself be absorbed into a painting whereas a group would be more interested in a general sensation of the apparatus rather than the true meaning of each work of art. In Loving Vincent, a biographical movie about Van Gogh, each frame is a different painting of its own in the style of Van Gogh. The composition of these frames suppressed their individual value in favor of shorter and simpler narrative to follow for a spectator. Therefore, there is a shifting of the aura from an individual to the collective one.