Manovich, Bush, Engelbart - Week 2
Manovich proposes that "all media work by 'remediating', that is, translating, refashioning, and reforming other media" (89). Consequently, Manovich explains that the human-computer interface (HCI) developed its own language by using metaphors taken from older media like print, film, etc. One such adopted element of interface language is the page or "web page" from print media. Amid this discussion, Manovich states that HCI does not favor any single web page over any other, and thus produces a decentralized system for the computer user. I believe that Manovich is technically correct here, but even though web pages are equally accessible (flattened out over space without hierarchy), this does not mean that dominant forces will not be able to produce a specific experience and a univocal message, as Jean Baudrillard so clearly suggests. In fact, I would argue that although the web is non-hierarchial, the forces of production do create a guided experience; just as a 19th Century reader was guided from page to page through a book, so are we, to some extent, guided from one page to another and often find ourselves led to the web pages with the biggest hype and advertising support. In this way, when one follows a news story, for instance, the web can create both an individualized and a semi-programmed experience (simultaneously), somewhat similar to the computer programmed narrative art projects that Manovich discusses on page 87. So the web experience is not actually non-hierarchial, and I do not believe that Manovich is true to the actual conditions of the user's experience.
Similarly, in Manovich's discussion of the database and the movement toward advanced integration between the database and the narrative, I felt that Manovich did not recognize the extent to which experiencing various connections within a database may not actually be "dynamic and subjective" as he states on page 243, but rather be generic and standard. Just as Vertov's film was obsessed with creating some narrative out the newest tricks of cinematography, so could the combination of narrative and database likely be obsessed with presenting only "the new," and hence display narratives shaped primarily by dominate forces. In this way, a bit of skepticism is shed on Engelbart's future vision that database technologies would be used for the advancement of human thinking and would not just lead to fancy ways of "tinkering" (Baudrillard).
Engelbart starts with the premise that problems are increasing as technological capability increases. He then assumes that the way out of these problems is to create and adopt more and better technologies. At first blush, the easiest solution would seem to me to be the opposite, to reduce technological capacity and become Amish; however, that regressive solution is not realistic for most people. So Engelbart's augmentation of the human intellect through computer interaction is the only way forward. But his discussion, when viewed in light of Manovich's observations, made me see that the HCI, as it is conceptualized today, may soon become inefficient, as I will explain in the next paragraph.
One reason today's HCI will probably become inefficient and will need to change is because, as Manovich points out, HCI is currently trying "to accommodate both the demands for consistency [so it can be sold to the masses] and the demand for originality" (91). However, HCI needs, in my view, to accommodate the demands of problem-solving more than the demands of the market and fetishized culture. So I think, in other words, that balancing consistency and originality causes (or could potentially cause) missed opportunities for real advancement. In other words, Manovich forgets something in his discussion of HCI that Englebart calls to our attention--the importance of the demand for better problem-solving in a world where there is an increasing demand for immediate solving of complex problems. In short, it seems to me that Vannevar Bush will be once again correct when he asserts that "professionally our methods of transmitting and reviewing the results of research are generations old and by now are totally inadequate" (37).
Bush's understanding of files as symbol structures that organize our thinking is in accordance with Manovich's view that computer logic will transcode onto our own logic. However, although Manovich treats transcoding as an indirect result and deals with the issue somewhat cautiously, I think it is clear that both Englebart and Bush would suggest that this transcoding must be fully embraced and made intentional. And I would agree with Englebart. I believe that human knowledge could be advanced if the computer becomes a co-operator of the human brain to such an extent that the computer offers its suggestions and walks people through symbol structuring, as 'Joe' does in Englebart's paper on page 103, and just as Bush begins to imagine on page 42 before he leads to his Memex invention.
Along these lines, Manovich imagines, as I am doing here, that one day the screen will disappear and that "the retina and the screen will merge" (114). One day a computer may be inside of me, may "know" me and learn my habits, engage in play through individualized games, and pull from databases of information to augment my intelligence. Of course, the implications for a "loss" of the self or a re-definition of how one constitutes the human self in view of this interjection of the mehcanical are obviously immense. Similarly, the potential for dominant forces to guide people, through databases and computerized logic, to certain conclusions can also be quite frightening. The force of this kind of dominance would not be lost on Baudrillard or Enzensberger. And it is not lost on Manovich as he draws out a lengthy discussion about how humans became "imprisoned" by the screen, forced to sit in a dark room and give their full attention to the world of the screen. In this way, he foreshadows the captivity that a computer might one day bring to the human mind when he says, "when photography ventured to represent living things, they had to be immobilized... iron clamps held the subject... [the subject] became the prisoner of the machine" (107). Even though we are becoming increasingly mobile with our technologies, we may still, to some extent, be imprisoned by the viewpoints those technologies present. However, if we are to solve problems quickly and improve intellectual capacity, as Engelbart suggests that we must, then some adoption of some similar such system may be inevitable.