Member 2961
2 entries
1942 views

 RSS
UK
Immortal since Sep 8, 2011
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3

JamieJohnJamesJenkinson
Video Artist studying at the Royal College of Art, London
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Recently commented on
    From JJJJ
    Knowing the Shown
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From JJJJ's personal cargo

    Knowing the Shown
    What is now known in reality today is based on given information. The majority of people, places, objects, items, are all known through the shown. To be shown is to be perceived through an interface, i.e. TV, computer, internet, image, video. Accessible as reality through a medium outside of perceived space. Where the accessibility of information inside perceived space is limited to location, the use of information outside of perception, without the limitations of location, implies that knowledge is now seemingly limitless. This limitless nature of information, and the increase in accessibility to it, renders known reality useless in a society of information junkies.
    We take in only the sections of information wanted, abandoning the excess. If we want to know how massive the pyramids are, we Wikipedia it. We don’t fly out there and see it, truly know the stature of it, we just want a number, and maybe a picture of it, with a person at the bottom; as we know how tall a person is... Shown information is the junk food of the mind, giving us the taste, and satisfaction, without the nutrients and real purpose of the action.
    Known reality is experienced, with subject and spectacle in the same space. To experience an event is irreplaceable by a mediated representation. No film, news report, television program or live video feed, can place you in the location of choice. Nothing can recreate the experience, yet now it is common to have first experiences through a mediated source. The feeling of terror, love, loss, even friendship, are viewed not as a first hand experience, but a second rate mediated version of the event. This in consolidation with humans instinctual nature to copy and learn from others, causes emotion to become a hyper version of itself. Less affiliated with reality, but with a cinematic representation. A more entertaining version of emotion.
    This effect of the mind on the body through outside interference can been seen in tests such as the placebo and nocebo effect, where the presumption of an event creates a physical change in the body. From curing an illness, to the feeling of physical pain, the mind creates its own future as shown to be. This then with the bombardment of mediated emotions and feelings, can dramatically alter the way the body and mind functions.
    Reality itself has then become a reference to the shown, taking the key fundamental aspects of known reality, and applying them to what is seen on screen. As an attempt to recreate reality, the screen merely obtained a likeness, far from its initial goal. Over time its striving pursuit for the real has simply exaggerated and dramatized the known world, as with the screens likeness at its peak, the only progression is content.
    By sensationalizing known reality, in a last desperate attempt of a closer representation of the real, instead of narrowing the gap between the known and shown, it divided the two. Where the screen had become a likeness to reality, it has now become a desirable lifestyle. The known is simple, yet the shown is exciting.
    By instead of trying to recreate the perceived, the screen now produces a dream; out of reach to the majority, though achievable to the masses. It turned the desire of a mediated reality, into the desire for a mediated reality. Now the screen is the goal, and reality is nothing. There is no desire in a reality that is not worthy of being mediated. Reality T.V. shows, showing how reality is. This is reality. You are now watching real life. Why know a fake life, when I can be shown a real one…
    With the onslaught of video gaming, and social networking, the reals hold on reality, its ability for personal contribution, is eradicated. Now people can interact with the screen. The screen is accessible. Yet it is action without reaction. Without consequence. As the recent UK riots have demonstrated, many people today have no concept of consequence. Stealing a pair of trainers, burning down a building or shooting someone, it is simply more points. And when you die, you start again. Yet this is not only a positive action to negative consequence, it is equally negative action to positive consequence.
    Whether it becoming friends with, or shooting someone, it is all the push of a button away. Everything is easy, so there is no reason to do anything hard. Spending a pound to win a million. With education costing more than a brand new BMW, a consumer society cannot see past the now, and towards the consequences of today. People are not out of work because there are no jobs, they are out of work because they will not do the jobs. In low paid work, although it is the first rung of the ladder, people are getting paid less that if they are unemployed. Money for nothing…
    As reality becomes shadowed by the appeal of unrealistic, fictional achievements, scattered mindlessly in the desirable shown, the life of a screen becomes the easy escape from reality. Though the lack of desire for the real is causing a loss in the fundamental aspects of the known, in exchange for a Super Sized McReality and Coke. The known is now secondary to the shown, with reality consisting of inconvenient traits such as time and space, that can be eradicated in a mediated context. Though with this exclusion are the true aspects of reality and experience that are subtly missed though greatly lost, and with no concept of consequence, the repercussions of this is are irrelevant. Now is now, and tomorrow is never.
    Based on a true story.


    Fri, Sep 9, 2011  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    5 comments
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    Comments:


    gamma     Sun, Sep 11, 2011  Permanent link
    As a person interested in the functioning of perception, I applaud this post. I like it, and I like things often because they allow me to think through other similar things that I am aware of. Unfortunately, I might stroll into a side issue now.

    Distinction between the known and the shown is interesting for thinking. I wonder if you had any experience so perfect that you wanted to keep it and not spoil it by wanting to try something else? Perfection is a kind of knowledge, I'd say. We can experience it sometimes, and it usually breaks apart.


    Nothing can recreate the experience, yet now it is common to have first experiences through a mediated source. The feeling of terror, love, loss, even friendship, are viewed not as a first hand experience, but a second rate mediated version of the event.


    I think that the distinction between the known and shown is knowledgeable, but at this point I would rather not agree. I think that by watching movies we can have a factual experience. While we are having this factual experience, we are not running around with the movie characters in the alternative reality such as lucid dreaming. We are experiencing SOMETHING. That something is valuable and can become something important.

    I heard that the mental realm could be cinematic - going frame by frame. So, the shown is the artificial cinematic reality, while the known is the low-quality cinematic reality that does not feature much thinking or emotions, or something else. Could it be that we will grow dumb in front of TV?

    No. We do not see the representations on TV such as reenactments as unrealistic. We accept them as reality and we are learning. TV made me the person I am today.
    JJJJ     Mon, Sep 12, 2011  Permanent link
    Thank you for your in depth comment.
    It's really got me thinking.
    As a video artist I too owe a lot to my time spend in front of the TV as a child,
    though I do find that I have a separation emotionally from others,
    similar to the passive nature of the screen.
    Some what, socially-inept is the phrase.
    There is a talk here:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/zimchallenge.html
    on the progression of males being unable to interact emotionally.
    This is also very prominent in Japan,
    a massively mediated country,
    where a high percentage of men are now spending their lives alone,
    with life sized sex toys,
    as a result of passive interaction.

    But to experience something first hand, for the first time, is a very rare experience in a highly mediated society.
    Before you go on holiday, you see photos, google it, watch a documentary on it, seen a film set there... Details are already shown, and then overlooked in the known.

    How much learning from TV is acceptable?
    If learning from the TV has no faults, arguably you could live your life in front of a screen?
    And learn all the requirements for life, and never having to use them...
    I know that is a ridiculous statement but to say you learn from TV, you must have a very selective watching pallet, when the majority of TV is based on a hyper state of emotion, and get rich quick schemes. 90210, X-Factor, Eastenders, Britain's Got Talent. These are the programs people watch. And to learn from these is a very sad affair. Putting faith into that people understand that this is not really is admiral, but even the filmmaker, once watching their own film, at a subconscious level, will see this as reality.

    I understand that the shown can have a positive effect, my career is built around that, though what troubles me is the choice of shown by the mass majority. And these, in my opinion, have a devastating effect on the functioning of the mind.

    Thanks again for your comment,
    I hope this is satisfactory, and is open to suggestion.



    gamma     Tue, Sep 13, 2011  Permanent link
    I liked a book called "Empty Space" by Peter Brook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brook). It is a lightweight book about theater. It contains a surprising number of wise notions. The writer, who happens to be a theatrical director, set a high standard for himself - what he wants to do for the audience. He studied human perception and came to few easily recognizable, understandable conclusions.

    I think that the audience needs to work when they attend any theatrical play. Watching a play is an act of discipline and (torture) of oneself. So, it may be that the media are less mediated, less softened when we invest some energy into the attention.
    JJJJ     Wed, Sep 14, 2011  Permanent link
    Yes very interesting.

    I agree, as some of my favourite films are difficult to watch in their duration and monotonous at times, but the final product is so fulfilling. My sister in a play producer and actress in Buenos Aires who has intensive work experience so I'll also ask her to see what she thinks. Actually my other sister is a Neural Linguistic Programmer, so she might have something to say about it as well.

    Sorry went totally off there.

    But yes watching passively does have a different affect to a consciously known attention to the shown. A known mediation. Energy into the attention yes. I'll have to get a hold of that book.

    Sonicport Mirror     Wed, Oct 5, 2011  Permanent link
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6QF29-xIqA&feature=player_embedded

    How does producer vs consumer work when the direction is surface originated, such as on-screen off-screen?

    How close are we allowed to get to faces before we are invading someone's personal space?

    Can we get beyond see no evil, speak no evil, and hear no evil simply by adding 'share'?

    Can we also add transform to the list and add it anywhere?

    Seek no answers? Or do we Share all, and if so how do we visualise the unseen?
     
          Cancel