Topic 5 - You can't handle the truth

Lecture – Wiki-wam-wam-wozzel

As a resource, Wikipedia has become one of the leading online databases with over 2.3 millions articles online as of this post. Utilising the principle of ‘wisdom of the masses’, Wikipedia allows any user to add/remove/edit or modify an article. The premise of the Wiki project is to create an atmosphere that is open to ideas or debate and have it be accessible from all over the world. However, being user driven lends itself to a number of issues, most notably the accuracy and the lack accountability of its users. In perspective, this not only applies to Wikipedia but a variety of online sources. The main issue being discussed here is that users were taking information found on Wikipedia and presenting it as the truth, or their ‘perceived’ truth. This reflects on the larger argument of ‘what can we define as the truth’ and ‘what is deemed to be an authoritative source’. So in actual fact this argument doesn’t focus on Wikipedia but more so on how we define truth and what we perceive to be true may not always be. The credibility of information will always be a concern whether it is derived from an online or offline source. The nature of knowledge is that interpretation of information will be a perceived truth in that point of time. To put it simply…there is no spoon.

Reading - Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius

The short story written originally in Spanish by author Jorge Luis Borges (1940) is an expression of how perceived truth is easily manipulated and made material. One of the central themes explored is the natural progression of information to be interpreted as fact.
As in the story, people are susceptible to false information which manifests itself into its own existence. Creating dimensions where information can influence human perception provides an atmosphere which breads false truths. Borges conveys the issue of reflection, replication and reproduction which create a perfect and imperfect world. In this light, we can draw parallels between Borges work and Wikipedia in that infusing information into perceived truth is enabled through human conditions.

Tute – More Walter Benjamin

How do the ideas from Walter Benjamin's "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" apply to contemporary digital media?

With the advent of digital media Benjamin’s theories on the reproduction of art holds many of the same truths. Global digitisation allows a greater number of people to replicate art which parallels Benajamin’s perspective on mechanical reproduction. So the idea of technology enabling or reducing ‘barriers’ to replication is maintained. Another key aspect is the interpretation of ‘art’ where digital media allows us to experience a contrast to old art forms which may be referred to as more traditional.

There was a time when "Art" was made by artists who were skilled professionals. Now that anyone with a computer can create things digitally (music, images, videos, etc), what does that mean for "art"?

Technology in the past, as shown in Benjamin’s article, has often been portrayed in a negative light due to its inherent transformation of all things traditional. This application can be seen in many aspects of life where technology changes social, political and economical facets. The critical point here is that detractors of technology will always argue that the remodelling of a traditional art form is not a benefit. With the emergence of technology in art, the definition of ‘art’ has had to adapt. What is considered art is merely an individual’s interpretation.

Is a photoshopped image "authentic"?

In context, from traditional (Benjamin-esque) perspective, any image which has been modified won’t be seen as authentic. Even by definition, authentic would refer to a form that is real or genuine. Thus, modifying or editing said image would nullify that meaning. However, in a newer, more technology focused context, a modified image would no longer be compared to its original form but rather assessed as a new entity. In that situation the new image would be ‘authentic’.

Do digital "things" have an "aura" (in Benjamin's terms)?

If digital work was taken in the same traditional context as art then by Benjamin’s discussion it possess an aura. But, as described by Benajmin, the process of reproduction would still hold the same properties and remove the aura.