Manovich 2 questions

1. Paragraph 5: The "non-transparency of the code" idea confuses me. Actually, the whole paragraph confuses me. Is cultural communication refering to the interface?

2. Paragraph 6: The cut and paste is "blind" to the traditional distinction between spatial and temporal media, scale and media. I don't understand what "renders insignificant distiction/blind" means in the "cut and paste" operation. What is a "temporal composition?"

Questions from Manovich reading

numero uno.
If digital works of art are capable of being altered depending on the interface they are presented in, does this lack of formal integrity compromise their validity as works of art? By which I mean, if the Mona Lisa could be presented in multiple formats, and thus altered in form, would it still be as appreciated?

numero dos.
In the case of the AL approach in computer programming, the artist/programmer gives the computer certain guidelines or rules, by which the computer generates media data. Doesn't this process create an unacceptable level of detachment between the artist and the work? Is there anything to be appreciated about an "artist" who chooses the most hands-off approach possible: devising the guidelines and leaving the work (the real art-making) up to a machine? To illustrate: if DaVinci had given an apprentice certain rules or guidelines, and set him to work within them, are we really to give credit to DaVinci for what transpires, and what results?

Two Questions

1. One part of the reading that really puzzled me was on page 63 and three paragraphs down. It reads according to a Macintosh computer, " Of course while they run, OS and applications constantly create, write to, and erase various temporary files, as well as swap data between RAM and virtual memory files on a hard drive, but most of this activity remains invisible to the user." This part of the reading really pushed me to think in two different ways. The first thing I thought was that if computers can erase and create files unknowingly then do they have some sort of mind to their own? This thought, at first, scared me. I thought if computers can do things without you controlling them then they are independent in some ways. Another thought that had crossed my mind has to do with the programmer. The person that invented a Macintosh hard-drive created it to erase and create files with a mind of its own. How can someone go about creating a machine that has that much intelligence?

2. On page 65, the second paragraph, I believe discusses the idea of copy and paste. I know that everyone knows what copy and paste is and now I know it is apart of the modern GUI. My question has to deal with plagiarism. The paragraph states, "This operation (copy and paste) renders insignificant the traditional distinction between spatial and temporal media, since the user can cut and paste parts of images, regions of space, and part of a temporal compostition in exactly the same way. It is also 'blind' to traditional distinctions in scale: the user can cut and paste a single pixel, an image, or a whole digital movie in the same way". Is this part of the reading about plagiarism? If it doesn't have to do with copying pieces of artwork and changing them around then what is it about?

The Interface!

Manovich talks about how technology has impacted both work and leisure activities of the information society. The socialist within me couldn't resist thinking of how this contributes to class divisions. What do people who can't afford computers do? Most public libraries allow anyone with a library card to use a computer for free, but there are limitations to this. For example, I wouldn't want to look at porn or do my online banking on a public computer. Also, the library in my area only allows people to use a computer for 30 minutes at a time (if there's a line). Furthermore, so many activities I do on the computer involve reading. It would be difficult to use a search engine without being able to spell (although google does have a built-in spell check...).

So, my first question is this: Does technology help to separate rich people from poor people? In other words, are rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer, because of the internet (and other technology)? Or, has this division always been there... because even before computers, poorer people didn't have access to the same kinds of entertainment as richer people.

My second question is this: Is the internet still "a filter for all culture" for people who don't own a computer? I mean, technology does impact advertising (and anyone can see a billboard)... but how does the interface affect society in the real world (meatspace?)?

wow. long post. sorry about that.

2 questions about The Interface

I had a lot more questions concerning how the interface relates to the world but I came down to these two but there's a lot of follow up questions that I'll not bore you with.

1. If "all culture, past and present, came to be filtered through a computer", is it merely the relationship or the interface between the user and the computer that filters it or is it literally the computer the "medium" that ultimately filters it like languages/words argued by Whorf and Derrida?

2. The paper argues that "the interface imposes its own logic on media"; however, can't we say that the people such as computer programmers and artist who makes the logic and makes operations as the 'cut and paste' operation is imposing their own logics and 'models of the world' to the user?

I thought some of the arguments and debate Manovich talked about relates a lot with just art in general such as the subject of concept-interface and concept-form he talked about. Interesting paper.