Wendy Angelhttp://actualart.org/angelwkReference:
The Brain of Einstein Vignette |
Myth America: TechnologyThe myth of technology is based on a grander or deeper myth that Barthes includes in his Einstein segment. This is the myth of simplicity. Barthes refers to it as, "magical ease." The Einstein segment relates the myth of simplicity to science, yet it underlies many myths in Western classic culture. Questioning the myth of simplicity can inform our understanding of knowledge structures. And an example of the Mythology of Technology can enhance our recognition of the Myth of Simplicity and its potential impact.
Here is the idea that reducing knowledge into a simple formula will support a myth that knowledge is bliss. It implies a cultural desire for bliss. Knowledge is attractive as long as it is assimilated with bliss. However, bliss is more properly placed in the clichŽ linking it with ignorance, not knowledge. So, when we combine the idea of bliss with the idea of knowledge we create a contradiction. In actuality knowledge may be interesting, useful or desirable, but it is seldom compatible with the idea of bliss. The myth of Zen is one knowledge-as-bliss myth. The Zen myth supports ultimate knowledge as bliss-ish. But it is the myth of Zen, not challenging stories and difficult practices, that reduces knowledge to a simple formula of bliss. In a similar way it is the myth of Einstein and not the work of Einstein that reduces mathematical calculations to a blissful formula.
This reinforces the idea that the secret answer to our existential dilemma is simple. In the simplicity myth it doesn't matter if it is a god or a scientist who has the answer, code or key. What must be held sacred is that the answer, code or key is simple, easy and available. Magical ease. A desire for clean or "pure" simplicity is monumental and prevalent in our culture. But we should consider whether or not the desire for magical ease is a matter of acculturation and not actually "human nature," "gods plan," or a universe that "humanity seeks." Could it be that myths of pure and simple are, purely or simply, tools of cultural domination-- the constructions of a ruling group designed to maintain a populace content with, or at least controlled by, ignorant bliss? "Popular imagery faithfully expresses this: photographs of Einstein show him standing next to a blackboard covered with mathematical signs of obvious complexity; but cartoons of Einstein (the sign that he has become a legend) show him chalk still in hand, and having just written on an empty blackboard, as if without preparation, the magic formula of the word." Popular imagery removes the complex equations to allow people to imagine that they understand. In fact we do not understand Einstein. And we don't really want to do the work that would be necessary to understand complex mathematics. But, we do want to claim access to the knowledge of Einstein. So, we agree that to understand it as magical or simple and not work intensive and complex. We erase the chalkboard and reverently write the abbreviated equation. Then we applaud ourselves like trained seals content that we, like Einstein, are holding a key that is almost the single secret to the world. The myth of simplicity is as alive and well in today's Myth America as it was in Barthes' Myth France. It is entrenched, functioning and thriving in the techno-culture of our electronic era with magical ease. There is a history to the myth of technology, and it embraces the basic myth of simplicity in Western culture. Greek ships and Roman roads bound technologies to might and strength. The technology myth was, and remains, a mythology that tramples the weak and is blind to complicated circumstances. The blood sweat and complexity that builds technology is not appealing. It is preferable to hide the working details from the consuming and tax paying public. If the work must be mentioned it is packaged into the form of super-heroes who exist in a haze of magical ease. These beings are half-god-half-man or pirates-of-the-silicone-valley. They myths do not endorse images of the broken and bent bodies of slaves who labor to make the systems functional. Rather, the primacy of slickness, speed, efficiency and might are glorified in mythologies of technology and simplicity. We want to see technology as attractive, sleek and powerful. Magical ease.ÊÊ Ê The relations we have with the mediums of photographs and cartoons are different from those of the culture Barthes is speaking from. But the need to remain mystified by a sleek and simple solution remains. Consider a television advertisement for Apple's new G4 laptop. It is sleek and powerful. It handles more megabytes. It processes megahertz faster. It is thin, light and beautiful. And remember, it carries with it the myth of user-friendly. The advertisement is simple and elegant, like the machine. A man's voice, playfully sarcastic, imitating the voice adults use with children, "You're ganna want one." (Or something like that.) We do want one. I want one. Saliva is drawn from the target audience of personal computer users or potential personal computer users. Even people who don't want a G4 can still be impressed and mystified by the idea that this sleek tool exists. All of us can feel at the apex of technological wonder just knowing that such an object/entity/machine is possible and accessible.ÊÊ Ê Magical ease supports the myth of technology in America and elsewhere. Exploring the myth of technology would include looking further at many components. In any case, the mythology of technology is myth in the sense of a lie, not a story. The personal computer is just one example of technology mythology but currently it may be the most intimate. Our work, play and communications are facilitated by the machine of our era. It is our identity and we want to merge it with our body in convenience, comfort and good looks to boot.ÊÊ Ê The appearance of the machine is not a reflection of the working parts, but of the need to embody the idea of simplicity and ease. Again we need to remember that the myth of user-friendly is part of the myth of technology. Friendly magical ease dominates our relationship with our attractive and efficient machines. We don't want to think about the politics that built them or the economics that makes them available to us. We aren't interested in knowing or even viewing what makes computers work. We don't want to learn codes. We want the internal structures hidden and well-dressed, like industrial technology's velvet cushions and mechanical technology's shining chrome. Our machine's casing is sleek, the interface is easy, and we can own it. This is important. This sells. Popular culture must erase the complicated equations from the black board in order to desire the product. The myth must replace the workings and structure because no one wants to buy into an ill-defined, incomplete and uncertain package.ÊÊ Efficient workstations, glamorous toys and desirable gadgets are exhibited over the airwaves and through the cables. But what cultural merchandise is being sold and purchased? The technology myth encourages the technology consumer, the myth consumer, to imagine they are players on the team of owners, helmsmen on the ship of civilization, in partnership with (if not the resurrection of) sexy, sleek, speedy gods. Owning technology separates the us from the them. It identifies the haves and the have-nots. It portrays objects of technology as attractive, efficient, friendly entities we possess. But, we might want to consider wondering if this is some sort of transference or reflection of a culture that wants us to exist and function as attractive, efficient, friendly and possessed.
|
|
By Wendy Angelhttp://actualart.org/angelwk |