Hello, I’m Ran. I’m a 4th year BFA student with double major of Visual Arts and Art History. Started from painting, drawing, and photography to more experimental pieces of installation, videos, and performance, I have been working with different experimental mediums to express the theme of Chinese social issues, city memories, and self-identity within cultural gaps.
My experience struggling between Eastern and Western culture in the past a few years provides me an absolutely different angle to look back to the culture and society of my home country and think further of how the cultural traces place me within the vortex of globalization. Getting rid of the national restriction and traditional concept, I want to figure out the inner veins of my culture. My art making always pushes me to step out of the comfort zone, express the anxiety of cultural shock, rethink of social issues, and trace everything back to self-recognition.
Right now I’m working on the theme of seclusive censorship of Internet control in China, which also fits the topics of the class about technology and humanity. Hope to get a wider vision and more diverse angles from this class to help develop my current series, integrate and explore more on the idea of reality, cultural fusion, and technohuman,etc.
“Probably it is a mistake to talk of the ‘Art of Cubism’, as applied to the paintings produced in those seven years, for these paintings made a statement which transformed the function of painting and modified the meaning of Art to a degree which is still confusing us. ”
“Cubism cannot be explained in terms of the genius of its exponents. And this is emphasized by the fact that most of them became less pro- found artists when they ceased to be Cubists. Even Braque and Picasso never surpassed the works of their Cubist period: and a great deal of their later work was inferior.”
“definition”
symbol-using animal
Inventor of the negative
separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
but trace everything back to human consciousness
define the consciousness of moving forward⬇️
Human has endless, infinite desire that we always have something more than what we have for now. Animals only use their instinct to fulfil the basic need: hunger and breeding. They eat when they are hungry, they mate when they have sexual desire. But human never satisfy with existing situation, that’s why the history of human being move forward.
Bernard Stiegler argues that technics develops faster than culture, that man and technics are indissociable, and that the phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of living. He argues that until the industrial revolution mankind lived in a technological milieu which experienced progress so slowly and infrequently that it failed to realise it lived within historical time, and that it took this technological rupture to awaken us, through Hegel, to historical consciousness. Before this the main train of western philosophical thought ploughed the firm line that stability was the essence of reality, and all change or revolution was accidental. After this rupture, through Marx and Nietzsche, we understand that stability is the exception, and change is the norm. Here it comes to a question, instead of we inventing technology, are we chosen by technology as part of it? Are we still human without technology? Where is technology guiding us towards? Is everything still in control? What indeed is the dependency between human and technology?
One of the posts seems lost:
Bernard Stiegler argues that technics develops faster than culture, that man and technics are indissociable, and that the phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of living. He argues that until the industrial revolution mankind lived in a technological milieu which experienced progress so slowly and infrequently that it failed to realise it lived within historical time, and that it took this technological rupture to awaken us, through Hegel, to historical consciousness. Before this the main train of western philosophical thought ploughed the firm line that stability was the essence of reality, and all change or revolution was accidental. After this rupture, through Marx and Nietzsche, we understand that stability is the exception, and change is the norm. Here it comes to a question, instead of we inventing technology, are we chosen by technology as part of it? Are we still human without technology? Where is technology guiding us towards? Is everything still in control? What indeed is the dependency between human and technology?
spheres in system:
social organization, spiritual organization, linguistic, political, economic, religious, epistemic, legal, metaphysical, biological…
in one fell swoop they are struck, overturned, exploded by the technical system through the dynamism of electronics and the internet.
This process began in the 18th century
before 18/19 century, the world remained always the same for most people. Always stable.
definition of man
“definition”
symbol-using animal
tropism
Inventor of the negative
Did human invent the negative?
Did human invent the language?
Or
Did language and the negative invented man?
separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
goaded by the spirit of hierarchy
Human moved by a sense of order?
entelechy, the notion that each being aims at the perfection natural to its kind (r, etymologically, is market by a “possession of telos within”)
“political animal”?
“culture-bearing animal”?
The stone would be all that is needed lo make it a stone.
The tree would be all that is needed to make it a tree.
The man would be all that is needed to make him the perfectly
“rational” being (presumably a harder entelechial job to accomplish than lower kinds of entities confront).
There is a principle of perfection implicit in the nature of symbol systems; and in keeping with his nature as symbol-using animal, man is moved by this principle.
Technics develops faster than culture.
How has technics become an essential question for us today?
Man and technics are indissociable. The phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of the living. Man is nothing other than technical life. But, for thousands and even millions of years, man did not sense this technical dimension, which constitutes his life and existence, which makes of him a singular and original living being in the kingdom of living beings. Over a very long period of time, man has not felt this difference, inasmuch as technics has evolved with man, more or less in harmony with him. Until the industrial revolution at the start of the 19th century, man lives in a technical milieu which is normally stable, but which is transformed from time to time. The historian Bertrand Gille calls these periods of ‘technological rupture.’
The great industrial revolution of the steam engine begins in 1780. This provokes great transformation in manufacturing activity. indeed this transformation constitutes the industrial revolution.
Now, two things happen in the industrial revolution.
1. the duration of technical system becomes shorter and shorter. They become so constructed that there is almost no stability on technical system
2. a new relation between science and technics is constituted, a relation which completely upsets the philosophical order
When technology has no ontological depth, but nothing other than artifactuality.
Appearance must be separated from essence
Becoming must be isolated from being
From then on, science and technics are fundamentally separate
after 18th century, a new dynamism in technics appears, leads to “permanent innovation”, whereby technics tends to transform itself continually. And where, moreover, in the industrial realm, competition will arise between enterprises. This competition will lead to a process of globalization, with the development of railways and shippings, opening up enormous new markets. Thus we leave the national sphere
Prometheus stole the fire
fire——the symbol of technics——the power of god
man and technics are indissociable
We used to think ourselves as the inventor of technology and everything is controlled as we want. But one day, when things start get out of our control, we start to talk about technology as an essential question of today.
Human is used by technology.
Human is a part of technology
what will human being be without technology?
Is human being still human being without technology?
system
Is technology still technology without human being?
How is technology explosion happened?
Why is it happened?
Does technology choose human or human choose technology?
Does human being invent the negative
Hello, I’m Ran. I’m a 4th year BFA student with double major of Visual Arts and Art History. Started from painting, drawing, and photography to more experimental pieces of installation, videos, and performance, I have been working with different experimental mediums to express the theme of Chinese social issues, city memories, and self-identity within cultural gaps.
My experience struggling between Eastern and Western culture in the past a few years provides me an absolutely different angle to look back to the culture and society of my home country and think further of how the cultural traces place me within the vortex of globalization. Getting rid of the national restriction and traditional concept, I want to figure out the inner veins of my culture. My art making always pushes me to step out of the comfort zone, express the anxiety of cultural shock, rethink of social issues, and trace everything back to self-recognition.
Right now I’m working on the theme of seclusive censorship of Internet control in China, which also fits the topics of the class about technology and humanity. Hope to get a wider vision and more diverse angles from this class to help develop my current series, integrate and explore more on the idea of reality, cultural fusion, and technohuman,etc.
“Probably it is a mistake to talk of the ‘Art of Cubism’, as applied to the paintings produced in those seven years, for these paintings made a statement which transformed the function of painting and modified the meaning of Art to a degree which is still confusing us. ”
“Cubism cannot be explained in terms of the genius of its exponents. And this is emphasized by the fact that most of them became less pro- found artists when they ceased to be Cubists. Even Braque and Picasso never surpassed the works of their Cubist period: and a great deal of their later work was inferior.”
Language is so limited. Human consciousness is also limited.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170126-the-untranslatable-emotions-you-never-knew-you-had
“definition”
symbol-using animal
Inventor of the negative
separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
but trace everything back to human consciousness
define the consciousness of moving forward⬇️
Human has endless, infinite desire that we always have something more than what we have for now. Animals only use their instinct to fulfil the basic need: hunger and breeding. They eat when they are hungry, they mate when they have sexual desire. But human never satisfy with existing situation, that’s why the history of human being move forward.
Bernard Stiegler argues that technics develops faster than culture, that man and technics are indissociable, and that the phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of living. He argues that until the industrial revolution mankind lived in a technological milieu which experienced progress so slowly and infrequently that it failed to realise it lived within historical time, and that it took this technological rupture to awaken us, through Hegel, to historical consciousness. Before this the main train of western philosophical thought ploughed the firm line that stability was the essence of reality, and all change or revolution was accidental. After this rupture, through Marx and Nietzsche, we understand that stability is the exception, and change is the norm. Here it comes to a question, instead of we inventing technology, are we chosen by technology as part of it? Are we still human without technology? Where is technology guiding us towards? Is everything still in control? What indeed is the dependency between human and technology?
One of the posts seems lost:
Bernard Stiegler argues that technics develops faster than culture, that man and technics are indissociable, and that the phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of living. He argues that until the industrial revolution mankind lived in a technological milieu which experienced progress so slowly and infrequently that it failed to realise it lived within historical time, and that it took this technological rupture to awaken us, through Hegel, to historical consciousness. Before this the main train of western philosophical thought ploughed the firm line that stability was the essence of reality, and all change or revolution was accidental. After this rupture, through Marx and Nietzsche, we understand that stability is the exception, and change is the norm. Here it comes to a question, instead of we inventing technology, are we chosen by technology as part of it? Are we still human without technology? Where is technology guiding us towards? Is everything still in control? What indeed is the dependency between human and technology?
Visual Essay
https://youtu.be/VtjGyuGys6U
spheres in system:
social organization, spiritual organization, linguistic, political, economic, religious, epistemic, legal, metaphysical, biological…
in one fell swoop they are struck, overturned, exploded by the technical system through the dynamism of electronics and the internet.
This process began in the 18th century
before 18/19 century, the world remained always the same for most people. Always stable.
definition of man
“definition”
symbol-using animal
tropism
Inventor of the negative
Did human invent the negative?
Did human invent the language?
Or
Did language and the negative invented man?
separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making
goaded by the spirit of hierarchy
Human moved by a sense of order?
entelechy, the notion that each being aims at the perfection natural to its kind (r, etymologically, is market by a “possession of telos within”)
“political animal”?
“culture-bearing animal”?
The stone would be all that is needed lo make it a stone.
The tree would be all that is needed to make it a tree.
The man would be all that is needed to make him the perfectly
“rational” being (presumably a harder entelechial job to accomplish than lower kinds of entities confront).
There is a principle of perfection implicit in the nature of symbol systems; and in keeping with his nature as symbol-using animal, man is moved by this principle.
Technics develops faster than culture.
How has technics become an essential question for us today?
Man and technics are indissociable. The phenomenon of hominization is the phenomenon of the technicisation of the living. Man is nothing other than technical life. But, for thousands and even millions of years, man did not sense this technical dimension, which constitutes his life and existence, which makes of him a singular and original living being in the kingdom of living beings. Over a very long period of time, man has not felt this difference, inasmuch as technics has evolved with man, more or less in harmony with him. Until the industrial revolution at the start of the 19th century, man lives in a technical milieu which is normally stable, but which is transformed from time to time. The historian Bertrand Gille calls these periods of ‘technological rupture.’
The great industrial revolution of the steam engine begins in 1780. This provokes great transformation in manufacturing activity. indeed this transformation constitutes the industrial revolution.
Now, two things happen in the industrial revolution.
1. the duration of technical system becomes shorter and shorter. They become so constructed that there is almost no stability on technical system
2. a new relation between science and technics is constituted, a relation which completely upsets the philosophical order
When technology has no ontological depth, but nothing other than artifactuality.
Appearance must be separated from essence
Becoming must be isolated from being
From then on, science and technics are fundamentally separate
after 18th century, a new dynamism in technics appears, leads to “permanent innovation”, whereby technics tends to transform itself continually. And where, moreover, in the industrial realm, competition will arise between enterprises. This competition will lead to a process of globalization, with the development of railways and shippings, opening up enormous new markets. Thus we leave the national sphere
Prometheus stole the fire
fire——the symbol of technics——the power of god
man and technics are indissociable
We used to think ourselves as the inventor of technology and everything is controlled as we want. But one day, when things start get out of our control, we start to talk about technology as an essential question of today.
Human is used by technology.
Human is a part of technology
what will human being be without technology?
Is human being still human being without technology?
system
Is technology still technology without human being?
How is technology explosion happened?
Why is it happened?
Does technology choose human or human choose technology?
Does human being invent the negative
http://newhive.com/ranzhou/technohuman
if cannot open the link, just in case:
https://youtu.be/JgZryl4hSRs
http://newhive.com/ranzhou/will-the-future-be-human