A major drive for art--whether literature, visual, dance, music, architecture or culinary--is to illuminate not obscure. By nature most algorithms tend to obscure.
Of course, commissioned art pieces may entertain a bit of dichotomy on this point: witness Renaissance portraiture presented mainly to establish status—eliminating flaws and hiding weaknesses. Still we have cave drawings beautifully illuminating the power of animals. Similar stories abound throughout all aspects of art and culture.
Artists tend to focus on thoughts, experiences (whether staging or static), materials, historical incidents or contemporary concerns. Most any unfamiliar topic may be safely explored through responsible art intended to portray a singular aspect of the subject. Art is a great source of discovery.
Recently I spent a few hours with Thomas W. Malone’s “Superminds / The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together” (Little, Brown and Company; 2018). This is not a statement about merging human brains with AI or computers. It is a picture of how our seven billion human beings and their computers are affecting things. It visualizes our activities on the web as a mass, influencing events and perceptions. Read it for a better understanding of where Malone is going with this idea.
What his thoughts inspired me to consider is the manipulation underlying most everything on social media platforms and the media we receive. This acts to obscure rather than illuminate. I participate in LinkedIn and Twitter; I’m a refugee from Facebook and most of Instagram. My news sources are web based: the BBC, The Economist, New York Times for cooking, Google News and yes, Twitter. I don’t pay attention to print or TV news unless it shows up as a Twitter tweet.
It’s long been recognized that US media is negatively charged; Canadians apparently get more positive news items. I don’t know what other country’s media face is since I don’t get ready access to such information. But there is a face and organizations creating it.
Most of us recognize that our news feeds from social media platforms are based on algorithms that define and profile users. We get what the algorithm thinks we want; high number of users, readers, followers, subscribers, and their data, is its primary goal.
~LinkedIn recently tried to tailor feeds to the individual, asking users to specify their desires. LinkedIn users make “Connections.” I have 860 and rarely hear of or from more than ten. My LinkedIn handle is Micheline (Mickey) Ronningen.
~Twitter offers “Following” and “Followers” and options to comment, retweet, heart (love) something or send a message (mail) to the tweeter. Tweet to me @MickeySteffy.
~Facebook has “Friends” and if I remember right, only “Like”s. My time spent with Facebook, though nice to catch up with some people, felt like living on a diet of frosted cupcakes with a cream center: pretty much only smiles, platitudes and superficial comments were on offer, despite frequent death, disaster and illness news presented to gain some kind of ethereal web-based emotional support. If that works for you, fine. And maybe this sugar-rich diet was peculiar to my “Friends” circle (ca. 600), though I have doubts on that point.
*I’m thinking that my information feeds and news bases are not broad enough. I’m developing a bit of awareness, through social platforms, about the difficulties in being black, trans, or Other in our country and others. But not enough.
*I’m saying that what I want added to my social media platform is somebody else’s feed, maybe as often as twice a week for a full day each. This “somebody else’s feed” would reflect a random selection, say every 10th person with matching initials. Something obscure and unbiased. Random.
I want to see what somebody other than me might be getting fed. I might (likely, given the circumstances) be in non-agreement on much of it, yet I think it could incrementally raise consciousness of things outside my circle of existence. Discretion and critical thinking advised, always.
An idea I remember from years ago, though I can’t find the source, is the idea that if one were able to enter another person’s mind and thinking it would drive one crazy because it’d be so alien. Maybe, but it hasn’t been proved.
I believe if I or we were to get the feed from another random user, what a marvelous web consciousness creation would develop! Much more textured, colorful, connected, and thriving, expanding.
Do you think any media platforms or outfits could arrange this? Media platforms could offer an “Illuminate Me” button or choice to provide a random user’s feed as often as preferred.
If you too enjoy the idea, let’s post, tweet, comment, share, and otherwise make web-ish joyful noise that we do not want to be limited by an algorithmic profile in this amazing age of sharing information. If you have additional ideas on encouraging our sense of connectivity please comment. Thank you.
And thank you Thomas W. Malone for keeping me awake in the wee hours contemplating some of your thoughts presented in “Superminds.”
Of course, commissioned art pieces may entertain a bit of dichotomy on this point: witness Renaissance portraiture presented mainly to establish status—eliminating flaws and hiding weaknesses. Still we have cave drawings beautifully illuminating the power of animals. Similar stories abound throughout all aspects of art and culture.
Artists tend to focus on thoughts, experiences (whether staging or static), materials, historical incidents or contemporary concerns. Most any unfamiliar topic may be safely explored through responsible art intended to portray a singular aspect of the subject. Art is a great source of discovery.
Recently I spent a few hours with Thomas W. Malone’s “Superminds / The Surprising Power of People and Computers Thinking Together” (Little, Brown and Company; 2018). This is not a statement about merging human brains with AI or computers. It is a picture of how our seven billion human beings and their computers are affecting things. It visualizes our activities on the web as a mass, influencing events and perceptions. Read it for a better understanding of where Malone is going with this idea.
What his thoughts inspired me to consider is the manipulation underlying most everything on social media platforms and the media we receive. This acts to obscure rather than illuminate. I participate in LinkedIn and Twitter; I’m a refugee from Facebook and most of Instagram. My news sources are web based: the BBC, The Economist, New York Times for cooking, Google News and yes, Twitter. I don’t pay attention to print or TV news unless it shows up as a Twitter tweet.
It’s long been recognized that US media is negatively charged; Canadians apparently get more positive news items. I don’t know what other country’s media face is since I don’t get ready access to such information. But there is a face and organizations creating it.
Most of us recognize that our news feeds from social media platforms are based on algorithms that define and profile users. We get what the algorithm thinks we want; high number of users, readers, followers, subscribers, and their data, is its primary goal.
~LinkedIn recently tried to tailor feeds to the individual, asking users to specify their desires. LinkedIn users make “Connections.” I have 860 and rarely hear of or from more than ten. My LinkedIn handle is Micheline (Mickey) Ronningen.
~Twitter offers “Following” and “Followers” and options to comment, retweet, heart (love) something or send a message (mail) to the tweeter. Tweet to me @MickeySteffy.
~Facebook has “Friends” and if I remember right, only “Like”s. My time spent with Facebook, though nice to catch up with some people, felt like living on a diet of frosted cupcakes with a cream center: pretty much only smiles, platitudes and superficial comments were on offer, despite frequent death, disaster and illness news presented to gain some kind of ethereal web-based emotional support. If that works for you, fine. And maybe this sugar-rich diet was peculiar to my “Friends” circle (ca. 600), though I have doubts on that point.
*I’m thinking that my information feeds and news bases are not broad enough. I’m developing a bit of awareness, through social platforms, about the difficulties in being black, trans, or Other in our country and others. But not enough.
*I’m saying that what I want added to my social media platform is somebody else’s feed, maybe as often as twice a week for a full day each. This “somebody else’s feed” would reflect a random selection, say every 10th person with matching initials. Something obscure and unbiased. Random.
I want to see what somebody other than me might be getting fed. I might (likely, given the circumstances) be in non-agreement on much of it, yet I think it could incrementally raise consciousness of things outside my circle of existence. Discretion and critical thinking advised, always.
An idea I remember from years ago, though I can’t find the source, is the idea that if one were able to enter another person’s mind and thinking it would drive one crazy because it’d be so alien. Maybe, but it hasn’t been proved.
I believe if I or we were to get the feed from another random user, what a marvelous web consciousness creation would develop! Much more textured, colorful, connected, and thriving, expanding.
Do you think any media platforms or outfits could arrange this? Media platforms could offer an “Illuminate Me” button or choice to provide a random user’s feed as often as preferred.
If you too enjoy the idea, let’s post, tweet, comment, share, and otherwise make web-ish joyful noise that we do not want to be limited by an algorithmic profile in this amazing age of sharing information. If you have additional ideas on encouraging our sense of connectivity please comment. Thank you.
And thank you Thomas W. Malone for keeping me awake in the wee hours contemplating some of your thoughts presented in “Superminds.”