What Is an Apparatus - Essay Example

1: What is an apparatus? Give a full example in the context of a single media such as film, television, radio, telephone, video, computer hardware,software or digital media. Some words have exceptionally diverse meanings and beside their own meanings, the meanings may depend on the use and user. It is, because philosophers have used words for their own purposes and this gist of the word can only be understood once the reader can understand the underlying philosophy. Apparatus is the same sort of word, which is generally used for equipments and instruments designed to serve a particular function. Michel Foucault, who was a renowned French historian and philosopher, had used the word ‘apparatus’ extensively in his technical terminology. Although, Foucault never defined ‘apparatus’ explicitly, he had contemplated on the issue rigorously. He once uttered on the granularity of the word and declared it a toolbox, which may contain regulations, institutions, laws, decisions and may include philosophic, moral, and humanitarian acts, suggestions, and intentions. Apparatus may use a combination of all or some of the above-mentioned actions, regulatory and verbal elements to design and devise a mechanism, which can ultimately achieve a predefined objective or function. Apparatus is historically used to achieve and manipulate strategic objectives through an introduction and variations of interplaying forces. Apparatus can also mix forces to formulate and articulate results of various events. It can intervene, direct and develop relations among various forces working to together for a strategic goal. These uses of apparatus qualify it for a gross and higher level application in political, administrative, technical fields. Apparatus can allow, block, condition, instigate and stimulate certain element in an operating environment. Thus apparatus has definite powers to formulate, design and define strategic outcomes in political, technical, administrative and domains like knowledge etc. Michel Foucault had finally described apparatus as a network of physical and meta physical elements and forces which can exert a certain power through knowledge to manipulate and maneuver a schematic and strategic outcome. It is important to understand that an apparatus can contain and use elements from any domain of knowledge, power and philosophy and thereby can effect and influence any of these domains. It is interesting that Michel Foucault did not used the term apparatus in his initial works, “The archeology of Knowledge” and it was only after his deliberations into the work of Hyppolite and Hegel’s work on destiny positivity and its relation to religion and human freedom. However, positivity introduced certain bars on the human freedom in terms of rites, rules and believes that a religion impose on human beings. The underlying notions of positivity and destiny moved Foucault to invent the term ‘apparatus’. The term as conceived by Foucault was equally versatile and offered depth, breadth and richness of meaning. It had a universality built into it to encompass almost every domain of knowledge, power and technology. Although, Foucault was inherently against the general categorization of concepts like State, Sovereignty, Law and Power. However, it does not mean that he was against the universality itself and that is why he termed apparatus as being a network of element that are not universal in themselves but ‘apparatus’ the unification factor within these elements to achieve a strategic objective universally. This universality of the term apparatus makes it applicable in various domains. In judicial dictionaries, apparatus is the part of a judgment that contains the decision, in technical dictionaries it refers to a mechanism achieved by various mechanical arrangements and in military, it can be termed as a mean to roll out a plan. This diverse application of the term is a proof of its universality because Foucault had defined a generic term “a set of practices and mechanisms (both linguistic and nonlinguistic, juridical, technical and military) that aim to face an urgent need and to obtain an effect that is more or less immediate.” (1977). The term is often applied to Christian Theology as far the administration and management of the economy and human governance is concerned. Some recent philosophic understandings, divide the universe into living beings and apparatuses which in a way or other influence its subjects and that is why media such as film, television, radio, telephone, video, computer hardware, software all fall under the definition of apparatuses. All these have a direct or indirect influence on living beings. To take an example of an apparatus we can zoom into a laptop. It is a network of equipments arranged in a specific order to give a complete and quantifiable outcome. This outcome may influence the living beings, the subjects of the apparatus in a variety of ways. The important characteristics of the laptop includes its usage to control, arrange, stimulate, organize, manipulate, manage and maintain operations and information that may be use to create an strategic impact in the life of its subject (user). The subject can automate a series of operation to bring about the predefined output and to articulate operations initiated at various intervals of time. It must be bore in mind, the laptop in this example may also operate in conjunction of other apparatuses to create a blended effect in a network environment. What are the definitions and use of subjectivity? How do we experience subjectivity in Media Art? Media Art is replete with subjective definitions and these definitions require a proper delimitation of subjectivity itself. The delimitation of subjectivity is only possible if we can investigate various definitions of subjectivity and the respective use of these definitions in media arts. Adam (6) defines the problem of subjectivity in these words, “If beauty is selected as a primary aesthetic criterion, the evaluation of an artwork’s quality is determined by the definition of beauty. The primary aesthetic question ‘What is good art?’ becomes dependent on the question, ‘What is beauty?’ The subjectivity of defining what is good art is replaced with the subjectivity of defining beauty.” We can experience this subjectivity in media art quite often and even the critical terms definitions are subjective. The diversity of research in various disciplines and field of media, humanities and humanistic social sciences has further enhanced this subjectivity in media art. This subjectivity has intensified the need of further research to explore relative subjectivities of these definitions; Mitchell and Mark (2010) have noted the same, “media studies have emerged as a viable research area… and as the focus of ever- expanding range of research initiatives across the globe.” The subjectivity of media art has widen the scope of research in various related fields of humanities like anthropology, culture, history of information theory, pre-cinematic devices, print media, and literature etc. We are experiencing the effects of media art subjectivity in a tremendous and enormous expansion of the media studies and research in related domains. The subjectivity is so overwhelming that it pose a serious question of delimiting he media studies as specific domain of knowledge. It is necessary because right now it ranges from the study of empirical sciences like communication, economics and sociology to the subjects that come under the domain of humanities like literary theory, cultural studies etc. This subjectivity has introduced considerable amount of ambiguity in the media studies and the need to put an end to these ambiguities is quite pressing now. The time has reached “to exploit the ambiguity of the concept of media - the slippage from plural to singular, from differentiated forms to overreaching technical platforms and theoretical vantage points.” Media art is a critical concept and subjectivities in its terminology offer no good and need to be addressed to work out some distinct innovation. However, innovation alone cannot address the problem and there is a need to invent “a tool for excavating the deepest archaeological layers of human forms of life.” (Mitchell and Mark, 3). Subjectivity in the media art was also surfaced in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election in California. The inherent power associated with the Schwarzenegger’s characterization in media art played a part in portraying his character as a politician and c standing as “an icon of power and action gave him a decisive advantage over an incumbent who was widely perceived as weak and passive in the face of the various crises California was facing.” Pictures to this effect had widely published and admired. A similar picture in media just before the election is often debated to be the most influential in the final success of Schwarzenegger. However, Marshall McLuhan argued has opposed this subjectivity of media art and argues that it is not the content but the medium itself that have an impact on society. He presents the analogy of a blub that illuminates the surrounding and assists in understanding and social interaction without any content of its own. This redirection of media studies by McLuhan initially met great opposition but later on the elimination of content subjectivity from media art became an important part of media studies. This was specially approved by the industry because it provided an opportunity to represent media as singular noun without the disjoint among various historical origins of the media. McLuhan was also a supporter for coupling of human and technology for the promotion of media and reduction in subjectivity. Many media scholars like Bernard Stiegler and André Leroi-Gourhan, have joined hands with McLuhan in promoting his campaign. He denounced the individual dominance of either factor as Kittler suggested the dominance of technology over human and some post-humanist critics considers human being as the primary source of information for media. McLuhan believes in the contributions of human beings as well as the technology in order to reduce the subjectivity and to enhance the role of media as an important pillar of the society. Name two scholars or researchers discussed in class and detail their work in the context of Media Art Histories and Genealogies. Twentieth century has produced several known scholars and philosophers, who had left a long lasting impact on the media art histories and genealogies as well as the media industry. Marshall McLuhan and Friedrich Kittler are the two most influential personalities in media studies. Both the scholars have lived a vibrant life to explore the effects and impact media, human beings and technological advancements have to assert on each other and therefore had come up with their distinct theories on the subject. Born on 21 July, 1911 in Canada, Marshall McLuhan had completed his masters form the University of Manitoba in 1934 and Ph D. from Cambridge in 1942. He taught in many renowned universities and remained a co-editor of ‘”Explorations Magazine” for six years. Later on he earned several awards and honorary degrees from various institutions around the globe. McLuhan had gauged the impact of mass communications quite early in his life and the had coined the terms like “global village” and “media is the message” these terminologies were quite new at that time but McLuhan had presented the challenges for future generations in media studies and in a way had set the stage to learn and research in new directions. He himself uttered once, “The world has become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction.” (qtd. in Arora, 18). Despite of this hardcore realization of technological advancements and their relative impact on media studies and industries the McLuhan was an active promoter for human and technology blending to achieve the true effect in the face new challenges to various forms of media. McLuhan was strong believer of media contribution accompanied with the technologies, this was to say that the impact of a message conveyed by any media is determined by the underlying technologies used to deliver the message. He underlined the importance of technology at every forum and stressed upon the ingenuity of medium more than the message content itself. "In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology." (McLuhan, 7).  McLuhan contributions to the society in general and media in particular is widely recognized. Many scholars and philosophers, even if they have legitimate reservations on his philosophies had commended his efforts for the promotion media studies and research that he conducted himself or somehow influenced its initiation. Above all his contributions in the advent of new terminologies and concepts for future media studies is approved and recognized globally. “He proffered a new vocabulary and conceptualization of communication, ambitious in its scale and sweeping in it generalization of percepts of society impacted by new technologies.” (qtd. in Arora, 18). Another, scholar whose work and concepts have revolutionized the media studies in 20th century is Friedrich Kittler. Born in Germany in 1943, he earned his doctorate degree in 1976. Jacques Lacan and Michel Foucault are two major influences on Kittlers conceptualization of media, technology and human interactions. He is called the Derrida of the digital age because of his scholarly contributions to revolutionize the media and technological theories. His efforts in the field of media, communication, history, technology and researched theories are globally recognized and appreciated. Kittler presented his own theory on the coupling of human being with technology and opposed the theory of media as an extension of man presented by McLuhan. Kittler has beautifully reduced the complexity of theoretical concepts through an application of these complex concepts to latest technologies. He had dealt with the influences of the technologies over media studies and investigated the impact of technological advancements on his age media, communication and cinematic philosophies. Kittler showed the courage to oppose the dominant technological advancements and presented his case in an effective manner. He was a strong believer that internet has spoiled the human communication skills and the overwhelming reliance of human being on technology is causing resinous damage to his innovative, philosophic and above all artistic qualities and characteristics. Responding to an interview question in 2006, he advocated is perspective in these words, “The development of the internet has more to do with human beings becoming a reflection of their technologies … after all, it is we who adapt to the machine. The machine does not adapt to us.” (Jeffries). Work Cited Adams Randy. Trans-disciplinary digital art: sound: vision and the new screen : digital art weeks and interactive futures 2006/2007, Zurich, Switzerland and Victoria, BC, Canada, selected papers. Germany: Springer. 2008. Print. Agamben Giogio. “What is an apparatus”, Crossing Aesthetics, Trans. David Kishik & Stefan Pedatella. USA: Stanford University Press. 2009. Print Arora Payal, Dot Com Mantra: Social Computing in the Central Himalayas, UK: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2010. Print. Jeffries Sturat. Friedrich Kittler obituary, guardian.co.uk 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw Hill, 1964. Print. Mitchell W. J. T & Mark B. N. Hansen. The introduction to critical terms in media studies. 2010 Read More