Rebecca Sloane

February 11, 2015

WRRH 205
Critical Reflection #3
Pramod Nayars Introduction to New Media and Cyber Cultures gives
information on the culture of the Internet that many of us are unaware of,
even though we all spend most of our time there. His key concepts are the
catalyst for his main argument that cyber culture is a direct reflection of live
culture, and for everything that exists in cyberspace has a mirrored image in
reality. Its easy to sit idly and agree with what he says, but when really
thinking about all of the subcultures that he describes in the first two
chapters, its hard to analyze his argument and agree with it. He does a
really decent job of explaining the connection to the real world, but I almost
feel as though I cant really understand the reference unless I see it for
myself. This is especially true of the concepts that he explains that really
only exist in images; for example on page 50 when Nayar writes about the
concept of New Media Art. As this idea is something that exists in reality
through canvas painting and physical art, New Media Art is somewhat of a
different form and function all together. It involves more of the Internet and
using programs like Adobe Photoshop, which makes it hard to replicate in
real life. Paint, markers, crayons, and other art mediums do not necessarily
capture what the computer does. This is just one example of why Nayars
main argument could be considered unrealistic, especially with the recent
argument that computers are beginning to become smarter than humans.
In some fashion, I think that concepts change as they change mediums.

Its almost impossible for something to stay the same as it goes through
different mediums; the idea or concept has to adapt to its surroundings and
change its form based on what the environment calls for. This is especially
true when relating to cyberculture and new media in general; thats just the
nature of these newer innovative concepts that have recently entered
society. In the example I used before with New Media Art, theres a reason
why its not just regular old art on the Internet. Theres a new demand for art
to be more of an interesting and new caliber of species instead of having
historical meaning or looking at naked pictures of Jesus (excuse my lack of
cultural awareness here). While the textbook doesnt necessarily call for that
extreme, it does define it as new forms of visuality, aurality, textuality, and
tactility constitute the cyberculture turn, (50). The interesting part of all of
this is that the word art is used to describe this kind of cyberculture, but it
is also used to describe different images that were painted by experts, and
have been around for many years in museums. How is the idea of watching a
movie on an iPhone screen the same as a painting of the last supper? This is
brought up in the next section on page 51 when Nayar explains the idea of
Active Audience Art. While he brings up the idea of old art forms mixed with
technology and the way that it has evolved through the years, he adds new
forms of art that were created over the years. Jeffrey Shaws The Legible City
can only exist on a piece of technology, as the book clearly states his art
piece is 3D letters formed words and sentences as the user navigated a
virtual city on a stationary bicycle, (52). This is a really cool idea, but I dont

see how it has a physical counterpart except if the virtual city was actually a
real city that existed and you were to visit it. As I stated before, this is an
example of art adapting to its new expectations and recreating itself to fit
the new demand of what people are interested in or want to see as a
technological advancement. While talking about art seems kind of small
scale in the long run, as art does not capture everyones interest, its an
important piece of the new media puzzle. As technology becomes more
important in our society and solicits a new market entirely for people as their
demand and desires change. Its unrealistic to make the claim that
cyberculture has a partner in the real world, when in reality if it did people
may not have such a desire for these unique things. In some retrospect his
argument is valid. When thinking about text message for example, people
really can talk face to face and say the same things they want to say over
text message but in person. This line gets blurry when one cant be around
the person they want to have the conversation with. In this sense, text
message is a better option for communication and has abilities that people in
real life dont have. On the other hand, some things get lost in translation
over text message, so it is easier to explain things in person. This shows the
tradeoff between the two forms of communication. Consequently, this shows
in a way that Nayars argument again doesnt work here because the
function of technological and cybercultural concepts have different uses in
reality and through technology.
Another important part of Nayars textbook is this idea that technology

is an extension of the body, especially when relating this to Nayars main

argument. If a cyberculture has a counterpoint in the real world, how does
technology as an extension of a human work? This would mean that any
cybercultre would exist as an extension of a person and thereby making
them one in the same. This is something that was more prominent in the
Medium is the Message book, but is definitely applied to every part of
technology that we analyze. This is mostly due to the nature of the way that
technology functions. It takes a human being typing on a keyboard for letters
to appear on a computer screen and form into words (or just random letters
put together), just as it takes a human being to click on a mouse to get to a
new hyperlink. These things occur because a human being decided to make
those choices to complete the action. Its an interesting insight after all of
these questions of whether technology actually runs human beings, because
technically technology needs human beings to actually function. The way
that the iPhone continues to call us back is manipulative, but there are ways
to stop an object from taking control; after all it is just an object. If
technology is just an extension of ourselves, then are we actually addicted to
technology, or are we just selfish?