Gendering Babies

On the way to Yellowstone, we had a 3 hour layover in Minnesota. This time gave me a chance to talk to Dr. Peter Yau, a renowned scientist who has two PhDs and who was coming on our CHP:395 Biocomplexity trip to work with Professor Fouke.

Eventually, the conversation turned to fluorescent in situ hybridization, or FISH. I'm not sure how A led to B to cause C, but apparently, this technique is critical to gendering babies. Dr. Yau told me a story about a Columbia MD who came to work with him for a year. When the year was up, the MD told Yau why he wanted to study FISH with him. The reason: to gender babies.

Dr. Yau was angry. One of his discoveries had been used for what many deem an ethically unsound reason.

The story amazed, shocked, frightened me. For one, science fiction seemed to suddenly diminish the fiction aspect. But, Manovich's New Media prime on the mind, what truly struck me was how science could treat an embryo like a pixel. One of Manovich's key principles is how using the pixel as the smallest discrete unit allows digital media to be easily manipulated. In fact, that's what we've been doing all semester.

Has science taken this pixel idea too far when the same variability power is imposed on embryos? Are we playing God? And if so, why not? Who should say whether or not FISH can be used to gender babies?

Then I read this article on nytimes.com about kids getting tested for what athletic genes they have.

I go back to the Spiderman line: "With great power comes great responsibility." Because a fundamental tenant of science is that it is reproducable, any discovery is everyone's discovery. And I'm not sure every scientific hand is enlightened.

The End of Storytelling?

MIT's new Storytelling labette is predicting that storytelling in the 21st century is about to change. In a New York Times article I found here, the ability to tell a "meaningful" story is being challenged by consumer technology, such as text messages. Original storytelling is even more threatened, as the constant connection we all value to our outside world doesn't know when to stop interjecting.

How many times have you or someone you've known checked their cellphone during a movie? Interruptions from the outside world prevent us from immersing ourselves in a story. But even without interruptions, we're so used to the bombardment of phones, texts, emails, etc. that perhaps we can't sit and read a book for long, or sit and watch a movie for two hours. Is it as simple as boredom.

Old stories don't work in our new wired society. Or so the argument goes. Luckily, there are plenty of opposing perspectives and statistics.

The purpose of the lab: "Starting in 2010, a handful of faculty members — “principal investigators,” the university calls them — will join graduate students, undergraduate interns and visitors from the film and book worlds in examining, among other things, how virtual actors and “morphable” projectors (which instantly change the appearance of physical scenes) might affect a storytelling process that has already been considerably democratized by digital delivery."

I tend to believe that people hunger for stories, from gossip at a bar to novels to movies to the sports page. We can't live without them. If they're going to change form, then I'm along for the ride.

Final Project Proposal

For our project, we are focusing on New Media in cinema. We have decided to compile Lev Manovich’s most provocative points and visually depict these points in a film segment that mixes digital film, old movie clips we find in “the vault,” audio voiceovers, and still images. New Media, as Manovich defines it, is not confined to the use of computers or digital technology, which involves reverse engineering as a means to break down the whole (which was a staple of Old Media) to instead construct images, digital video, websites, etc. from the most basic building blocks (namely, pixels and computer programming code). New media has five main components: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and cultural transcoding.

First, to show the idea of New Media’s micro to macro construction, we plan to start our video project with a close-up on a single pixel and gradually zoom out to show the entire earth. Complete with sound effects, of course. This introduction will illustrate the point that the pixel has become the starting point and most basic building block for New Media.
Next, continuing this “construction” theme, we plan to highlight the evolution of closed interactivity to open interactivity. New Media’s closed interactivity representation of reality uses binary. We will incorporate real images, such as a real tree, alongside binary equivalents, such as a binary tree, to illustrate the naturalization of closed interactivity. Transitioning to open interactivity, we plan to juxtapose a CGI image of a forest versus computer code. The will also help demonstrate the modularity aspect of New Media including fractal structures and that New Media lives on every scale, from the small (the individual tree) to the big (the forest).
Also, we would like to show the process as it applies to film and cinema, as this is our main focus. Through this we will show finished products alongside the actual process and true reality that goes into making these products. This will include showing how green screen is used to make complex images and backgrounds that would otherwise be impossible (or at least extremely hard) to show or represent in true reality. As this process is applied to many films, we will use clips from these films as well as pictures and clips of how they were truly shot to show the development of the finished product versus the true reality of what occurred. The automation aspect of New Media can be represented by this green screen versus finished product juxtaposition as it shows how human involvement in film (such as set design) has been (to some extent) replaced with computer programming of images.

After illustrating the live action versus production aspect of New Media, we will show the different aspects that go into making digital film. This will include live action material, paintings and drawings, image processing, compositing, as well as 2-D and 3-D computer animation. Just as we used a split screen for the live action, we will amp up the visual complexity yet again by splitting the screen multiple times for each component of digital film.
To bring in multiple forms of media and clarify what might otherwise be an eclectic compilation of images (as confusing as Blair’s WaxWeb), we have decided to use voice-over dialogue to explain just what we’re proving with these processes.

The process of our project will mainly be focused on old videos that we ourselves did not create, but rather will have to use to help illustrate our point. We will have to find effective video and images through searches and research and collect, edit, and incorporate them into our finished product. We have several films in mind: Alice in Wonderland (Manovich references this a lot to underscore the “rabbit hole” effect of New Media; we plan on muting the audio and adding our own discussion of New Media), The Matrix (to show a completely digital reality), Star Wars (the first fully digital feature-length film),and The Polar Express (Tom Hanks acting in front of a green screen for the whole time).

This will require us to use the video editing training we have received in this class to create the final product. Also, with the voice-over explanations, we will need to use the audio recording technology and equipment we have used in this class. And finally, we might even have to use our photoshop ability to manipulate digital images.

Quantum of Solace

The new James Bond might be known as a ruthless lone wolf, but he could take a hint from the sharp new hybridized performance from rocker Jack White and pop artist Alicia Keys: "Another Way to Die."

Its spunk might catch you off-guard, especially after Chris Cornell rocked Casino Royale. But that's not a bad thing. It took me two listens to get into it and appreciate how it explores a teetering middle ground between the two artists' styles. Kudos for refraining from coming out and blasting away (good in Bond films, not so hot in music). The fragments of music showcase each singer's talent and they are confident enough to throw a few pauses in and an elongated intro, too. The song is patient and explosive. Keys and White complement one another rather than compete with one another; remain true to their roots while blending lyrically in the chorus. It deftly blends all kinds of contrasts.

Not even Q could choreograph such a pitch-perfect surprise.

Michael Crichton 1942-2008

The day after Barack Obama's election rocked my world, I crashed back to reality with the shocking news that Michael Crichton had died.

It is neither hyperbolic nor rash to say that I am who I am today because of Michael Crichton. Just a week earlier, I was talking about him with one of my friends.

"Michael Crichton is the one person I want to meet before I die," I said.

Spoken too soon.

Every child is fascinated to some degree with dinosaurs, and I was no different. After reading Jurassic Park in third grade, I wrote two book-length stories entitled "Island of Extinction 1 and 2" that immersed me on an island of dinosaurs.

I've since moved on to more original writing, but this intense curiosity that reading Crichton gave me has remained. He taught me that life is best lived when one sees the world as a source of endless fascination. He taught me how to think critically, and that the smartest people aren't the know-it-alls but those who are courageous enough to admit to their own unanswered questions.

He taught me the virtue of simple writing -- a virtue so many, including me, consistently break. He was science's great translator, a friend to the majority who doesn't have access to and can't decipher the difficult language, math, and impact of modern science.

Most of all, he enchanted me with his stories. No one melted pages away like Michael Crichton. And he lived the lifestyle of his novels -- tumultuous, jumping from adventure to adventure, taking risks and throwing himself in harm's way because there might be a story in it.

I can't count the times that I've turned to Crichton not only to be sucked into a new universe, but to help sort out my own life. His essays "Happiness" and "Love Is" still give me shivers. They refresh my perspective. And they do it as only Crichton knows how: not by complicating things, but by showing the simple forces at work behind what was heretofore a mystifying enigma.

What a loss for us all.

Check out minute 44:00-45:30

Response to Glenn's Question

1. Bolter uses the term hybrid media to describe a conglomeration of different medias. How is a video game such as Gears of War or Little Big Planet an example of a hybrid media?

Gears of War is a sick game -- in both the colloquial and new-age meanings of the word. Since I've, ahem, beaten it on its hardest difficulty, ahem, I know a thing or two about different medias let me tell you LET ME TELL YOU!

The two main structural medias are gameplay and cut-scenes, which isn't very different from past video games. There's also a whole slew of different sounds based upon the weapon you wield, the spatial relations on a battlefield (where the bullets slam into -- near or far), and other things going on in the gameplay world that make it come to life. One of the noteworthy aspects is the way the chainsaw attack goes to a cutscene that splatters the screen with the instant-kill blood of the opponent unlucky enough to get cut in half.

So yes: hybrid media is HUGE to making an enjoyable gameplay experience. In fact, if we could do a regression analysis, I think we'd find a positive correlation between how hybridized the media of a game are and how that game is received by reviewers and the public.

Illini Wrestling Video

Embedded Video (YouTube)

Video Project Reflection

This project intimidated me from the get-go. I wouldn't call my initial thoughts technophobic, but I was certainly uneasy due to the control that the video project forced me to give up. Video afforded a lesser freedom than words in that I had to depend on other people and things – my partner Seth, the wrestling team, a camera with technological limitations, cables that had to connect x to y to achieve z. I knew this was good for my overly self-reliant lifestyle. When you're running 20 miles by yourself or writing a novel by your lonesome, you become self-reliant. So good for me or not, I wasn't happy about doing this project. It was good for me like brusselsprouts are good for me.

Now: I am not a complete alien to video. I've made my share of movies for school – often as writer, director, producer, soundtrack artist, actor, and motivator of the lazy-bum-partner I'm stuck with (not Seth; Seth was a great partner and an anomaly to the previous statement). In any case, videos are hard work – again because there's more components that go into a finished product than the key-clicks of simply writing an essay, and those extra components have to be scheduled. With scheduling, there's this whole new arena of practicality that I have to manage. I anticipated/dreaded that, so I asked my athletic friends who plays men's tennis for the Illini just in case Seth's wrestling friend, Vince, fell through. I also had my dad bring down the video software I was familiar with (Pinnacle) to simplify editing…only to find that my dad couldn't find it chez moi.

But I had never had quite so strict an assignment of following someone/something I knew little about. Coupled with a medium of storytelling that I already found constricting, this rigid assignment doubled the intimidation factor. Through writing, I can be a snoopy PI. I'll chat up a storm and ask penetrating questions as a good reporter does to get the inside scoop. I am confident in my ability to write in a way that fairly encapsulates the interview.

But having to stick a camera in someone's face and tell them to spill the beans makes me uncomfortable. The video camera is a star-maker in our Hollywoodized culture. People still agonize over and worship the talking heads on the tube – a fascination that I think has propelled YouTube to such heights. So when I shove a camera at them and say SPEAKETH, I feel like I'm looking at them as if they are naked as I both honor them and also make them show-people whose mugs will be on display before foreign eyes.

Of course the film interviews weren't as bad as I'd imagined them to be. I had a good time getting an exclusive preseason look at the wrestling team even though I was too timid to thrust the camera into their huddles. Seth and I made good use of the zoom function so we could snipe off camera shots from afar. Luckily, the wrestlers didn't seem to give us much attention. And the coach was very accommodating, very friendly. Didn't expect that.

Regarding editing, I knew from past video experiences that the editing process is best when it's a ruthless chopping block. Short, interspersed clips allow the filmmaker to weave together a multi-perspective narrative with multiple storylines that reinforce one another. We elected to highlight a chronological progression of active practice with the commentary of interviews.

Ultimately, if clips are roughly sentences, I wanted short simple sentences in a messy cohesion that is honest to our ability as filmmakers as well as the back-and-forth intensity of wrestling.

One note on the lack of music: let me just go down on the record that I was tempted. Music is an easy way to add a degree of professional cohesion to the film, and though I wish I could say that the lack of jams is for a reason more enlightened than we both forgot our tunes…well, it turned out for the best. Music is a "quick fix" to fill in the gaps. But when not originally recorded (a la John Williams) all it does is reflect the taste of the filmers by draping a false skin over the gym environment that lends itself to a distorted interpretation of the project. Music would enforce a certain tone and divert focus from the actual visuals and echo-quality of the gym.

Plus, we wanted viewers to hear the bodies hitting the ground during parts of the interviews.

So do I still fear video? Yes. I sold cameras and camcorders for a year at Best Buy so I know how easy it is to make a lousy video. I maintain that clamoring upwards for quality in video is arduous and frustrating, especially when we have the professional standard of professionally produced media in our heads (or even really clever YouTube vids). But I am growing more comfortable being that pushy film-guy, though I doubt I'll ever jump at the opportunity to invade private space with a spy camera. Writing with video is rewarding. Watching the final product for the first time was like opening a Christmas present: you never know what you're going to get. I'm satisfied -- not thrilled, but happy -- with what we produced. Having a good partner made things easier, although my level unease was highest for this project. But hey, as they say in wrestling holds true for video: no pain, no game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3enYkESuDk

Bolter Questions

1. Think of several concerts that you've seen. Did they use other forms of media in addition to music? How did the music/performance integrate with the visible presentation? How close did the concerts get to achieving hypermediacy, and what was preventing them from more fully creating direct experience?

2. Even for a 1990s theorist, Frederic Jameson says some pretty extreme things. For one, he writes that, "In fact, television, film, and now computer graphics threaten to remediate verbal text both in print and on the computer screen-indeed, to remediate text so aggressively that it may lose much of its historical significance" (Bolter, 57). This remark was published in the early 1990s. We've now seen the "future" of his prediction. So with the 20/20 perspective of hindsight, to what extent has Jameson's prediction come true? Where has it been proven true; where false?

3. Are you a cyberenthusiast or a technophobic, and why? If you're not sure, start with this question: If technology is quintessential to progress, what is the dark side to such progress?