unfortunately, due to outside commitments, i was unable to attend this weeks lecture. but for that reason, i’ve done a thorough dig around the /networkedmedia/ area of mediafactory and learnt all possible about what i missed out on.

from what i can gather, it was quite the lecture, and a deep one at that. from rachel’s post regarding it, i learnt that one of the questions asked was “can technology progress independently of art & culture?”. i find this so interesting, and aren’t sure if i agree with rachel on the matter or not. i think, as with anything, art and culture come in different forms and shapes. while there is undoubtedly much overlap, i – personally – see them as standalone concepts that sometimes get lonely and mingle with the others. technology isn’t, and hopefully never will be, a pre-requisite to art. i think the act of life – of living and breathing is an art form in itself. i may have too broad a concept of art, but i think it can be its standalone. and as for technological progression, i think as long as we live we will have a need for evolution and progression. regardless of whether art of culture is involved. i could go into this and discuss it for hours, but it’s late and my brain hurts from just trying to verbalise all the complex thoughts regarding it. ergh.

according to this post by rebecca, the different tutors all had different views on what constitutes as technology. i’m sad i missed this, it’s always great when such a differing group of people come together to discuss the meaning and distinction of something. i’m unsure as to which perspectives were taken but i must say, defining technology is one of the hardest things to do. i guess it depends on who you are, where you’re from and your exposure to it. those in a third world country may constitute technology merely as laptops, computers, phones, ipods, etc. yet some, or any, postmodernist will throw you some blab of sophistication regarding how a tree is technology. it is what you make of it and use it for, i guess.