\Obviously mainstream filmmaking differs considerably from the kinds of films that Lynn Hershman Leeson creates, but -- as Anne Balsamo argues in our reading for the week -- we should pay attention to images in popular culture. particularly feminine robots.
I've posted this entry as a placeholder for discussion both about either Teknolust or mainstream filmmaking. What can we say about comparisons and contrasts? After all, there is a female scientist with Frankenstein-like powers in Terminator Salvation, a predatory female in Terminator 3, lonely isolated people lost in consumer culture in Surrogates, and a female computer expert on writing code in The Net. Brancato talked about ways that Hollywood writers still might try to "flip the script" on portrayals of gender and technology, and Teknolust ends with a romantic conclusion defined by largely heterosexual pairing off.
With our recent discussions and readings on cyborgs, I decided to look up some images of female cyborgs on Pinterest. What I found was utterly disturbing. Ever single image of a female cyborg matched the body proportions of the plastic Barbie doll. There was not one female cyborg that had equal body proportions to the average woman. This made me think of the actual appearance and physical representation of cyborgs as something similar to that of the Barbie doll. Most people are aware of the ongoing controversy concerning the inaccurate proportions of the female Barbie doll, which promotes impossible and unreal body standards among woman. The images of female cyborgs on Pinterest, which can be argued as a social media outlet that is representational of ideas within popular culture, are not only inaccurate representations of real woman, but are also highly portrayed as sexualized organisms.
ReplyDeleteI began scrolling down and found an even more disturbing image of a cyborg woman who was "body shopping." (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/154107618468584466/) This brought in the idea of plastic surgery. Can we consider woman who have had plastic surgery as cyborgs? Are cyborgs in society today simply woman trying to reach this idealized standard of the Barbie doll as they undergo plastic surgery to physically manifest themselves into this cyborg, or "perfect human," as represented in some of the images of female cyborgs on Pinterest? For example, the implants that are inserted in female breasts are considered, in one way or another, a technology. When a woman goes through plastic surgery, she is inserting technology within her body. The more technology inserted or used upon a woman, the more cyborg-like she becomes. Do you think woman who have undergone plastic surgery can be considered cyborgs? Why do you think the representations of female cyborgs in pictures match the body proportions of the Barbie doll? Should the image of a female cyborg, which is not equal to the body proportions of real woman in society today, be brought to light as a controversial representation of the female body, such as the debate of the Barbie doll has become? These are all questions to consider when dealing with cyborgs and representations of the female body.
To add onto this analysis of female representation and cyborgs, the film Teknolust presented many similarities as well as differences between female representation in society, of cyborgs and their comparison to the Barbie Doll. All three of the cyborgs, in particular Ruby, were made out to be objects of appeal and lust, just as typical representations of cyborgs are (looking at some of the images of cyborgs on Pintrest). This is similar to the Barbie doll. They are also objects of appeal, something to be looked at and played with. The difference here is the cyborgs are not played with and are actually the opposite, portrayed as predators, hunting for the male as well as being autonomous. The cyborgs as the predator gives them power, similar to the female cyborg character in the Terminator 3 movie. As we discussed in class, power is not enacted by any one person; it is always relational. So the cyborgs have power over men, with their lustful appeal, in order to obtain what they need, their semen. Yet Rosetta enacts her power on the cyborgs as their caretaker.
DeleteIt is also interesting to note the contrast between Rosetta Stone and the three female cyborgs. The appearance of Rosetta Stone is quite similar to the typical representations of women in technology; conservative and unattractive. Yet the female cyborgs, with woman as technology, are the total opposite; sexual and attractive. This goes along with the our desire to reproduce, or in this case, manufacture the "perfect" human (or cyborg).
Donna Haraway’s reading takes me to an immense space for thinking about “Cyborg” , and what it is telling us conflict with divided unity. Cyborg is showing to practise partial, irony, closeness and distortion. Public and private things are not as deal with conflict component, so it is based on innovated social association with scientific and political community. No matter what it is, the robot has a lot of potential of convenience to work with a human in the future. However, as much as convenience, there are latent faculties of danger to destroy our society because Cyborg cannot be as dust or air, it will be remain any forms under any circumstance. As the author’s mention that Japanese movie” My Cyborg Girfirend”, it is talks about a female robot can be a real girlfriend in real world with a human or not. I think that it could be possible to make each other in different relationship than normal react. However, I think that Cyborg cannot be alternative forms as human being even they are smart and logical program because people’s feeling and thought would not able to divide or separately thinking sometimes, and they cannot explain what they are thinking about something. It is not really simple question, it is really difficult to say it, and complicated feeling. Between Cyborg and human in communication, there are connection to discuss to create things, and it would take people to convenient space, but people should think about it carefully for taking care the result.
ReplyDeleteI actually thought what John was saying about technology falsifying something was quite interesting or as a way to cover something. The example he brought up was the idea of shoes as a way of hiding what your feet look like. I thought that this was a really different way of looking at technologies. Because there seems to quite often be technologies that hold information or hide something without and within them. Clothes are a technology that hides the body, computers are a technology that hide information about a person within it, etc. I loved this idea that he brought to the table and would just like to emphasize the fact that he brought it up in his Skype visit.
ReplyDelete