Hey peeps, since I'm posting the question a little later than I usually do, I've decided to give you until this Tuesday at 3 pm to post your response. Congratulations on turning in Project #1, y'all. OK, here goes:
According to Mitchell, "If mechanical reproducibility (photography, cinema, and associated industrial processes like the assembly line) dominated the era of modernism, biocybernetic reproduction (high-speed computing, digital imaging, virtual reality, the Internet, and the industrialization of genetic engineering) dominates the age that we have called postmodern."
Inspired by Mitchell's argument, you decide to remake Fritz Lang's 1927 film Metropolis for our present-day age of biocybernetic reproduction. You plan on taking some liberties with Lang's original plot in order to translate it from the era of modernism to the era of postmodernism.
Answer the following questions:
1. Summarize Mitchell's argument regarding the differences between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction.
2. How would you remake the scene below to visualize biocybernetic reproduction? How does your new vision for the scene represent our current age of biocybernetics?
In this scene, the beautiful and morally upright Maria has been kidnapped and used to animate a robot, who is given her face and figure. The robot is usually called the "false Maria"; she is as bad as the original Maria is good. Focus on the part of the scene that shows the process of animating the robot. Don't worry about the German intertitles; the main thrust of the scene can be understood without them.
Note: this isn't a question about updating the scene with better special effects. This is a question about rethinking the scene in light of biocybernetic reproduction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
72 comments:
In essence, Mitchell’s argument is that the age of mechanical reproduction, with it’s focus being on the combination of humans and industry, has morphed its way into biocybernetic reproduction, or the combination of human’s and technology. His focus is on the fact that the advancements of certain technologies and their affiliation with biology and genetics has made for a vague line between what is human and what is man-made. When translated into the world of art this makes for, “images [that] really do come alive and want things” (310). He thought that the reason for this was that the train of thinking from the Enlightenment days just wasn’t answering the questions being posed by the issues of today. Questions like “Is death now merely a problem to be solved by engineering and adjudicated by layers? (310). What I think he was getting at was this: it seems as though humans are acting more machine-like and machines are acting more human-like. This makes for great art.
I want to start this second portion by saying that I really thought this scene was extremely ahead of its time. I feel that it already carries a great deal of postmodernity in and of itself. What I could change if I were to make this scene more postmodern is the mise-en-scene. I would make it seem much more effortless for the machine to make a human robot. I would make the room all white, and have very few props in the room in order to give the impression that this is a pretty simple task. I once heard it said, “If you’re going to fight someone and they show up wearing all white, they’re pretty confident how that fight is going to go.” I would also take the “inventor” out of the scene for the majority of it. I would have him push a button to start the process and then watch as the machine did all the work. Having him pull all of those levers makes it seem as though he is doing the thinking and not the machine (this is not very postmodern). Personally this would all be a very painful process because I really think that the whole postmodern, posthuman, posteverything is a bit postreality for me. That’s just me though (How’s that for postmodern?).
Danny D’Acquisto
Steve Wetzel (Not Render)
The main difference I see in Mitchell’s comparison of mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction is that it once was merely the “mass production of commodities/mass reproduction of identical images,” and now is viewed as the “reproductive process of the biological sciences and the production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images.” Boicybernetic reproduction converges the ideas of “genetic and computational technologies...turn[ing] cyberspace and biospace into frontiers for technical innovations, appropriation, and exploitation.” From what was completely man-made/produced (founding, stamping, lithography) has totally been undermined by the oncoming of the digital/computer age. We have been converged with technology, leading to “the reduction of a living being to a tool or machine, and the elevation of a mere tool or machine to the level of an intelligent, adaptable creature.” In the words of Mitchell, “we need a ‘paleontology of the present,’ a rethinking of our condition in the perspective of deep time, in order to produce a synthesis of the arts and sciences adequate to the challenges we face.”
As for my interpretation of the scene and bringing together the ideas of biocybernetic reproduction, I would have the professor merely pull a strand of hair from Maria’s head and then place it into a computer analyzer. This pulls away from the mechanical reproducibility aspects of the film, because the technology is doing all of the work, and not the professor pulling all of the levers. This ties into Mitchell’s ominous idea of “things com[ing] alive.” I would then proceed to showing clips of the computer breaking down the DNA sequences, and then go to a shot of what looks like an MRI machine, while the professor is lounging in a chair reading a paper. As the table goes through, the digital clone of Maria comes out the other end, showing the biocybernetic idea of the “production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images.”
Dan Gorchynsky
TA: David Witzling
According to Mitchell, biocybernetic reproduction is a “combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible” (312). This means that instead of just producing identical copies of things like images or sounds, like mechanical reproduction does, biocybernetic reproduction copies living things and their processes while slightly changing them. The products aren’t exact copies. He argued that biocybernetic reproduction does to the original the exact opposite of what mechanical reproduction did. It improves on the original instead of being inferior to the original.
I’m not exactly sure how I’d change the scene to be more biocybernetic. It already kind of was, because the scientist guy was ‘improving’ on her for his purposes. But I guess that wouldn’t be as obvious if you didn’t understand the intertitles or vaguely know the story. I could change it completely and get rid of the robot and have the scientist make a clone of her, only changing her personality and how impressionable she is by manipulating her DNA or something. Instead of using that contraption to make the robot look like her, there could be all sorts things bubbling in test tubes and Erlenmeyer flasks and the like on a lab bench in a very sterile looking room. He would just have to steal her DNA to make her clone.
Katrina Schwarz
TA: Kate Brandt
Mitchell outlines three key differences between Benjamin’s ideas regarding mechanical reproduction and his own ideas of biocybernetic reproduction. First, Mitchell describes Benjamin’s argument that mechanical reproductions diminish the aura of the original work. Mitchell claims that this is not so, but instead asserts that biocybernetic reproduction can improve upon on the original. Digital technology allows for the removal of imperfections in order to enhance the reproduction to a point perhaps even surpassing the original. Mitchell then goes on to discuss the distance between the artist and work, as well as the work and its model. Benjamin’s metaphor regarding the magician and surgeon compared to the painter and cameraman replaces the cameraman with a virtual designer and the surgeon replaces traditional surgery with virtual surgery. Thus, the distance between the artist and the work both increases and decreases in the age of biocybernetic reproduction. Finally, an erosion of the event combined with a “deepening of the relevant past” has created a sense of acceleration in the current sense of history. Benjamin described a time of immediate danger of his time. Mitchell believes we live in a time of “expectations and anxieties,” with the newest disaster or innovation right around the corner.
In the scene from Metropolis, I would remake it so that Maria is not only reproduced once, but dozens of times, so as to further Freder’s confusion and fear. This reinforces the current idea that machines can take on human characteristics even as they are mass produced.
Joseph Otterson
TA: Laura Bennet
Elizabeth Miller
According to Mitchell, biocybernetic reproduction is a “combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible”. What this quote is generally stating is the fact that we are able to transform an object from it's original state to a completely new level, complex state of form.
The mechanical reproduction has grown into biocybernetic reproduction, especially since we're testing these theories out on humans.
I viewed the scene as already being very biocybernetic. If I had to change a part in the scene, it would have to be the part towards the end where the "robot" was holding onto the guy in clothes. First off, when did the robot get hair and clother. The scientist or professor in this film didn't show you the transformation clearly of this particular scene. I feel that if I were to see this transformation, then I would better grasp the whole concept of this short film. Another scene that caught my eye was the part where I believe the professor was coming out of his room and there was a man sitting outside waiting. We were never thouroughly introduced to this man, so I was wondering who he was throughout the rest of the film. Was he the woman's husband? Did he know what she was doing? Had he realized that she was now biocybernetic?
T.A. Kate Brandt
Elizabeth Miller
The differences between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction that Mitchell put forth in the reading is basically a contrast between the modern and postmodern world. Mitchell had three basic points that about these differences and they are as follows. Firstly, when something was reproduced in the modern era, it was thought to diminish the aura of the original, not possibly enhance the aura of the reproduction so that it's an improvement over the original. Secondly, in the postmodern era there is a state of distance as well as intimacy between the artist, the art work, and its model because of the technology that can interfere or enhance the closeness. Whereas in the modern world, it was a simpler time when even though technology came between the artist and its subject, it couldn't affect it as much. Lastly, the largest difference in Mitchell's own words, "is above all the sense of temporality that is transformed in the age of biocybernetics." This means that the modern era was a time of new beginnings and the technologies were the very first ever seen. Now, in the postmodern world we see and know that everything continues to develop in more advanced ways so we know that nothing will remain the same for long, but will always continue to develop. We now make art with this in mind and it always affects people's artwork, intentionally or not.
The first thing I'd do to update the scene to a biocybernetic reproduction era, would be to change the end result of the robot, so that not only would she look like Maria, she would look twice as good. She would not be changed physically, but she would always look like Maria at her most beautiful. There would be this kind of aura of beauty around her so that it would be plain to see that the false Maria was prettier, even though they both physically were the same. The other thing that I would do to the scene would be to have the scientist operating from a different room with fewer, more precise tools. He might perhaps just be using a computer to control the animation process. This way he could be more in control and precise with only a click of the mouse, yet be further away from the process at the same time. These two changes would be right in line with how the biocybernetic era works. In the first example the reproduction is the better then the original, a key difference between the two eras I've talked about. The second change represents how there is a distance and intimacy with artwork in the biocybernetic era. The scientist is further away from the proceedings, yet can work in a more precise and intimate way. These examples show how the biocybernetic age is one of advancement which makes humans more in tune, yet less in control of the developing technologies.
Travis Torok
TA: Steve Wetzel
Biocybernetic reproduction is a post-modernist idea of converging organic and artificial mediums. What can illustrate this concept is the differing ideas of cyborgs and androids. The cyborg being the man who becomes half or mostly mechanical to the android who is mechanical who becomes mostly human. The dichotomy between the two illustrates a reproduction which strives or represents an improved living being. The copy in this mode is no longer the degraded original, but rather a movement forward. It also has the characteristic of being infinitely malleable. This idea not only adds to the improved ideal but gives a new definition to the deconstructed parts of oneself such as the mapping of the human genome.
To translate this over the scene of Maria’s animation, I would first replace the chair the robot is sitting in and place (her) within the confines of a liquid gel sphere where she is buoyant within the middle. The original (prototype, blueprint) Maria would be laying down on what would like a CT or cat scan device, with a blue light scanning her body up and down. When the scanning is complete electric pulses would be sent into the gel sphere where the particles of the gel would secrete into flesh and blood encapsulating the robot Maria. When all is complete robot Maria comes out of the sphere with her newly born flesh covered with blue tinted ooze while the human Maria lies their motionless on the table.
Nicholas Lawrence
Kevin Witkowski
TA David Witzling
When comparing mechanical reproduction with biocybernetic reproduction, there is one major difference. In mechanical reproduction, the reproduced art is diminished in value and its aura is decreased with every reproduction. In biocybernetic reproduction, however, each reproduction gets better. The reproductions evolve like a living organism, which is why bio, or “living”, is part of the word biocybernetic. The distance between man and machine is diminishing and machines are becoming more human. Biocybernetic reproduction is part of that diminishing distance. Pretty soon, we won’t be able to tell what is human and what is just a clone, a machine, a biocybernetic reproduction.
When I think of biocybernetic reproduction, I think of the physical connection between living organisms and machines. In this scene, the robot just seems to transform into Maria. My vision of biocybernetic rreproduction is most closely related to The Terminator series where the terminator is machine on the inside but still human on the outside. To remake the scene, I would have the scientist put machine parts and computers inside Maria’s body. Or put Maria’s outer body around the robot. Both scenes would be gory but would represent biocybernetic reproduction the best.
I think my new vision represents how close we are to having biocybernetic reproductions. It seems so simple and our computers are advancing so fast that I have to wonder why not. I’m sure with in 20 years, we will see cyborgs (living organisms and machines) everywhere.
Andrew Megow
It is stated, "If Mechanical reproducibilty (photography, cinema, and associated industrial processes like the assembly line) dominated the era of modernism, biocybernetic reproduction (high-speed computing, video, digital imaging, virtual reality, the internet, and the industrialization of genetics engineering) dominates the age that we have called postmodern. (318) Science had always been a part of technology but now we've added the genre of biological science to technology with genetic engineering. Robots in the future will have human emotion rather then just translating, mechanically, a command to serve. We now have that technology and it's really only a matter of time before it happens all over. Mechanical is a emotion-less cold robot who will do what it's told never disobeying unless programed mechanically to do so.
There's a lot of action happening in the scene (Test tubes bubbling, machine part moving etc.) But I feel the postmodern version of 'Metropolis' would show a less action-packed sequence. With technology, the machine maybe would scan her once and the scan the robot once as well and that would be it. No other special effects. The computer would do the rest. Then scanning the robot a second time delivering the bot all necessary information and the shows over. Another gimick would be it would take about the same time it takes to burn a CD. It's interesting to compare this concept to burning to a CD because one day it just might be that easy to clone something.
TA: Laura Bennett
In Mitchell’s “In the Age of Biocybernetic Reproduction”, he argues the differences between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction by inserting Benjamin’s analysis of mechanical reproduction. He begins with three key points starting with preserving the aura of an original object. In the modern era the machine reproducibility could make copies, but the biocybernetics can improve and enhance the original. Mitchell uses cloning as an example, “Cloning is a process which, in principle, is meant not only to produce an identical twin of the original organic tissue or organism, but to produce an improved and enhanced copy”. His second key point is the relation between artist and work and work and its model. Benjamin used the magician and surgeon and the painter and the cameraman as figures to describe the mechanical reproduction while Mitchell says biocybernetics allow the surgeon and cameraman to be more distant and yet intimate with their objects. Mitchell’s third key point is how we “produce a particular sense of ‘accelerated stasis’ in our sense of history”. We feel that everything is about to happen or perhaps it already happened”. Mitchell uses dinosaurs as an example, because we have brought extinct species back to life through biocybernetic reproduction with art and science.
In Lang’s 1927 film “Metropolis”, I would change the sense of modernism to postmodernism by ways of cloning. Instead of the electricity and mad scientist, I would have a simple doctor’s laboratory with beakers and DNA molecules all around. The doctor would be splicing different DNA’s, including Maria’s. It represents our current age of biocybernetics because of the use of cloning. Instead of making a copy of Maria, I would change her original by enhancing or improving her to the doctor’s wishes.
Carly Rieder
TA: David Witzling
When a piece of work is mechanically reproduced, the aura of the original work decreases. However when a piece of work is biocybernetically reproduced, this is not the case. With each biocybernetic reproduction, it gets better and better. Biocybernetic reproduction is “the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible” (312). The combination of the two opens up a whole new world that wasn't possible with mechanical reproduction. A mechanically reproduced item cannot in reality live. To mechanically reproduce something would be like to place it in a copy machine and copy it. With biocybernetic reproduction, not only is it a copy of the appearance, but it is also a copy of the biological stuff.
In the scene from “Metropolis”, I would change the way she was reproduced. It looked as though lightning was connecting Maria to 'False Maria'. While this may get the appearance of Maria, how can it copy the genetics? I would make it so that it is quite obvious that her biological information is being copied as well as her physical aspects. It doesn't seem realistic that genetic information could be passed through wires. I would try to make it more realistic.
Sara Nesbitt
Kate Brandt
After reading the article written by Mitchell, I was able to find some key differences between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction. Mitchell uses three counterpoints to the Benjamin analysis of mechanical reproduction to show the differences between the two. “… first, the copy is no longer an inferior or decayed relic of the original, but is an principle an improvement on the original; second, the relation between the artist and work, the work and its model, is both more distant and more intimate than anything possible in the realm of mechanical reproduction; and third, a new temporality, characterized by an erosion of the event and a deepening the relevant past, produces a peculiar sense of ‘accelerated stasis’ in our sense of history” (Mitchell 319). It is easy to find these differences because they came about at different times in history, Benjamin was writing between World Wars and now in this postmodernism era we are surrounded by technology and new ways of thinking. Mitchell uses the example of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator 2: Judgment day to represent the battling differences in the ‘traditional robot’ and the ‘new-model terminator’ composed of ‘living metal.’
If I were to remake the scene from Metropolis today using the current age of biocybernetics I would try and use the counterpoints from above. First not only would the copy ‘false Maria’ look exactly like Maria but she would be better; smarter, beautiful, etc. Next instead of Maria and the ‘false Maria’ laying far from one another they would be connected by the hand and the artist would be transferring Maria’s DNA into the ‘false Maria’. And lastly connecting Maria’s thoughts or past with flashes of the ‘boyfriend’ stuck outside waiting for Maria. If I did these things correctly then according to Mitchell the scene would fit right into the biocybernetic era.
Kirk McCamish
T.A. Steve Wetzel
In the article, “The Work of Art in the Age of Biocybernetic Reproduction”, Mitchell argues a few key differences about the media reproduction of today, verses the media reproduction of the mechanical age. Mitchell begins by stating that the main important detail about the reproduction of art in the age of mechanical reproduction is that it could be easily manufactured, leading to efficient distribution to the masses. However, in the age of art being reproduced in the biocybernetic age, Mitchell takes a step back and takes a new look at art. According to Mitchell, “Biocybernetic reproduction is, in its narrowest sense, the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible” (312). This means that art is more than just pictures that can be reproduced, art in this age is the combination of the human intellect and technological advances, creating new ways to express oneself physically and cybernetically.
The scene from Metropolis (Fritz Lang ,1927) could be changed to better visualize biocybernetic reproduction by combining both the human intellect as well as computer aid. The original scene shows the scientist pulling levers and flipping switches in order to bring the machine woman to life. If the scene were changed, a scientist could be shown entering data into a computer, showing a model of what the artificial woman would look like. Afterwards, the scene could present a woman exiting an incubator, fully grown after quickly being cloned and genetically engineered to be exactly as the creator saw on the computer screen.
Mark Scholbrock
TA: Kate Brandt
Mitchell states from the onset that mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction have very different aims. Whereas mechanical reproduction typically involved “’mass production’ of commodities or ‘mass reproduction’ of identical images”, biocybernetic reproduction involves recreating the “biological sciences and the production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images.” (Mitchell 318). The former involves reproduction of an inanimate object whose aura is lost in the process whereas the latter includes the potential creation of an “engineered organism”. Mitchell identifies three consequences of biocybernetic reproduction, each of which has a counterpart in mechanical reproduction. Biocybernetic reproduction creates a copy which, unlike mechanically reproduced copies, may be better than the original. In addition, the relationship between the artist and work, in biocybernetics, is closer in some respects than in mechanically reproduced works and at the same time, more distant. Mitchell refers to Benjamin’s analogy of the magician and surgeon (painter and cameraman) and puts a post-modern spin on it by describing the work in terms of the electronic architect and surgeon using “virtual” techniques. Lastly, Mitchell notes the effect on the sense of “temporality”. At the same time technological advances are opening up new avenues of science and possibilities, he notes we live with a sense that nothing changes. In fact, change, itself, doesn’t change.
If I remade this scene, Maria would be drugged and placed on a table where the professor would take a skin scraping and then put it under a large microscope-like device that is connected to a wide screen that would show DNA images. The lighting would be bright and the setting very clinical. The professor would start the computer program, telling Maria, who is only partly conscious, that he was not only copying her DNA but that he was rewriting some of the code to improve her clone. There would be a lighted glass tank in the scene which would begin to glow to demonstrate something was happening. In a matter of minutes, the new Maria would begin to appear. First the bones would develop, then the internal organs would form. The veins and arteries would begin to appear, spreading over the mass like a spider web. Next, muscle tissue would form, starting at the chest and spreading outward and finally skin layers would appear, eventually enveloping the form and giving it human characteristics. Maria’s face and hair would be the last to form but with much harsher, more evil features than the original Maria. With the clone complete, her eyes would open and she would begin moving. The final action of this scene would be the new Maria killing the original.
My vision of the reanimation scene is pretty much rooted in the biocybernetic theme. From a viewer’s perspective and considering the commercial value of a film, it would be difficult to step back from the remarkable images we’ve seen in recent science fiction films. Viewers have come to expect more and more amazing special effects. Most viewers have had some exposure through newspapers, magazines or at least movie theaters to the latest research in life sciences. The flashing lights, bubbling liquids and arching electrical currents in the original film just wouldn’t be enough to capture the attention and imagination of today’s movie audience.
TA: K. Brandt
As Mitchell explains on page 318 of the text, "Reproduction and reproducibility mean something quite different now when the central issues of technology are no longer 'mass production' of commodities or 'mass reproduction' of identical images, but the reproductive processes of the biological sciences and the production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images." Mitchell is breaking down the idea that today's era is no longer about the integration of industry and humans, but about the integration of humans and technology. Instead of assembly lines, photographs and cinema we now focus on the "bios" and "cyber" part of reproduction. This consists of aspects like computing, digital imagery and the Internet. Another good example of this idea of mechanical reproducibility transforming into biocybernetic reproduction is on page 319 when Mitchell says, "What does it mean when the paradigmatic object on the assembly line is no longer a mechanism but an engineered organism?" Mitchell is explaining how the old-fashioned mechanical aspect is now the biocybernetic aspect in today's society. The original idea of this mechanical or robotic machine, has turned into this biocybernetic or living organism.
For the remaking of the scene, I would've chosen to show the false Maria being virtually reborn in some kind of amniotic sac full of fluid (much like the scene from The Matrix with Neo). Then I would've cut to a seen of her looking and acting exactly like the real Maria, but you would not be able to tell the difference because the false Maria is so life-like. In other words I never would've shown any type of robotic or mechanical features because the false Maria would be a biocybernetic organism. This new scene would represent our age of biocybernetics perfectly because the false Maria would not seem like a robot at all, she would be more of a cybernetic clone.
Connor Murray
TA: Katherine Brandt
Mechanical reproduction cannot be altered. Every reproduction of the original piece of work takes the aura away from the original. Biocybernetic reproduction is alterable; different people can change it over time. “Reproduction and reproducibility mean something quite different now when the central issues of technology are no longer ‘mass production’ of commodities or ‘mass reproduction’ of identical images, but the reproductive processes of the biological sciences and the production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images” (Mitchell 318). As each of these alterations creates a new version of the previous work, it does not take away from the original. Biocybernetic reproduction also distances the artist and their art considerably farther than it would with mechanical reproduction. It also causes a strange sense of “accelerated stasis” in our sense of history. I would remake the scene in Fritz Lang’s Metropolis where the false Maria is created to make multiple Maria’s instead of just one evil one. Each time a new one was made a different personality to go with it. This would be representative of biocybernetic reproduction because no two Marias would be exactly alike, each one would be changed in some way and that would make no one Maria better than the others. In other words, one Maria wouldn’t take away the aura of another Maria.
Nelson Schneider
TA: Kate Brandt
Mechanical reproducibility has been around for ages, as long as an object could be made, it could be reproduced. However, we are just now entering an age of biocybernetic reproduction. Mitchell discusses the idea that mechanical reproduction was simply the redevelopment and redistribution of an object, whether it is art or commodity. Biocybernetic reproduction, however, is the process of creating a better product from an original. This is achieved, not by human power, by the “cybernetic” powers that have been created by humans. We are no longer creating products with our hands, but instead producing them with computer programs. In Mitchell’s words, we have come to the age where machines and tools have become “intelligent, adaptable creatures” and humans have been reduced to the tools that create these objects.
In order this scene of Metropolis to translate into the “age of biocybernetic reproduction” a number of changes would need to be made to the machine’s power over the process. In this original, the scientist is pulling levers in order to create an electric pulse that eventually creates the “false Maria.” However, the idea that electricity reproduces life has been abandoned many years ago. Instead, my representation of this scene would include the scientist taking blood from Maria and placing only a tiny drop into a machine. From this moment on, the machine would do all of the work, and the scientist would simply sit in a chair while the cloning process continues. We are clearly in an age of technological power, and we are surrounded by machines that are powerful and smarter than us.
Mitchell Keller
TA. Laura Bennett
Mechanical reproduction is described as the original means of reproducing objects to the masses. It is mostly associated with media and the replication of art; the idea that images and entities can be transported anywhere. Biocybernetic reproduction has taken reproduction to a new scientific level. While mechanical reproduction focuses on copying something, biocybernetic seems to bring it to life. The article puts it simply that “Biocybernetic reproduction is, in its narrowest sense, the combination of computer technology and biological science” (312). The two together offer a heightened experience in media, one that is convenient but also gives a sense of originality.
For the scene in Metropolis, I would spend even more time with the transformation of Maria. Because she is portrayed as such a heavenly figure throughout the whole first part of the film, I feel like her change should have more emphasis, just as the change of reproduction has spanned over long periods of time in history and technology. It would show how every part of her is different, but the process also shows that the basic image of her remains the same. She is a robot, but still Maria the robot.
Cassie Hutzler
Steve Wetzel
Unlike the modern era where machines were used in mechanical reproduction, the postmodern era uses organic substances, cells, and DNA converged with computer and digital technology for biocybernetic reproduction. Reproduction and reproducibility would no longer rely on mass production and reproduction of identical images but rather the biological process of creating living, malleable, and digitally animated images. He contrasts the ideas of mechanical and biocybernetic reproduction in three categories. He argues that the copy is no longer inferior or degraded, but rather a new and improved version of the original where the copy can have more aura by the deletion of flaws and returning the original to a new and improved state. Second, the relationship between the artist and work and work and the model is both more intimate and more distant at the same time. An example being that the cyber artist operates within a closer and more distant relation to the real. Lastly, the formation of a new temporality, exemplified by the importance being shifted from that of the event toward the importance of the past, which is said to produce an “accelerated stasis in our sense of history”.
In this scene from metropolis, Maria’s image is mechanically reproduced onto the robot in the modern age. The laboratory is filled with machines and levers that the scientist is continually shifting and controlling. The many lights and electrical currents add to the mechanics of the operation. Her image is inevitably superimposed over the robot as an identical copy lacking its original aura of human quality. In order to change this scene to represent the era of biocybernetic reproduction, the laboratory would not be filled with machines, but rather the likes of Petri dishes test tubes and incubators. The tools would be accompanied by computers capable of mapping and manipulating the human genome. The scientist would take a sample of Maria’s DNA, would map it on the computer and “fix” any problems with her genetic code. He would use this revamped code to grow a new and improved clone of Maria. In this way her aura would not only be preserved but if anything improved. The clone of Maria would be far more humanistic than any robot prototype. Thus, the processes leading to and the product that is Maria’s clone follow suit with the above stated summery of biocybernetics.
[Garrett Katerzynske]
[David Witzling]
To start with let's look at Mitchell's definition of biocybernetic reproduction' "the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible" (p. 201). Mitchell argues that biocybernetic is different than mechanical reproduction in many ways. He explains how biocybernetic is an actual "living matter," or to term it differently technology which actually comes alive with senses, feelings, and emotions. In contrast to biocybernetic, the mechanical is a form of robotic material completely absent of any biological elements. Biocybernetic is the combination of biological and technological combined together to make new, "alive", almost life form, and robotic reproduction. The mechanical is something is not a combination nor can it ever be combined with something from biology; cells from humans or animals, strands of hair, or any other organic elements.
In the scene, I would change by combing mechanical and biocybernetic reproduction in a large, white, clean room. There are old fashioned robots in the background, which represents old mechanical reproduction. A scientist is typing away on a computer and next to him on a long table, there are robot machines which are doing all of the work. There is a close up shot of robotic machine sorting out cells with a needle. Next shot is back to the scientist, looking at a computer screen and on the screen, there is a DNA helix being matched up to create new DNA. The machine is actually completing the task for the scientist. Next shot will be a close up shot of a growth disk with cells reproducing. There is Maria sitting waiting impatiently. The scientist comes up to her and said that she has been cloned ten times. There are shots of cells being cloned of Maria. After all of that rapid growth, ten cloned Marias are standing in a line facing the scientist.
Catie Eller
TA: Steve Wetzel
1) Mitchell argues that the focus of mechanical reproduction was the connection it made between human beings and the industry but that focus has shifted into the connections between human beings and newer technology, which he calls biocybernetic reproduction. He states that because of this shift, “item on the assembly line is no longer a mechanism but an engineered organism.” Rather than simply reproduce an object (or product), each item reproduced has the capability of adapting and changing much like a biological being instead of a mechanic one. As a result of this many newer hybrid forms of art are being created but it is not always a pleasant happening. “Perhaps the most disturbing or provocative of biocybernetic art, however, is work that does not attempt to represent the genetic revolution but instead participates in it.” (Mitchell 327) He then goes on to explain the absurdity of mixing jelly fish DNA with that of a rabbit, and the “cutting edge of art and engineering” being the collective of creative genes to advance the human race. Mitchell’s conclusion is not to condemn the bastardization of biocybernetic reproduction when human become machines and machines become human, but to clearly understand that the focus of reproduction has shifted with this new form of work. Things no longer crumble but rather, as Mitchell puts it, “things come alive.”
2) In a re-envisioning of this scene to better reflect the biocybernetic reproduction the first thing I would change would be the inventor. He would not be a human being entirely, but rather mostly robotic. His laboratory would not be cluttered with old, useless tools and bubbling glass cauldrons. It would be circular with good Maria on one end encased in a slime filled pod. On the other end would be the evil robot Maria in a similar pod. Connecting the two would be many long tubes running along the floor to the center of the room and up into a giant red glowing sphere. In this way not only has the scenery been updated for a modern cleanliness, but also the pods of slime suggest a biologically engineered way (rather than a purely electronic one) of transferring the essence of Maria into the robot. The inventor would represent on a literal plain the combination of new, changing technology and human life. As well, the evil robot Maria would be a less obvious form of that.
Robert Francis Curtis
TA: Stephen Wetzel
In “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” Walter Benjamin explains the relationship between a piece of original artwork and its reproducible image. He believes that a piece of artwork has an aura to it that is diminished when it is reproduced. At the same time, when an art piece is copied and distributed, it is able to go where the original could not. For example, an image of the Mona Lisa can be displayed on a screen in a classroom for students to examine, where as the original would not be able to. In Mitchell’s “In the Age of Biocybernetic Reproduction,” he discusses the evolution of the man and machine. “Biocybernetic reproduction is, in its narrowest sense, the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible.” (201) Instead of artwork decreasing value as it advances in reproduction with technology, biocyberneitic reproduction makes the human better – more technologically advanced.
Because technology has obviously come a long way from 1927, there are many aspects to change in the scene from “Metropolis.” In the actual scene, colored water boils in flasks and lightning strikes Maria’s cage which then turns the robot human. If updated, I would most definitely add multiple computer props into the scene get rid of the old science lab clichés such as the test tubes and elaborate flask systems. DNA data would be shown on the screen of every computer in order to emphasize that a person is represented by their DNA and therefore, when transferred into the robot, makes the robot human.
Alison Korth
Laura Bennett
"A combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible" That is how Mitchell defines biocybernetic reproduction. The main difference between biocybernetic reproduction and mechanical reproduction is that mechanical reproduction makes EXACT copies of images and other such things. While things that are biocybernetically reproduced are copies of living things that are very slightly altered in a way that is either pleasing to the audience or not. The end result isn't an exact replica of the original. He says that biocybernetically reproducing things does so much more than mechanical reproduction could ever do. It improves the original.
To improve or make the scene evenmore biocybernetically reproducible i would fisrt off not make the woman copy be a robot. I would make her a clone or something. I feel like that would make her more real and have a different personality. Also instead of there just being one single copy make a bunch of copies of the same woman but make the clones a different personality for different purposes. Chup that's how you "improve" upon that scene.
Mechanical reproduction is just a simple copy of the original image. The image has not become better or worse it is the exact same. In biocybernetic reproduction the item actually becomes better, it is a better made clone of the original item. When combining computer technology and biological technology that is when biocybernetic is actually created. The scene in "Metropolis" is already pretty biocybernetic. I think this because the scientist isn't just directly cloning the robot or directly cloning the women. He is combining both the women and the robot to create a much better outcome. Which would be a great outcome, you would have the perfection of a robot being able to do almost anything, but then I suppose the liveliness of a human being. The only way I would say to improve the scene is make it more realistic and believable on what the scientist is actually doing. We see lots of lightening but how is that really transferring the different biological and mechanical things. I think this scene would be created much more simple in post modernism. In the current scene the scientist really looks like he is struggling and doing a lot of work to create her but we all know how much technology advances. So the scientist simply would not have this problem. I think something would have to collect the image of Maria and then transfer that image over to another device that would easily make multiple versions of her, but with very little hassle of the scientist.
Amber Blanchard
TA: David Witzling
Mitchell's argument in the differences between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction is that the mechanical reproduction has “outlived its usefulness and is ready to be replaced by the more ...biocybernetics.” (319) This means that mechanical reproduction shaped its time with the creation of photography, cinema, and other things but that time is over and mechanical reproduction has grown into something new. Biocybernetics is “the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible.” meaning it takes the basic ideas of mechanical reproduction and expands it by not only replicating the basics but the entire living entity not only allowing it to be replicated but upgraded.
Metropolis was a movie that seems far ahead of its time. It makes it seem as though an exact copy of Maria was formed but with an altered personality. This is the close to the basic idea of biocybernetic. In order to transform this scene into the age of biocybernetic reproduction, I would eliminate the uses of the machine that is shown. The use of electricity is something found in the age of Frankenstein. Instead the scientist would extract DNA sample from Maria and implanting it into a body residing in a tank waiting to take on human form. Once the scientist inserts the DNA into the body and Maria’s clone is formed, a machine would than scan her mind for information and personality profiling to create a match. The scientist would than be able to pick and choose the qualities of Maria’s he wanted and create his own as well.
Zachery Holder
TA: Laura Bennet
Biocybernetic reproduction is different in the fact that it focuses now and a combination of biology and technology. It includes things such as cloning. another key difference is that Mechanical reproduction remakes something exactly the same or worse than the original. Wile Biocybernetic reproduction remakes the original and makes it better too. the line between man and man made is also beginning to fade or waver.
If i were to remake the scene in the film, "Metropolis," i would make his reproduction a clone instead of a robot. the new clone will also be more beautiful and smarter than the original woman. Instead of being brought to life by a very primitive looking machine that electrifies the robot to give her life. The clone will have data downloaded into its brain by a basic looking yet very advanced computer.
Zach Cosby
TA kate
T.J. Waite
The differences between mechanical reproduction and biocybernetic reproduction is that if you were to make two of the same thing, one would be identical to the other and one would have the same thought but just be a little better. Mechanical reproduction is the first one, being the same, almost like an identical twin of some sort. As for biocybernetic reproduction it is making something of the same with improvements. The scene in Metropolis is just that, biocybernetic reproduction because of the way the scientist does his creation. He is in the process of creating something unheard of which is combining the women and the robot into a female robot that has feelings. The combo of computers and biologic was used in order to make this all “come alive”. I don’t like this idea of cloning “someone” to “something,” because I feel as though it is unfair to humans living inside the robot and the others that have to live with living technology. On the other hand you have just created something that could change the world and end up helping people in the everyday world. If I were to re-create this scene I would first try and see how I could get the lighting to make the scene come alive. The scene to me is way to fake; the lightening is all mixed up and looks sloppy. I would change the way that looks by making it look more real as if the human was picked up and thrown into the robots body. possibly shaking the camera as if the lighting was affecting the audience so much that they have no idea what to expect when seeing the robot for the first time after the transaction.
T.J. Waite
TA- Steven Wetzel
Mitchell argues that the age of mechanical reproduction has slowly but surely become the age of biocybernetic reproduction. Biocybernetic reproduction, according to Mitchell, improves on the original, and is a “production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images.” During the age of mechanical reproduction, items were man-made- photographs were printed in a dark room, cinema was done on film, and mass quantities of product were made using assembly lines of people. Biocybernetic reproduction, with its computers and technologically produced items, has now taken over the age of mechanical reproduction. Nearly everything is made with technology in our postmodern era- photographs as well as cinema are digital and can be digitally altered if they are not perfect, and assembly lines are not used anymore because of machine technology that allows everything to be made in the exact same way. Essentially, the age of biocybernetic reproduction that Mitchell speaks of could be considered as an age of cloning. Mitchell states that because of this era, the living is reduced to a “tool or machine,” while a tool or machine is made to be “an intelligent, adaptable creature.”
As for the scene from “Metropolis,” I would make it more fitting to the age of biocybernetic reproduction by making it so the transition from robot to human is more of a smooth transition. Also, I would make it so the guy does not have to pull so many levers, because that makes it seem like it is HIS doing. To be more biocybernetically reproduced, it should seem as if the machine is doing the entire transformation, not the scientist.
Bryn Unger
TA Laura Bennett
In Mitchell's essay he describes biocybernetic reporduction as a “combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible”. So not only copying or cloning media, but he is also talking about modern science and its ability to clone living material. Which is interesting because we have, throught the semester, been talking about 'living' media. The computer technology used now days not only allows someone to easily reproduce and image, but they can completly change the original piece.
If I were to change the original piece for Fritz Langz "Metropolis" I would make the scene have many more special effects, than just fadding in and out and lights. Now days it would not be diffucult to create a CGI composite of a human and robot for the transition, or you could do the whole scene in CGI with just people as models. Also I would most likely stray away from the music and camera angles that are being used, because both would date the film. For its time it was very amazing for people to see, but now days people need something more. They want special effects, and intersting shots, and editing. I would also show what all the tubes and and stuff boiling did. Maybe show the bodily fluids being taken from the woman and transfered to the cyborg. Much like in a funeral home, when they take the floods out. Because it would show how she is no longer living, but this new composite being is 'alive'.
MARCO CANNESTRA
TA: Kate
The heart of Mitchell's argument is this- simply reproducing art isn't enough anymore, Benjamin's aura of the original is dead, cult value is no longer associated with the original and "Everything is about to happen, or prehaps it has already happened without our noticing it." (Mitchell 322) Technologically, we live in an era, "Caught between the utopian fantasies of biocynernetics and the dystopian realities of biopolitics, between the rhetoric or the posthuman and the real urgency of universal human rights..." (335) Essentially, "We have the technology; we can rebuild" but should we? With the prospect of biocybernetic reproduction, new ethical problems emerge foreign from mechanical reproduction. In short- things are getting sticky.
I would reconstruct this scene as a pharmaceutical ad. There would be an "uninformed consumer" someone resistant to biocybernetics, still clinging to old/imperfect human ways, and a bioethics "expert" (a profession that requires fewer credentials than we expect from a hairdresser, (311)) explaining that biocybernetic reproduction is a natural transition. In stark contrast to the 1927 scene the transition would be smooth and effortless, no "scary science" it'd be as simple as taking a few pills every week. My vision reflects not only the new age of biocybernetic reproduction by preaching the benefits to humans and distressing the moral implications, but appeal to a modern advertising approach which rings true in today's market.
Meghan Strobel
TA- Steve Wetzel
“Biocybernetic reproduction is, in its narrowest sense, the combination of computer technology and biological science”. (312) Mitchell defines biocybernetic reproduction as such and says that mechanical reproduction has come to be this, but they are different. Mechanical reproduction is more of a relation between the industry and humans. Where people would produce something mechanical and it would be just that and nothing more. Now in the age of biocybernetic reproduction those mechanical products are starting to mimic and adapt for themselves.
I would remake this scene and bring biocybernetic reproduction in by getting rid of all the levers, wires, and glass beakers with the liquid in them and replace the entire setting with a simplistic switch board that has a main computer. The man scientists would then type something things to initiate the process and then just steps back and lets it happen, he doesn’t not need to go and type more things throughout the process the computer would just take over and do all of the work. The process would not take as long either. This represents the present age of biocybernetics because the computer/machine is doing the majority of the work.
Doug Mellon
TA: Steve Wetzel
In Mechanical Reproducibility Mitchell talks of “mass production of commodities and mass reproduction of identical images.” In the past People were the creators, and machines were the reproducers. Lithography, founding, and stamping were tools used only to duplicate. In the Age of Biocybernetic Reproduction, Mitchell talks of computers creating things never thought possible. He also talks of our newfound tools being more human than actually tools. He thinks that we have now become the tools. “The reduction of a living being to a tool or machine and the elevation of a mere tool or machine to the level of an intelligent, adaptable creature.”
If I were to recreate this scene I would get rid of the evil laboratory. I would only need a computer. The Doctor would take some DNA from Maria and put it into his computer. The work for him would be effortless. I like this idea because the real creator of the robot would be the computer not the doctor. This makes the computer a mad scientist in a way. This goes along with what Mitchell was saying about tools being more alive.
Matthew Axberg
Katherine Brandt
Coming from Mitchell, biocybernetic reproduction is The “Combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible.” p.483. what i think Mitchell was say ing this quote is that with these new discoveries in science you can take something and change it into something better. Using it as a form of health helping people around the world making them better in all senses. When it comes to Mechanical reproduction when something is reproduced it starts to lose its “Aura,” making the original piece losing is value. But comparing the two, using biocybernetic reproduction it does not lose its aura it gets better, in mechanical reproduction it gets worse.
For the second part of have watched this scene before in another class and when I seen for the first time I thought they actually did a very good job at displaying the idea of biocybernetics for their time. But if i could have the chance to remake this scene I would have maria strand of hair removed and placed in the computer. When the computer reads the DNA and the other information from the hair the computer would automatically change the old maria and not make a new one. There for there would never be any proof of the old maria being changed to the robot. During the process of doing this all the doctor would have to do is press one button and the transformation would instantly take place. Unlike in the science including electricity and lots of movement showing that it is a difficult procedure. By doing it this new way it would show that in this new age of technology the procedure is easy and painless.
Brad Schiefelbein
TA: Laura Bennet
Mitchell is making three arguments in response to current technology as it relates to art and reproduction. First that a copy is an improvement of the original, second that technology allows the artist to be more distant and intimate from their artwork than ever before, and third that we have a sense of “accelerated stasis” in regards to history. In that “Everything is about to happen or perhaps it has already happened without our noticing it.”
There are a few things I would change without getting into too many details. First, I would have the scientist and the leader in an observation room high above the lab to show the god-like actions they are about to take. Also, robots that are somewhat humanoid, showing another step of separation from the work, should do all of the work. At some point, a comment should be made stating how this isn’t the first time this procedure has been utilized. Creating the “new” Maria should involve a lot of genetic manipulation, “improving” on the original Maria. These should include; an increase of glamour, breast enlargement, longer hair, whiter teeth, and physical strength. The “false” Maria should have all of the attributes that meet current standards of beauty.
Nathan Irish
TA Kate Brandt
The essential difference between a mechanical reproduction and a biocybernetic reproduction is form of originality. A mechanical reproduction is mimic of an original art piece which sort of degrades the original because there’s another copy of it. It also degrades the piece because the copies take away from the piece’s aura and creates more of a distraction than a contemplation. A biocybernetic reproduction is also a mimic, however it functions just as the original if not better because it’s new and can be made without flaws. For example a clone could be considered better than the original person because the clone is genetically formulated to mimic the personality of the person however the engineer can decide if the clone would carry all of the traits of an original person. The original person could be sterile but the clone however, fertile giving the clone the upper hand.
If I were to remake this scene I would get rid of all the gadgets and potions replace them with a laptop and maybe a few fluids needed to generate the body. There wouldn’t be a robot but an actual body that is very similar to the “real Maria” and both bodies would be laid out on tables in a lab room. The lab room wouldn’t be as dramatic either, just a basic white room with dim lighting so that majority of the energy in the room could generate between the two women. All of my formulas would be online and with the entry of a few codes the2nd body would begin to activate. My new vision reflects the simplicity and convenience of technology because I wouldn’t need all of those potions and gadgets just a body with similar physical and maybe even genetic traits of Maria and a computer with a program that is able to transform a type of encoding that can bring life to a body.
Venise Watson
David Witzling
Mitchell defines biocybernetic reproduction as, "The combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible." This can be broken down into parts. Most importantly,it is relating to the aura of artwork. In the age of mechanical eproduction, one piece of artwork is reproduced a vast number of times and thus becomes less meaningfull. But with biocybernetic reproduction, something is added to the piece, making it better than before. Things are ever evolving, but to what cost? How long will this last before things go wrong?
In the clip, they are trying to reproduce Maria, but actually create a monster. This is similar to the Matrix movies, where humans were so dependent of machines and evolving technology that they made the machines too smart and they overthrew the humans. If I were to update this scene, i would use more emphasis on th machine aspect of the cloning, instead of the scientist. It would be in a white room, with mechanical arms, like those that build cars, constructing the "new" Maria. This would give a feel of a production line, that we are no longer personal and individual.
Mitchell updates Benjamin’s theory from the modern era of mechanical reproduction to his own theory for the postmodern era called biocybernetic reproduction. In the age of biocybernetic reproduction we cannot only reproduce images, but the copies that we produce are now “an improvement on the original”; no longer are they “inferior or [a] decayed relic of the original”(319). There has also been a “genetic revolution” so that we now have the power to reproduce life forms through the technology of cloning. The tools of this new era have become high-speed computers, digital imaging, the Internet, and genetic engineering leaving the tools of the modern era like photography and cinema behind. These new tools give the artist a certain separation from their art as well as a new intimacy. The artist is separated by the new tools that they perform most of their work on instead of dealing with real materials. Yet the artist is now able to change the very essence of something instead of just trying to represent it.
With a few crucial changes, one could update the scene in “Metropolis” for the biocybernetic reproduction era. Instead of having a machine that is masked by the appearance of Maria, Maria would be cloned from her own DNA by the evil doctor to create an almost exact copy. The scene would show the doctor removing a strand of Maria’s hair and putting it in a machine that would show her DNA on a computer screen. The evil doctor would then be seen manipulating the DNA; changing the “good” or moral gene in Maria into a “bad” or immoral gene so that he could manipulate the new Maria to do his will. Well this is clearly a downgrade from the original of Maria to most, it shows that with these new technologies in the age of biocybernetic reproduction the power of changing an original work of art or even a human being is still left in the hands of humans who may not always choose to change something for the better but instead change it for their own personal gain.
Lanae Smith
TA David Witzling
Mitchell was saying that with mechanical reproduction, we can recreate things such as works of art, through pictures, printing, movie, and television. Through these means people were able to see things that before you would have to travel to see. Then comes the postmodern age of bioybernetic reproduction which brought us high speed internet digital reproduction, and so on. This allowed people to now make even less effort to see images, in fact it made it easier to see reproduced images, and videos. Especially the internet, when u simply have to go to google, and search for anything such as The Mona Lisa, and BAM! You have billions or digital reproduced images of the famous painting.
If I was to remake the scene of animating the robot I would use similar visuals as in John Hughes Weird Science. In fact that scene in which the two main characters create there dream girl from the computer is a perfect example. They take elements of different girls from magazines and what not and create a cyber girl on the computer, than bring her to life using the computer. In this scene I would have the mad scientist working on a computer to represent the modern age of having most reproductions found on the internet, and then once the mad scientist has finished creating the girl on the computer I would have him send the information to a lazer which would represent the high seed computing, and then it would animate the robot girl. That is how I would remake this scene.
Kate
Mechanical reproduction is the physical act of reproducing through means of exterior machines. This refers to the mass producing of artwork and other forms of media. Biocybernetic reproduction pertains to the living side of reproduction, such as cloning. Also, it connects to the rise of the internet and how it allows people to be paired with machines. Mitchell states the definition of biocybernetic reproduction as, “the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible,” (Mitchell 312).
One of the main things that I would change in this scene to make it include biocybernetic reproduction is the robot. Biocybernetic reproduction refers to the human biology and the robot should reflect this. The robot would look and seem much more like a human. It would have synthetic human skin and look and act like a human. Also the process for animating the robot would be different. There would not be electricity everywhere, there would be just a simple wire connected to the robot. This reflects the future of technology and the simplicity that it allows. The cord would be similar to a newborn baby’s umbilical cord, connecting with the biocybernetic reproducibility that Mitchell describes.
-Charlie Ripple
T.A. Kate Brandt
In Mitchell’s article he claims early on that he is not writing a new “artistic manifesto,” or claiming Benjamin’s work is faulty. Rather, he is making an addendum for a new age, the age of Biocybernetic Reproduction. As we close the gap between what is made and what is born, and edge ever closer to “making things in our image,” the concepts of art evolve as well. Mitchell comments on the perfection of the reproduction, to the point where a reproduction now has more value than it’s original; an improvement rather than a degradation. Also, with the advent of the virtual space (and even the virtual life), the proximity between an replicator and his work is ever closer, yet infinitely distant.
In a modern remake of the scene, the concept of robotics is no longer horrifying. A biocybernetic Maria would not be a robot, but rather a clone. An externally identical replica which could perform it’s function better, Maria would be stronger, smarter, and more seductive than her original. Also, the process by which she were created would be different. Rotwang would need only a hair, a small, intimate portion of the subject, to replicate her. A hair brings Rotwang both intimately close with Maria, while still pushing him far away from her actual existence. He would place the hair into a machine, again pushing him away, and then see a render of the “new” Maria, highlighting her improvements. This “erotic” showcasing of the new, would once again bring the Creator into the intimacies of his Creation.
Zach Erdmann
TA Kate Brandt
I believe I can best make my point by quoting Mitchell's ideas toward the mechanical reproduction of art. "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence." (222) As society mixes art with industry we find ourselves viewing art in a completely different way. Traditional methods of producing art, (i.e. painting, drawing, sculpting) have been replaced by more modern approaches (i.e. Photoshop, 3-d design) Perhaps we have gained a better idea of what art is by expanding on techniques, (people still paint, draw and sculpt) but maybe we have lost something. "The uniqueness of a work of art is inseparable from being imbedded in the fabric of tradition." (223) Tradition represents cultural ties to art. In the 15th century no one would have believed you if you tried to explain a computer to them. In the early 19th century the same is true. Both eras produced a form of art that was culturally bound to that era. They used the tools available to them. In the 19th century a unique development happened. Photography became available. The ability to reproduce an image became an easy task and with it came a more mechanical feeling to art. Art was readily available in mass quantity. This changed the face of art, made it more commercial and less unique, perhaps. With a new age at our doorsteps we find ourselves in the era of bio-cybernetic reproduction. We are able to give life to a once mechanical process. It may not be a surprise a short time from now when a robot wakes up one morning, readies the coffee, and sits down in front of a fresh canvas and starts to create. This raises an interesting question, have we lost our humanity by handing over basic humanistic functions to robots or have we expanded upon our humanity by giving parts of ourselves to things not living?
To recreate the video down below I believe one thing is missing. I would focus more on the technical aspects of transferring one consciousness to another. It feels too much like Frankenstien's monster to be believable. There is a current study going on, they are attempting to copy consciousness/brain functions using nano technology. Little nano-bots are put into a body and they make their way to your brain, they start mapping out electrical signals until they successfully get a map of your consciousness, these electrical signals are then sent to a computer where your consciousness is stored. It is an attempt at immortality and seems really out there but I did see it on the discovery channel. The man talking said that within the next 40 years we would see significant progress in this field. I find it interesting, it seems that most people's goals in life are to destroy death rather than embrace it as a natural function as life. I would like to see those things emphasized in this movie.
Kyle Jenkins
TA: Kate Brandt
Mitchell describes biocybernetic reproduction as “the combination of computer technology and biological science” (312). He says that it “refers to the new technical media… that are transforming the conditions of all living organisms on the planet.” He says that, basically, mechanical reproduction is segueing into biocybernetic reproduction. He points out that biocybernetic reproduction is in a way better than mechanical, as it can actually improve on the original, removing any blemishes or imperfections. We are now at a time where, Mitchell says, machines have become “intelligent, adaptable creatures.”
To recreate the scene from “Metropolis” for this age of biocybernetic reproduction, I would get rid of all the electricity-related gadgets and replace them with items from a more laboratory type setting, like test tubes and beakers and that kind of thing. The creation of the false Maria would come not from electricity but from DNA: a bit of hair or a drop of blood. The scientist also wouldn’t really do anything besides get the machine going. In the age of biocybernetics, the machines can pretty much do everything for us.
William Ingebretsen
TA: David Witzling
The mechanical reproduction of the modern age I believe has evolved into the biocybernectic reproduction of today. Mitchell’s intent to differentiate between them is obvious, his favor for biocybernectic reproduction expresses points referencing Jurassic Park and Spielberg’s AI commenting on how the creation of machines today are more life like than ever and how mechanical reproduction at least in the modern artistic culture is a way of the past. Not only biocybernetic reproduction able to duplicate humanoid behavior it’s able to improve it. It is “the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible.” (312) Mechanical reproduction does allow pieces of art and other artifacts to be in more than one place at a time but it also diminishes the aura of the original.
The whole scene of animating the robot reminded me of Frankenstein, the dimly lit laboratory, lightning crackling, and the scientist running around making sure everything was in place. I would remake the scene by making everything look simple like animating a robot is something that scientist does everyday. His actions would be more nonchalant his expression would be more assuring that his experiment was going to work. I would make the process seem effortless instead of the scientist making sure all the gadgets and gizmos were in order, which made it seem like any wrong variable could make the experiment go haywire. I would increase the lighting to make it more realistic, and I’d make the laboratory less cliché by removing the light bulbs and boiling vats. Scientists don’t practice experiments in dark gloomy rooms, real labs are well lit and instruments are in very organized in designated places.
Nick Edmonds
T.A. Laura Bennet
I think the main difference in Mitchell's article about Mechanical reproduction and Biocybernetic reproduction is the industry and technology. In mechanical reproduction, humans operated in machine like matters in factories. The mechanical reproduction of something diminishes its aura. However, with biocybernetic reproduction, it brings us closer to the aura. With this reproduction, technology is improving on the original. Biocybernetic reproduction is making machines seem more human-like with their advanced technological abilities.
In the scene from Metropolis, if I had to recreate it to give it more Biocybernetic feeling, I would first take out the human. With this new era of technology, most machines only rely on a human to start them. I would take the man doing all the work out, and show the machines doing the work themselves. I would also simplify the machines to give them a more effortless look. The way it is set up now looks very complicated and elaborate. If it were a simple machine, it would make it seem like technology is so advanced that this is a very simple task to turn her into a robot.
The combination of humans and machines is presented in Mitchell's argument as mechanical reproduction. The idea of a human being being turned into a robot coincides very easily with the age in which machines were just beginning to replace the need for workers and laborers. In the post-modern age, the idea of bio-cybernetic reproduction fits with the constant development of technologies and the way that humans are utilizing and relying on them. Our constant use of computers and lives we build for ourselves in the electronic elsewhere blures the line between humanity and technology.
If I were to remake the scene with Maria being transformed into a robot, I would take a different approach to her transformation. Instead of a robot being transformed into Maria, I would have her be transformed into a robot. Instead of the "Frankenstein" procedure, I would go with more of a "Manchurian Candidate" effect. The procedure would take place in a hospital room and Maria would be sedated. The scientist would perform a simple surgery on her head in which he would place a small computer chip on her brain. After he stitched her back up, he could activate the chip on his computer. Using his computer he could then play puppet master with her by sending signals from his computer to the chip in her brain. Maria would still be the same person so to other people it would be like there was no change. But when the opportune moment arises she is easily and completely able to manipulate.
Jack Kirby
TA Laura Bennet
Mitchell asks if technical knowledge is "riddled with images, metaphors, and fantasies that take on a life of their own, and turn the dream of absolute rational mastery into a nightmare (311)?" He argues that we have done so much to improve technology, that we no longer can tell the difference between fact and fiction. We have even invented emotions for those "mechanical brides."
If I had to remake the scene, I would make Maria look the same but give her the option to change her appearance whenever she feels like it. So, not only can she look like maria, she can look like anyone she knows or has seen. I would also try to improve her facial features. I would show the inventor on the computer, pressing the necessary buttons to change her. He could even do this off his iPhone.
Erik Wagner
T.A. Steve Wetzel
According to Mitchell, mechanical reproduction encompasses processes like photography, cinema, and assembly lines. These processes are meant to produce exact, static copies of things. Biocybernetic reproduction, however, is more dynamic. It deals with things like virtual reality, the internet, and video games - things that can all be described as "living" technology.
My remake of this scene would draw on that phenomenon of living technology. Instead of the room being filled with random, flashing, buzzing pieces of equipment, it would be spare and only contain one large, stationary robot. The robot would be big and faceless, just a roughly cylindrical machine taking up the whole center of the room. Sprouting off the cylinder would be three "dentist"-type chairs, spaced equally around it. The unconscious Maria would be in one chair, the blank robot to be animated in another chair, and the scientist in the third. As soon as the scientist sat down, the cylindrical robot would start the process by lowering pieces of equipment onto all three of their heads. This is so the scientist's and Maria's biological, or "spirit" elements could be transferred to the blank robot. Through the cylindrical, "living" robot, part of their spirits are transferred, the blank robot becomes animated, and the Maria robot is born.
I came up with this idea because Mitchell's argument is that "...within the very heart of the cybernetic the bios rears its head in very concrete forms. (314)" In his article, he quotes Norbert Wiener, and refers to cybernetics as being the "entire field of control", wheras bios is the living organisms that the cybernetics may control, but which may choose to resist that control. Mitchel says that "biocybernetics, then, refers...to that which eludes control and refuses to communicate. (313)"
Without that animating, living bios, the Maria robot could never "come alive". It requires a part of Maria, both for its appearance and for a sense of who Maria is, what she does, and who she interacts with. It also requires a bit of the evil scientist to twist the piece of Maria, to be injected with the scientist's will.
Bethany Davey
TA: Kate Brandt
Mechanical Reproduction is mostly taking an original piece of artwork and mass producing it, allowing the artwork to be seen everywhere by anyone who wants to view it. The reproductions have the same pictures of the original just not the same "feeling" that one would get from seeing the original. When Benjamin was talking about cult value he said "One may assume that what mattered was their existence, not their being on view." He is saying that just the mere fact that a great painting exists should be worth more than getting the opportunity to view it because then the painting is more special. With biocybernetic reproduction, Mitchell is pointing out that with the use of modern technologies, there are more "genetic copies" of the originals. He says about cloning" is meant not only to produce and identical twin of the original organic tissue but to produce an improved and enhanced copy." It is improving and enhancing the way that the art is being viewed from the outside because once something is cloned/reproduced, it wants to have a newer and better way of presenting itself to the world.
With the remake of Metropolis, I wouldn't have Maria be made into a robot, but her actually cloned so that if one dies, you don't know which one it was. Also, the actions and personality of Maria would be the same so that Freder and everyone else would be confused as to which one was which. Also to make it more modern, it would be in color! and Rotwag would be using a computer and some DNA sequencing machines to switch her DNA to RNA and mRNA and all that other genetic mumbo jumbo to create another copy of Maria.
Kaitlyn Murray
TA Kate Brandt
{Rory Petry}
According to Mitchell “Reproduction and reproducibility mean something quite different now when the central issues of technology are no longer “mass production” of identical images, but the reproductive process of the biological sciences and the production of infinity malleable, digitally animated images.” In other words the difference between reproduction and Biocybernetic reproduction is inquisitive nature of technology and biology, the combination of the two, and standard understandable reproduction. Biocybernetic reproduction involves technological advances in correlation to human and life. The creation of artificial intelligence or advances in human sustainability through technological advances are the main examples or ideals when thinking of Biocybernetics.
As far as changing the scene goes, I would have included more shots with the robot. Getting a better understanding for what this machine will be like, fearful yet confident in itself. Elaborate this is the creation of life that this creature will now be roaming the world with all the fears and hates as us humans but with a greater understanding. I would have had the robot turn on Marie in loathe for the image in which it was created. To truly be the only one and eliminate the deception of it’s birth. Longing for love it would terrorize those who apposed with it’s exceptional powers. That would be sweet.
In Mitchell’s argument, I can see the difference he tries to make between mechanical reproduction vs biocybernetic reproduction. First with mechanical reproduction, I feel that Mitchell is almost referring to an assembly line. Machines make the products that can continue being made is mass amounts. This type of machine reproduction shows the human age before biocybernetic reproduction. In the article Mitchell defines the posthuman era of biocybernetics as, “a combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible.” (312) Mitchell’s argument is that we now have the power to make life from our machines. A primary example used is cyborgs. Robots that think, feel, rationalize, and basically live. Mitchell brings up the point of cyborgs and biocybernetics being the next step in human evolution. This even can relate back to haunted media in a fear for some of what the future in robotics can become.
In the scene from Metropolis, Maria is being made a clone from a robot. While the basic idea firmly represents biocybernetics, I would change a few things to bring the scene more “up-to-date”. I feel that the scene needs to show a lifelike robot before hand. The scene does have a human shaped machine, but I believe that it should take an already working robot and give it the feelings, thoughts, and ideas of Maria. Also I wouldn’t make the scene seem so out there by taking a scan of a person. I would relate to medical DNA which would reproduce a human being through the concept of cloning. I believe that in this time, it would hit audiences harder if they felt that cloning (a modern controversial subject) was truly no longer a fantasy and could be realistically portrayed in films.
Matt Prekop
TA: Kate Brandt
I believe that Mitchell's argument of the differences between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction can be summed up in two main points.
"First, the copy is no longer an inferior or decayed relic of the original, but is in principle an improvement on the original." (319) Benjamin argues that by making copies of originals it becomes less and less unique, but Mitchell counters that by saying that, with today's technology we can not only reproduce an original, (or an already reproduced copy of the original) we can improve it in some way, Thus making it even more unique than it was before.
"Second, the relation between the artist and work, the work and its model, is both more distant and more intimate than anything possible in the realm of mechanical reproduction." (319) I believe that Mitchell is referring to the idea that with biocybernetic reproduction you are doing more than trying to reproduce an image or action. Because bios is "the domain of perception, sensation, fantasy, memory, similtude, and pictures" (315) it is much more in depth and therefore intimate than just re-creating or re-enacting something from the past. But, for the same reason that these in depth aspects of biocybernetic reproduction create intimacy, they can also create distance. These aspects are border the "imaginary" and therefore may be difficult to grasp and harness.
If I were to remake the scene with modern biocybernetics in mind, here are the changes i would make. This scene portrays it as a long, difficult process, requiring many levers to be pulled, buttons to be pushed and the like. In my remake of the scene the process would be very simple, and instead of requiring human hands to pull the levers and do the work, it would be almost completely done by machine. The other change I would make can be directly related to the titles of the two articles we read. In the current scene, Maria is used to animate a robot, thus giving us mechanical reproducibility. In my scene, Maria's DNA would be used instead to create an entirely new being. A clone of sorts, with the only difference being that while the clone was being created the scientist pushes the "evil" button, thus rendering our false Maria immoral and corrupt.
Forrest Falconer
Steve Wetzel
Mitchell introduces the idea of biocybernetic reproduction as the joining of biological and computer technology advancements. In today’s advance state of technology not only do mechanical objects have more “life”, living things seems to be more mechanical as well. He goes on to state that this cross-over of life and machine has been used as instruments of fear in science fiction film. The conversion of man into machine and vice-versa introduces a fear of vulnerability and inferiority towards the biocybernetic. Using Terminator 2: Judgment Day as an example, Mitchell states, “…we are prepared to be nostalgic for the good old days of mechanical men who could express regret for their inability to cry, and to feel horror at the new figure of infinite mutability and mutation, remorselessly pursuing the extinction of the human species” (317). By this Mitchell explains the differences in the fears between the mechanical robots that were just machines and biocybernetic robots, such as in The Terminator franchise, that are malleable, much like the human body.
Today it seems like much of humanity’s more advanced technology is used without understanding its process. Many of us have computers yet so many do not know how they work. The main functioning happens beneath the surface of the slick and inviting surface. This is much like the human body in regards to all the major functions happening beneath the concealment. This is the major change I could give to the animating scene in Metropolis. We can see all of the technology happening in the scene, emphasis is placed upon it as a matter of fact. The scene is a barrage of scientific images based around chemicals and electronics. In order to make the animation of the robot seem more biocybernetic I would not have shown much technology at work, if any at all. Almost as if the scientist had actually brought life into the robot.
Nathaniel Winter
TA : Laura Bennet
In the article Mitchell's main point is that the focus is beginning to transform into the combination of the biological and the mechanical. Humans are essentially turning into machines. The idea is that instead of mechanical reproduction machines and technology are reproduced through a more biological method, with each copy improving on the original (in a way is similar to dominant and recessive genes in humans. The strongest survive)
The scene depicted in the film metropolis shows Maria being transformed or reproduced as a cyborg like villain. The room looks messy with many switches, levers and other equipment that look as if they have no real purpose other than to look important. I believe that a good way to "update" this scene would be to change the setting to be less cluttered more of a sterilized environment. By adding more of a scientific look or approach to it with test tubes in the back and other similar equipment. I would have also made the room have a lot of white and silver in it, to enhance the sterilized look (which kinda goes with almost an apple look a lot of whites and silvers). Instead of having a machine "copy" maria he would use DNA to create copies grown in incubators. Having this sterile look to it would emphasis the lack of emotion that would result from the reproduction.
Nick Aldrich
David Witzling
Mitchell outlines differences between the postmodern biocybernetic reproduction and the ideas Benjamin presented regarding mechanical reproduction. Benjamin discussed a work of art's aura, it's specific place in space and time, and the way that mechanical reproduction resulted in a decay of the aura. In the age of biocybernetics, this is a non issue; digital (with no tangible existence) and genetic copies can no longer even define the original, and, as mitchell argues has "even more aura than the original". In the era of biocybernetic reproduction, Mitchell writes, "the relation between the artist and work, the work and its model, is both more distant and more intimate than anything possible..." and goes on to describe the virtual worlds of art, which forms a corporeal reality that fragments relationships between the artist and the work, while simultaneously strengthening them. Finally, temporality is very much undefinable in the age of biocybernetic reproduction, at the point where even global social events cease to exist and spectacle becomes a technological event dominated by media forms obsessed with intangible bio-politics.
The scene from metropolis is reminiscent of Frankenstein in its focus on the flowing magical and spiritual power of electricity. This idea merely focuses on the ability to conquer death, not the obsession to control and create life (which is prevalent today). My recreated scene would begin with Maria suspended in a massive test tube, full of cybernetic goop, IV tubes running into every possible vein. The entirety of the scene would revolve around the idea of flesh and its reproduction. The lab setting, instead of resembling a maintenance or engineers shop, would be much cleaner and take on a modern scientific appearance, complete with liquid tanks lining the walls, housing hideous failed experiments of genetic fusion and cloning, condemned to float in loneliness and bare life for all eternity. The mad doctor would use needles and tubes and vials to "grow" the clone of Maria. Her confinement during her growth exemplifies the bio-power prevalent in post-modern society.
Andrew Tolstedt
TA: David Witzling
Mitchell points out a few differences between mechanical reproduction and biocybernetic reproduction. One point he makes is “the copy is no longer an inferior or decayed relic of the original, but is in principle an improvement on the original.” In mechanical reproduction the copy has less of a value as the original and the aura is taken away. The cult value of the original declines while the exhibition value increases. But with biocybernetic reproduction the new copy can surpass the value of the original. With digital technology the copy can be seen as an improvement to the original and, in turn, have even more aura. Another point he makes is “the relationship between the artist and work, the work and its model, is both more distant and more intimate than anything possible in the realm of mechanical reproduction.” With the example of a painter and cameraman in mechanical reproduction, the painter keeps a distance between his work and the cameraman gets into the heart of it. Biocybernetic reproduction makes even more distance possible with things like virtual surgery.
The make the scene represent biocybernetic reproduction you could have a scientist clone Maria using her DNA. This way the protagonists can “enhance” and “improve” Maria by making her look exactly the same but programming her to be the absolute opposite and worst version of her original self.
Tanisha Richter
TA: David Witzling
The idea of biocybernetic reproduction that Mitchell puts fort in this chapter is described as the “combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible”. While Mitchell’s concept is seen as a successor of Benjamin’s idea of “mechanical reproduction” the differences go far beyond time. Biocybernetic reproduction deals with living organisms, which obviously brings questions of ethics and politics into the discussion. While Benjamin’s arguments focus on the validity and meaning of art and it’s reproduction’s in a changing world, Mitchell’s discussion is far more about “calculation and control” over things that are uncontrollable. Benjamin talked about the diminishment of aura and the changing values of art while Mitchell focuses on a new concept of aura entirely, created through biocybernetic reproduction, which can actually make and original better.
As for my updated version of the scene from Metropolis, there are several ways that I think it could be brought into Mitchell’s age of “Biocybernetic reproduction”. First of all I think one way would be to have the scientist working through a computer, probably a laptop, clicking away at a program. I’d also use the image of the double helix and other signifiers of DNA. Another thought would be to have the girl not just duplicated into the robot, but cloned, and probably several times. Lastly, on page 320 of Mitchell’s chapter, he states that in biocybernetic reproduction “the copy has every chance of being an improvement or enhancement of whatever counts as the original.” In my updated version of this scene I’d have the “robot” or “cloned” girl be much more beautiful than the original girl. I’d have her be an overly airbrushed version of the original girl to show the possibility of perfection that can be reached through biocybernetic reproduction.
Lisa Casper
TA: Steve Wetzel
In simple terms, Mitchell says that Biocybernetic Reproduction, as he calls it, is different from mechanical reproduction in that it creates “engineered organisms (pg 319)” rather than mere copies. He elaborates by making three distinctions between Benjamin’s old theory and his own. First, that instead of the new being a mere copy of the old, it is now an improvement of the original. Mitchell says on page 320: “Now we have to say the copy has, if anything, even more aura than the original.” What he means is that originals, if that word even holds currency anymore, can be improved with digital technology. It can breathe life back into it. His second point is that the artist is now closer and farther to the work – at the same time. A surgeon can now get more precise than ever, even if he is doing it through a computer miles away. His last point is that we seem to live in a cultural stasis, where everything and nothing is happening at once. Although the world is smaller than ever (via the global village), humans feel disconnect.
Were I to redesign this scene from Metropolis for the age of biocybernetic reproduction, Maria would be laying on a hospital bed in a sterile white room, with no human in site. She would be paralyzed by some sort of pill. All of a sudden, a robotic syringe would pop out of the bed, and thrust itself into her arm. The Mad Scientist, in another room, pushed the button. Inside the syringe is microchips so tiny that they can flow through her blood stream, attaching to her vessels and adjusting her genes. Maria would now be stronger, faster, and smarter – never sick, never weak – and always controlled by the Mad Scientist, who sits in a room far away, negotiating her every move via cyberchips.
Kurt Raether
Steve Wetzel
According to Mitchell, the main difference between mechanical reproducibility and biocybernetic reproduction is the contrast of the modern and post-modern world. Mechanical reproducibility focuses on remaking something while biocybernetic reproduction appears to bring the product to life. "Reproduction and reproducibility mean something quite different now when the central issues of technology are no longer 'mass production' of commodities or 'mass reproduction' of identical images, but the reproductive processes of the biological sciences and the production of infinitely malleable, digitally animated images." It has become less and less about industry and more about digital technology.
In order to make the scene with Maria more biocybernetically friendly, I wouldn't have her be a robot or anything mechanical like that. She could be a holographic image. Becoming something along the lines of digital technology would obviously fall into the category of biocybernetic reproduction. She could move and develop faster and overall be a big improvement from her old robotic self.
To change this scene, I would probably take a chapter out of "The Matrix" script. I really think that movie symbolizes the main idea of Mitchells article. Instead of having such an acient "Frankenstein" labratory, I would exchange all of that loud equipment with (as was said many times already on this blog) a few computers with clear, lucid moniters. I would have the robot not be so much a robot, but an actual living organism, such as a clone, and she would be growing in a capsule much like the one Neo escaped from after swallowing the Red pill.
Garrett Hopkins
TA Kate
The main difference between mechanical reproduction and biocybernetic reproduction, as shown in The Work Of Art In the Age Of Mechanical Reproduction, is that mechanical reproduction deals with a relationship between humans and industry, where as biocybernetic reproduction deals with a relationship between humans and technology. Mitchell describes biocybernetic reproduction as a combination of computer technology and biological science. This combination makes things like cloning and genetic engineering possible. Where mechanical reproduction makes copies of things dealing with industry, biocybernetic reproduction deals with making copies of living things. Biocybernetics turns the inner structure of organisms into new frontiers for technological innovation (Mitchell 309).
If I had to recreate this scene to visualize our current age of biocybernetics I would recreate it with a human clone of Maria in place of the robot Maria. Instead of showing a man flipping all sorts of switches and using robust machinery, I would show a man in a lab coat laboring over a microscope as he attempts to clone Maria. This represents our current age of biocybernetics because in this day and age it seems more plausible that someone could reproduce another person in this manner rather than in the way originally depicted in the film.
Nick LaVake
T.A. Laura Bennett
In W. J. T. Mitchell’s essay, “In the Age of Biocybernetic Reproduction” he seeks to update the ideas in Benjamin’s article by introducing a new concept for our generation. Biocybernetic reproduction is different than Mechanical reproduction in that it’s not about humans reproducing fine art or books, or products to be sold. In this day and age, that’s all standard. Now humans can reproduce life. In short, Mitchell describes biocybernetics as, “the combination of computer technology and biological science…” (312) But it’s more complex than that. The definition of cybernetics refers to governing, automatic control systems, and communication. Biocybernetics is all about the fields of genetic engineering and artificial intelligence, those scientific fields that combine computers and the essence of life. These seemingly opposite ideas are combined to form a powerful hybrid. Hollywood has given us two dangerous examples of this combination. In Jurassic Park, supercomputers are used to recreate dinosaur DNA sequences which give humans the power to make extinct creatures that turn out to be unpredictable and uncontrollable. In The Terminator, humans develop advanced machines that end up overpowering the human population and then go on to develop complex robots that look like humans but are virtually indestructible. In this case again, the robots are unable to be controlled and actually control the humans in many ways. I think that he sums it up well when he states that biocybernetics cause “the reduction of a living being to a tool or machine, and the elevation of a mere tool or machine to the level of an intelligent, adaptable creature.”
In the Metropolis clip, I think that the scene was really great for the time it was made in. I think that it might be better for making Mitchell’s point if machines were making the robot completely. It would be nice to see the robot being manufactured and see all of the chips and gears that go into it to show that it’s just a computer. And then we see the completed humanoid robot lifeless. Then the animation of the robot from Maria but have the robot laying down in the same position as Maria to show that it’s an exact replica of her, then have the electricity arching over.
Megan Linner
TA: Laura Bennet
“It’s not just that living things become like machines, but that machines more than ever behave now like living things” (Mitchell 314)
Mitchell creates this word, biocybernetics, differentiating it from cybernetics, explaining that it refers to “the sphere of living organisms which are to be subjected to control, but… insisting on ‘a life of their own.’” (Mitchell 313)
Mitchell also talks about how biocybernetic reproduction is “the combination of computer technology and biological science that makes cloning and genetic engineering possible.” This differentiates it from mechanical reproducibity with the aspect of cloning. And, as I described above, this idea of “cloning” gives the machine (or organism) a desire for a ‘life of their own.’ These machines (or organisms) start to aquire a personality, and begin to become more human, unlike mechanical reproducibility, which since the start when the greeks used it to produce their currency was completely devoid of any personality or human characteristics. Mechanical reproduction is often not even looked at as art, while biocybernetics is seen as something supernatural, like a crazed scientist in the movie Metropolis.
If I were to make the film Metropolis to create a more post-modern feel to the film, and to represent our current age of biocybernetics, I would create a scene much more like the one represented in the Arnold Schwarzenegger film The 6th day.
The 6th Day Cloning Scene
I would use, instead of a metallic machine core, a vat in which the person was grown, and then programmed through a laser to be whatever the scientist wanted her to be. I would have the machine draw blood and extract DNA as well as using some kind of light to read the body’s exterior. I also wouldn’t use eyeshadow on the “false Maria” and instead just use her actions and movements to portray someone “dark.”
What I took away from Mitchell was that you could almost compare mechanical reproduction to biocybernetic reproduction in terms of hard and soft. Mechanical reproduction is the recreation of something verbatim. It is "mechanical" in nature and therefore is limited by the constraints of the original. It is static. Biocybernetic reproduction on the other hand is almost the opposite. It is characterized as being alive, hence the "bio", and therefore can change and will change over time.
For the scene from Metropolis I think one key change would be to get rid of the visible connection between Maria and the robot. Both the electricity and the wires seem to imply that Maria is just being copied by taking her image, moving it across the wires, and imposing it on the robot. Instead I would try to find something more liquid. Maybe some kind of sample would be drawn from Maria and when placed with the robot the liquid would envelop the machinery and the two, robotic and biological would create some kind of symbiotic plasma being that would constantly be in flux.
-john olsen
ta: kate brandt
Post a Comment