Re-Activate

Going to try to be a little more pro-active/impulsive/serious about sharing my thoughts and creative output and writing online. I'll be back shortly with more actual content!

Racialization of technology use in stock images (Pt. 1)

While reading Lisa Nakamura's chapter titled "The Social Optics of Race and Networked Interfaces in The Matrix Trilogy and Minority Report" in her book Digitizing Race: Visual Cultures of the Internet I decided to investigate the depictions of futuristic technology and interface use available online.

A preliminary Google image search returned the following results:

Sample of results for Google image search "futuristic interface touch"

This is a small sample of the results I found. The lack of racial diversity in this screen cap reiterates the prevailing whiteness of depictions of technology (especially imaginary futuristic types of technology). 

In her chapter, Nakamura examines the depiction of interfaces/interfacing offline as part of digital racial formation. Her sites of analysis include the three Matrix movies and Minority Report, as well as depictions of race and technology by Apple in their Ipod commercials. Nakamura describes the qualitative differences in depictions of African American use of technology (see the contrast between use of technology by the characters in the multicultural Zion vs. and characters that are a part of the Matrix). Even though these depictions are providing much needed representation for African Americans, they rely on stereotypical images that reinforce the conception of technology as a white domain. 

As you can see in the above screen cap, many of the images are actually stock images. The tags that are used for stock photography online provide a great tool for investigating the commercial depictions of race and technology usage. Many stock photography sites allow for you to narrow the results of a keyword search by restricting results based on the race of the model/s in the image. A further investigation was in order. Shutterstock.com returned tons of results for the keywords 'futuristic' and 'interface,' and had the race restriction option, so I decided to center my analysis there (though I assure you that the results would be similar for other major stock photo sites).

The search for images that featured people and were tagged with both 'futuristic' and 'interface' returned 755 results. This is a screen cap of that search:

Shutterstock's Futuristic Interface (People)

In the first page of results, there was one image of a woman coded as "Asian," a man coded as "Arab," and a few images with ambiguous (though still relatively light), potentially non-white users that were not coded in terms of race/ethnicity.

'Asian' woman

'Arab' man

Unspecified race/ethnicity

When the search is restricted to images with models that have been coded as "Caucasian (White)," 629 results were returned. These results look much like the original search (without any racial coding).

Futuristic Interface (Caucasian)

The search for images with either Black or African American models returned zero results.

'Futuristic Interface' (Black)

The results for 'futuristic interfaces' that include Asian/Asian American models provided a greater number of results. However, these results were visibly different from those including white models (I will discuss the qualitative differences in technological/futuristic stock images of Asians in another post).

Racialization of technology use in stock images (Pt. 2)

In order to broaden my search so that I could have something that I could actually analyze (not that the absence is not worth discussion... it definitely warrants greater analysis) I altered my search. Instead of including the 'futuristic' term, I decided to look at images that were just tagged with the term 'interface.' 

This search did provide images of Black and African American models. However the visual differences between the images of white models and Black models are startling:

'Interface' (Caucasian)

'Interface' (Black)

Aside from the clear quantitative difference in amount of representation offered, there are distinct and consistent stylistic differences.

Some of these differences include:

• Black models are in images that don't actually even involve visible technology/interface
• Black models are shown as objects of white interaction
• Images including Black models have no background of any sort (vs. almost all images of white models have a background of some sort, frequently a sleek minimalist futuristic space)
• Black models are not engaging with awesome imaginary futuristic interfaces (vs. most white models with awesome futuristic interface)
• No images implied to be from the point of view of a Black subject (vs. several implying a white point of view)
• No images implying Black selection (vs. most indicating white selection)
• Black models in static poses that imply passivity (vs. white models in somewhat active poses, portrayed mostly through the act of selection)
• Black models are frequently smiling and looking directly at the camera (vs. no images of eye contact from white models, and only tight lipped smiles)
• Angles of the images of Black models suggest a camera is level with, or slightly above model (vs. images of white models from below, or with head tilted up implying a lower angle)

So what does this mean? That African American or Black models are not adequately represented in futuristic stock imagery? Definitely. That images of African American or Black models engaging with interfaces are qualitatively different from images of Caucasian or white models? Definitely. What does it mean that commercial imagery exhibits this type of racialization of technology usage? 

I think that this preliminary investigation adds great evidence to support Nakamura's conclusion about depictions of African Americans engaging with futuristic technology do not actually constitute an increased subjecthood. Like The Matrix Trilogy, there are few (or zero?) depictions of Black people as subjects interacting with an interface. Instead they are relegated to marginalized positions that are supposed to be positive, but are still distinctly outside and a diminishment of the depictions of white technology use. I hope to expand on this for a conference presentation soon!

Thinspiration Picture-Quotes

To illustrate the images I mentioned in the previous post, I am uploading a couple of examples of thinspiration and the sites that host this content. Note: Many of these images are very disturbing.

Thesis Proposal and Virtual Worlds

As I have recently completed (the first draft of) my thesis proposal, I feel the need to relate my planned work to some of the issues that we are dealing with in the Social Media, Transmedia, Virtual Worlds, and Gaming group. I am going to be writing about the contemporary expressions of Cartesian duality (ie. mind and body dichotomization) in thinspiration content produced by users in pro-eating disorder communities online. Specifically, I plan to analyze the visual and textual motifs in thinspiration picture-quotes. The picture-quote refers to images that combine pictures (that may or may not be user-generated) with words, which are exceedingly popular in pro-anorexia communities.

I think that self-identified pro-eating disorder communities and sites can offer a new means for approaching the underlying and defining cultural messages regarding the body in contemporary society. At the same time, I think that this examination can potentially be useful as a study of expression of identity online. By highlighting the role that members of pro-anorexia communities have as producers of digital artifacts, I hope to both identify the processes of self-making, as well as the ways in which the members are avid enforcers of dominant cultural ideals.

In addition to sections that look at our culture's overvaluation of thinness and the ways in which this relates to mind-body dualism, and readings of the textual and visual content of the thinspo picture-quotes, I plan to have a section that addresses the particularities of the medium and the mode of distribution. I think it is not a coincidence that quasi-social sites like Tumblr, Pinterest, and Weheartit are often the hosts of pro-eating disorder communities. These sites allow users to easily access, circulate, and collect images, while providing a semi-anonymous place for the construction of identity. For this interpretation of pro-anorexia communities and their artifacts I plan to draw on both folkloric interpretations of expression on the Internet, as well as the work of social and cultural theorists dealing with identity online. This component of my thesis--the analysis of the particularities of social media and content sharing and production online, seems like it could fit in with the goals I had at the beginning of the semester and some of the goals of the group as a whole.

By focusing on the picture-quote, a digital artifact produced by an individual for group/public use and personal expression, I also hope to add to the discussion of everyday acts of creativity, and the role that this plays in the production of identity. Because of the hegemonic messages embedded in the self-produced imagery, I think thinspiration challenges utopian views of the Internet, while recognizing the criticality of the Internet in everyday life. While there is a growing body of work that addresses online cultural practices from a folkloric perspective, as far as I know, none of these have specifically addressed the picture-quote as a mode of production, nor have they focused on the circulation of imagery on sites like Tumblr. A detailed analysis of the aesthetic qualities and curation of imagery on pro-anorexia sites will undoubtedly add to conversations about new media and vernacular expression.

When I signed up for the course I envisioned all sorts of intersections between my topic and the course, but had trouble identifying them to the group and aligning myself with the focus on gaming. Now that I have been able to break down my ideas in my thesis proposal, my investment in this class also seems to be more clear. While my thesis does not relate to gaming per se, there are many potential points of intersection with the study of identity and virtual spaces/social media.

Creation!

The second visit to Second Life involved a bit more exploration, as well as an attempt to update my look. I used the Beginner-friendly location suggestions to find an island with clothes and skins for my avatar. The first location was full, so I clicked on the next one on the list, an island with a large white building, walls plastered from top to bottom with images. The images were like posters or banners, advertising wares in a straightforward way. I could tell that these were all uniquely produced 3D hair and clothing renderings, as many were proudly signed by a user. I flew around the interior of the building and tried to pick out some cool hair and clothes. Some, I realized were for sale, and others were available for free. I clicked on a couple of simpler designs, but it seemed pointless... I was downloading the object, but had no idea how to locate it in my inventory to wear it. This was when I began to experiment with the appearance editor, accidentally adding the game preset shape hair to my more cute/finished hairdo that came with the female gladiator. It looked pretty ridiculous and glitchy, and I couldn't figure out how to 'undo' this makeover. I finally just resorted to clicking on the original avatar again. My body slowly went gray, and then individual parts of my body and clothing were made visible again. Phew. I flew around the island a bit and then decided it was time to move on.

Faery Crossing seemed like a more exciting location, so I chose to teleport there. I appeared in the "Learning Grove," which is where my impressions of Second Life began to soften. There were signs and arrows directing me onto a path with number signs indicating the steps that I should take to acquaint myself with the world. Each step was accompanied by a large sign that explained an important part of Second Life such as how to operate the viewing mode and how to move. There were objects laid out with instructions for how to use them. I left Second Life feeling a bit more acquainted with the controls.

Step 1: Learning to Walk

Learning to use my inventory!

Interesting descriptive terms for face editing...

Why are there dressing rooms?

The next time I entered Second Life, I followed a couple more steps until I came to the one that was really a game-changer for me. A "sand box" was placed in the corner of the room/area with instructions about how to make an object. I made a cube, then a sphere, and then a tiny pyramid. Though the instructions did not go into detail about how you may edit these objects, it did say something that was quite profound: everything you see in Second Life was made by somebody. I hadn't really considered this before. Although there is clearly a monetary component, as was discussed in our last meeting, there is still a tremendous amount of "stuff" that is available for free use.

The building process is not exactly hands-on... It looks more like casting a spell.

Inspired by this, I decided to try my hand at rendering. I adjusted some of the size attributes of the cube, and then added chose its texture to be "flesh." I applied a high level of wind and gravity which yielded very interesting results. I had made a huge cube that rolled around and flopped over itself seemingly randomly. To further highlight this sort of bizarre combination of hard-lines and soft fleshiness, I applied a chain-mail overlay to the object. After taking a couple of screen shots of my creation, I decided to "put it on" as that seems to be one of the easiest actions in Second Life (an observation which is perhaps interesting and worth investigating). I put it on my right wrist, and hilariously, it looked like I had created some sort of box-costume for myself, though this was not my intention. After trying to take a few more pictures to document this object, I decided to "take it off." Unfortunately, the cube just disappeared, rather than reappearing in the sand box. Nooo! my beautiful cube was gone. Fortunately, I had some understanding of the way the inventory worked at this point and found it again, but the only action that I could figure out was "wearing" the object. I went back into the edit-object mode and moved it over to the side so that I could at least see my avatar fully, but still kept it "attached" to my right wrist. With this new sort of companion, I exited the Learning Grove and made my way across a thin bridge to investigate the rest of Faery Crossing.

My box costume.

My box companion.

Leaving the Learning Grove.

First Encounters of the Second Kind

My first impressions of Second Life were actually made a few (five?) years ago during the summer. I created an account and made an avatar and flew around a bit, but never really did too much. My most recent experiences with Second Life were marked by a great deal of confusion... it seemed to be much more complicated than I remembered it. This may actually reflect the expansion of the game since the mid '00s, or it may reflect my discomfort with the idea of playing a game for graduate school credit. How was I supposed to say anything profound about the game if I couldn't even manage to figure out how to fix my hair? 

The first two times I went into Second Life, most of the time was spent walking around frantically, trying to figure out how to get the camera view right so that I could appreciate the world and find something interesting to say about the aesthetics of the game. I chose a gladiator brunette as my avatar and entered a doorway that was a portal to the art gallery section. Once there, I promptly got myself into trouble. The first room I entered was a man on a throne... I walked into the room and tried to pick up a sculptural object, but realized that there is no real "pick up" option. The menu for actions seemed very limited compared to the Sims. I walked into the pedestal that it was on a few times in earnest and then moved on to the throne. I didn't notice that there was a note that was produced for me at the top of the screen because I didn't even know about the notes function at this point. The man on the throne was nude and bald but not overtly sexualized. He stood up and began approaching me. I assumed that the room I was in was just some sort of space that was designed by someone, and did not understand that this was actually another player attempting to bring me into the exhibit. I walked away into another room, then received an angry chat from the player telling me that I could have at least stayed to see the performance. Oops! 

My first interaction with a player ended so poorly that I ran out of the room into a 3-D rendering of the (in)famous Dogs Playing Poker painting. The Dogs were like cut outs sitting around a more seriously rendered table, and stuck in the center of a room with red walls and a ceiling lamp. Fortunately no humans expecting me to actively participate at such an early stage in my development. I walked into the table a couple of times (that is basically all I knew how to do at this point) and then decided to ditch the art world until I was a little bit more settled.

I got a few notes out of this:

What does this game expect me as a user to bring in, in terms of game literacy? How do people have fun and feel engaged with a world that seems to just involve walking around and chatting?  Need to find tutorial about Second Life.

Unfortunately, I did not screenshot to document this foray. I'll have to go back to the art zone to see if these pieces are still there.