26 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
very disappointing, July 26, 2006
I found this book to be very uninspiring and ultimately disappointing. The book should be called "New Philosophy" for "New Media" instead of New Philosophy for New Media. It is certainly not new philosophy and certainly doesn't cover all new media or media art.
First of all, mr. Hansen is very selective when it comes to new media art. The artists he discusses have given the body a central role, but one could name just as much artists for whom the body is not *that* central. But one could even contest the representation of this 'centralness': whereas one could discern some sort of negotiation between the body and the outside world (in this case technology) in the works of these artists, for Hansen this negotiation has always already been decided in favor of the human body.
So in the end it is not exactly 'new philosophy' we're dealing with, but, at least in this reader's view, desperate attempts to keep some old ways of thinking supreme, without ever trying to question them or trying out new ways of thinking. In a strange way one can sense this desperateness especially when it goes hand in hand with something that seems to be some sort of grudge against a new batch of thinkers who have attracted most of the attention, at least in some circles in the academic world (read: the world of cultural studies).
In these moments mr. Hansen's style leaves academic or creative thinking altogether and changes in a very childish name-calling and misrepresentation. For example, mr. Hansen seems to be very displeased by the fact that Friedrich Kittler has made such a name for himself as a media scientist. So whenever he refers to Kittler, he puts media scientist inbetween quotation marks, as on p. 71:
Without a doubt, it is German "media scientist" Friedrich Kittler... (p.71)
This is not the first time mr. Hansen refers to Friedrich Kittler in his book, so, one could ask him(/her)self, why here refer to the nationality of Kittler, should it suddenly matter that Kittler is not only a "media scientist" but also a German? And should the combination of being a German AND a "media scientist" (note the quotation marks) tell us enough, without even taking the substance of Kittler's work into account?
Even though this might seem to be something too little to fall over when judging a book, it becomes VERRY annoying when it keeps happening all through the work, especially when it threatens to take over the place of philosophical critique or thinking.
Of course, I didn't choose the passage above for no reason. It was exactly on that spot when I was totally repelled by Hansen's "work" (note that I am also using the quotation marks in a strategic way, just to mirror mr. Hansens's style). Let's see the rest of the sentence:
Without a doubt, it is German "media scientist" Friedrich Kittler who has most provocatively engaged the post-(anti-)humanist implications of digitization. (p.71)
This whole passage (and one could actually say: the whole book) serves no other end than to (mis-)represent post-humanist thinking as anti-humanism. Every priority given to technology becomes easily "technical determinism" (p.74) and Hansen knows how to connect some feelings of superiority to his own way of thinking: his quest is a quest of keeping the human in humanity alive, while all other thinkers reduce the human being in some way.
Well, let's read a short quote from one work from among the many books on post-humanism:
Humanism, in by now well-rehearsed arguments [!], produces oppressive institutions and discourses because it presumes that one sort of person (usually male, white, educated, and wealthy) is exemplary, and/or that there exists a "human nature" that is "the same" for all. (From the book: Avatar Bodies by Ann Weinstone, p. 3).
Apparently this is not so well-rehearsed for mr. Hansen: post-humanism has *nothing* whatsoever to do with anti-humanism, it is simply put a different way of thinking about what it is to be a human being. In general it tries to get rid of some rigid ways of thinking about the 'human', to create more space for other beings (be it people who do not fit the rigid image of humanism or be it some other being which is part of our world). One could say that in the end post-humanism is a much more 'humane' way of thinking than the obsolete and dogmatic ideas of european or western humanism. Whichever way you take it though, it is *NOT* anti-humanism.
As Deleuze argues in Difference and Repetition, real freedom is not about trying to find answers for old questions, but to be able to ask new questions, relevant and actual at the moment the questions are asked, in an always changing world. It is no wonder that affect and technology have become some of the central issues in todays thinking. But mr. Hansen misrepresents these issues in a very, well, creative way. But this creativity has nothing to do with asking new, relevant question, but a creativity in keeping creativity at bay!
So, the central argument of this book goes as follows: even though some things have changed (technology and with technology the nature of the work of art and the media in general), it was always already the human body which framed these changes. It is assumed, but mostly hidden in clever ways, that despite all these changes, the human body has stayed the same and will stay the same and will thus continue to determine (if we are carefull enough to see) how things will continue to change in the future.
Do we actually know this for a fact? It is exactly here that one could (and several have already tried to do so, even if Hansen puts their new ways of thinking inbetween quotation marks) that one could open up new spaces of thinking, ask new questions.
The central idea of affect is that we, human beings, are capable of changing the world, because we are capable to do things with our bodies, but also - and certainly not less! - that we are capable of being changed by the world. So, even if most art is created for or through human embodiment, the central question one should ask in relation to Hansens work is: is this still the same body as a century ago? As five centuries ago? How can we know? Well, we need to ask questions to find out, we cannot assume that the human body has not changed and has dictated all changes. This would be the least philosophical and least creative way one could take.
Claiming that technology, even if it is created by humanity, can change the human body in unforeseen ways is no technical determinism, on the contrary, it is claiming that we human beings are very human because we *are* affectable, through our bodies, in ways we are not even aware of. A very beautiful example is the chapter on Stelarc in Brian Massumi's work: Parables for the Virtual. Movement, Affect, Sensation, from 2002. (It is very surprising by the way that mr. Hansen doesn't mention Stelarc even once in this book, while it is a book on new media art).
One of Hansen's arguments at this point becomes how the human body itself creates some sort of rhythm or duration. This functions as an example of how the body creates the frame for our perception. This frame is so rooted in our bodies, that it becomes in Hansen's view a non-changeable, transcendental given. The philosophical journey Hansen undertakes always ends up with our bodies. Or, in other words, a journey to the self, the world outside has no place in this whole whatsover. Whereas other thinkers use this kind of bodily rhythm to argue that the body has always been open to and in sync with the outside world.
In the end, it was always an illusion (a sweet one of course) that the human body was outside and especially above the rest of nature, it is no smaller illusion that the body is outside or above technology. Because we created this technology does not mean that we totally control it's direction and/or nature. Most technology is invented by chance and through an ongoing negotiation with the outside world (material resources, natural 'laws' etc.) and not because we human beings directed it in some way. We could at least give ourselves the opportunity to ask questions about how techonology affects us, whether this is indeed framed by "the human body" (if there is such one unchanging universal substance) or not.
In fact one could put Hansen's scheme totally upside down: technology or art (in what media whatsoever) has never been framed by the human body, but by the world, the cosmos we live in. The human being or the human body has always been just a little dot framed and affected by cosmic forces in many ways through our embodiment. Let the fact that technology is created by humanity not fool anyone, we are still affected by cosmic forces, but this time through a combination of our emodiment and technology. It is the nature of this combination and how certain forces affect our being in new ways through this combination that we must study, this, in my view, can never be a journey to our own body, but to the great unknown outside.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
