In Electronic Monuments, Gregory Ulmer presents the idea of a MEmorial, a type of commemorative practice that allows for the creation of a monument that is of value to both the individual and collective consciousness. The internet becomes the “civic sphere” (xvii) and a local accident can, in essence, become global. Ulmer phrases it as, “A MEmorial visualizes at least a part of this formation of coherence, in which electrate society is held together not by a master narractive but by collections of meaningless signifiers” (28). It is a combination of various medias, incorporating both word and image, a monument that reaches to people in various ways.
Ulmer traces, briefly, how we, as a culture, have moved from a culture of orality to electracy, as well as how we tend to live within the public sphere—especially due to the internet. Electracy, Ulmer states, is “to do for the community as a whole what literacy did for the individual within the community” (xxvi). We are moving or perhaps have already moved, according to Ulmer, from a singular existence to a social one.
The idea of a memorial that is cohesive and created by an act of collaboration is an interesting one, but one that seems, especially according to Ulmer, to be very proper in this age of electracy. Ulmer begins his book by speaking about the 9/11 tragedy, using it as a catalyst for many of his other points, but also as a way to define a “general accident” (xii). A general accident is one which everyone seems to experience in the world at the same time. Before the internet this phenomena was not really possible, but now, because of the internet, we are able to experience what might have been a local accident together. We see these large general accidents together, experiencing the loss that takes place in their wake, but at the same time, popping up in their presence are the unremarkable disasters, the vernacular disasters, as Ulmer refers to them. And, these vernacular disasters lead to monuments which allow for personal memorials alongside cultural ones.
While speaking of the MEmorial, Ulmer begins to speak about the task of building a virtual Rushmore in Gainesville, FL. This monument was supposed to adopt the ideas of the actual Rushmore, a monument which stands to express the American ideal. This memorial adopted the general ideas of the original Rushmore and adapted it for a more collective society. Ulmer and the Florida Research Ensemble (FRE) team developed this monument in FL which allows for a virtual Rushmore, one which required the viewers, or tourists, to provide mystories with pieces of information, stories, family anecdotes. According to Ulmer, a mystory “condenses/displaces into one account information from the four core discourses used by Americans: family anecdotes, school history textbooks, popular media, and disciplinary expertise” (22). These mystories, provided by individuals who went to visit this monument, were then composited and a new face was made utilizing the important faces from the stories and the tourist was provided with both a print out of the composite and the chance to see their composite on this virtual Rushmore. This cultural monument was created through individual stories, giving viewers a chance to collaborate and be a part of a cultural monument.
And, along with that gained collaboration, visitors are able to be theoria. This type of tourism one allowed for tourists to become “self-conscious, reflexive, and hence potentially intelligent” (13). Theoria would travel, see, takes chances and get lost, all while intervening on another culture. It was an active sort of experience, and while it has been much pushed aside, the prevalence of the internet and the possibility of MEmorials might help to facilitate this type of travel.
Perhaps the most important item, at least to me, within this first section of the book was the idea of bearing witness, of being one to testify. Ulmer states that a “MEmorial witnesses a disaster in progress” (xxvii). It is important to bear witness, but it is, notoriously difficult, and discussion on witnessing and testimonial is often focused on Holocaust survivors. While Ulmer is not clear what the MEmorial witnesses, the MEmorial allows collaboration and input from individuals, allowing testimony via text and image. An example of this would be the crosses and signs and stuff toys that go up after a school shooting or that went up after 9/11. Individuals were able to bear witness to the tragedy on a more vernacular level. They helped to shape the memorials of the individual and collective identities for disasters.
Questions:
1) Is there any such thing as a local accident/tragedy anymore with the prevelance of the internet?
2) Can a MEmorial be an honoring of the daily? Or does it have to be an accident? Would you
classify the Gainesville project as honoring the daily or a general accident?
3) Can the displacement of a real city by a telecity harm a city? How does the loss of a “lived public space” (xviii) alter the community of humans?
No comments:
Post a Comment