Hi all, we are going to present the topic “Identity”. But what is “identity”? Thorstein Veblen suggested we are living in a technological determining era; technological devices are surrounding us and influencing our lives in every ways. This leads to a problem, would it blurs our identity in the way we so called “reality/ real life”?
JenniCAM was set up by a lady who named Jennifer Kaye Ringley. She was born in August 10, 1976. She worked as a self-employed freelance website designer. In the case of JenniCAM, we can get to a deeper understanding of “identity” and Donna Haraway’s cyborg theory. Jennifer was a student when she first showed her daily life on the internet twenty-four-seven; then she started to “merge” herself with the camera, presented a live show, and features the most-up-to-date image of her bedroom. The images included sexual behavior with her boyfriend. As she “integrate flesh and machine” in the formation, can she be called a “cyborg” then?
When Jennifer was on the JenniSHOW, she seems to offer the perfect heterosexual male fantasy - a voyeuristic window into a woman’s bedroom and actively invited the male gaze. On the other side of the coin, she tried to flout the set of rules that how the culture politics displayed female body because by following the tradition, female played a passive role. In that case, her action was subverting the traditional position of women from being passive to active.
Did her action look like pornography? Or was she breaking the tradition? We do not comment on it, but as she claimed “It is a site about real life.”
Here we conclude with some questions as reflection. Please feel free to have a discussion.
1. What do you feel about JenniCAM? (Like in terms of morality; did she break the tradition)
2. Did JenniCAM reverse the position of men in male gaze as men are traditionally active? Or do you think it is just pornography?
3. Traditionally, there is a clear boundary between public and private, does JenniCAM blurs the boundary between public life and private life? If yes, how?
4. “Woman as the guardian of morality and piety.” Is it a biologically or culturally constructed image?
Did her action look like pornography? Or was she breaking the tradition? We do not comment on it, but as she claimed “It is a site about real life.”
Here we conclude with some questions as reflection. Please feel free to have a discussion.
1. What do you feel about JenniCAM? (Like in terms of morality; did she break the tradition)
2. Did JenniCAM reverse the position of men in male gaze as men are traditionally active? Or do you think it is just pornography?
3. Traditionally, there is a clear boundary between public and private, does JenniCAM blurs the boundary between public life and private life? If yes, how?
4. “Woman as the guardian of morality and piety.” Is it a biologically or culturally constructed image?
By
Man Ka Po, Bobo
Wong Yi Yan, Jessica
Yim Yat Sze, Charlene
In my opinion, Jenni was pushing people to be a CYBORG. Once people want to have a look of her website again, they need to connect to the computer physically. Few months ago, I have read a magazine that was about cyborg, and said, people is a cyborg even when they listen to ipod with an earphone. In this way, I strongly think that JenniCAM encourage people to be a cyborg.
ReplyDeleteI think Jenni was not only control what the male could see, also the frequency. Because Jenni set up the rules that non-register (people who did not pay) could only see an image per 15 mins, the register (people who had paid) was more frequent. She was not the passive one being seen by other, but the one could control the current of gaze.
I agree that JenniCAM blurred the boundary between public life and private life. Because Jenni shown the places of her, such as bedroom, workplace also her real life. Before her website is built, no one knows how does her room look like and what this girl does in her leisure time, but everyone knows afterward. Therefore her privacy becomes disclosure.
When showing her real life to the world, she was also telling how a woman could behave. They could be aggressive, open and active that men may not aware in their life time (or so called stereotype). The website showed that Jenni act in a “not-girlish” way, such as combative and energetic. Now they might have to adjust their point of view on WOMEN after visiting Jenni’s web.
Obviously, we are cyborg too. We are also merging ourselves with machines in our daily life such as mobile phone, television, computer…etc. We need to listen or watch through those machines. Therefore, all of us are already became a cyborg!
ReplyDeleteBesides, it’s really hard to define the boundary between public life and private life. As technology enables us to live more publicly, we can share whatever we like on the internet. What private information now is difficult to identify or define.
In JenniCam, I think Jennifer has brough a new identity for female. She is a director and could control and construct the whole things. It shows female is no longer passive but more aggressive and active. I think we can consider a question - How does the technology change female’s behaviors and their identity?
Response to Joey:
ReplyDeleteIt is a very interesting idea which you talked about the JenniCAM was evolving people into a cyborg. I have never thought it before, but your observation was very nice indeed. For which you mentioned, the magazine suggested people became cyborg when they are connected with the iPod “through the earphone”. This can be imagined as a “visual” cyborg; a “real” connection between a technical device and the flesh.
Response to Ashley:
ReplyDeleteThat was a question in depth. It could be referring back to your presentation topic- Work and Play. Technology provides an opportunity for women to express themselves, resulting in the up-rising of equality between the genders.