Model I
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Friday, 11 February 2011
These are some visual references for developing the maze idea.
At the moment I am thinking about the importance of how the 'viewer' would enter the maze. This is a very important aspect as it illustrates the moment of invading and crossing the boundary. The question is the following: Should the object or the invader be submissive? How could you create submission or dominance?
If the invader feels superior (maybe by being taller than the installation) one could give the invader a feeling of dominance.
If the invader has to kneel in order to invade the object, the object could take over the dominant part.
Furthermore, I think an installation made out of sheets hanging from the roof would work quite well as it corresponds to the layering process of tomography.
The Holocaust monument in Berlin is a good example of that. I don't know if you have been there, but from my experience I know that the Holocaust monument deals with these power dynamics, mentioned before.
When you enter the site, the cubes are very low and you feel superior as you can oversee the whole monument. Stepping further into the monument the single cubes are getting taller and you find yourself surrounded by huge grey cold walls which disorientate you and give you a feeling of losing control.
This change of 'power' within an installation or space is an aspect we should consider.
Thursday workshop day
I concentrated on our idea of subliminal messaging.
I randomly chose a few images and asked people what they are connecting with each of the images.
After having done that, I placed 2 images next to each other, in order to achieve another association.
The idea was to force or manipulate someones thought.
Nowadays, images, words, shapes or even colours are loaded with subliminal messages, which are controlling our thinking in a very subtile way.
I also thought about investigating subliminal messaging achieved by different senses, such as hearing or smelling.
Once again, I think this idea is very broad and communicates our idea of invading or even controlling someones mind in a very intelligent way, but I also think that the first idea of the maze may have more potential than this idea.
Whats your opinion?
In her works in both two and three dimensions, Parkina configures space as a subjective site simultaneously merging images and forms into a composite region.
Parkina is using striking visual effects by folding shapes and buildings, patterns and objects, silhouettes and contours into and out of one another, creating a layered, equivocal surface.
I do like the layering of her sculpture. We may use this for our maze idea......?
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
Mazes
Mazes are an object/concept that crossover between the two initial concepts. It touches on the ideas of boundaries, the way that from the outside a maze is just a giant box, but on the inside it's very complicated and you can only find this out by crossing the 'boundary' / the entrance to the maze.
It also controls you (masochistic) and only allows you to go certain ways. The maze is in control (master/slave dichotomy).
It also controls you (masochistic) and only allows you to go certain ways. The maze is in control (master/slave dichotomy).
Rachel Whiteread
An example of creating a maze like structure which basically controls where the audience can go. Following onto the idea of mazes...
Regarding other instruction manuals or technical drawings I added an engine drawing as well as the architectural drawing for le Parc de la vilette in Paris made by Bernard Tschumi. He developed the idea of double-coding in post-architecture or especially in deconstructive architecture. He layered 3 layers on top of each other in order to achieve a coded final structure which is filled with different communicative elements.
I really do like the manual or 'exploding diagram' you have uploaded.
It let me think about in how far an instruction manual is dictating the user to do certain things. There is this theme of power dynamics but also about building up a complete structure by combining parts/section, if that makes sense to you.
It let me think about in how far an instruction manual is dictating the user to do certain things. There is this theme of power dynamics but also about building up a complete structure by combining parts/section, if that makes sense to you.
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
Monday, 7 February 2011
Damien Ortega / Exploding diagrams:
I looked at all the Damien Ortega stuff and really like it.
Just thought I'd post these pics of exploding diagrams, as they're almost a two-dimensional, more practical version of what he does. Don't know how relevant it is but I like the images. Get any ideas from them?
Laura Michaels
This fashion designer used a full body scanner to take a perfectly accurate reading of her model's body. and then in turn, created clothes suited to the contour lines created by her body. It may not be exactly the same as tomography but is definitely still relevant.
Something gave me an idea having watched your video about the swing, which was the idea, within masochism, of being submissive and allowing oneself to be controlled by another.
It might be a bit tenuous but the contour lines created by Michael's body scanning immediately made me think of rope and chains. Think this relates quite nicely to the whole process of tying someone up, and leaving them vulnerable, something that we've seen quite a bit of in our masochism research.
What do you think?
Might be able to relate the two concepts quite nicely and come up with one of our 3 ideas for class on thursday?
Radiohead - House of Cards (For Joao Lucas)
In Radiohead's new video for "House of Cards", no cameras or lights were used. Instead, 3D plotting technologies collected information about the shapes and relative distances of objects. The video was created entirely with visualizations of that data.
It may not be tomography exactly, but it's the process of combining multiple pieces of data to create something new that is relevant.
Tomography does something very similar, only it combines layers of information rather than individual data reference points.
just an example showing the process of how the 3-dimensional shape is slowly built up through layers. creating a solid structure on the outside, the skin, whilst still building up a precise diagram of the insides of the head.
It's this idea of 'boundaries' that seems to be linking masochism and tomography quite well. In this instance the skin acts as a 'boundary' between the insides and out sides of the body, the visible and the invisible. In terms of masochism, the idea of a boundaries is more conceptual and relates more to master/slave dichotomy.
Tomography of the human brain
Tomography's main use is in a medical context.
Here is an image displaying multiple cross-sections of a human brain before they are compiled into a three-dimensional image. If you can imagine them each being placed on top of each other, then you'll start to understand a bit better how tomography works
by sending out penetrative rays through a solid object, in this case a human brain, and reflecting them back to a receiver, it is possible to monitor the intensity change of the original penetrative rays. This change of intensity in the rays reflects the density of the surface through which they had to pass at their, and thereby allows the user to build up an image of the plain through which the rays were focused (ie: where all the rays were focused after reflection). These plains, or "layers" are combined to create a 3d image.
Pierre Grangeat's definition of tomography:
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Stanley Milgram
However, Milgram set out to question this dispositional attribution of the Germans. He believed that the situation had led to the inhumane behaviour of the Nazis and therefore that anybody in the same situation as those committing such atrocities would have done the same in the same circumstances. Milgram argued that people would commit atrocities if required to do so by an authority figure. This argument is an example of a situational attribution as it is arguing that the behaviour resulted from the situation a person was in.
This study investigates the nature of obedience. Obedience can be defined as complying to the demands of others, particularly those in positions of authority.
Aim
The aim of the experiment was to investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.
Method/Procedure
This study is often described as an experiment. However as there is no control condition (i.e. all of the participants took place in the same experimental procedure) it is not strictly speaking an experiment. The independent variable could be considered to be the prods provided by the experimenter for the participant to carry on, and the dependent variable could be considered to be the degree of obedience. That is, how far up the shock scale the participant went.
It is perhaps more accurate to describe the method used as a type of controlled observation. The study collected both quantitative data in the way that it measured the amount of volts given and qualitative data in the way that Milgram observed the participants emotional responses and interviewed the participants after the study.
40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age, were recruited from the New Haven area. They were obtained by responding to a newspaper and direct mail advertisement which asked for volunteers to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. The participants represented a wide range of occupations, including postal clerks, high-school teachers, salesmen, engineers and labourers. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment but importantly they were told that the payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, regardless of what happened after they arrived.
Milgram created a phoney ‘shock generator’ which in the 1960s looked very impressive and realistic. The phoney shock generator had 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts.
To improve the authenticity of the phoney shock generator written labels were also clearly indicated for groups of four switches: ‘slight shock’, ‘moderate shock’, ‘strong shock’, ‘very strong shock’, ‘intense shock’, ‘extreme intensity shock’, ‘danger: severe shock’. Two switches after this were marked XXX).
The phoney generator also had buzzers, flashing lights and moving dials. The generator could give a 45-volt shock, which again was designed to make it appear genuine.
The experiment took place in a smart psychology laboratory in Yale University.
The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old biology teacher, who introduced himself as Jack Williams. He wore a grey technician’s coat and appeared stern and emotionless throughout the experiment.
The victim was played by Mr Wallace, a 47-year-old accountant, trained for the role, whom most observers found mild-mannered and likeable.
One participant and one victim (a confederate) were used in each trial. In order to justify the administration of the electric shocks by the participant a cover story was used. After a general introduction about the relation between punishment and learning the participants were told:
But actually we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning, because almost no truly scientific studies have been made of it in human beings.
For instance, we don't know how much punishment is best for learning, and we don't know how much difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment, whether an adult learns best from a younger or an older person than himself, or many things of that sort.
So in this study we are bringing together a number of adults of different occupations and ages. And we’re asking some of them to be teachers and some of them to be learners. We want to find out just what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners, and also what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation.
Therefore, I’m going to ask one of you to be the teacher here tonight and the other one to be the learner.
Does either of you have a preference?
The participant was asked to draw a slip of paper from a hat to determine which role he would play. The draw was rigged so the participant was always the teacher and Mr. Wallace (the confederate) was always the learner.
The teacher (participant) and learner were taken to an adjacent room and in full view of the teacher (participant) the learner was strapped into the ‘electric chair’. The experimenter explained to the teacher (participant) that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked; the effect was to make it impossible for him to escape the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist and electrode paste (cream) was applied ‘to avoid blisters and burns’. The participant (teacher) was told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room. The participant (teacher) then heard the experimenter tell the learner ‘although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage’.
To further enhance the authenticity of the generator the participant (teacher) was given a sample shock of 45 volts, applied by pressing the third switch. The shock generator was actually powered by a 45-volt battery and not wired to the mains.
The participant (teacher) was then seated in an adjacent room in front of the shock generator and asked to read a series of word pairs to the learner. The learner was asked to learn (memorise) these pairs (this is known as ‘paired-association learning’). The participant (teacher) then tests the learner by giving him one of the words in a pair along with four other words. The learner has to indicate which of the four words had originally been paired with the first word. The learner’s answer was communicated by pressing one of four switches which illuminated a light on top of the shock generator. If the answer was correct the participant (teacher) had to move onto the next word on the list, if the answer was wrong the participant had to tell the learner the correct answer and then the level of punishment that they were going to give them. They would then press the first switch on the shock generator (15 volts). For every subsequent incorrect answer the participant was required to move one switch up the scale of shocks (15 volts higher than the voltage of the last shock delivered).
In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the word pair test, based on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer.
In this very first experiment, the procedure continued as the ‘remote victim’ experiment, whereby no vocal response or other sign of protest was heard from the learner until the shock level of 300 volts was reached. At this point the learner (Mr Wallace) pounded on the wall of the room and could be heard by the participant (teacher). From this point on, the learner’s answers no longer appeared on the panel, and many participants usually began to turn to the experimenter for guidance. The participant (teacher) was instructed to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer and to shock the learner according to the usual schedule, allowing 5 to 10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer. The pounding on the wall was repeated after the 315 volt shock but subsequently the learner was not heard from, and his answers did not reappear on the panel.
If the participant asked advice from the experimenter, whether it be; ‘should I continue administering shocks’, or some other indication that he did not wish to go on, he would be given encouragement to continue with a sequence of standardised ‘prods’:
Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’;
Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue’;
Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’;
Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’.
The prods were always made in sequence. Only if Prod 1 was unsuccessful could Prod 2 be used, etc. If the participant continued to disobey after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was always firm, but not impolite.
If the participant asked if the learner could suffer permanent physical injury, a special prod was used; ‘although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. If the participant said that the learner did not want to go on, another special prod was used; ‘whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on’, followed by Prods 2, 3 and 4 if necessary. The experiment would end either when the 450 volt shock had been administered, or when the participant walked out.
A participant who breaks off at any point prior to the highest shock level (450 volts) is called a defiant participant, while one who obeys up to the 450 volts is called an obedientparticipant.
The sessions were also filmed and notes were taken by observers looking through an observation mirror. The latency and duration of shocks were timed.
After the experiment, the participants were thoroughly debriefed using open-ended questions and to test that the participants were not harmed a number of psychometric measures (projective tests and attitude scales) were used.
The participant was also reunited with the victim to show them that the victim was not harmed and it was explained to them that there behaviour was normal. These measures were taken to ensure that the participants left that laboratory in a state of well being.
Results/Findings
All 40 of the participants obeyed up to 300 volts at which point 5 refused to continue. Four more gave one further shock before refusing; two broke off at the 330 volts level and one each at 345, 360 and 375 volts. Therefore, a total of 14 participants defied the experimenter, and 26 obeyed. Overall, 65% of the participants gave shocks up to 450 volts (obeyed) and 35% stopped sometime before 450 volts;
After the maximum shock had been administered, the participant was asked to continue at this level until the experimenter eventually called a halt to the proceedings, at which point many of the obedient participants heaved sighs of relief or shook their heads in apparent regret.
During the study many participants showed signs of nervousness and tension. Participants sweated, trembled, stuttered, bit their lips, groaned, dug fingernails into their flesh, and these were typical not exceptional responses. Quite a common sign of tension was nervous laughing fits (14 out of 40 participants), which seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full-blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for three participants. On one occasion, a participant had such a violently convulsive seizure that the experiment had to be halted; the 46-year-old encyclopaedia salesman was extremely embarrassed. Participants took pains to point out that they were not sadistic types, and that the laughter did not mean they enjoyed shocking the learner.
With few exceptions, participants were convinced of the reality of the situation, In the post-experimental interview, participants were asked: ‘How painful to the learner were the last few shocks you administered to him?’ On a printed 14-point scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all painful’) to 14 (‘extremely painful’), the mean was 13.42.
Explanation
Milgram put forward nine possible features of the experiment which may explain why such high levels of obedience occurred even when such extreme tension was created by the procedure:
· The fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University lent the study and procedure credibility and respect.
· The participant believed that the experiment was for a worthy purpose - to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes.
· The participant believed the victim had volunteered to be in the study and therefore has an obligation to take part even if the procedures become unpleasant.
· The participant felt himself to be similarly obligated to take part in the procedures as planned.
· Being paid increased the sense of obligation.
· As far as the participant was concerned, the roles of learner and teacher had been allocated fairly, by drawing lots. Thus the learner could not feel aggrieved that he had been unfairly assigned his role.
· As most participants had never been a participant in a psychology experiment before, they had little idea about the rights and expectations of experimenter and participant. The situation was novel and there were no norms operating and nobody with whom to discuss ambiguities and doubts.
· The participants had been assured that the shocks were ‘painful but not dangerous’. This short-term pain was balanced with the possibility of long-term scientific gain.
· The victim responded to all of the questions until the 300 volt level was reached. They had thus indicated their willingness to take part.
To test some of these explanations Milgram carried out many more variations of his experiment.
For example in one variation to his experiment Milgram altered the location to a run-down office building in downtown Bridgeport, Connecticut. In this setting the obedience rate was47.5%, suggesting that the original location had played some part, but it was not a crucial factor
Milgram was therefore arguing that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation a person is in. He believes that we often make dispositional attributions about behaviour, which are incorrect. That is, we often believe a person has behaved the way they do because of their personality when in fact it was the situation which shaped their behaviour.
Evaluation of Procedure
Weaknesses
The most important criticism of Milgram’s work is concerned with its ethics:
Participants were deceived as to the exact nature of the study for which they had volunteered, and by making them believe they were administering real electric shocks to a real participant. However Milgram could not have found results that truly reflected the way people behave in real situations if he had not deceived his participants, all of whom were thoroughly debriefed afterwards
It can also be argued that Milgram did not take adequate measures to protect his participants from the stress and emotional conflict they experienced. Milgram’s defence was that he, and the students and psychiatrists - who had been asked to predict the results of the first experiment - did not expect the results he obtained, and went on to ask whether such criticisms are based as much on the unexpected results as on the procedure itself
It is possible that being involved in the experiment may have had a long-term effect on the participants. Before the experiment they might have considered themselves incapable of inflicting harm on another person unless the circumstances were extreme. Afterwards, this view of themselves was shattered. Milgram argued that such self-knowledge was valuable. A year after the experiments an independent psychiatrist interviewed 40 of the participants (many of whom had experienced extreme stress), and found no evidence of psychological harm or evidence of traumatic reactions.
In terms of the right to withdraw, it was good that Milgram stated at the start that the money paid to the participants was theirs regardless of whether they continued with the experiment. However, during the experiment the prods used suggested that withdrawal was not possible. This is ethically incorrect. Even so, we should consider whether the experiment would have been valid if the experimenter kept reminding the participant about his right to withdraw.
A major criticism of Milgram’s study was his unrepresentative sample. Milgram chose to study only American men (thus he was deliberately ethnocentric), but from a variety of backgrounds and different ages. It could be argued that by using men this produced a sample that was biased, or did not reflect the general population. The study was also limited to those people who read the advertisement and were prepared to participate in a laboratory experiment. These men who replied may have been somehow different from the general population.
Because of such an unrepresentative sample the results cannot be generalised to all people. Despite this, Milgram concluded that ‘obedience to authority is not a feature of German culture but a seemingly universal feature of human behaviour’. A number of cross-cultural replications of Milgram’s experiment have been done (e.g. Italy and Australia) gaining similar results
Another main criticism of Milgram’s experiment was that it was not ecologically valid. It can be argued that Milgram’s work was carried out in an artificial setting and has little relevance to the real world. However, less artificial studies have been carried out gaining similar results. For example in Hoffling’s study (1966), nurses were asked to give potentially lethal injections to patients, and 21 out of 22 appeared prepared to do it. A further study was carried out by Sheridan and King (1972), where people were asked to give real electric shocks to a puppy. The participants obeyed even though they could see the distress of the animal.
Strength
A main strength of Milgram’s experiment was the amount of control he was able to administer. For example, participants believed they were being randomly assigned to either the teacher or learner, they believed they were actually administering electric shocks, they all used the same apparatus, had the same prods from the same person and so on.
Evaluation of Explanation
Milgram believes that it is the situation that people find themselves in rather than their dispositions that best explain their actions. This argument gains support from many studies in social psychology. For example Zimbardo demonstrates that the role a person plays is a more important factor in determining behaviour than their personality.
However this argument can be seen as too deterministic. For example in Milgram’s study not all of the participants were willing to go all the way to 450 volts. Perhaps the reason why some of the participants were less willing was something to do with their personalities. It can also be argued that we are socialised to be obedient and that it is therefore easier to obey than disobey.
(source: http://www.holah.karoo.net/milgramstudy.htm )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)