- Admin
- Jan 4, 2017
- 3 min read
After a good rant ‘n’ ramble and listening to Onset by Gil on repeat I began plucking some ideas from my understandings of post-truth, the articles I had read and also the conversations I had about it. Picking up on the repetition of a few phrases that have been married with the word post-truth in the media, jargon increasingly designed to simplify the complex matters of politics and society.
Phrases like –
“Filter Bubble”, “Normalisation”, “Fake News”, “Self Investigate”, “Information Cascade”…etc etc.
These notions describe the way we receive our information and how it is controlled and circulated but they are usually confined to the happenings of internet. I am interested in realising them in a tangible, metaphorical way.
I jotted down some quick fire ideas to get me started, all tinged with a hint of fictional future of course. Quite keen on visually translating the concepts wrapped up in the post-truth jargon, I began creating little scenarios which might represent the phrases.
1
I quite liked the idea of reversing what a filter bubble was supposed to do. One of my ideas consisted of creating, but more likely, hashing together a mock algorithm which operated along side (or hacked) your social media activity. Enabling it to feed you information that countered the beliefs you shared, posted or liked…almost as a vigilante ‘wake-up call’ to what other people think…a kinda backwards filter bubble.
As a social experiment lets say. Would it make people dig their heels in further and stay stuck to their beliefs? Or could being exposed to counter-beliefs as abundantly spread as their own, sub-consciously or otherwise, change their opinions? Are peoples political standings more influenced by what is perceived as popular consensus rather than what they actually know? Also, is the fact that peoples beliefs are so regularly validated and agreed with on social media as an effect of this “echo chamber”, the reason there is such a defined split in opinion from left to right…are we burrowing further into our respective bubbles because it’s safe and warm there and no one challenges us?
2
Another idea was to create a fictional prop that would be to used translate the words someone said so they would be more palatable for the intended listener, hearing just what they wanted to hear…an object used during day-to-day chit-chat with anyone you encountered helping you avoid the minefield that has become conversation. Keeping everyone in a state of righteous, agreeable reverie. A blissful bypassing of undesirable information. Aaah, how lovely (hell).
Perhaps entering into a debate with someone is physically impossible, your intended words never reaching their ears. How healthy would it be to live in a world without conflict? To be able to express your true opinion but to never have it challenged or even heard? Would it be more frustrating than debating with someone who doesn’t see your point of view?
This filtering/manipulating/distortion of everyday conversation used almost as a means of ‘keeping the peace’…
I guess for discussions sake this would be a metaphor for how our voice can be drowned out or it can feel like shouting into the dark when it comes to expressing opinion about the bigger issues in society. Having no voice that represents you in the community or feeling like your politicians or policy makers are speaking a different language to the one that exists for your community…
3
The physical filter bubble. So we are permanently divided along ideological lines, there will be no solution or government that will unite us all. It is an unattainable dream. The disparities are just not fixable. So what if these filtering algorithms became so prevalent in our day-to-day interactions that (obviously with the help of these augmented reality contact lenses that we are all guna have in the future!) they filter out the people who don’t share your opinions so you can’t physically see them. A self prescribed censorship of the people who don’t match your thinking, you’ve edited out the problem, looked passed it onto something more familiar…
Who is your personalised algorithm filtering out? The vegans? The Scots? The dog lovers?…
I like the image of someone sat on a bus full to capacity but they can only see half the people there…Happily never interacting with the ‘ghosts of disagreement’.
To quote some* journalist …”we are living in countries where one half just doesn’t know anything about the other…”
*(in true post-truth style of lazily not checking the facts)
……………………
So there are some thoughts…as the module assessment asks us to take ourselves from our comfort zones I am thinking of putting together a kind of performance, either live or recorded, to demonstrate my ideas. With props, sounds, costume and visuals, not giving myself too much to do then…I’ve been keen quite on the idea of ‘staging’ my project…so whether that means dressing a set, acting or directing others we will see…
