I’ve always thought that there’s something extremely beautiful behind the notion of creating a machine that’s faster and more powerful than the human capacity. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is one of my favorite Gothic novels, so when Professor Vesna mentioned Shelley’s work during this week’s online lecture, I began to think about “the beauty of speed and power” and how this beauty has influenced artists since the first industrial revolution ("Robotics Pt. 1," YouTube).
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein
BarnesAndNoble.com
|
Here's the trailer for the 1931 Version of Frankenstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKyiXjyVsfw
In his work entitled “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin attempts to dismantle the idea of authenticity via stressing the societal continuation of mechanical reproduction. He asserts that “the aura of the work of art” is what “withers in the age of mechanical reproduction,” meaning that art loses its luster once it can be replicated (Benjamin). He specifically cites the replication of a photograph as an example, claiming that the photographic negative then loses its significance; however, I would argue that there’s still something very attractive about experiencing “the original copy.” For instance (and again, I’m allowing the inner-English major in myself to surface), first editions, or moreover, original copies of famous books continue to hold immense value, despite the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press and today’s modern copy machines. While machines have allowed more people to experience these books (or using Benjamin’s example, these photographs), original pieces of art maintain a superior level of beauty. Furthermore, there’s beauty behind every machine’s ability to replicate these pieces of art.
![]() |
ORIGINAL COPY of Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales' "Most Expensive Books in the World" - Investopedia.com |
![]() |
REPLICATED COPY of Chaucer's 'Canterbury Tales' GoodReeds.com |
This idea becomes especially interesting (and almost a little frightening…) when we begin to think about the idea that machines can also replicate human functions. In the Academy Award-winning film Her (directed by Spike Jonze), a man falls in love with a machine — or more specifically, “the first artificial intelligence operating system” (Warner Bros. Trailer). The movie questions the relevance of human-to-human interaction (compared to the enhanced human-to-machine interaction, as demonstrated throughout the film) and therefore, hints at the idea that one day, machines might be able to replace humans. It’s interesting to think about how sometimes, machines (computers, for example) are more capable than human beings. It’s one thing for a machine to replicate a piece of art or a human task, but I think it’s really fascinating to think about a machine being able to replicate human emotion.
Here's the official trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne6p6MfLBxc
![]() |
Her (Cover Photo) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/ |
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” 1936.
“Frankenstein (1931) Trailer.” RoboJapan. YouTube. 1 Oct. 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Penguin Classic’s The Canterbury Tales. Digital Image. GoodReads.com. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Her: Cover Photo. Digital image. International Movie Database: Her. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
“Her — Official Trailer 2.” Warner Bros. Pictures. YouTube. 3 Dec. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Digital Image. Barnes & Noble: BarnesAndNoble.com, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
The Canterbury Tales. Digital Image. Investopedia.com. Web. 17. Apr. 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. “Robotics Pt1.” UCOnlineProgram. YouTube. 15 Apr. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2015
Casey,
ReplyDeleteI was really pleased to see that you mentioned Her. It's a beautiful film that I've seen multiple times and has always affected me greatly. Many tears are involved. As intriguing as the idea of a machine being a better human is, I don't believe that is the main point in Her. In the end (spoilers) the AI becomes so advanced that she surpasses human knowledge. She is able to exist in a world humans can not access. I don't believe this makes her a better human, in fact it makes her something completely different. She was unable to become human because she had too much knowledge, which came from her being artificial. She leaves the human realm of existence and then the lead actor is able to find companionship with another human. I believe the movie stresses the inability of a machine to be human. They can be lower or higher then us, but they can never be us. The movie ends with showing the deep emotions and comfort to be found within another human, and no matter how advanced a machine is, we shouldn't fear them as they will never bother themselves with something so nonadvanced as humans.