Suspicious Images, Latent Interfaces Response

Bratton and Jeremijenko seem to be cautious of any type of data that is simply collected to be stored, and not actively used, and are weary of the purpose behind the data being collected. Bratton has mixed feelings about data having audiences, as they may further the audience from the real environmental issues they represent. I somewhat disagree with their stance. I think any data can be valuable, regardless of why it was collected or how passive it may be. Many environmental art projects seem to simply present information without actually making an impact on the environment, but are important in the sense that they raise awareness and expose environmental issues by making the audience feel a certain way. There is difference between the projects such as The Babbling Brook and projects such as the Environmental Health Clinic is the audience's interactivity. The audience is not directly involved with the data in The Babbling Brook, only observing data from sensors, as opposed the the Environmental Health Clinic where the data is put to use in real life applications. However, both projects accomplish the goal of awareness. There is a lot of information and knowledge out there, and the amount can seem overwhelming but they do serve a great purpose.

What the cassowary does not need to know

I think the reason we have such strict borders and separation between humans and nonhumans is that our ways of communication our different. The problem may lie in the difference of power; we perceive non humans to somehow be less than us. Perhaps the animals and nature also think we are less than them. I agree when the author argues humans never consider things from the non human's point of view, Most people probably assume nonhumans don’t even have a point of view. The author says that natureculture means that humans and nonhumans are “always in it together”. The word seems to imply that nature and culture work directly together in a mutualistic relationship. However from the sentence, “ 'perfect' Nature which never existed, but was always violated by human presence, by cultures, by naturecultures.”, it becomes clear that they don’t really work together. Culture seems to have more power and control over nature. I like the idea in the article of personifying nature and technology, forming a democracy including all entities in the world. But by personifying the cassowary, I feel that the Karam people using the cassowary to shape their culture is not based on the cassowary itself; their imagination of nature rather than actual nature affects their culture.