The Guillermo Gomez-Pena Piece -A Critical Response

This article talks about how the Chicano populations are "cyberimmigrants" on the internet and supports the argument made by both Nakamura and Kolko that there is a racial and cultural digital divide when it comes to the internet and its access. Guillermo Gomez-Pena; however, points out that the divide may not totally be due to a lack of access to high technology rather than it holds no apparent appeal. Culturally, he says that Mexicans enjoy social and physical interaction with people. The cyber culture does not afford any physical contact and therefore is viewed as being a dehumanized environment. He also points out that growing up Mexico, it was far more important owning postmodern technology rather than using it. He mused how televisions doubled up as the family religious alter and how his Grandmother commented on how well her new electric ionizador worked; although she had never plugged in.

I have to agree with Guillermo, that Latin Americans, historically and from my own personal experience of having Hispanic friends and neighbors, that as a race they are renowned as having a great sence of humor, a love for politics and social interaction, and see themselves as culturally and spiritually superior. The internet chat rooms would seem to be an informidable and unlikely place to meet and really befriend someone. The internet lacks the tactile interaction that social extroverts thrive on. He agrees with Nakamura that the internet for people of his culture is used as a tourist gallery, not unlike watching television. The title of the article sarcastically says that the Chicano Internet is the search for intelligent life in cyberspace.

As an artist Guillermo is working hard to introduce the world to the Mexican culture using high technology. Even his high tech performances always involve some form of physical contact with his audience. This both attracts the Chicano audiences and shows the world how his culture can incorporate technology in art. He pokes fun of the way the world perceives his Aztec ancestry by mixing politics with art and humor with tragedy. Some of his works are disturbing to watch such as this following piece from the Museum of Fetishishized Identities:



I found the article very thought provoking and his perspective of how "web backs" identify or do not identify with the predominately white cyberworld enlightening.

A critical response to the reading on Cybernetic Tourism...

In America we celebrate global multicultural perspectives that have shaped our country’s values and beliefs. But what if there were no diverse perspectives, based on gender, age, race, or unique personal experiences? Would that be a utopian society? Lisa Nakamura writes that companies such as MCI, IBM, Compaq and other high-tech corporations that portray the internet as an Utopian democracy “founded upon disembodiment and uncontaminated by physical differences", would like you to think so.

"Where Do You Want to Go Today?"

One of the questions that comes to mind in reading her work is that if technology really levels the playing field by eradicating all cultural diversity, (because technology is homogeneous and devoid of cultural bias),is that this is an utopia world I personally would not want to live in. Nakamura claims that the ANTHEM ad MCI produced only camouflages its depiction of race using visual cues and does not address the diversity issues of multi-cultural perspectives. Race and cultural diversity is something that technology considers insignificant and unimportant which is at best misleading and at worse unethical.

In a virtual world, what you see is not necessarily true or factual. The visual ads depict pristine exotic environments and peoples that are brought together through technology. What you can’t experience through this virtual world though is reality. To market networking and personal computing, Nakamura says technology companies must convince its users that the world is without limits and you can safety surf it using the internet. The problem with this reality is that it is only a facimile of the real world designed by ad agencies and doesn’t really exist.

In a virtual world you can mask the culture and create new identitities.As the internet evolves, a new digital culture will be created. The new culture, though, is limited to those that can access it. People in third world countries, or who live in rural areas may never have access to the technology to visit or be part of the virtual world. Nakaramura points out the transnational tourists on the internet are those of us who have the technology and access to it to visit the virtual world and design it anyway we'd like. This does not make it "real" in the sense that you can touch and experience it like the experience of walking outside in your own backyard and touching, smelling and picking an apple, lets say, and eating it from your garden... well at least not yet.

-Jennifer Wheeler