“Every human-technology relation is also a body-tool relation, and as such every mobile-body merger invokes certain kinds of being-in-the-world, and particular ways of knowing and making that world.”
Mobile media is a way of having a body. Heidegger – our being is always-already within domains of equipment. There is a relation between the tools/technologies we use and the ways we have a body – the ways in which we we will to power. This having-a-body is phenomenological and how we interact ontologically with the world – ontological here means to project questioning and meaning onto the world – . This interaction is precisely what stops us from seeing the world – the present-at-hand (the hammer, the mobile phone) can’t allow the world to show itself. The present-at-hand view also presupposes a network of practical relations amongst the things that we use – this is Dasein and Worldhood. Could it be that media and in particular mobile media is a new way in which this network of practical relations is made visible? So an affordance of the phone-as-media-maker might be its illumination of Dasein and Worldhood – once again I believe this is close to the interpretive practice around Chris Marker.
“Contemporary Western culture can be said to have a particular epistemological and perceptual bias, an ocularcentrism which works to prioritise visual and screen representations. The multistable and disparate nature of contemporary vision is a partial effect of the many screens encountered in the everyday – televisual, cinematic, information/text display, closed circuit, video – each with their own technical, environmental and interfacial specificities. What we experience is an aggregate vision , a continuous slippage and merging between televisual events, temporal zones, ‘culture fragments’, and genres of visual meaning.”