The most surprising thing I learned from reading this article is that manhole covers aren’t just for sewers and subway access—they also serve as gateways for telecom companies like Verizon and AT&T. I’ve walked around New York countless times without giving a second thought to these manhole covers, but now I realize they’re part of the infrastructure connecting my apartment to the internet. It might be worth paying closer attention to the markings on them next time!

This article also reminds me of the cables inside my apartment. Before setting up my own network, I’d never dealt with network equipment and just assumed that once I plugged in a router, the internet would magically “show up.” But when I moved out on my own and had to install everything myself, I got my first real look at the maze of cables hidden in the walls. It took me several hours of effort to identify each cable, follow a tutorial, and finally get everything connected properly. It was a lesson in just how much work goes into the things we usually take for granted. Behind every “virtual” experience lies a complex network of physical infrastructure—and a lot of effort to make it all work.

When people have wealth and resources that do not match their capabilities, those resources do not lead to innovation and revolution, but only to more suffering and conflict. Congo is a very good example. About a quarter of the tantalum ore mined in the first decade of the twenty-first century came from Congolese coltan. Coltan, short for coltan, is an unrefined mixture of two metallic ores from which tantalum can be extracted. Tantalum is an excellent conductor of electricity and is mainly used in the miniature capacitors that make our increasingly miniaturized electronic devices work. The huge profits have made an already troubled country even more chaotic and disorganized, and forty percent of the mining workforce are children (about six years old). And like other miners, many of them have been exposed to mercury, uranium and other heavy metals. What most of us don’t realize is that the elements of the electronic devices we use in our hands contain such a bloody story and history. For all the talk about Web 3.0 and decentralization, are we just dressing up the same old systems? Even with blockchain or decentralized networks, the question remains as to who will benefit from it. Countless people are profiting from the growth of this industry, so how do we ensure that the system is free from graft or corruption? Although a lot of things are now data-driven, behind this invisibility, it relies on a very large amount of physical infrastructure and manpower, with some areas and resources of manpower exchanged for our current society. While enjoying these technological conveniences, can we really realize the costs behind them? In the next historical process, how can we promote the development of AI technology while ensuring that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past?

After reading through the article ”A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” by John Perry Barlow, I immediately connected with the situation and relationship we encounter with generative AI right now. What John said in this declaration was indeed hopeful and pleasant, but it was way too idealistic. It’s true that at the early age of cyberspace, it was not under the control of the government, where people had the authority to govern their own. But without supervision and regulation, in the state of anarchy, people’s rights would not be granted but be deprived. Similar things are happening today. Artists’ rights are not guaranteed at all; their artwork can be easily copied and duplicated by AI, and I think it’s really important for people to regulate it. But still, I think there are some points he mentioned worth pondering, especially the part where he mentioned how cyberspace fosters a global conversation that transcends geographical boundaries. This infrastructure allows for a diverse range of voices and ideas, promoting cultural exchange.

Last weekend, I visited Bitforms gallery to see Rafael Lozano-Hemmer’s limited-time exhibition, Caressing the Circle. Running from September 4 to October 26, I wanted to ensure I saw his works before the exhibition concluded. The small gallery space featured only five pieces, but each left a deep impression. The walls were painted pure white, creating a sharp contrast between the works and their environment. I came to this gallery because I’ve always been intrigued by how Lozano-Hemmer blends technology with human interaction in his new media art. The experience didn’t disappoint.

The first thing that caught my eye as I entered the gallery was Shadow Tuner (2023), a large spherical LED display. This interactive piece stood 67 inches tall, resembling a giant globe, with cameras and speakers mounted around its base. As I moved in front of the globe, I could listen to live broadcasts worldwide. The built-in AI analyzer prioritized spoken word content, and when I spoke in Chinese, I was immediately tuned into a Chinese broadcast stream. With the different languages playing in the background, I continued further into the gallery.

The next piece that caught my attention was Standards and Double Standards: Single Belt Version (2004). This work consists of a leather belt suspended from the ceiling, and as I moved around the room, it followed me, creating a subtle confrontation between me and the piece. The belt seemed to symbolize authority or control, making me reflect on themes of surveillance and power. Although the work was completely silent, its relentless, almost indifferent movement created an atmosphere of quiet tension. The absence of a human wearer emphasized the concept of invisible authority, evoking a feeling of being watched by something intangible yet ever-present. No matter where I went, as long as I was in view of the camera, I was always being tracked, and the belt’s buckle would “stare” right at me.

The piece that left the deepest impression on me was Transparency Display (2024), an interactive glass triptych made of custom liquid crystal panels. This work simultaneously reveals and obscures the portraits of viewers on both sides of the glass in real-time, creating a surreal sense of connection, as individuals are both spectators and participants, becoming part of the installation through their fleeting reflections. At first, I thought it was a mirror, but upon closer inspection, I realized it was transparent. Later, I looked up more details and found that the technology behind Transparency Display is extraordinary. It uses liquid crystal pixels that shift between transparency and translucency, allowing portraits to appear and disappear in a subtle, haunting way. This feature is far more advanced than standard smart glass technologies, as the panels display real-time content, offering a more immersive experience than simply switching opacity for privacy.

The atmosphere of the piece was ethereal. The soft lighting in the gallery enhanced the faint silhouettes appearing and disappearing on the glass, blurring the line between indoors and outdoors. Light, shadow, and human presence created a dynamic effect that connected both sides of the triptych, turning it into a living portal. What fascinated me most were the brief personal connections the piece facilitated—seeing a stranger across the glass in such an intimate yet eerie way, as though they were right there with me. The exhibition’s layout was crucial to my understanding of the work. Despite the gallery’s small size, positioning Transparency Display in the center, with a mirrored environment on both sides, heightened the illusion of looking at oneself through another’s eyes. 

In Bell Hooks’s article “Critical Thinking”, she walks us through how children’s critical thinking, or, to say, creativity, was suppressed as they grew. Personally, I think critical thinking is one of the ways of creative practice. To support this, then, what is creative practice, and what is critical thinking? To me, creativity is a given talent that all of us have, a personal and special taste in our daily lives. We can be creative in many ways; art is the most obvious and traditional means. We could be creative about what we eat; we could be creative about how to get to school, and we could also be creative about what to wear today. Creativity is a process that seeks our own opinions and thoughts. And critical thinking is just another matter of creativity that applies to academic or serious events. “By the time most students enter college classrooms, they have come to dread thinking”, Hooks says in her article. For those of the students, they’ve lost their passion for the school or for the things they have to learn. Since the school has all these principles and rules that they have to follow, they are being shaped into a mold that adults/people believe to be good. If you were a good student, would you come up randomly with a bold question in the middle of a lecture in front of hundreds of people to share your own opinion on a specific topic? I assume not since it’s rude and maybe unnecessary to give this a try. However, this is just an extreme example, you can still be critical thinking and creative and go ask your teacher privately or brainstorm on your own. But that’s what I understand as why it explains what Hooks said about students now being passive recipients of all information and no longer thinking critically.