Where is the Love?

     Is there Love in the telematics embrace? Ascott's article was first published in the year 1989. The fact that this debate still rages on to this very day is an accurate indicator of how difficult this question is to answer. IS there love in the telematics embrace? I think it depends on who you ask and what you observe. There is no question that electronic means of communication have taken a central role in our lives. And as this ability to communicate over distances increased, so have the offerings of technology. A decade ago there existed e-mail and a rudimentary system of text messaging (instant messenger) where the person on the other end of the communication was nothing more than a blinking cursor after their last statement. Nowadays we have emoji's, gifs, memes and the ability to look at each other face to face when we communicate. All of these add-on's to our rudimentary system have only served a single purpose- to communicate with more emotion. This betrays two things; one, that our previous forms of communication lacked emotion, and two, that emotion plays a pivotal role in human communication.
     It seems to me that one of Ascott's main contentions in his article is that the medium of computing has changed the very means in which we communicate. In other words, once upon a time communication involved three things; person one, person two and the language shared between them (both bodily and verbally). Now throw in a computer. A computer forces us to interact with it, to become participators in it's systems. Enter communicator number three. Rather than use our body language and verbal language to communicate to one another, we now pass our thought communications through this interactive medium, effectively creating three communicators.
     For the moment, the third communicator is a passive one. Rather than a machine speaking for me, I speak through the machine. When my buddy texts me saying how the boss's daughter is hitting on him during the company picnic, I send him back a gif of David Byrne sweating profusely on stage. I just used the computer's quasi-words/gestures to communicate what I am feeling, plus added humor and an inside joke that brings the conversation to a more intimate level than I perhaps could have expressed verbally. This begs the question, what is the superior form of communication? The one on one verbal, social, and bodily communication that we have developed as a race to recognize and relate to; or the newer means of communicating via pictures and symbols and videos? I am going to have to disappoint the reader and say that this is a question with no specific answer. Both forms of communication have become so widely divided that it is difficult to even compare the two. It boils down to who you are talking to, in the end. There is nothing like receiving a hilarious text from a friend about a shared experience or cultural gag. There is nothing like looking into the eyes of your lover and telling them how you feel.
      So is there love in the telematics embrace? I suppose it's the thought that counts. Art most likely predates our ability to verbally communicate and it has remained a prevalent part of human communication through out history. This type of communication clearly isn't going anywhere, but will evolve, much like our own language has. So long as the intention of the communicator is to express emotion -not necessarily love- but emotion, then yes, I would have to say that there is the potential for love in the telematic embrace.