 |
| Image Source-Google | Image by- | verywellmind |
A quantity of theorists have explored the meaning and implications of prosthetic extension of the body. Elizabeth Grosz writes, “Creatures use tools, embellishes, and appliances to reinforce their physical capacities. Are their our bodies lacking something, which they want to update with synthetic or alternative organs?…Or conversely, have to prostheses be understood, in phrases of aesthetic reorganization and proliferation, as the effect of an inventiveness that functions past and perhaps in defiance of pragmatic want?” Elaine Scarry argues that every artifact recreates and extends the body. Chairs complement the skeleton, equipment append the fingers, apparel augments the skin. In Scarry’s thinking, “furnishings and homes are neither greater nor less interior to the human body than the meals it absorbs, nor are they essentially different from such state-of-the-art prosthetics as artificial lungs, eyes and kidneys. The consumption of synthetic matters turns the frame inner out, commencing it as much as and because the lifestyle of gadgets.” Mark Wigley, a professor of architecture, continues this line of considering how structure dietary supplements our natural abilities, and argues that “a blurring of identity is produced by all prostheses.” Some of this work relies on Freud’s earlier characterization of man’s relation to gadgets as certainly one of extension.