"He who has the gold makes the rules"
The ruling class in our American society is thought to have less control than in other nations, simply because of the state of our democracy. Arguably, the facts are that the ruling class has stayed the same in our country for its entire history. The upper class in our only representation, those witht the money making the rules in government and all politcal policy. Government has given the weaker class a voice but does not traslate this voice into action. The upperclass gernerating the rules and make up for this nation has their best interest in mind in all decision making, understandably. The foundation of capiltalism is to get ahead, stay head, a notion that is practiced with a continuation of the ruling class. Our society dynamic is formed by the seperation of classes and the ruling class able to control the lower class. We dont want everyone to be fail, equal and prevledged, it would cause a massive economic explosion. The United States, and every nation, needs a balance of social groups in order for our fast paced lives to function. Not everone can be an excecutive or a president of a major corporation, it is savd for the elite. For better or for worse our society is based off what money you have or are able to generate. Thats why most go to school, to become an asset for a company, a potential pod for money. For those who have money it is a tool to network with others who have money, to make more money. The ruling class and the shaping of our nation will not change and if it did, would it be for the best?
Friday, March 7, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
ChittyChittyBangBang 3/6
"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their social being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness" (37).
I found this quote to be an interesting one to start off the class with... I do believe I subscribe to Marxism in this regard. Different upbringings could result in different degrees of mental freedom although I think that for the most part the media and our surroundings control our consciousness whether we know it or not. Ever since we were born there are certain ideologies, stereotypes, etc...etc... that gets burned into our brains. Whether we agree with them or not, they still influence our way of thinking. I would like to think that this isn't true and that we as a society are stronger than that but I would be deeply impressed if someone could resist the influence of the their environment. It is like the ISA, culture, all of these norms such as religion, education, family, media, etc... make up our culture and how we fit together. We have the same general expectations when it comes to families, education, and jobs. Most of us seem to believe that we need these particular things in order to achieve the American dream.
I also found Althusser's quote, "Those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology" (48), very true. People who so claim to be resisting and rebelling against social norms are usually the one's who are subconsciously subscribing to it the most. I believe this is true just out of experiences with this idea. People who often take the time to convince you of something their not are usually that very thing! If someone has to tell you all the time that their not mean for instance, they probably are. I have experienced people denying things like this out of guilt because it is in their subconscious and they don't want to believe that it is true. This may not always be the case but I think it is a common trend that several of us have probably been guilty of at some point.
I found this quote to be an interesting one to start off the class with... I do believe I subscribe to Marxism in this regard. Different upbringings could result in different degrees of mental freedom although I think that for the most part the media and our surroundings control our consciousness whether we know it or not. Ever since we were born there are certain ideologies, stereotypes, etc...etc... that gets burned into our brains. Whether we agree with them or not, they still influence our way of thinking. I would like to think that this isn't true and that we as a society are stronger than that but I would be deeply impressed if someone could resist the influence of the their environment. It is like the ISA, culture, all of these norms such as religion, education, family, media, etc... make up our culture and how we fit together. We have the same general expectations when it comes to families, education, and jobs. Most of us seem to believe that we need these particular things in order to achieve the American dream.
I also found Althusser's quote, "Those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology" (48), very true. People who so claim to be resisting and rebelling against social norms are usually the one's who are subconsciously subscribing to it the most. I believe this is true just out of experiences with this idea. People who often take the time to convince you of something their not are usually that very thing! If someone has to tell you all the time that their not mean for instance, they probably are. I have experienced people denying things like this out of guilt because it is in their subconscious and they don't want to believe that it is true. This may not always be the case but I think it is a common trend that several of us have probably been guilty of at some point.
NewYorker class 3/4
What I found to be most interesting in Tuesday's class was when we were talking about do it yourself video projects, and youtube. It's interesting that videos on youtube can become so popular and get so many hits, whether they are original material, or a video based on something already done (like Star Trek, Star Wars, or a popular song getting remade with new lyrics or a unique dance), and it costs those people zero dollars to make it. Yet, we have commercials on TV that are just as long as some of these clips, but usually even shorter, and they spend millions of dollars! It just doesn't make sense to me, yet it shows how valuable air time is for companies/brands, that they will pay almost anything to get their name out there. Even making movies costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and a low budget film is considered in the range of 10-30 million. But they come out looking just as good! And even my brother is a movie maker, and made 3 original movies, feature length, and cost him nearly nothing each, and all came out well filmed, edited, soundtracks, etc. He even puts up original clips that he makes himself online, and they don't cost him a thing to make. So why this huge gap in money when it comes to making movies? Do we have to put a price tag on it in order to consider it valuable? Why can't the media work like youtube, showing its value in number of hits it gets, or how many times it comes up in all the different search engines?
I relooked at this quote: "As more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity” – 556, and I thought about how now (since a few years ago) at the Oscars they have categories for short films, foreign films, and independent films (which are all considered low budget), and how the acadamy is now shedding light and appreciating those types of movies made - will this change anything of the media or film industry in the future?
I relooked at this quote: "As more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity” – 556, and I thought about how now (since a few years ago) at the Oscars they have categories for short films, foreign films, and independent films (which are all considered low budget), and how the acadamy is now shedding light and appreciating those types of movies made - will this change anything of the media or film industry in the future?
Bella Post Class 3/6
In my understanding, an ideology is a set of ideas, practices or beliefs of a dominant group that permeate society and influence the public way of life. We have certain ideologies in our culture such the idea of The American Dream or that education is available for everyone. Last semester, I took a course specifically talking about our cultural ideologies, what they are, how they affect us, etc. It was by far one of the most thought provoking and “veil-lifitng” classes I’ve ever taken. As Althusser wrote, the cultural ideologies we have in society are created by the upper class, and no matter how deceiving, ultimately benefit the elite. Althusser wrote, “There is no practice except by and in an ideology” (Althusser 45). Everything that we see, do, hear, learn, any information or text that we receive is part of the ideological system created by the upper class.
One of the most interesting things we talked about in class today was comparing Marx’s binary oppositions of the American ruling class. Fast, slow, new, old, etc. I found it extremely interesting to hear the class’ preferences over each option. Fast v. slow was by far the most interesting for me. Someone said that our generation demands everything now, immediate, and I completely agree. I wonder, though, if my generation in other countries would feel the same way. Western culture, specifically American, has a unique obsession with time. I firmly believe that the one of the most powerful objects in the world is a clock. Americans are obsessed with time, with being late, with getting everything now. In Latin American countries, time is relative. “Island time” is a common term in the islands, and in many European countries, businesses close for several hours in the afternoon to give every a midday rest. For us, fast is better. For others, slow is the only way to go. I often wish that I lived in a culture that valued the slow lifestyle–we so often get wrapped up in our fast lives that we don’t take the time to appreciate the world around us, step away from the ideologies that form our culture and appreciate the simplicities of life. Maybe we should all take a lesson from Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie…just kidding.
One of the most interesting things we talked about in class today was comparing Marx’s binary oppositions of the American ruling class. Fast, slow, new, old, etc. I found it extremely interesting to hear the class’ preferences over each option. Fast v. slow was by far the most interesting for me. Someone said that our generation demands everything now, immediate, and I completely agree. I wonder, though, if my generation in other countries would feel the same way. Western culture, specifically American, has a unique obsession with time. I firmly believe that the one of the most powerful objects in the world is a clock. Americans are obsessed with time, with being late, with getting everything now. In Latin American countries, time is relative. “Island time” is a common term in the islands, and in many European countries, businesses close for several hours in the afternoon to give every a midday rest. For us, fast is better. For others, slow is the only way to go. I often wish that I lived in a culture that valued the slow lifestyle–we so often get wrapped up in our fast lives that we don’t take the time to appreciate the world around us, step away from the ideologies that form our culture and appreciate the simplicities of life. Maybe we should all take a lesson from Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie…just kidding.
Nichole Althusser
"To present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid ones." (40)
My thesis paper last semester in CMC100 focused on this notion of ideology in relation to women's bodies. Why do men like long silky hair, slim child like bodies, submissive women, and tall bodies? I would argue because hegemony, or this ideal form, is engraved into the minds of young men beginning when they are still in the crib. The media doesn't help this though, instead they feed right into the ideals by putting women into advertisements that are similar to what men think all women should look and behave like. What comes to mind immediately is the D&G ads that usually have a naked woman on the ground that is gaunt, tan, long hair, and in a highly sexualized pose (one ad places a man on top of a woman as she arches her back and looks like what getting raped would look like).
My thesis paper last semester in CMC100 focused on this notion of ideology in relation to women's bodies. Why do men like long silky hair, slim child like bodies, submissive women, and tall bodies? I would argue because hegemony, or this ideal form, is engraved into the minds of young men beginning when they are still in the crib. The media doesn't help this though, instead they feed right into the ideals by putting women into advertisements that are similar to what men think all women should look and behave like. What comes to mind immediately is the D&G ads that usually have a naked woman on the ground that is gaunt, tan, long hair, and in a highly sexualized pose (one ad places a man on top of a woman as she arches her back and looks like what getting raped would look like).
There are numerous fashion advertisements with exotic looking women that are hugely similar to the women that look American. As the quote shown above states, women are UNIVERSALLY valid if they are thin, young, tall and have long hair. I would argue that most men would agree that a woman is acceptable if she possesses all these qualities even if she was not stunning or smart or funny.
Remember in class when Doc Rog told us that he heard someone say that she looked like a model? What did we all think of? The same woman, essentially (tall, thin, blonde or brown sleek and shiny hair), and that’s because of the ideologies impressed into our mind. Postmodernism is anything that has caused a reaction to the principles of what is established as modern. So, the modern ideal woman has told us what she looks like and caused a serious increase of eating disorders among young women. Some reactions to what is modern is good, some are bad but we hardly have control over POSTmodernism.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
kMO 3/4
"In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement." (Brittanica Encyclopedia)
In my opinion I feel that satire is regarded as being a defense mechanism. More times than not the author who uses this "form of attack" is simply expressing their dislike of a certain concept, writing, movie, comment etc. Sarcasm is a defining characteristic of satire which sometimes sheds negative light on the original. However in general, satire provides the perfect balance of humor (it's not too derogatory yet not too soft.) Saturday Night Live is the perfect example of satire in the media. Jokes attacking the president, pop culture and political candidates are twisted in hilarious ways without creating too much of a disturbance. Online I found a website that provided numerous examples of satire. The writer talked about how Weird Al Yankovich took the popular song "Like a Virgin" (Madonna) and made it into a funny song called, "Like a Surgeon."
After the execution of Saddam Hussein SNL ran a skit (which has recently been removed from the internet) which attempted to shed light on the "sticky situation." However, in many peoples minds it did quite the opposite. A lot of Americans questioned the "political correctness" of the satire. A part of the commercial advertised children's toys as rocks, showed Cheeny talking about renaming Iraq East Dakota, President Bush as a primate and Osama and Saddam shape shifting. The problem we need to consider when dealing with satire is that there are lines that cannot be crossed. Certain topics need to be omitted and TIMING IS ALWAYS A FACTOR! It is not appropriate to run a satire on Heath Ledger 24 hours after he is found dead in his apartment. People need time to heal before it is ok to make light of a situation (much like a breakup). It is also not appropriate to run a satire or parody that addresses an offensive topic (the NIN/Startrek mashup, implying Kirk and Spok are gay.) Clearly, we as a culture still have a lot to learn about decency in the media...
In my opinion I feel that satire is regarded as being a defense mechanism. More times than not the author who uses this "form of attack" is simply expressing their dislike of a certain concept, writing, movie, comment etc. Sarcasm is a defining characteristic of satire which sometimes sheds negative light on the original. However in general, satire provides the perfect balance of humor (it's not too derogatory yet not too soft.) Saturday Night Live is the perfect example of satire in the media. Jokes attacking the president, pop culture and political candidates are twisted in hilarious ways without creating too much of a disturbance. Online I found a website that provided numerous examples of satire. The writer talked about how Weird Al Yankovich took the popular song "Like a Virgin" (Madonna) and made it into a funny song called, "Like a Surgeon."
After the execution of Saddam Hussein SNL ran a skit (which has recently been removed from the internet) which attempted to shed light on the "sticky situation." However, in many peoples minds it did quite the opposite. A lot of Americans questioned the "political correctness" of the satire. A part of the commercial advertised children's toys as rocks, showed Cheeny talking about renaming Iraq East Dakota, President Bush as a primate and Osama and Saddam shape shifting. The problem we need to consider when dealing with satire is that there are lines that cannot be crossed. Certain topics need to be omitted and TIMING IS ALWAYS A FACTOR! It is not appropriate to run a satire on Heath Ledger 24 hours after he is found dead in his apartment. People need time to heal before it is ok to make light of a situation (much like a breakup). It is also not appropriate to run a satire or parody that addresses an offensive topic (the NIN/Startrek mashup, implying Kirk and Spok are gay.) Clearly, we as a culture still have a lot to learn about decency in the media...
July--> Althusser and Marx
From the readings I’ve learned that there are two types of apparatuses in which ideologies function. This existence is considered to be material. The first is the Repressive State Apparatus, also known as the State Apparatus. The Repressive State Apparatus is a forced approach by the Government, Administration, Army, Police, Courts, and Prisons. One example consists of a police officer putting a gun to an individuals head and forcing them to get into the police car. While the second apparatus, The Ideology State Apparatus functions through voluntary. These voluntary approaches form ideas and images that change the people’s minds. An example would be a speech from our president, George Bush, informing our society about an unfamiliar topic. Although, these are basic forms of the apparatuses there are different ways that this ideologies represent reality.
Aspects of the identity derived from the Ideological State Apparatus. For example, ideology works through and in bodies from individuals choosing their gender attire. It is not set in stone that a man can’t wear a dress or a woman can’t wear a suit, but our presumptions of reality eliminates the existence of these acts. Ideologies also play a role in interpellation of a subject. The first thing a newborn is given is a name, which will be with it for eternity. This child was taught to respond to its name since day one of its arrival, which is an example of interpellation. When your teacher asks the class to respond to a question out loud and the class participates, this would also be considered interpellation because the whole was called upon and then responded.
Althusser thoughts can be compared with Barthes. Barthes believes that the things between the lines are sources to understanding the material, while Althusser mentions that one’s ideology is not understood, but understood by the author. In order to interpret an author’s ideas one has to read between the lines (tmesis).
elizabeth byrne -althusser
Reading Althusser's article brought me back to what I learned last year in CMC 100. I thought about the same questions this reading as I did when previously reading about ideologies. The fact that Althusser argues that ideology is compelled upon by two means: repressive state apparatuses and ideological state apparatuses. Then is brings me to the next question-- what does "state" mean in this context? For the repressive state apparatus I put it in the context as if the Police or an authoritative figure makes you do something or someone who is compelled to do something. Where as ideological state apparatus would be optional such as church. However, i think that there is not one function that works with out the other. In CMC 100 we talked about how the repressive state was considered the iron fist (primarily uses force) and the ideology state is considered the velvet glove where and how people chose make sense of things. A question that i continue to ask my self is- what does Althusser mean when he argues that an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices. Then this existence is materialistic?
With ideology and hegemony- the question that comes to mind is who benefits? Through media we constantly see images who seem to benefit or represent the higher group in society. I think that in media ideology is "invisibly" shown through media because those who are shown in magazines and billboards are often celebrities, attractive, and/ or wealthy. Therefor only certain social class benefit from the desires created by the images. The images create guilt/ desire, they show ideals of life and luxury, along with materialism.
ChittyChittyBangBang Althusser
"Is ideology simply 'false consciousness', an illusion..." (34).
Does society conform in their mental apparatus without consent? Does society actively go along with stereotypes etc...or does it happen subconsciously because we are surrounded by these notions? Such as the example NewYorker/Wouldntyouliketoknow commented on with the "role of a woman". In this advancing technology age what is "illusion" and what is "real" is becoming harder and harder to decipher.
"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it" (39). I found the section about the "ruling class" very interesting. Does the dominant force have complete control over our mental state as well? Does the power of Disney or Las Vegas cause us to think that the perfect "family" portrayals are how our families should be? Does the representation and omissions of history Disney gives cause us to think that is how things evolved and help us forget the bad such as racism, war, etc...? The superclass has a lot of room to persuade our economic, political, and also mental states. Is this an issue? And if so, is there any way to control it?
Does society conform in their mental apparatus without consent? Does society actively go along with stereotypes etc...or does it happen subconsciously because we are surrounded by these notions? Such as the example NewYorker/Wouldntyouliketoknow commented on with the "role of a woman". In this advancing technology age what is "illusion" and what is "real" is becoming harder and harder to decipher.
"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it" (39). I found the section about the "ruling class" very interesting. Does the dominant force have complete control over our mental state as well? Does the power of Disney or Las Vegas cause us to think that the perfect "family" portrayals are how our families should be? Does the representation and omissions of history Disney gives cause us to think that is how things evolved and help us forget the bad such as racism, war, etc...? The superclass has a lot of room to persuade our economic, political, and also mental states. Is this an issue? And if so, is there any way to control it?
NewYorker - Althusser
The thing about ideologies is they have to make sense and have a mass appeal. It has to have lots of followers, so it can catch on and establish itself. "...To present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and present them as the only rational, universally valid ones." (40) That is why communism appeals to so many people, and why it works. The ideology of socialism and everyone being equal sounded great, and caught on - thus making it the only idea surrounding the community, and therefore established itself amongst those countries that found it to be rational. I remember learning about the ISA's that he talked about, either in high school or another Rollins class. He basically lists institutions and broke them down into categories. He goes on to discuss how they function, either privately, or publicly and how they work.
"WouldntUlike2know" said something interesting about women. How if we are so programmed to do housework, your mind almost thinks that we like it, and that is what we're supposed to do. That's almost how ideology works - get an idea into someone's head and eventually they think that's just the way the world works, how it is supposed to be. But I'm not saying ideologies are always such a bad thing - sometimes they are necessary to have order, and to keep a flow of an institution working, because we are all believing the same thing.
"WouldntUlike2know" said something interesting about women. How if we are so programmed to do housework, your mind almost thinks that we like it, and that is what we're supposed to do. That's almost how ideology works - get an idea into someone's head and eventually they think that's just the way the world works, how it is supposed to be. But I'm not saying ideologies are always such a bad thing - sometimes they are necessary to have order, and to keep a flow of an institution working, because we are all believing the same thing.
Bumble: response to bubba nub
Ideology… who rules us?
This piece ironically made me think about the religious or spiritual concept of free will. If our lives are ultimately ruled by these totalizing meta-narratives, even if we are acting on our own accord, there are societal standards of living that rule us, control our actions. I like how you expressed the idea of false consciousness. These ideologies are so discreet that we do not even realize that we are reacting to them at such an intense level. With a greater understanding of this, perhaps we can try to live like Lyotard wants us to and stand up against these restricting ideologies and wage war on totality.
This piece ironically made me think about the religious or spiritual concept of free will. If our lives are ultimately ruled by these totalizing meta-narratives, even if we are acting on our own accord, there are societal standards of living that rule us, control our actions. I like how you expressed the idea of false consciousness. These ideologies are so discreet that we do not even realize that we are reacting to them at such an intense level. With a greater understanding of this, perhaps we can try to live like Lyotard wants us to and stand up against these restricting ideologies and wage war on totality.
kaymac althusser
"Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence (Althusser 44).
I found this quote intriguing because of our discussions of reality, virtual reality, what is real?, etc. I also think it does a good job explaining at least one part of ideology. In it, he's saying that ideology is that little connection that helps us make sense of our lives.
"While admitting that they [ideology] do not correspond to reality, i.e. that they constitute an illusion, we admit that they do not make allusion to reality, and that they need only be 'interpreted' to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that world (Althusser 44)."
In our technology drenched age, the line between reality and allusion is very fine. Just think, if you see a man being shot on TV and in films so much, then it is not much of a shock when you see it in real life (going back to what Baudrillard was saying). So because of this, we do not need to the real, materialistic object in order to take an interpretation of it, just some sort of idea of it so that the trueness of the actual object could be found. It's like you don't need the actual painting, maybe some sort of reinterpretation of it that makes sense of the painting's original idea, and with that you are able to understand what caused the original painting in the first place.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
I found this quote intriguing because of our discussions of reality, virtual reality, what is real?, etc. I also think it does a good job explaining at least one part of ideology. In it, he's saying that ideology is that little connection that helps us make sense of our lives.
"While admitting that they [ideology] do not correspond to reality, i.e. that they constitute an illusion, we admit that they do not make allusion to reality, and that they need only be 'interpreted' to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that world (Althusser 44)."
In our technology drenched age, the line between reality and allusion is very fine. Just think, if you see a man being shot on TV and in films so much, then it is not much of a shock when you see it in real life (going back to what Baudrillard was saying). So because of this, we do not need to the real, materialistic object in order to take an interpretation of it, just some sort of idea of it so that the trueness of the actual object could be found. It's like you don't need the actual painting, maybe some sort of reinterpretation of it that makes sense of the painting's original idea, and with that you are able to understand what caused the original painting in the first place.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
BubbaNub : Marx and Althusser
Even though our reading of Marx and Althusser takes us back to examine the ideological structures of other civilizations, to me, the Ideology and concept of hegemony has never been more apparent than in our own American Dream. The American Dream, as Marx puts it, promotes a "false consciousness" that heavily relies on carefully structured ideology to illicit a publics "conscious acquiescence" (35). The American Dream says that we are all entitled to the rights of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Great principles, except for the fact that our pursuits rarely end in happiness, unless you have the predisposed wealth and educational background of what is approximately the top 10% of America.
So this golden American Dream merely serves the purpose of offering our society an excuse for why our nation runs the way it does, why we need our ditch diggers and dumpster divers. They have created a framework where their subjects are "subjected beings, who submit themselves to a higher authority, and are therefore stripped of all freedom except that of freely accepting his submission" (49). That in itself is our nations "false consciousness" one where the only freedom we had, we chose to give up a long time ago. As Habermas points out, "what we customarily characterize as "public opinion" emerged for the first time in early capitalism as a specific sphere between state and society. One of the primary goals of this bourgeois public sphere was to make political and administrative decisions transparent," something the American Dream and the media that perpetuates it have done all to well.
So this golden American Dream merely serves the purpose of offering our society an excuse for why our nation runs the way it does, why we need our ditch diggers and dumpster divers. They have created a framework where their subjects are "subjected beings, who submit themselves to a higher authority, and are therefore stripped of all freedom except that of freely accepting his submission" (49). That in itself is our nations "false consciousness" one where the only freedom we had, we chose to give up a long time ago. As Habermas points out, "what we customarily characterize as "public opinion" emerged for the first time in early capitalism as a specific sphere between state and society. One of the primary goals of this bourgeois public sphere was to make political and administrative decisions transparent," something the American Dream and the media that perpetuates it have done all to well.
DtectiveDanny, Marx and Althusser
This is where the plot thickens. Now we are able to really dig deep into the forces that have directed the flow of history. The ideologies of the collective consciousness of certain cultures can be examined and used for comparison with our own current ideologies. That is if we can even prove that ideologies exist in the present state.
The definition of the term ideology is given insightful discussion in the introduction, and I still cant decide which one is my favorite. “A baseline definition of ideology would contrast it with the notion of ideas” which leads me to that surely the word idea came before the word ideology, if that even matters. But, after reading I wonder if a baseline definition of ideology would not directly contrast the term with ideas, but put the term above ideas, or maybe even before ideas. At the end of the introduction comes my favorite piece of advice on the dangers of trying to define the term ideology when Slavoj Zizek “urges us to read all cultural texts as symptoms of a variety of resistant positions.”
From The German Ideology, I would like to explore the idea that “every new class therefore achieves domination only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously; on the other hand, the opposition of the non ruling class to the new ruling class then develops all the more sharply and profoundly”. This would imply a social escalation, as time goes on, differences grow. I would like to know what gives us the right to judge our current ruling class over the ruling classes of the past, because if we follow Marx’s and Engel’s ideas then the current ruling class is the greatest ruling class in history. What makes the advent of a sniper rifle that can make its own calculations greater than the invention of the bow and arrow? Only when we take it out of the context of this increasingly violent history could we make that call.
The definition of the term ideology is given insightful discussion in the introduction, and I still cant decide which one is my favorite. “A baseline definition of ideology would contrast it with the notion of ideas” which leads me to that surely the word idea came before the word ideology, if that even matters. But, after reading I wonder if a baseline definition of ideology would not directly contrast the term with ideas, but put the term above ideas, or maybe even before ideas. At the end of the introduction comes my favorite piece of advice on the dangers of trying to define the term ideology when Slavoj Zizek “urges us to read all cultural texts as symptoms of a variety of resistant positions.”
From The German Ideology, I would like to explore the idea that “every new class therefore achieves domination only on a broader basis than that of the class ruling previously; on the other hand, the opposition of the non ruling class to the new ruling class then develops all the more sharply and profoundly”. This would imply a social escalation, as time goes on, differences grow. I would like to know what gives us the right to judge our current ruling class over the ruling classes of the past, because if we follow Marx’s and Engel’s ideas then the current ruling class is the greatest ruling class in history. What makes the advent of a sniper rifle that can make its own calculations greater than the invention of the bow and arrow? Only when we take it out of the context of this increasingly violent history could we make that call.
WouldntULike2Know Marx
“For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to present its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality and present them as the only rational, universally valid ones.”
Still occurring today, the dominance of social groups through hegemonic ideology serves as a way of repeating culture. The frightening aspect to this is that through false consciousness, we not only believe, but embrace and encourage the very notions that often hold us down. These hegemonic views are so commonplace that we often see them as natural or innate characteristics, and not as a way for dominant groups to create submission.
As women, we are told that we have immense compassion and understanding of feelings, which is why we make the most appropriate caregivers. In abiding by this notion, we forgo social respect and rewards that could be earned if we worked in corporate America. Instead, this understanding is so engrained in us, that we actually start to believe that we like doing laundry and mopping floors because we are doing it for our families. When really, we are being held back. Women are rarely considered for executive positions in high level companies because it would threaten men’s control of power. Furthermore, by maintaining the ideology that women should raise children and not work, women are dangerously vulnerable and dependent on their husbands, creating a far from egalitarian marriage. If a woman wishes to exist in the business world, she must sacrifice an immense amount of time with her children in order to be taken seriously, which is exactly how a majority of women are persuaded out of the workforce.
Still occurring today, the dominance of social groups through hegemonic ideology serves as a way of repeating culture. The frightening aspect to this is that through false consciousness, we not only believe, but embrace and encourage the very notions that often hold us down. These hegemonic views are so commonplace that we often see them as natural or innate characteristics, and not as a way for dominant groups to create submission.
As women, we are told that we have immense compassion and understanding of feelings, which is why we make the most appropriate caregivers. In abiding by this notion, we forgo social respect and rewards that could be earned if we worked in corporate America. Instead, this understanding is so engrained in us, that we actually start to believe that we like doing laundry and mopping floors because we are doing it for our families. When really, we are being held back. Women are rarely considered for executive positions in high level companies because it would threaten men’s control of power. Furthermore, by maintaining the ideology that women should raise children and not work, women are dangerously vulnerable and dependent on their husbands, creating a far from egalitarian marriage. If a woman wishes to exist in the business world, she must sacrifice an immense amount of time with her children in order to be taken seriously, which is exactly how a majority of women are persuaded out of the workforce.
Jiggy Jenkins
I found the peice very interesting and insightful to the nature of our film and culture. We are so ingrained in our culture, especially now, that films are more horizontally marketed than ever. Films such as Spiderman, Batman and Superman cross over to television programs and also into toys and products. Creating a film in this age is more than just a script, its a whole product line. One may argue that this pressure to create branded films has changed the way Hollywood produces them. The money that is spend to market a "big budget" film is for greater because of the potential for cross over success. Money being made by soundtracks, toys and games can sometimes double the revenue of any given film. This can also be seen in music were many artists make as much money off merchandice than they do on records. The film world today is tightly nit into our greater culture, going hand and hand. We progress as a culture through our films and the progress our social movements can also be seen. It is important to understand that film is a medium that can reach millions and often changes the social landscape leading to a hightened awearness of issues. The tool of film is often used always used to make money but the after affects can serve as a greater device for social change.
kaymac 3.4.08
Ah satire...where would the world be without it? I love satire and I think satirists are usually the most brilliant people on the planet. They are able to take apart serious subject matter and put it into intelligent, funny discourse. That takes a lot of brainpower.
So what’s the difference between things like Kurt Vonnegut’s novels, the South Park guys doing a parody on Star Wars, and the NIN/Star Trek homoerotic mash-up? All of these are satires on cultural phenomenon and subjects. Some also happen to be parodies. But people call Kurt Vonnegut a genius, the South Park guys crude, and the NIN/Start Trek mash-up a copyright violation.
So what’s the difference between satire and parodies? I think a parody is a form of satire and when a negative parody is made of something that is copyrighted, that is when people get their panties in a twist. It was okay for South Park to do a parody on Star Wars because ultimately, it brings up the name of Star Wars in a somewhat positive light. If you had never seen Star Wars before watching that South Park clip, you would not know what is going on and would therefore want to see Star Wars in order to understand South Park. However, if you make something like the Star Trek/NIN music video that claims that Kirk and Spock are gay lovers, it brings a negative light to Star Trek. Because of our societal standards, people are not going to want to see a TV show that has homoerotic undertones in it, whether it was created just by fans or the writers actually put that in there. Think of all of the hooplah that happened when J.K. Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay (p.s. Microsoft Word recognizes Dumbledore as an actual word!)? A lot of negative light was brought to the Harry Potter series. I would be interested to see if book sales dropped after she announced that.
I don’t think any society can function without satire. Satire is a great way of bringing out the negatives of a culture in a way that is acceptable. But when parodies are thrown into it and they violate copyright laws, people start to attack the parodies via the law in order to keep their image/product/whatever in a good light.
So what’s the difference between things like Kurt Vonnegut’s novels, the South Park guys doing a parody on Star Wars, and the NIN/Star Trek homoerotic mash-up? All of these are satires on cultural phenomenon and subjects. Some also happen to be parodies. But people call Kurt Vonnegut a genius, the South Park guys crude, and the NIN/Start Trek mash-up a copyright violation.
So what’s the difference between satire and parodies? I think a parody is a form of satire and when a negative parody is made of something that is copyrighted, that is when people get their panties in a twist. It was okay for South Park to do a parody on Star Wars because ultimately, it brings up the name of Star Wars in a somewhat positive light. If you had never seen Star Wars before watching that South Park clip, you would not know what is going on and would therefore want to see Star Wars in order to understand South Park. However, if you make something like the Star Trek/NIN music video that claims that Kirk and Spock are gay lovers, it brings a negative light to Star Trek. Because of our societal standards, people are not going to want to see a TV show that has homoerotic undertones in it, whether it was created just by fans or the writers actually put that in there. Think of all of the hooplah that happened when J.K. Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay (p.s. Microsoft Word recognizes Dumbledore as an actual word!)? A lot of negative light was brought to the Harry Potter series. I would be interested to see if book sales dropped after she announced that.
I don’t think any society can function without satire. Satire is a great way of bringing out the negatives of a culture in a way that is acceptable. But when parodies are thrown into it and they violate copyright laws, people start to attack the parodies via the law in order to keep their image/product/whatever in a good light.
BubbaNub 3/4
Media convergence and participatory culture is a tricky subject. It is quite apparent that the trends go both ways, but it also raises the question who has the more dominant control over constructing these metanarratives, the media or the public? From all the videos we watched on YouTube it is clear that they are drawing from the media constructed narratives, but in doing so are making statements that are quite different, ones that I believe more accurately represent the public mindframe. The media likes to say that they are merely a reflection of the publics interests, and yet if you carefully analyze what this participatory culture is saying, the majority of the time they are (the only way I can think of describing it) "Participatorally Resisting" contemporary culture. They are using satire and irony in order to reflect at the ridiculous infatuations with metanarratives themselves, like mixing Star trek with Cribs.
Jenkins tells us that "as more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity" (556). This is definitely true, but I feel that Jenkins must be careful as to how he defines amateur. In most cases, the potential intellectual and even cinematographic quality is of a higher calibur than anything put on cable television. Why would this be? Because it is constructed by the public for the public, it is what media strives to do in one mass mindframe which is impossible. Who better to connect with the viewers than people that have been consuming and viewing media themselves since they were conceived into this digital era? The Internet has provided us the opportunity of broadcasting individual perspectives, which in turn corners niche markets. The totalitarian mindframe mass media has long struggled to maintain is becoming a thing of the past because people are beginning that they can not only find what they want, but they can also make what they want. As networks such as iTunes discovered, there is more profit to be found in niche markets than in the top 100 MTV trash artists anyways. As we continue farther and farther down this path, I think that we will see not only a higher quality of programming, but perhaps even a heightened sense of awareness of being able to use the tools of the media against them.
Jenkins tells us that "as more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity" (556). This is definitely true, but I feel that Jenkins must be careful as to how he defines amateur. In most cases, the potential intellectual and even cinematographic quality is of a higher calibur than anything put on cable television. Why would this be? Because it is constructed by the public for the public, it is what media strives to do in one mass mindframe which is impossible. Who better to connect with the viewers than people that have been consuming and viewing media themselves since they were conceived into this digital era? The Internet has provided us the opportunity of broadcasting individual perspectives, which in turn corners niche markets. The totalitarian mindframe mass media has long struggled to maintain is becoming a thing of the past because people are beginning that they can not only find what they want, but they can also make what they want. As networks such as iTunes discovered, there is more profit to be found in niche markets than in the top 100 MTV trash artists anyways. As we continue farther and farther down this path, I think that we will see not only a higher quality of programming, but perhaps even a heightened sense of awareness of being able to use the tools of the media against them.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
WouldntULike2Know 3/4
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have found it! I have hit the Jenkins Motherload! In reading through my notes from class to decide what I was going to post about, I decided to do a little research on the person practically everyone can identify as the "Leave Britney Alone" guy/girl (Whose real name is Chris Crocker) just for the sake of seeing what was on the internet beyond his own personal webcam. One of the top google responses to my search (the third out of 1,330,000 provided by google) said "Leave Britney Alone: The Thong, The Boxers, and the T-shirt. I began to explore this website and found beyond perfect examples of virtually every theme Jenkins discusses. (Check out www.leave-britney-alone.com for proof). At the top of the page, you shop for an array of different t-shirts and intimates. The Leave Britney Alone Classic Thong sells for $9.99 (in case you were wondering). This form of media convergence challenges the traditional definition in that it is based off of rather avant-garde folk art instead of corporate. This shows that the "elaborate feedback loop" can work in a conterclockwise fashion because of the massive explosion of "amateur works circulating the web."
Scrolling down, you find direct video links to the infamous video of Crocker visibly upset about the abuse that Britney has received at the hands of the media. Down further, are parodies of his video including "Leave Chris Crocker Alone," "Leave President Bush Alone," and "Leave Bill Belichick Alone." These public responses to folk-art push the envelope even further; so much so that it would be difficult to argue the works of Chris Crocker "folk" anymore because of the massive responses and overnight fame they receive.
In researching his story beyond what is already known, I decided to visit his myspace page, in which he self-proclaims himself as "The most watched video self portraist on the internet with over 116 million video views between youtube and myspace." Here, and beneath all of his youtube videos are prime examples of participatory culture in which people from all over the world leave comments, mostly hateful and bashing intermixed with a few praiseworthy supporters. This coincides with the argument that, in his case, Chris Crocker must be considered a Do it Yourself-er who has gained so much notoriety that he and his videos function in the form of the corporate sphere by creating a forum for people to "tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication," all while making money off of novelty thongs.
Scrolling down, you find direct video links to the infamous video of Crocker visibly upset about the abuse that Britney has received at the hands of the media. Down further, are parodies of his video including "Leave Chris Crocker Alone," "Leave President Bush Alone," and "Leave Bill Belichick Alone." These public responses to folk-art push the envelope even further; so much so that it would be difficult to argue the works of Chris Crocker "folk" anymore because of the massive responses and overnight fame they receive.
In researching his story beyond what is already known, I decided to visit his myspace page, in which he self-proclaims himself as "The most watched video self portraist on the internet with over 116 million video views between youtube and myspace." Here, and beneath all of his youtube videos are prime examples of participatory culture in which people from all over the world leave comments, mostly hateful and bashing intermixed with a few praiseworthy supporters. This coincides with the argument that, in his case, Chris Crocker must be considered a Do it Yourself-er who has gained so much notoriety that he and his videos function in the form of the corporate sphere by creating a forum for people to "tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication," all while making money off of novelty thongs.
Elizabeth Byrne Post Class 3/4
Today's class really helped give me a better understanding of the assigned reading. I was unsure of some of the definitions and meanings and once those were cleared up I was able to make a better connection to other material we have read. I don't know if this is too far off- but when we looking at the various Spider-man apparel I thought of Zizek's essay. Our culture has so many things created that are not in the natural form or element such as: decaf coffee, skim milk, splenda etc. I see these things to be created as a means to satisfy our cultures desires. Are all of the Spider-Man (and Disney, Star Trek etc) objects that are made to make one feel closer to the real thing? However Spider- Man isn't real. It seems as though it is bringing the fact characters more to life, yet they are far from real. Then again going back to the fake volcano in Las Vegas- it is something that is very fake but made to seem real. Its something far from real, but satisfying families just as if it were reality.
Another topic that I found interesting was the question if popular culture enhanced communication even if it is not face to face-- I agree with that because today when i signed on to my AIM account an automated message came up about whether or not i wanted to add AIM BOTS. I was bored and wanted to test out what these new "Bots" were. There is one named Jennifer2782, Liv Greene (Facts and Tips on Environmentalism), Prof Gilzot , GossipimGabby (Celebrity Gossip), and IM Street (Finacial "buddy"). These are automated "people" (not really sure) responses where one can actually get quick and accurate answers to a wide range of questions. I actually am not quite sure when i want to go with this, however it made me think of chat rooms, blogs, and how people are able to talk and enhance communication/ gain knowledge through the internet even with an automated service.
I will think about this more and come back and write again when i find deeper/ more thoughtful connections with Jenkins essay!
Another topic that I found interesting was the question if popular culture enhanced communication even if it is not face to face-- I agree with that because today when i signed on to my AIM account an automated message came up about whether or not i wanted to add AIM BOTS. I was bored and wanted to test out what these new "Bots" were. There is one named Jennifer2782, Liv Greene (Facts and Tips on Environmentalism), Prof Gilzot , GossipimGabby (Celebrity Gossip), and IM Street (Finacial "buddy"). These are automated "people" (not really sure) responses where one can actually get quick and accurate answers to a wide range of questions. I actually am not quite sure when i want to go with this, however it made me think of chat rooms, blogs, and how people are able to talk and enhance communication/ gain knowledge through the internet even with an automated service.
I will think about this more and come back and write again when i find deeper/ more thoughtful connections with Jenkins essay!
Nichole 3-4
So Im attempting a new approach in class which will hopefully reduce the amount of time i spent in preparation for the next test. That is to make relations to other authors on the quotes and terms that come up in Powerpoint Presentations in class instead of making all these connections during studying for the exam. So here is my new method in practice: The quote, summarized, said that our generation is now able to make comparison between the Do It Yourself method of texts and the real, that is to say studied and practiced, industry of making texts. So what does this matter? I would first say that as long as something is good, the creator doesn't have to be well rehearsed in the field. Well unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Remember how Benjamin described that the cost is defined by the name on a work (a film directed by Spike Lee is going to have a higher grant for production than a film by nobody just as a piece of art is going to be more costly if the name Warhol is on it as opposed to say Lightner). We now have the comparison between the two as Jenkins points out because there are new means of dispersion like the internet. Its now much easier to be discovered as a nobody with talent even if you dont have the same practice as someone who has gone to school to study in that field (like Flo Rida was discovered off you tube as a nobody with thousands of hits to his link).
Similarly, Lyotard would say "thank god" we now have this comparison, maybe people will finally see that independent films may be different but they ARENT conforming to the blockbuster mold love comedy (as mentioned in class boy meets girl, loves girl, loses girl, gets girl again Sleepless in Seattle among countless other Blockbuster hits). He would say this is a great thing that mass production is now being compared to DIY style because maybe now people will see that unconventional is sometimes MUCH better than mainstream. The comparison that we now have the ability to make might break us out of mass production rut and into a creative independent society.
So how did I do on my new method of in class note taking?
Similarly, Lyotard would say "thank god" we now have this comparison, maybe people will finally see that independent films may be different but they ARENT conforming to the blockbuster mold love comedy (as mentioned in class boy meets girl, loves girl, loses girl, gets girl again Sleepless in Seattle among countless other Blockbuster hits). He would say this is a great thing that mass production is now being compared to DIY style because maybe now people will see that unconventional is sometimes MUCH better than mainstream. The comparison that we now have the ability to make might break us out of mass production rut and into a creative independent society.
So how did I do on my new method of in class note taking?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Sgt. Pepper, Jenkins
Jenkins makes a few major points in his essay "Quentin Tarantino's Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture," and let me just start by saying that I thought this article was fascinating. One of the points he is trying to make is that technology is advancing quicker than we thought. Where Poster discusses telephone and Internet to be two media forms that everyone is capable of taking part in, or unrestricted, and this theory leaking into other media forms In the opening quote, for instance, Oscar winner Francis Ford Coppola says "For once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed and it will really become an art form." He's referring to the technology as so advanced that today, it leads directors to a much more abstract way of thinking.
He goes on to talk about how the structures of film and media have become so powerful that they play a role in practically everyone's lives these days. Through news and large corporations, advertisements constantly surround us to influence the way we think. Certain films can even become a way of life for people. This part of the article reminded me of a Triumph the Insult Dog's visit to people waiting in line for a premiere of a Star Wars' movie. Check it out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3EYintUu-o
It's a prime example of the way film and media have influenced people's lives so much that it actually takes over their entire life. This way of thinking relates directly back to the theories of Baudrillard and people's conception of reality. People are so obsessed with the Star Wars' series and its world becomes a reality to them. Watching the Star Wars' movies and portraying those characters and the way they dress every day, their lives are essentially a mesh of reality and virtual reality. So, they're lives are not completely real.
Wow. Did that make sense?
He goes on to talk about how the structures of film and media have become so powerful that they play a role in practically everyone's lives these days. Through news and large corporations, advertisements constantly surround us to influence the way we think. Certain films can even become a way of life for people. This part of the article reminded me of a Triumph the Insult Dog's visit to people waiting in line for a premiere of a Star Wars' movie. Check it out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3EYintUu-o
It's a prime example of the way film and media have influenced people's lives so much that it actually takes over their entire life. This way of thinking relates directly back to the theories of Baudrillard and people's conception of reality. People are so obsessed with the Star Wars' series and its world becomes a reality to them. Watching the Star Wars' movies and portraying those characters and the way they dress every day, their lives are essentially a mesh of reality and virtual reality. So, they're lives are not completely real.
Wow. Did that make sense?
ChittyChittyBangBang 2/28
Class on Thursday was really fun. I enjoyed breaking up into groups and then going around the room and sharing our groups ideas. Our group focused on the incredible advances in technology and what that could mean. We spent a lot of time discussing the new Wii remote as an example of this kind of phenomenon. The developments we are making and have the potential to create are kind of scary yet amazing. I don't want it to go too far though where everywhere is like Disney though and you can't tell what's a robot and what's a real person. The quote we chose was, "From the club that extends and replaces the arm to virtual reality in cyberspace, technology has evolved to mime and to multiply, to multiplex and to improve upon the real" (Poster 546).
I also found our discussion/debate about the internet at the end of class very interesting. People thought that there should be laws against certain obsenities or "inappropriate" topics on the internet. Although in theory I understand and it would be cool if everyone was nice i guess... But who gets to define what too extreme is? How can you decide where to draw the line? That would be like a slippery slope. Nomatter what it is, someone is always going to be offended. So in order to avoid that you would have to take just about everything out of reach on the internet. Not to mention the violations of the freedom of speech which is a huge part of the definition of America, what we've worked for, and what we represent.
I also found our discussion/debate about the internet at the end of class very interesting. People thought that there should be laws against certain obsenities or "inappropriate" topics on the internet. Although in theory I understand and it would be cool if everyone was nice i guess... But who gets to define what too extreme is? How can you decide where to draw the line? That would be like a slippery slope. Nomatter what it is, someone is always going to be offended. So in order to avoid that you would have to take just about everything out of reach on the internet. Not to mention the violations of the freedom of speech which is a huge part of the definition of America, what we've worked for, and what we represent.
sawsaw Jenkins
The quote I found most interesting in Jenkin’s essay was on page 554, “Media consumers want to become media producers, while media producers want to maintain their traditional dominance over media content.” I found this quote to be powerful because it discusses the power struggle between media consumers and media producers. The consumer wants to become the producer but the producer wants to maintain their dominance. A perfect example of this is you-tube. The reason you-tube is so successful is because it allows the consumer to produce anything they want. People are able to produce whatever they find appealing or interesting. Even though you-tube allows the consumer to become the producer, it still maintains the dominance over the content. It can filter any video that is produced and has the power to cut anything it doesn’t like.
This quote reminded me of Poster’s idea of the shift to a decentralized network of communications. He writes on page 540 “The question of the mass media is seen not simply as that of sender/receiver, producer/consumer, ruler/ruled. The shift to a decentralized network of communications makes senders receivers, producers consumers, rulers, ruled, upsetting the logic of understanding of the first media age.” These two quotes are very similar in the idea of mass media changing the roles of producers and consumers.
This quote reminded me of Poster’s idea of the shift to a decentralized network of communications. He writes on page 540 “The question of the mass media is seen not simply as that of sender/receiver, producer/consumer, ruler/ruled. The shift to a decentralized network of communications makes senders receivers, producers consumers, rulers, ruled, upsetting the logic of understanding of the first media age.” These two quotes are very similar in the idea of mass media changing the roles of producers and consumers.
Cuckoo 2/28
I really enjoyed Thursday class. I liked breaking out in to smaller groups to talk about the reading. Being able to understand the reading allowed for everyone to give there point of view, instead of having us sit and stare at each other being none of understood what was being said. Understanding Poster’s perspective allowed for the discussion to flow well. Thursday class made me start thinking more about how technology has consumed our lives. We live our lives through technology that it is hard to understand there is a world outside of such things as our iphones; which has practically everything you need to ‘function’ from day to day. When ever I get on my computer the first thing I do is get on the internet, I do so subconsciously half the time I do not even need to yet I find myself checking my email or checking facebook.
One of the things my grouped talked about was how when we are talking to people online we have to imagine what they look like or even sound like (if its through aim or email). We are constantly interacting with people who are not physically there. We are separating ourselves from what is real. When switching groups the ides of us losing our ability to socialize with others in person. We are caught in this web of technology that can be so impersonal. One thing that is hard to convey is emotion when talking back and forth, it is like we are almost like robots. Another concept that was brought up was the idea of time and space being irrelevant, especially when using email or instant message. The concept of someone living in tomorrow or yesterday does not matter, we are still able to communicate with them as if they were in the next room. Technology and the idea of virtual reality is starting to take over our lives. Will we reach a point where human interaction is limited to none?
One of the things my grouped talked about was how when we are talking to people online we have to imagine what they look like or even sound like (if its through aim or email). We are constantly interacting with people who are not physically there. We are separating ourselves from what is real. When switching groups the ides of us losing our ability to socialize with others in person. We are caught in this web of technology that can be so impersonal. One thing that is hard to convey is emotion when talking back and forth, it is like we are almost like robots. Another concept that was brought up was the idea of time and space being irrelevant, especially when using email or instant message. The concept of someone living in tomorrow or yesterday does not matter, we are still able to communicate with them as if they were in the next room. Technology and the idea of virtual reality is starting to take over our lives. Will we reach a point where human interaction is limited to none?
kMO Jenkins
The consolidation of holdings across different industries has taken over Hollywood in the past 10 years. This type of "mass media merging" is commonly known as horizontal integration and has almost completely replaced the old idea of vertical integration. One companies control over film, cable and network television; video, newspapers and magazines; book publishing and digital media is simply the only way to rival competitors and make top dollar. Jenkins calls this form of control the "entertainment super system." Before these major media mergers burst on the scene the general public was stuck simply watching a TV show. Nowadays "one may be able to move from watching a television drama to ordering the soundtrack, purchasing videos, or buying products that have been effectively 'placed' within the narrative universe."
It became nearly impossible to read this type of analysis and not relate the ideas back to Poster. Especially this quote..."The problem for capitalism is how to contain the word and the image, to bind them to proper names and logos when they flit about at the speed of light and procreate with indecent rapidity, not arboreally, to use the terms of Deleuze and Guattari, as in a centralized factory but rhyzomically, at any de-centered location." (538) At first glance this concept seems nearly impossible to comprehend but with an understanding of Jenkins' ideas, it becomes much more clear. Poster is actually referring to the idea that prior to the conversion of all media one was typically accustomed to watching a TV show and discussing it with others the next day. Nowadays one can blog online, form chartroom discussions and access many forms of communication before, after, and during their television shows.
It became nearly impossible to read this type of analysis and not relate the ideas back to Poster. Especially this quote..."The problem for capitalism is how to contain the word and the image, to bind them to proper names and logos when they flit about at the speed of light and procreate with indecent rapidity, not arboreally, to use the terms of Deleuze and Guattari, as in a centralized factory but rhyzomically, at any de-centered location." (538) At first glance this concept seems nearly impossible to comprehend but with an understanding of Jenkins' ideas, it becomes much more clear. Poster is actually referring to the idea that prior to the conversion of all media one was typically accustomed to watching a TV show and discussing it with others the next day. Nowadays one can blog online, form chartroom discussions and access many forms of communication before, after, and during their television shows.
sawsaw 3/3
During class, my group was given the section Narratives in Cyberspace to discuss. After listening to each group’s ideas I learned many new perspectives on this section. The first new concept I learned was how cyberspace is a dream world. It creates a false reality and allows us to be things we are not. Take for instant Guitar Hero. In this game people master the skill of guitar in Guitar Hero the game but aren't really master the guitar itself. For a short period of time they become a Rock Star and famous musician even though they can't actually play an instrument. Another idea I learned was the concept of immortalization. In cyberspace people never die. They become immortal. Even though their player may die they are never actually dying themselves. This allows people to escape death and promote feelings of power and immorality. They start to believe that they are the character and that no bad things will ever come to them. The biggest concept I learned from our group discussions was the idea of control. All cyberspaces boiled down to wanting control of our lives and destiny. In the game Second Life people are able to create a utopian world where they are in control of their lives. They are able to plan out their future and have control of whatever they want their “Virtual” world to look like. After analyzing these ideas I wondered how cyberspace and virtual worlds were impacting our own reality. If people are escaping real life and reality through computer games and new technology how are they going to be able to react to what is happening right now in their own lives. Will people start to believe that this “Virtual World” is really reality? Do people like their life in cyberspace better then their life in reality? How our society answers these questions will have an impact on our lives in the future and could dramatically impact our culture as a whole.
Bella Jenkins
Jenkins wrote, “The Net opened up new space for public discussions of media content and the Web became an important showcase for grassroots cultural production. On one of my favorite websites, known as the Refrigerator, parents can scan in their children’s artwork and place them on global display” (Jenkins 555). CLICK. This idea was my a-ha moment. The idea of this website seems so funny, so simple, so purely NORMAL and at the same time so foreign and strange, that I can only process it through my postmodern lens. Jenkins wrote, “new media technologies [enable] average citizens to participate in the archiving, annotation, appropriation, transformation, and recirculation of media content” (Jenkins 554). Bringing artwork home from school for my parents was such an exhilarating act. I’d worked so hard on my two person, stick figure, colorless drawing, and if my mom put it on our fridge, I would squeal and laugh with glee. Take that idea, digitize it, and put it on the web?! I don’t know why, but this just pushed me over the edge of comprehension. It goes from being such an insignificant, routine act…thinking about it on a website just blows my mind. Jenkins talks a lot about the Do-It –Yourself culture and expressed his hopes that DIY films and media would find an outlet to be shown. Well, Jenkins, I’d like to introduce you to a thing called YouTube. Anyone, anywhere, at any time can upload a film, clip, music video, commentary…ANYTHING onto YouTube and have the rest of the world see it. Some of my favorite YouTube videos have become so popular that the stars are now famous, maybe with TV shows, record contracts, or online talk shows. DIY is the culture of today; we are resilient, smart, and tech-savvy. We are constantly learning new tricks and ways of ‘expressing ourselves’ online. I think this article was only written in 2003, so it is mind blowing to see how far we’ve come in such a short time.
nichole 2-26
So I was reflecting back on the test after reading my spare time book, Popism the Warhol Sixties, and i feel like this quote put a lot into perspective for me as we were tested on defining Postmodernism this exam.
"We were seeing the future and we knew it for sure. We saw people walking around in it without knowing it because they were still thinking in the past. All you had to do was KNOW you were in the future and thats what put you there."
Postmodernism as defined here and as we were asked to do on the test, occurs AFTER the present. Just have to understand that there will always be postmodernism and Habermas would argue, that its always continuing on into the future.
For those that dont know, Andy Warhol was an artist in the 60s who lead the art world into pop culture. He made common house hold items, like campbells soup and bananas, popular and into a work of art. He was at first ridiculed for his quirky sense of art then wildly accepted and praised for his works of art. Currently people are questioning if what he did was really art but as the price tag will show its commonly known as art. Benjamin was a big advocate of the "name defining the cost" theory. In this case people are willing to pay millions of dollars for some art that is of a banana simply because they can then say that they own a Warhol.
I am a huge supporter of people that venture into unknown territory and take risks to do something never before done and love to see that, as it did in Andy Warhol's case, it pays (literally) off in the end. The quote above is his secret to living in the future and I think that after this test we all might feel like we understand that we are a part of the future if we want to be.
"We were seeing the future and we knew it for sure. We saw people walking around in it without knowing it because they were still thinking in the past. All you had to do was KNOW you were in the future and thats what put you there."
Postmodernism as defined here and as we were asked to do on the test, occurs AFTER the present. Just have to understand that there will always be postmodernism and Habermas would argue, that its always continuing on into the future.
For those that dont know, Andy Warhol was an artist in the 60s who lead the art world into pop culture. He made common house hold items, like campbells soup and bananas, popular and into a work of art. He was at first ridiculed for his quirky sense of art then wildly accepted and praised for his works of art. Currently people are questioning if what he did was really art but as the price tag will show its commonly known as art. Benjamin was a big advocate of the "name defining the cost" theory. In this case people are willing to pay millions of dollars for some art that is of a banana simply because they can then say that they own a Warhol.
I am a huge supporter of people that venture into unknown territory and take risks to do something never before done and love to see that, as it did in Andy Warhol's case, it pays (literally) off in the end. The quote above is his secret to living in the future and I think that after this test we all might feel like we understand that we are a part of the future if we want to be.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Bumble: Jenkins
Do it yourself… the essence of being an American, the sense of individuality and independency. Television shows tell you how to, Martha Stewart, and now the simple ability to buy a digital camera to create works of art and individuality is the latest form of DO IT YOURSELF. On our very own College Campus we have the Campus Movie Fest which promotes students applying themselves creatively in order to write, produce and create films all by themselves. Of course though, a popular film mimics the popular stance of film which is similar to what Lyotard said about in order to find success you have to follow this formula of what has already been established as a wonderful production.
In our culture we value autonomy and the desire to do things for ourselves. As our technology in life develops, we have created the ability to empower ourselves and tap into our creative selves. At one point creating a movie, a song, or anything was left to the experts. This article discusses how we have moved the power from the empires to the hands of the people. Jenkin’s piece first brought up the concept of authorship. Similar to Machery’s concept that both the writer and reader are equally removed from the text, implies this same connotation that authorship is ambivalent and hard to define. Jenkins seems to agree also with the postmodern theorist Lyotard in that they both feel strongly that empowerment of the individual will lead to greatness. As Lyotard said we can heal the community by waging a war on totality. This analytical piece about how contemporary work operates shows that with the creation of handheld digital devices, that the audience can create a world of parodies and eclectic bricollage of all sorts of media formations. It is crucial to examine where the media is going because it has shifted how everyone interacts with it on a daily basis. All of the integration and cross over of media outlets can be described by Poster’s concept of chiasm. It is incredible because the more intertextual and mixed the entertainment becomes, the more opportunities arise for greater profit. People also become attached to an aspect of entertainment more easily because they market them on a personal basis. The greatest example from today is the ability to relate to Harry Potter on a personal level. It is more than just the films, it is about the creation of all the media outlets to embody Harry Potter into a tangible being. People are able to relate to Harry on a personal basis when they are able to eat the same jelly beans that he eats in his books and movies.
Through all of these new programs and digital products that everyone can be, it is in essence giving the power to create and the power of individuality to everyone! Although I guess it does discriminate because some people are incapable of buying these products because of their economic means. People are now becoming a major player and important part of the entertainment world. The greatest examples of this are for one thing You Tube which mimics and parodies popular television shows and movies. People are incorporating their own work into mass media. Also, another great example is the idea of mash up music, which is the ability to take multiple famous songs and put them together as your own. These are making it mainstream as well!
In our culture we value autonomy and the desire to do things for ourselves. As our technology in life develops, we have created the ability to empower ourselves and tap into our creative selves. At one point creating a movie, a song, or anything was left to the experts. This article discusses how we have moved the power from the empires to the hands of the people. Jenkin’s piece first brought up the concept of authorship. Similar to Machery’s concept that both the writer and reader are equally removed from the text, implies this same connotation that authorship is ambivalent and hard to define. Jenkins seems to agree also with the postmodern theorist Lyotard in that they both feel strongly that empowerment of the individual will lead to greatness. As Lyotard said we can heal the community by waging a war on totality. This analytical piece about how contemporary work operates shows that with the creation of handheld digital devices, that the audience can create a world of parodies and eclectic bricollage of all sorts of media formations. It is crucial to examine where the media is going because it has shifted how everyone interacts with it on a daily basis. All of the integration and cross over of media outlets can be described by Poster’s concept of chiasm. It is incredible because the more intertextual and mixed the entertainment becomes, the more opportunities arise for greater profit. People also become attached to an aspect of entertainment more easily because they market them on a personal basis. The greatest example from today is the ability to relate to Harry Potter on a personal level. It is more than just the films, it is about the creation of all the media outlets to embody Harry Potter into a tangible being. People are able to relate to Harry on a personal basis when they are able to eat the same jelly beans that he eats in his books and movies.
Through all of these new programs and digital products that everyone can be, it is in essence giving the power to create and the power of individuality to everyone! Although I guess it does discriminate because some people are incapable of buying these products because of their economic means. People are now becoming a major player and important part of the entertainment world. The greatest examples of this are for one thing You Tube which mimics and parodies popular television shows and movies. People are incorporating their own work into mass media. Also, another great example is the idea of mash up music, which is the ability to take multiple famous songs and put them together as your own. These are making it mainstream as well!
July 2-28-08
First, I would love to comment on Starfish’s blog because it explains Umberto Eco’s theory about reality to its finest interpretation about the reading. Personally, I am so relieved our class has come to the discussion about technology and the way it tries to depict reality because most Americans don’t realize how far our society has gone with this phenomenon. As, Starfish mentions the continuous creations of games or entertainment devices that are constantly put on the market for the “obsesses,” it show a correlation with Dr. Rog’s statement (“Our values depend on what it is worth”) to Benjamin’s theory. The value in this case is the yearning sensation that this obsessed technology community holds and the creators eventually produces a better marketable device to fulfill their wants, in most cases these devices are worth more than the last device.
All of this thinking about creating one’s reality brought another idea to mind, which is how people who live in these areas like Baldwin Park are undergoing these same practices as those obsessed with technology. These areas have rules that the community must abide by in order to continue to be a resident. Those who wish to live in a community like this only pursue these options because they want to be in a safe environment, live in duplicated areas, or create a better life for them or their kids. It also takes away from the unfortunate since they can’t afford to live in these expensive communities, which eliminates them from these “perfect” neighborhoods. These communities mainly interact with themselves which causes isolation to the real world or they hold their status above those who are not in their community because the outsiders are seen as the “underprivileged”. This is a sign of masking and denaturing reality since our society isn’t based off of strict living arrangements other than the laws that are provided by the government to all Americans.
All of this thinking about creating one’s reality brought another idea to mind, which is how people who live in these areas like Baldwin Park are undergoing these same practices as those obsessed with technology. These areas have rules that the community must abide by in order to continue to be a resident. Those who wish to live in a community like this only pursue these options because they want to be in a safe environment, live in duplicated areas, or create a better life for them or their kids. It also takes away from the unfortunate since they can’t afford to live in these expensive communities, which eliminates them from these “perfect” neighborhoods. These communities mainly interact with themselves which causes isolation to the real world or they hold their status above those who are not in their community because the outsiders are seen as the “underprivileged”. This is a sign of masking and denaturing reality since our society isn’t based off of strict living arrangements other than the laws that are provided by the government to all Americans.
kMO 2/28
Bumble brought up an important point regarding “authenticity.” Baulldriard's questioning of the existence of reality directly parallels our class discussions on Thursday...Interactions between the “virtual world” and the “real world” are becoming normal. Speed equates technology which in turn equates communication. For example, my blackberry is my calculator, alarm system, cell phone, texting mechanism, internet connection, facebook access, notepad, calendar, voicemail, GPS, camera, blue tooth connection, and email. I rely more on this device than any other object. Could this type of dependency be what all of these theorists are warning us about??
In someone’s post the concept of change and its impact on society was brought up. They stated that change throws off the general population due to the fact that humans are creatures of habit. I believe that this is true to a certain extent…In my opinion the younger generation embraces change whereas the older generation shys away from it. For example, when new features are added to my blackberry or a new model is released I immediately want it (because I have conformed to the “newer is better AND faster theory). My grandparents on the other hand would not trade in their phones (from 5 years ago) for a million dollars. The thought of having to re-learn a system even if it was to be in their greater interest is absolutely terrifying to them...
In regards to the way we conducted class on Thursday – I really enjoyed it. Hearing 3 different explanations regarding the important points in Durham and Kellner’s readings were beyond helpful. Also, everyone keeps commenting on Raj’s groups interpretation of their readings so I might as well jump on the band wagon. The idea of chips being implanted in our brains during childhood or anytime after that is a NOT GOOD. I am not a scientist and even I can pick out a detrimental idea when I hear one. I wont deny that the mind/tv interaction sounds cool but as far as pushing reality goes…we are definitely on that path...
In someone’s post the concept of change and its impact on society was brought up. They stated that change throws off the general population due to the fact that humans are creatures of habit. I believe that this is true to a certain extent…In my opinion the younger generation embraces change whereas the older generation shys away from it. For example, when new features are added to my blackberry or a new model is released I immediately want it (because I have conformed to the “newer is better AND faster theory). My grandparents on the other hand would not trade in their phones (from 5 years ago) for a million dollars. The thought of having to re-learn a system even if it was to be in their greater interest is absolutely terrifying to them...
In regards to the way we conducted class on Thursday – I really enjoyed it. Hearing 3 different explanations regarding the important points in Durham and Kellner’s readings were beyond helpful. Also, everyone keeps commenting on Raj’s groups interpretation of their readings so I might as well jump on the band wagon. The idea of chips being implanted in our brains during childhood or anytime after that is a NOT GOOD. I am not a scientist and even I can pick out a detrimental idea when I hear one. I wont deny that the mind/tv interaction sounds cool but as far as pushing reality goes…we are definitely on that path...
Sgt. Pepper, 2/28
Since everyone is giving their two cents about the different setup of class last week, I guess I will too. I also liked being able to split up into groups and get my peers' perspectives on the article because it's interesting to see how our minds differ, but I also thought we shouldn't have relied solely on our ideas to understand Poster's article. When we switched off to tell about our specific section, some people from other sections had a lot to say that I didn't notice when reading the article, but some people I didn't learn anything from. And I'm not blaming them, but I think we should've had a little insight from Dr. Rog, at least, before trying to teach it ourselves.
Anyway, the section my group talked about was the first. Like I mentioned in my pre-class post, I really liked Poster's "historical metaphor" of emerging technology to the Middle Ages. Our section was basically just Poster's introduction, and I think the major point he was trying to make in his introduction was that the advancement of technology isn't just the advancement of technology. It is affecting people and will continue to affect people in many more ways. Like Poster describes in the metaphor to the Middle Ages, one major thing that comes with the advancement in technology is the change in the way people communicate. Communication is consistently becoming quicker, easier, and most important, less and less personable. Talking face-to-face is becoming drastically less prevalent, so naturally people's social skills will change, thus their personalities will change. (This is a theory) We will all adapt to a more individually-based frame of mind, and that could lead to seriously bad things for the world.
So I think basically what Poster is trying to say in the introduction that my group was assigned to that while the advancement of technology will bring many good things to the world, if we get too caught up in it, it might be too late to realize the negative aspects.
Anyway, the section my group talked about was the first. Like I mentioned in my pre-class post, I really liked Poster's "historical metaphor" of emerging technology to the Middle Ages. Our section was basically just Poster's introduction, and I think the major point he was trying to make in his introduction was that the advancement of technology isn't just the advancement of technology. It is affecting people and will continue to affect people in many more ways. Like Poster describes in the metaphor to the Middle Ages, one major thing that comes with the advancement in technology is the change in the way people communicate. Communication is consistently becoming quicker, easier, and most important, less and less personable. Talking face-to-face is becoming drastically less prevalent, so naturally people's social skills will change, thus their personalities will change. (This is a theory) We will all adapt to a more individually-based frame of mind, and that could lead to seriously bad things for the world.
So I think basically what Poster is trying to say in the introduction that my group was assigned to that while the advancement of technology will bring many good things to the world, if we get too caught up in it, it might be too late to realize the negative aspects.
kaymac 2.28.08
First off, I loved going around in the different groups and talking about the article. It was good to see different perspectives of the article on a one to one level.
One thing that really caught my attention in the discussions was what Raj's group was saying about these new Wii games, named Mii (I think?). Apparently, the makers of Wii are coming out with these controllers that you wrap around your head that literally read your brain in order to know how your character on the screen will move/function/react whatever. Then with these Mii's, you will be able to connect to the virtual world of Miis and interact with other Miis, enter contests, vote on issues, and pretty much live in this virtual community. Talking about this made me think of a novel I read a long time ago by M.T. Anderson entitled Feed. In this futuristic world, people have these chips that are inserted into their brains when they are newborns that act as a computer, cell phone, television, PDA, iPod, etc. all rolled into one. If you do not have a Feed in your brain, you are an outcast in the world and therefore cannot function. If you have ever seen Gattaca (a wonderful film with Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman) you will know what I'm talking about with the not being able to function in society thing. So Raj's Miis and Wii's and any kind of "ii" made me think of this.
Technology has led us to this interactive experience and going off of what Bumble and Habermas were saying, we do live in a hyperstimulated world. We are spending time with people who are not physically there for our social interaction. However, when you think about it, people used to do that back in the 1800's as well, in the time of letter writing. People would sit there and write letters back and forth because that was their form of communication--they were spending time with people who weren't there either. Granted, it was not as instant or evolved as it is today, but that did exist back then as well.
Another question that is raised was is this real? We have to use our imagination a lot when dealing with virtual worlds and spaces like this. There is an inherent trust in persons' presentations of themselves but we have to ask is this really reality? Is this not reality? Are we talking with the person or the virtual space that represents them? How can the human identity and mind be compressed onto a chip that can almost be a back-up of our own brain?
In a way, we are immortalizing ourselves, and is that what virtual reality means to do? Think of Facebook and Myspace and whatever website had Myspace profiles for people who have died. We still exist in this virtual world, even after our death.
One thing that really caught my attention in the discussions was what Raj's group was saying about these new Wii games, named Mii (I think?). Apparently, the makers of Wii are coming out with these controllers that you wrap around your head that literally read your brain in order to know how your character on the screen will move/function/react whatever. Then with these Mii's, you will be able to connect to the virtual world of Miis and interact with other Miis, enter contests, vote on issues, and pretty much live in this virtual community. Talking about this made me think of a novel I read a long time ago by M.T. Anderson entitled Feed. In this futuristic world, people have these chips that are inserted into their brains when they are newborns that act as a computer, cell phone, television, PDA, iPod, etc. all rolled into one. If you do not have a Feed in your brain, you are an outcast in the world and therefore cannot function. If you have ever seen Gattaca (a wonderful film with Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman) you will know what I'm talking about with the not being able to function in society thing. So Raj's Miis and Wii's and any kind of "ii" made me think of this.
Technology has led us to this interactive experience and going off of what Bumble and Habermas were saying, we do live in a hyperstimulated world. We are spending time with people who are not physically there for our social interaction. However, when you think about it, people used to do that back in the 1800's as well, in the time of letter writing. People would sit there and write letters back and forth because that was their form of communication--they were spending time with people who weren't there either. Granted, it was not as instant or evolved as it is today, but that did exist back then as well.
Another question that is raised was is this real? We have to use our imagination a lot when dealing with virtual worlds and spaces like this. There is an inherent trust in persons' presentations of themselves but we have to ask is this really reality? Is this not reality? Are we talking with the person or the virtual space that represents them? How can the human identity and mind be compressed onto a chip that can almost be a back-up of our own brain?
In a way, we are immortalizing ourselves, and is that what virtual reality means to do? Think of Facebook and Myspace and whatever website had Myspace profiles for people who have died. We still exist in this virtual world, even after our death.
romulus 02.28
Thursday's class felt like a supercharged video game, much like Super Smash Brothers Brawl which is about to be released. Every time groups were reformed there was this clash of ideas and opinions about a multitude of topics. The hyperactive nature of the classroom discussion highlighted several major concepts, each bursting with data. The pace was impressive and energetic. Giving us the power to design the lecture, showcased the rhizomic nature of conversation.
Virtual reality pretty much took the cake. Technology lets us live in what seems a science fiction novel. Looking at the opportunities to fully engage in the network where we live. Within a matter of time, people will 'connected' to the net 24/7. There is a bridging of the gap between reality and virtual reality. The two are being fused.
"The use of [brain-computer interface] technology represents a potential breakthrough in human-machine interfaces, changing the realm of possibilities not only for games, but in the way that humans and computer interact," said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence.
Nintendo Wii is going to offer a whole new realm of gaming experiences using a mind control headsets. The age of the mouse is dead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/02/gaming_with_the_power_of_your.html
We are able to virtually manipulate space and time, and to control our own destiny like in Second Life. The game has blurred boundaries between reality and virtual reality via its free market capitalistic state. When creating ones online identity, brand marketing, familiarity and popularity lets us trust sites like Facebook and Myspace above other social networking sites. It should not be an issue if someone is smoking marijuana or drinking underage because cyberspace is where one can be themselves. Its horrible when institutions like governments try to impose censorship on the net. There so be none. The human race is finally able to mass collaborate, and by being able to communicate with each other we can share knowledge, Wikipedia, our history's, ideologies etc., weed out the bad ones and head towards great progress. The majority of the world will see eye to eye, and we will all be able to link and live in a world that slides from R to VR seamlessly.
Virtual reality pretty much took the cake. Technology lets us live in what seems a science fiction novel. Looking at the opportunities to fully engage in the network where we live. Within a matter of time, people will 'connected' to the net 24/7. There is a bridging of the gap between reality and virtual reality. The two are being fused.
"The use of [brain-computer interface] technology represents a potential breakthrough in human-machine interfaces, changing the realm of possibilities not only for games, but in the way that humans and computer interact," said Paul Ledak, vice president of IBM's Digital Convergence.
Nintendo Wii is going to offer a whole new realm of gaming experiences using a mind control headsets. The age of the mouse is dead. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/02/gaming_with_the_power_of_your.html
We are able to virtually manipulate space and time, and to control our own destiny like in Second Life. The game has blurred boundaries between reality and virtual reality via its free market capitalistic state. When creating ones online identity, brand marketing, familiarity and popularity lets us trust sites like Facebook and Myspace above other social networking sites. It should not be an issue if someone is smoking marijuana or drinking underage because cyberspace is where one can be themselves. Its horrible when institutions like governments try to impose censorship on the net. There so be none. The human race is finally able to mass collaborate, and by being able to communicate with each other we can share knowledge, Wikipedia, our history's, ideologies etc., weed out the bad ones and head towards great progress. The majority of the world will see eye to eye, and we will all be able to link and live in a world that slides from R to VR seamlessly.
Bumble: 2/28 post class
My post will probably ree flect some of the fear that comes out of Starfish's response...
why is it that technology always seems to get us into a frenzy? For one thing, humans are creatures of habit and so thinking about dramatic change can throw someone off and make them freak. But, if we all notice gradual changes which creep up on our society (as in all of the technology we are obsessed and involved in) we accept them, because we do not view them as change.
The class about technology initiated a lot of discussions and thoughts regarding development of technology… where in the world is it taking us? One of the most fascinating things about class was all of the tangents that we could connect to the Poster reading. In my group we were discussing that technology has led to an increase and shift of communication patterns and techniques. What is boggling is that a majority of our lives are spent communicating and interacting with people who are not physically there. If we each got a penny for the number of times we pick up our cell phones to communicate in the virtual world of technology, we would be billionaires. Then, if we continued with the number of times we each went into a virtual space like the internet and either spoke with someone via e-mail or instant messenger, we would have money to the gazillionth power! First of all with the amount of time we are walking and talking with people who are not around you, reminds me of the Habermas concept of hyperstimulated sensitivity. I can be in a room with 10,000 people and be talking with someone who is thousands of miles away. This also relates to the post modern concept of blurring the lines of space and time. I can instantaneously press a call button on a little cell phone and talk with my parents in Dubai, when they might be having dinner and I am eating breakfast. The physical space is irrelevant and time is blurred, we are taking but they are living in tomorrow. It is eerie to think about how we even try to conceptualize time and space and categorize it. Honestly though, by taking a post modern stance on it all, there is no such thing as time, it is intangible. Internet allows us also to follow time in a cyclical pattern and not linearly. Think about a book online, you can click on a word that might take you to a tangent that you might be thinking about, and then click again and keep moving your thoughts rapidly in a non-linear progression. Imagine we applied the information technology concept to a regular paper… In school we learn to follow a thesis and intro which leads you in order through a progression in a paper. While jumping from concept to concept might make sense to the writer, would it make sense to the reader? Perhaps we still need to keep this linear lines for certain things.
What does this development of interactions in the virtual world even mean? For one thing, it brings up the aesthetic of speed and technology. If I am at work in an office, who has time anymore to get up and walk to the person down the hallway? NO ONE! We have a need for speed and with a click of a button we can intercom them or e-mail them.
Another thing is that it all contributes to the shift in communication techniques and strengths. In the past, before the explosion of technology, people were dependent on face to face interpersonal communication. People needed to directly interact and were dependent of non verbal cues. Now, if we look at the preferred means of communication it would be the least face to face as possible. Particularly between the relationship between males and females who are attracted to one another. The easiest thing is to pick up a phone and text them, or “facebook” them, which has now become a verb. What does it mean that we have come to the point that our communication skills have so depleted to the point that picking up a phone and calling is still a step in the “too extreme” direction. My brother, who is just 6 years older, finds texting aggravating, and is much more comfortable talking to other people in face to face communication.
In this world where we are spending more and more time in cyber space, we have to put our imagination to good use! Are our relationships and communication with others online actually real? This reflects Baulldriard’s idea of reality, and is there such thing as reality?
I feel like these developments question what it means to be human. Particularly as we keep delegating tasks from our mind (our central processing system) to faster, smarter and more efficient computers. Particularly with cell phones and memorizing numbers, we already outsource that information. The last time I memorized a phone number was when I was in middle school. We have all delegated our mathematical skills to calculators; we delegate information searching to our blackberries and google.com. Will humans ever have to think again? What happens when they put these outsourced like our phones in a chip and implant them into our heads? We will truly be living into a virtual world.
why is it that technology always seems to get us into a frenzy? For one thing, humans are creatures of habit and so thinking about dramatic change can throw someone off and make them freak. But, if we all notice gradual changes which creep up on our society (as in all of the technology we are obsessed and involved in) we accept them, because we do not view them as change.
The class about technology initiated a lot of discussions and thoughts regarding development of technology… where in the world is it taking us? One of the most fascinating things about class was all of the tangents that we could connect to the Poster reading. In my group we were discussing that technology has led to an increase and shift of communication patterns and techniques. What is boggling is that a majority of our lives are spent communicating and interacting with people who are not physically there. If we each got a penny for the number of times we pick up our cell phones to communicate in the virtual world of technology, we would be billionaires. Then, if we continued with the number of times we each went into a virtual space like the internet and either spoke with someone via e-mail or instant messenger, we would have money to the gazillionth power! First of all with the amount of time we are walking and talking with people who are not around you, reminds me of the Habermas concept of hyperstimulated sensitivity. I can be in a room with 10,000 people and be talking with someone who is thousands of miles away. This also relates to the post modern concept of blurring the lines of space and time. I can instantaneously press a call button on a little cell phone and talk with my parents in Dubai, when they might be having dinner and I am eating breakfast. The physical space is irrelevant and time is blurred, we are taking but they are living in tomorrow. It is eerie to think about how we even try to conceptualize time and space and categorize it. Honestly though, by taking a post modern stance on it all, there is no such thing as time, it is intangible. Internet allows us also to follow time in a cyclical pattern and not linearly. Think about a book online, you can click on a word that might take you to a tangent that you might be thinking about, and then click again and keep moving your thoughts rapidly in a non-linear progression. Imagine we applied the information technology concept to a regular paper… In school we learn to follow a thesis and intro which leads you in order through a progression in a paper. While jumping from concept to concept might make sense to the writer, would it make sense to the reader? Perhaps we still need to keep this linear lines for certain things.
What does this development of interactions in the virtual world even mean? For one thing, it brings up the aesthetic of speed and technology. If I am at work in an office, who has time anymore to get up and walk to the person down the hallway? NO ONE! We have a need for speed and with a click of a button we can intercom them or e-mail them.
Another thing is that it all contributes to the shift in communication techniques and strengths. In the past, before the explosion of technology, people were dependent on face to face interpersonal communication. People needed to directly interact and were dependent of non verbal cues. Now, if we look at the preferred means of communication it would be the least face to face as possible. Particularly between the relationship between males and females who are attracted to one another. The easiest thing is to pick up a phone and text them, or “facebook” them, which has now become a verb. What does it mean that we have come to the point that our communication skills have so depleted to the point that picking up a phone and calling is still a step in the “too extreme” direction. My brother, who is just 6 years older, finds texting aggravating, and is much more comfortable talking to other people in face to face communication.
In this world where we are spending more and more time in cyber space, we have to put our imagination to good use! Are our relationships and communication with others online actually real? This reflects Baulldriard’s idea of reality, and is there such thing as reality?
I feel like these developments question what it means to be human. Particularly as we keep delegating tasks from our mind (our central processing system) to faster, smarter and more efficient computers. Particularly with cell phones and memorizing numbers, we already outsource that information. The last time I memorized a phone number was when I was in middle school. We have all delegated our mathematical skills to calculators; we delegate information searching to our blackberries and google.com. Will humans ever have to think again? What happens when they put these outsourced like our phones in a chip and implant them into our heads? We will truly be living into a virtual world.
Bella Post Class 2/28
Starfish, now that I know who you are, I’ll be posting on you all the time! In my last post, I talked about how ‘without my technology, I’m not sure I know who I am’. After our discussion in class, I realized I may not be as bad off as some other people in the world–you mention your fear of the Second Life world and how bizarre it is that real money and real identities are created and lived out in a virtual world. After class, I went and checked out Second Life, just to see what it’s all about. I see it as a grown up version of The Sims (my only, and favorite computer game growing up). The reason these worlds are so attractive is because they allow you to create a persona, maybe someone that looks like you maybe what you wished you looked like. That person can have any job, fulfill any dream at YOUR command, and behave any way you like. If you’re an uptight, shy, lonely man that joins Second Life, your character maybe the attractive, flirtatious, loud and funny business man you always wished you could be. It’s bizarre to think about, but, as Eco said, the fake world is sometimes more entertaining and rewarding that the real world. In the fake world, we have everything we want at our control and for many people that is appealing. If I had time between everything I do on campus as well as my seemingly infinite pile of homework, I might get back into the virtual world. For me, however, I found it so addicting that it took up too much time. It’s like watching your favorite TV show and being able to control the ending…you can’t get enough. I had to hide my games from myself so that I would stop playing them and actually live my life, like you said. It was scary to think that I was spending more time pretending to be someone else than I was enjoying who I am. You said that last class made everything 'click' for you, and I have to agree. Since the last class, the last essay (which I actually understood), and our exam, I have really come to understand a lot of the basics about post modern society. We live in an age of instant gratification, constant development, and scarily obsessive tendencies. We are obsessed with making things new and better, pushing the boundaries of technology, and revolutionizing the world we live in. I feel like technology is just snowballing forward, at a pace that's almost impossible to maintain...what could happen if it crashed? What would happen if our society just...crashed. It seems to me that we can't keep this up forever, and that it has to stop some time...but when?
http://secondlife.com/
http://secondlife.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)