What I enjoyed most this week in class was the discussion on societies reliance on technology. The use of technology in society today has created increased communicative means with people while at the same time those connections are emotionless. These ways of staying in touch are developing more and more everyday. There are many effects resulting from this, for example the main two I found was the increasing size of the private sphere as well as the lack of emotion conveyed towards one another. It's funny how we have more control over our lives with dependence on something as external as technology.
Secondly, I have noticed what with growing technological reliance there is a lack of emotion being held within messages as well as a diminishing importance on personal interactions. When texting, e-mailing etc it is difficult to detect a tone with what you are writing about, for example I've known people who have fallen out all because one was being sarcastic over texting and the other could not detect that. With this lack of emotional connection with each other we are beginning to lose it with ourselves; meaning that can only be conveyed in person is lost when traveling through cyber space from one communicative technological device to the next. Will we all become monotonic humans who read language exactly as it is written in front of us, emotionless? For this to happen, there would have to be a development of a global understanding of words and text so that all words would have the same meaning to ultimately create a language of technology. This would be taking DeSaussure's concept on how communities can determine the values and meanings of words and placing it in the context of a global technological community. In addition, Jenkin's recognizes the regression to a folk-culture with our ability to understand creativity, can be applied here in that I think that our emotional development will regress to a more primitive time, along with our socializing skills. Socialization is a key part of growing up, I think we all remember when we were young and our parents encouraging us to get involved and play with the other kids. With this developing participatory culture do we need to physically get involved with other people when we can do it cyberly? I believe that there is a new form of socialization that will over-take the necessity of 'personal interation' and make it 'impersonal.'
Friday, March 6, 2009
Dot, 3/6
I really enjoyed yesterdays class and thought it was great to learn about Jenkins from a totally new perspective. I liked hearing Claire's story and especially enjoyed meeting someone who actually turned what they love into a profession. I was excited to meet one of the pioneers of our major and it really made me realize how fortunate CMC majors now really are. I am glad we have a major that we are all so interested in and that we can all take different things from. In listening to Claire, I realized that it is possible to study what you want and to turn that passion into a career. Her talk also further proved that popular culture is something you can study and live off, now all I have to do is convince my parents.
In Claire's presentation, she brought up the question, "what is a fan?". She went on to say that a real fan is one who goes to conventions and posts on message boards and reads fan sites. I do not fully agree with this notion. Although I do believe people that do these things are definitely fans, I think that there are others ways to be a fan of something without doing these things. I would call myself a huge Grey's Anatomy fan, however I have never entered into the virtual world of Grey's fandom and I could not even tell you if one exists. I do watch all of the episodes, have lengthy conversations with my friends about what went on in each episodes and I know pretty much everything about each character. I think most people would consider me a pretty avid fan, but am I even though I don't play into the virtual fandom?
I have never been one to be too obsessed with computers or technology and rarely used the internet before Facebook, yet I am a fan. I do not believe that I be a fan one needs to necessarily be a devout follower of conventions or internet sites. I am sure there are many other people in the world who are obsessed with certain TV shows, but who are not involved with them online.
Maybe now I will check out the Grey's Anatomy fan sites to see if people there are better fans than I am.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Marie89, 3/4
In class on Tuesday, we talked about the community aspect of the Internet. Some argued that the Internet is a combination of many small communities while others argued that it was one large community. I had trouble discerning between the two, as I considered the Internet to be both. Today, people look to the Internet for community, whether it be Facebook, email, or Google. In any of these sites, we are looking to interact with others, or are drawing information from sources that are also open to other people. Independent of our motivations for using the Internet, we are part of a larger whole as we contribute and take utilize information on the web.
For my CMC 200 research paper, I studied online dating on the website, match.com. I found that all human beings have a need to communicate with others and create relationships. Some people even stated on their profiles that they were looking for friendship rather than to date, and that this was one of the easiest ways to meet people in the area. The Internet now acts as a domain in which to communicate with a variety of people and it is convenient and efficient. It is through the Internet, in today’s society, that people find it easiest to communicate and create relationships as it is one of the most popular modes of communication. So I do believe that people today look to the Internet as a confirmation of friendship, communication, and therefore community.
The ways in which communities function and from has changed with changing technology. It is now more diverse and gives people the ability to connect with whoever, whenever, on a more efficient scale. People may create relationships from the luxury of their desks and maintain them easily as well. Who knows what community will evolve into next.
For my CMC 200 research paper, I studied online dating on the website, match.com. I found that all human beings have a need to communicate with others and create relationships. Some people even stated on their profiles that they were looking for friendship rather than to date, and that this was one of the easiest ways to meet people in the area. The Internet now acts as a domain in which to communicate with a variety of people and it is convenient and efficient. It is through the Internet, in today’s society, that people find it easiest to communicate and create relationships as it is one of the most popular modes of communication. So I do believe that people today look to the Internet as a confirmation of friendship, communication, and therefore community.
The ways in which communities function and from has changed with changing technology. It is now more diverse and gives people the ability to connect with whoever, whenever, on a more efficient scale. People may create relationships from the luxury of their desks and maintain them easily as well. Who knows what community will evolve into next.
yellowdaisy4, 3/5/09
I found Claire’s presentation about participatory culture in cyberspace to be very interesting because she was able to study this whole underground culture that most people know about but outside the regular users don’t really think about all that much. What most people don’t realize is that it’s the this underground culture that keeps the big industries still going because without fans who cared, there would be no franchises or followings that pay to go see these movies or buy the comic books and memorabilia. This is why I was surprised when Claire mentioned how some companies don’t allow fan sites and fan videos to have music or clips from their shows. It makes more sense for franchises like Adult Swim to encourage fan participation. Jenkin’s mentions this when he stated “we are witnessing the emergence of an elaborate feedback loop between the emerging DIY aesthetics of participatory culture and mainstream industry” (571). The DIY aesthetics are things like you tube videos made reenacting your favorite TV show or doing a parody or making something like the Captain Jack rubber ducky we saw. I think it’s a good idea for mainstream industries, like Cartoon Network for example, that show clips of this stuff on TV to show they appreciate the fans for making it popular and having interest in what they are producing. I like how now the internet gives people with similar interest somewhere to go, like message boards, where they can find people who enjoy the same things even if they can’t find someone in person, they are still able to express themselves and make friends through shared interest. This also connects to the Jenkin’s quote “people who may not ever meet face to face and thus have few real world connections with each other can tap into the shared framework of popular culture to facilitate communication” (556). It’s really cool how Claire was able to take something that she likes and turn it into what she’s studying because you can tell she was very passionate about it and had a lot of information.
Dmariel, 3/5/09
Sometimes I find myself wondering how anyone was able to live without their cell phones, GPS, the internet, etc..With all that these technologies have given us today, it is hard to believe that the world revolved without them. In class we discussed whether or not we think that the internet will evolve into a global community or a compilation of thousands of little communities. I believe that the Internet will always be a gathering of many different small groups. There are too many differences in the world for everyone to communicate and exist on the Internet together. I believe that blogs can be defined as little communities. There are millions of blogs on the internet for all different interests-allowing for any type of person to find a community in which to belong. Right now I participate in three different blog websites at work and two different blogs at school. This just shows that the average person is a member of numerous different online communities.
In addition, I find the concept of decentralized communication to be very true in our world today. All different types of people read specific newspapers, magazines, online new sites, etc. In the past, most people used to read the newspaper for their entire county-all receiving the same type of news. Now we have easy access to news from across the world at our fingertips. Just last semester I did a project on Jewish diasporic communities attempting to stay in touch with their homeland. I found that the internet provides a gateway for news and for communication with people of your own descent- there were so many websites, including both mainstream and alternative, for this one diaspora.
In relation to Claire’s presentation on Cyberspace Pirates, I found this directly related to Posters idea that “property rights are put in doubt when information is set free of its material integument to move and to multiply in cyberspace with few constraints”. The ‘skin’ that used to hold all of this information together no longer exists in todays world. Information is free to be used through fandom. Why is there plagiarism in writing and not in the media?
In addition, I find the concept of decentralized communication to be very true in our world today. All different types of people read specific newspapers, magazines, online new sites, etc. In the past, most people used to read the newspaper for their entire county-all receiving the same type of news. Now we have easy access to news from across the world at our fingertips. Just last semester I did a project on Jewish diasporic communities attempting to stay in touch with their homeland. I found that the internet provides a gateway for news and for communication with people of your own descent- there were so many websites, including both mainstream and alternative, for this one diaspora.
In relation to Claire’s presentation on Cyberspace Pirates, I found this directly related to Posters idea that “property rights are put in doubt when information is set free of its material integument to move and to multiply in cyberspace with few constraints”. The ‘skin’ that used to hold all of this information together no longer exists in todays world. Information is free to be used through fandom. Why is there plagiarism in writing and not in the media?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
000ooo000ooo 3/4
“Is it likely to promote the proliferation of little narratives or does it invigorate a developing authoritarian technocracy?” (544)
I think this is an interesting question to pose regarding the future of the internet. So far we have seen it go both ways. In one respect, things like "napster" have allowed bands that would not otherwise have ever been heard to have their popularity proliferated across the country. On the other hand, if you looked up the top 10 or 15 websites on the internet, I bet a majority of them would be owned by major media conglomerates. In this respect, totalizing metanarratives are still dominating information output and people are still receiving their information from a few major outputs. Even if a lot of these sites have "message boards" the boards are usually just places to further talk about and invest your time in their ideas and products. If you go to any major newspaper's website they will probably have a place for people to comment on the articles. However, if you read the comments it becomes clear that most people just blow smoke about the article and don't bother to read what anybody else has said. Thus, it is not a series of individual experiences relating to each other and learning from each other about the article, it is people putting their thoughts on the article on the internet for absolutely no one to read or care about.
What I foresee is a struggle occurring between people and corporations for control over the internet. The problem is, people won't see this happening, corporations will. If individuals wanted to they could easily utilize sites like youtube to get their ideas heard from many people and people could demand more websites that allowed them to express themselves. However, corporations will try to control this and keep their totalizing metanarratives as the dominant ideology. This is happening already as corporations add their own videos to youtube and open up their own websites.
I think this is an interesting question to pose regarding the future of the internet. So far we have seen it go both ways. In one respect, things like "napster" have allowed bands that would not otherwise have ever been heard to have their popularity proliferated across the country. On the other hand, if you looked up the top 10 or 15 websites on the internet, I bet a majority of them would be owned by major media conglomerates. In this respect, totalizing metanarratives are still dominating information output and people are still receiving their information from a few major outputs. Even if a lot of these sites have "message boards" the boards are usually just places to further talk about and invest your time in their ideas and products. If you go to any major newspaper's website they will probably have a place for people to comment on the articles. However, if you read the comments it becomes clear that most people just blow smoke about the article and don't bother to read what anybody else has said. Thus, it is not a series of individual experiences relating to each other and learning from each other about the article, it is people putting their thoughts on the article on the internet for absolutely no one to read or care about.
What I foresee is a struggle occurring between people and corporations for control over the internet. The problem is, people won't see this happening, corporations will. If individuals wanted to they could easily utilize sites like youtube to get their ideas heard from many people and people could demand more websites that allowed them to express themselves. However, corporations will try to control this and keep their totalizing metanarratives as the dominant ideology. This is happening already as corporations add their own videos to youtube and open up their own websites.
Marie89, Jenkins
“We are going to empower a writer, somewhere in the world, who doesn’t have filmmaking resources at his or her disposal. This is the future of cinema” (549). This statement, along with the previous one that states that someday, moviemaking will become a part of everyone’s being, and that what is classified as art will change, sum up postmodernism to me. When everyone has the capability to express him or herself through the resources available to him or her, everyone will be creating artwork everyday, and movies will no longer be a part of an expertise but a normal way of expression.
Today, during one of my classes, I began to consider the ways in which technology has evolved. Every classroom is equipped with a small screen with buttons, enabling one to watch a film, display a computer screen, turn off the lights, turn up the sound, play music, etc. This is a drastic change as we used to reel in a large television to classrooms in order to watch any film. It is amazing the rate at which we are inculcating new types of entertainment and ways of using technology into our culture. Also, events such as Campus Movie Fest change the ways in which movies are viewed and appreciated. We now take more out of home-produced films than we ever have as we now have the freedom and technology available to express ourselves to anyone at anytime. These types of things become more personal and therefore, normal.
We are now more intimate with technology and the ways in which entertainment is viewed and appreciated. Every day we are coming closer as a culture to taking entertainment into our own hands, eliminating the professionalism that once used to be attached. Personal cell phones, computers, programs, etc. enable us to create artwork whenever we deem it essential. We no longer rely on other people or things to express ourselves, which is changing the ways in which our culture functions.
Today, during one of my classes, I began to consider the ways in which technology has evolved. Every classroom is equipped with a small screen with buttons, enabling one to watch a film, display a computer screen, turn off the lights, turn up the sound, play music, etc. This is a drastic change as we used to reel in a large television to classrooms in order to watch any film. It is amazing the rate at which we are inculcating new types of entertainment and ways of using technology into our culture. Also, events such as Campus Movie Fest change the ways in which movies are viewed and appreciated. We now take more out of home-produced films than we ever have as we now have the freedom and technology available to express ourselves to anyone at anytime. These types of things become more personal and therefore, normal.
We are now more intimate with technology and the ways in which entertainment is viewed and appreciated. Every day we are coming closer as a culture to taking entertainment into our own hands, eliminating the professionalism that once used to be attached. Personal cell phones, computers, programs, etc. enable us to create artwork whenever we deem it essential. We no longer rely on other people or things to express ourselves, which is changing the ways in which our culture functions.
CMCstudent, Jenkins
“The great hope that people who normally don’t make movies are going to be making them…One day a little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart…the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed and it will really become an art form.” This quote by Francis Coppola is very true to what is happening in our culture today. It is no longer great hope of this happening, but a reality. We are encouraged from a young age not only that we can be whatever we want to be, but that technology enables us to express ourselves. I remember as a young child growing up my parents having their camcorder and my younger brother and I doing silly dances in front of it. When I became old enough to understand the functioning of the camera myself, we began to use it as a form of expression without the help of my parents. Sometimes we would set it up and my brother would bang on pans pretending they were drums, while I would sing with my juice box as a microphone. These are silly things that many of us do not think much of because our generation is so used to growing up with technology, for instance the camcorder. However, this shows that even in just 20 years the sphere of public technology and the notion of being able to create things without being a professional have broadened tremendously. It shows the shift from the need of specialties in order to have the know-how to everyday people becoming camera/ technologically savvy. This opens up things to everyday people that were opened to just a select few in recent years. Even as we get older we are still being encouraged to participate in things such as “Movie Fest.” We are encouraged in all aspects, whether through acting, technical work, creating, or producing to show that nonprofessionals can make movies and be just as artistic and successful.
LightningBolt, 3/3
In class on Tuesday we questioned if it was possible to have a community on the internet. After thinking about this I am certain that it is possible to have communities on the internet. I personally do not feel that I am a part of any online communities, but I am certain others in the class do. When I go on the internet the only forms of communication I partake in are email and Facebook. Both of which I only use to communicate with people that I know on a “face to face” level. When other people go on the internet they may go into chat rooms, dating web sites, or use Facebook for social networking. It is possible to form bonds without face to face contact and I think many people do this over the internet. It is true that people may not be who they are pretending to be online, but it is also possible that people are not who they are pretending to be face to face. For instance, a 32 year old man may be pretending to be a 12 year old girl on the internet, but a 32 year old convicted felon may tell a girl he meets in the grocery store that he spent the past 5 years in the peace core. In both cases people must rely on trust that what they are being told is the truth.
It was mentioned in class, what happens if the internet suddenly disappears, what happens to the community that once existed? Even if people can no longer participate in a community I think they will always be part of it. If the neighborhood you used to live in was bull dowsed to build a highway and the houses are no longer there, the community still exists. Just because the internet no longer exists doesn’t mean that the people no longer exists.
It was mentioned in class, what happens if the internet suddenly disappears, what happens to the community that once existed? Even if people can no longer participate in a community I think they will always be part of it. If the neighborhood you used to live in was bull dowsed to build a highway and the houses are no longer there, the community still exists. Just because the internet no longer exists doesn’t mean that the people no longer exists.
Juice15, Jenkins
“The process may start with any media channel, but a successful product will flow across media until it becomes pervasive within the culture at large” (Jenkins 552). I feel this quote sums up a lot of what Jenkins spoke about and basically sums up what is occurring in today’s world. This quote can bring some positives and negatives to our culture and the owner of this original media.
One of the first things discussed that can be looked at as a negative aspect is once this process is occurring no clear-cut attribution of authorship can occur. Once the original has been out and people start to edit it, add in their own ideas and make spoofs or what not of it sometimes this can occur. This is harmful in that it may take away profits from the owner of the original idea or soften the message that was trying to be conveyed. Many movies have knock offs made or spoofs which contribute to this.
One positive that can occur is that your idea may become better known or seen more often. I look at you tube as something that contributes to this fact. Another positive is that if a message is trying to be conveyed it can reach more people. The example of how minority groups are using this to have greater visibility or to expose something such as police brutality is very worthwhile to them.
All this relates to how our media is exploding. From VCR’s, to camcorders, to cell phones, computers and audio sampling these are all used for greater visibility and help it flow across the media faster and reach a broader audience and may even be accepted into our culture. It is now very easy to make a movie today and have it have the possibility of being viewed by anyone in the world. This can be used in a good way or as a waste of time and space.
One of the first things discussed that can be looked at as a negative aspect is once this process is occurring no clear-cut attribution of authorship can occur. Once the original has been out and people start to edit it, add in their own ideas and make spoofs or what not of it sometimes this can occur. This is harmful in that it may take away profits from the owner of the original idea or soften the message that was trying to be conveyed. Many movies have knock offs made or spoofs which contribute to this.
One positive that can occur is that your idea may become better known or seen more often. I look at you tube as something that contributes to this fact. Another positive is that if a message is trying to be conveyed it can reach more people. The example of how minority groups are using this to have greater visibility or to expose something such as police brutality is very worthwhile to them.
All this relates to how our media is exploding. From VCR’s, to camcorders, to cell phones, computers and audio sampling these are all used for greater visibility and help it flow across the media faster and reach a broader audience and may even be accepted into our culture. It is now very easy to make a movie today and have it have the possibility of being viewed by anyone in the world. This can be used in a good way or as a waste of time and space.
ashlayla, Jenkins/response to asyouwish
I agree one hundred percent with what asyouwish was saying in their post. The Coppola quote does fit right in with what we were talking about in class Tuesday. Computers, cell phones, cameras, and camcorders have all become so popular and somewhat affordable that a lot people own these products. When a budding cinematographer gets his/her hands on a camcorder they will start filming videos as often as they can. Their videos range from silly, childish ones to videos that can be used in a classroom. As CMC majors we are all guilty of being one of the many that has filmed a video and then maybe uploaded it to youtube.com. As a requirement in IFT 300, we all had to create a video. We also had to create a video in CMC 100 that some people have uploaded to YouTube. I know that when my group in CMC 100 created our video, we went a step further and created a fancy cover and placed it in a DVD holder. The video that asyouwish was talking about, the Harry Potter Puppet Pals, went from being a video that someone created out of boredom to one of the most popular videos on YouTube. If we know that someone hasn't seen the latest 'web sensation,' such as the Harry Potter Puppet Pals, we instantly get on the computer to show them. I will honestly say that I am guilty of doing this. A friend of mine had never even heard of the Harry Potter video and that same day, I showed him. Technology stores have made these products easily accessible to most people. When you buy a MAC, a camera is already installed on the computer. People can get Photoshop for their computers so they can create posters like the Monica Lewinsky Star Wars poster. Once we create something we want everyone to see it, so we post it to sites like YouTube or Facebook if it's a funny recreated picture. The last point of asyouwish's post that I agree with is that we have become more and more picky as we view media with a critical eye. If we watch a YouTube video and don't like it, we won't tell others to watch it. If we see a preview of a video that doesn't look interesting to us, we won't even give the video a chance and will move on to something else that is more interesting.
Asyouwish/ Jenkins 3/3/09
The very first quote in the Jenkins reading greatly reminded me of what we had been talking about in class. "For me the great hope is that 8mm video recorders are coming out, people who normally wouldn't make movies are going to be making them. And that one day a little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the new Mozart and make a beautiful film with her father's camcorder. For once the so-called professionalism about movies will be destroyed and it will really become an art form"(Francis Ford Coppola 549). This quote is going along with what we discussed in class on Tuesday about how once cameras and video recording devices were massive amounts of money and thus very few people could afford them let alone know how to use them. Today however video imaging is much easier to get ahold of and use. Almost every laptop and cellular phone today has a program that allows for video recording. Therefore because so many people now have the mechanisms at hand to create a video there is much more competition. Since almost everyone now has the ability to create a film more films go unnoticed and only the truly amazing ones or ones with a famous company backing them are even heard of or acknowledged. The idea that a "little fat girl in Ohio is going to be the next Mozart by creating a film with her father's camcorder" (549) is right on. U-tube videos are created by probably hundreds of thousands each day and many become famous cultural phenomena. Most of my friends have all seen the same videos, one being the "harry potter puppets and the mysterious noise", a film created by some bored people using puppets and which has attracted 59,000,000 plus views. Back in the day this many people would have seen any individual film because it was the only one of its kind and there was no other visual entertainment, thus every video was a masterpiece because it was a rarity. However now because everyone can produce a movie, we as viewers and critics have become more picky as to what we give praise to and do not.
Petite Etoile, Jenkins
I think the immersion of media that is based upon something else (whether a mockery or a continuation) is a very interesting concept, and can be seen on many different levels all throughout society. It seems lately that some of the biggest, funniest, and most A-list actor filled movies have been spoofs or mockeries. It began with Austin Powers, but has grown into its very own genre. Not Another Teen Movie and Scary Movie are examples of some that blatantly tell you they are a spoof of something else, with scary movie getting such hype that it has been able to make 5 more versions of itself. Tropic Thunder is more recent example, that had a huge cast of major actors. Besides Hollywood's remakes, there are countless of fan-made unprofessional videos that mock or recreate other movies. Thanks to the internet, especially youtube, they can easily be found and sometimes, if they're good enough, even gain their own followings. There are several online amature video producers who have made quite a name for themselves amongst the public simply by posting their videos online. You can also find a lot of music videos on youtube that fans take their favorite clips of movies and sinc them together in a way they enjoy with music in the background, especially for anime television shows, movies, and even video games. Another interesting aspect is fanfiction.net, which is a site solely devoted to stories written by fans about everything from an anime show to a scifi movie to a popular television show like the office. Sometimes they're only mildly off from the original story line, but most times the authors will take the characters and move them into entirely different plots in entirely different worlds, such as taking the characters from an anime show and making them medieval kings and queens. The stories have quite a large following, and are usually pretty long, going into 30, 40, sometimes even hundreds of chapters. And the people reading them check each and every week for the new post. What I find most interesting about this is that the authors write so much, every week, even apologizing if they're late or behind a week, absolutely for free! And I think this is beautiful because it shows a true love for their work.
Petite Etoile, Jenkins
I think the immersion of media that is based upon something else (whether a mockery or a continuation) is a very interesting concept, and can be seen on many different levels all throughout society. It seems lately that some of the biggest, funniest, and most A-list actor filled movies have been spoofs or mockeries. It began with Austin Powers, but has grown into its very own genre. Not Another Teen Movie and Scary Movie are examples of some that blatantly tell you they are a spoof of something else, with scary movie getting such hype that it has been able to make 5 more versions of itself. Tropic Thunder is more recent example, that had a huge cast of major actors. Besides Hollywood's remakes, there are countless of fan-made unprofessional videos that mock or recreate other movies. Thanks to the internet, especially youtube, they can easily be found and sometimes, if they're good enough, even gain their own followings. There are several online amature video producers who have made quite a name for themselves amongst the public simply by posting their videos online. You can also find a lot of music videos on youtube that fans take their favorite clips of movies and sinc them together in a way they enjoy with music in the background, especially for anime television shows, movies, and even video games. Another interesting aspect is fanfiction.net, which is a site solely devoted to stories written by fans about everything from an anime show to a scifi movie to a popular television show like the office. Sometimes they're only mildly off from the original story line, but most times the authors will take the characters and move them into entirely different plots in entirely different worlds, such as taking the characters from an anime show and making them medieval kings and queens. The stories have quite a large following, and are usually pretty long, going into 30, 40, sometimes even hundreds of chapters. And the people reading them check each and every week for the new post. What I find most interesting about this is that the authors write so much, every week, even apologizing if they're late or behind a week, absolutely for free! And I think this is beautiful because it shows a true love for their work.
WoolyBully7, Jenkins
A huge part of what Jenkins talks about it technological convergence and how it relates to horizontal integration, on a corporate level. I happen to have a family member that is an executive at Viacom and I know that Viacom, which owns MTV, does not just do TV.
“Technological convergence is attractive to the media industries because it will open multiple entry point in to the consumption process and at the same time, enable consumers to more quickly locate new manifestations of a popular narrative.” They are involved in well over 50 countries with TV shows, films, videos, books, music, fashion, news, video games and much more. They are constantly trying to cover every inch of new territory that technology opens up for its consumers. As soon as blogs came about, they had blogs for TV shows, etc.
“What emerged are the new strategies of content development and distribution designed to increase the “synergy” between the different divisions of the same company.” Viacom is in the constant struggle to develop new media content to draw in new customers/consumers and keep their loyal ones attached. The Star Wars example is where after the movie was released, a ton of revenue ended up consistently coming from toy figures soundtracks, merchandise, comics, and other ancillary sales.
All of this combined has revolutionized our consuming culture, turning it into participatory culture. They wanted to get their media content from more channels and ultimately create and distribute their own media. This was to soon only be further developed with the Digital Age of video cameras, voice recorders, copiers, printers along with the web to basically be their own media-producing conglomerate.
“Technological convergence is attractive to the media industries because it will open multiple entry point in to the consumption process and at the same time, enable consumers to more quickly locate new manifestations of a popular narrative.” They are involved in well over 50 countries with TV shows, films, videos, books, music, fashion, news, video games and much more. They are constantly trying to cover every inch of new territory that technology opens up for its consumers. As soon as blogs came about, they had blogs for TV shows, etc.
“What emerged are the new strategies of content development and distribution designed to increase the “synergy” between the different divisions of the same company.” Viacom is in the constant struggle to develop new media content to draw in new customers/consumers and keep their loyal ones attached. The Star Wars example is where after the movie was released, a ton of revenue ended up consistently coming from toy figures soundtracks, merchandise, comics, and other ancillary sales.
All of this combined has revolutionized our consuming culture, turning it into participatory culture. They wanted to get their media content from more channels and ultimately create and distribute their own media. This was to soon only be further developed with the Digital Age of video cameras, voice recorders, copiers, printers along with the web to basically be their own media-producing conglomerate.
Scorpio, Jenkins
Jenkins describes our cultural shift in media culture as more participatory than it’s ever been. The development of technology has certainly increased the obtain ability for everyday people to create media of their own. Jenkins argues this shift is causing problems for the media industries, as “Media consumers want to become media producers, while media producers want to maintain their traditional dominance over media content” (554).
While I find this practice an example of hegemony, I also see that media producers have taken this notion with a strategy. In order to participate in media, we must consume it ourselves. Therefore, media like video games ask us to participate in them, to place ourselves in a fantasy world that is presented through the media. As we feel the media asks us for participation (American Idol voting), we feel control in the new media industry. But overall, we are still consuming the media passively.
I also found Jenkin’s examples of Star Wars being reproduced multiple times was interesting to read about. Although I personally have never seen Star Wars, I have seen more spoofs and parodies than I can count of the film itself. With technology, producers of this technology are able to reach a broader audience and spread their opinions. Take YouTube.com, for example. The slogan on this sight is to “Broadcast Yourself”. Not only are you broadcasting yourself, but you’re stating your opinion and making the media conglomerates weaker and less able to control their “franchisees”.
I believe this new participatory culture is an independent form of the media that can come from anybody. Jenkins states, “Seeing media fans as active participants within the current media revolution, seeing their cultural products a an important aspect of the digital cinema movement” (551) This type of media is important to the longevity of our democratic cultural practices.
While I find this practice an example of hegemony, I also see that media producers have taken this notion with a strategy. In order to participate in media, we must consume it ourselves. Therefore, media like video games ask us to participate in them, to place ourselves in a fantasy world that is presented through the media. As we feel the media asks us for participation (American Idol voting), we feel control in the new media industry. But overall, we are still consuming the media passively.
I also found Jenkin’s examples of Star Wars being reproduced multiple times was interesting to read about. Although I personally have never seen Star Wars, I have seen more spoofs and parodies than I can count of the film itself. With technology, producers of this technology are able to reach a broader audience and spread their opinions. Take YouTube.com, for example. The slogan on this sight is to “Broadcast Yourself”. Not only are you broadcasting yourself, but you’re stating your opinion and making the media conglomerates weaker and less able to control their “franchisees”.
I believe this new participatory culture is an independent form of the media that can come from anybody. Jenkins states, “Seeing media fans as active participants within the current media revolution, seeing their cultural products a an important aspect of the digital cinema movement” (551) This type of media is important to the longevity of our democratic cultural practices.
DBA123, Jenkins
As I was reading Jenkins essay Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture, I found it relating to many theorists we have already discussed in class, as well, to other CMC classes I have taken so far at Rollins. He talks about the idea of horizontal integration, which is one company investing in various media outlets, in which they can distribute a product (a film, book, toy) over a vast array of markets. As we can see from the title, Jenkins obviously used Star Wars as his main example. He discussed George Lucas’ decision of holding off on his salary for the first film and keeping a portion of the additional profits “as a turning point in the emergence of this new strategy of media production and distribution,” (554 Jenkins). This concept made me think of how the objective of filmmakers and the movie industry as a whole has changed drastically since the days when film was first introduced. In modern society, it seems, the goal is to create something that is profitable in all forms of media, as opposed to once when it was to create something in just one form of media, but to make it great. “A successful product will flow across media until it becomes pervasive within the culture at large- comics into computer games, television shows into films, and so forth,” (553 Jenkins). I’m sure when Lucas signed this contract he had no idea how big Star Wars would become, and what an impact it would cause on our society, but he must have had something in mind to know that he wanted to receive profits from the other outlets of media Star Wars would be produced in. The concept of horizontal integration, I believe changes the integrity of a product. It no longer was created for us to purely enjoy, but for us to become so consumed with. Jenkins says on page 553 that for a product to be successful “media audiences must not simply buy an isolated product or experience but rather must buy into a prolonged relationship with a particular narrative.” I think this demonstrates the true goals of the movie industry, which is far from what it used to be.
coolbeans, Jenkins
“Media consumers want to become media producers, while media producers want to maintain their traditional dominance over media content.” (554) This quote describes the new participatory culture that Jenkins describes, which has taken over media consumption. People want to become producers of their own media and the original media producers want to keep the dominance that they have over media content. This concept can be traced to many examples. One example is given in the reading. The example of the parody on Star Wars featuring Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Hilary and Chelsea Clinton is one such example. Programs such as Photoshop have made it easy for anyone to create their own form of media using already popular media content. Another example of this would be You Tube. On You Tube people can post short movies, or video clips that they have created on their own. Some of these video clips feature music written by other people or are spoofs of an already made television program/movie. Some people post music and create their own music videos by showing photo montages or act on their own. An example that we have discussed in CMC 200 is Mash-up music. Mash-up is creating music through mixing up a bunch of different music together in order to create a completely different song. While all of these forms of media are created by consumers of media, many times they can get in trouble by the media producers. Media producers often will sue people for using their content or will make them take the new media off of a website. This is because the producers want to keep their “traditional dominance” over the content. Technology has a lot to do with this new participatory culture because with all this new technology it is possible for us to create exactly what major media producers can create. Before, this technology was very expensive and generally only accessible by these major media producers but these days one can find just about anything one needs in order to create a media work at any electronics store as well as use the internet as a means of broadcasting it to the world.
Jenkins (3/5/09), Brookes77
“Grassroots appropriation and transformation of Star Wars has not, however been restricted to media fandom per se but has spread across many other sectors of the new DYI culture” (558) In the Jenkins reading, he talked about Star Wars and how because of those companies who are making products, talk shows making fun of Star Wars, music, online web pages, this has become great for advertising for Star Wars. Although these types of propaganda are not always solely about Star wars and some of them even mimic the movie (Austin Powers’s example) they draw in huge amounts of consumers and from very age group. Although they do not want these media consumers to become too involved with producing and advertising process of consumerism and Jenkins states “ The first and foremost demand consumers make is the right to participate in the creation and distribution of media narratives. Media consumers want to become media producers, while media producers want to maintain their traditional dominance over media content”(554). This would become a problem and these types of propaganda would ruin the value of the film.
I also thought it was really interesting on the second page of the reading figure (32.1), “A Star Wars poster, modified after the Lewinsky scandal”. This is a perfect example of how even negative portrayals and mimics of the move can add publicity. The poster was politically insulting, yet brought a type of acceptable humor. It was interesting to see political figures who symbolize the heroic characters in the film, “This grassroots appropriation of Star Wars became part of the huge media phenomenon that surrounded the first release of the digitally enhanced original Star Wars trilogy in 1997…..”(551). This reading really connects with the Poster reading we discussed on Tuesday. With all these products and media producers that are trying to replica parts of Star Wars we one day could forget the real story and original aspects of Star Wars, its identity could be taken away or stand for something else. This is a negative thing and technology has the power to do this in our society, so we must be careful of our cultural production.
Also when Jenkins talks about media convergence and participatory culture (on page (559)it was interesting to see the difference between the two and I related this knowledge to CMC 200 when talking about the Harry Potter industry and it’s consumers. Jenkins talks about how the “culture industry” tries to attract active fans in production and consumption. Media producers are constantly looking for what pleases people, what will be introduced next, and they are always looking for collaboration from the fans. This reminded me of Harry Potter because the cultural industry of Harry Potter has grown immensely because of the media producers and the products, amusement parks, posters, clothes they have produced and the fans act on this by consuming all of its created artifacts. Although this is taking away from the value of Harry Potter, the industry is becoming too big and although these new productions of products are being introduced, the authentic story and meaning of Harry Potter could be drowned away by the mass consumption our society is obsessed with. This in a way could happen to Star Wars as well.
I also thought it was really interesting on the second page of the reading figure (32.1), “A Star Wars poster, modified after the Lewinsky scandal”. This is a perfect example of how even negative portrayals and mimics of the move can add publicity. The poster was politically insulting, yet brought a type of acceptable humor. It was interesting to see political figures who symbolize the heroic characters in the film, “This grassroots appropriation of Star Wars became part of the huge media phenomenon that surrounded the first release of the digitally enhanced original Star Wars trilogy in 1997…..”(551). This reading really connects with the Poster reading we discussed on Tuesday. With all these products and media producers that are trying to replica parts of Star Wars we one day could forget the real story and original aspects of Star Wars, its identity could be taken away or stand for something else. This is a negative thing and technology has the power to do this in our society, so we must be careful of our cultural production.
Also when Jenkins talks about media convergence and participatory culture (on page (559)it was interesting to see the difference between the two and I related this knowledge to CMC 200 when talking about the Harry Potter industry and it’s consumers. Jenkins talks about how the “culture industry” tries to attract active fans in production and consumption. Media producers are constantly looking for what pleases people, what will be introduced next, and they are always looking for collaboration from the fans. This reminded me of Harry Potter because the cultural industry of Harry Potter has grown immensely because of the media producers and the products, amusement parks, posters, clothes they have produced and the fans act on this by consuming all of its created artifacts. Although this is taking away from the value of Harry Potter, the industry is becoming too big and although these new productions of products are being introduced, the authentic story and meaning of Harry Potter could be drowned away by the mass consumption our society is obsessed with. This in a way could happen to Star Wars as well.
DBA123, post class 3/3
In class yesterday we talked about Poster, and got into deep discussions of how technology is beginning to define us as a culture. Dr. Casey put up this quote,
“Technology has taken a turn that defines the character of power of modern governments.”
We can interpret this quote to mean many different things, but as I left class, I feel we should read this quote as somewhat of a warning. By saying that technology has the ability to control many of the actions and decisions our government makes, I believe Poster is inadvertently saying that eventually technology will be making choices that affect our population. Technology has opened so many doors, giving us access to so much information, that even a decade ago, would seem like something out of a science fiction book. Although the public is allowed (at least in our country) to many diverse types of technology, our government has options that we cannot even fathom. Take for instance the atomic bomb. Our government, and maybe some others, had to make the decision to decide whether or not to drop this bomb on Japan. This occurrence definitely had an impact on the way the character of our government is perceived. Because of this technology, our government’s reputation has been forever changed. Other technology, probably beyond what we even know is available, is capable of “defining the character” of our government.
It is a hard decision to determine what is over stepping the boundaries and what is not. I think it is important to recognize that technology does allow us, and our government, choices that seem tempting to use, but in the grand scheme of things, are not necessary. By being aware of this now, we can make wiser decisions in the future.
“Technology has taken a turn that defines the character of power of modern governments.”
We can interpret this quote to mean many different things, but as I left class, I feel we should read this quote as somewhat of a warning. By saying that technology has the ability to control many of the actions and decisions our government makes, I believe Poster is inadvertently saying that eventually technology will be making choices that affect our population. Technology has opened so many doors, giving us access to so much information, that even a decade ago, would seem like something out of a science fiction book. Although the public is allowed (at least in our country) to many diverse types of technology, our government has options that we cannot even fathom. Take for instance the atomic bomb. Our government, and maybe some others, had to make the decision to decide whether or not to drop this bomb on Japan. This occurrence definitely had an impact on the way the character of our government is perceived. Because of this technology, our government’s reputation has been forever changed. Other technology, probably beyond what we even know is available, is capable of “defining the character” of our government.
It is a hard decision to determine what is over stepping the boundaries and what is not. I think it is important to recognize that technology does allow us, and our government, choices that seem tempting to use, but in the grand scheme of things, are not necessary. By being aware of this now, we can make wiser decisions in the future.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
3/3/09, Brookes77
Today we discussed Poster in class. We talked about how much we rely on technology and how it is beginning to shape are identities. When we were shown the quote “ Is it likely to promote the proliferation of little narratives or does it invigorate a developing authoritarian technocracy”(544), half the class raised their hands for the first option and the other for the later. I immediately raised my hand because I truly think that technology will make our world one narrated story where we all see the same thing and do the same thing. I tend to have a pessimistic attitude towards decisions like these, but I do believe that the spread of technology will make us one community which will be a bad thing and will rob everyone from personal, intimate, REAL relationships and will rob us from our real image. I think that having smaller communities, although this will not happen, will be better because on can understand and grasp others identity better and get more personal with each other.
“What is at stake in these technical innovations… is not simply an increased ‘efficiency’ of interchange…but a broad and extensive change in the culture and the ay identities are structured”. This is another quote we discussed in class. With our peers we talked about how communities such as myspace, facebook, gps, etc, controls our lives, and shapes our identities. We can be who we want to be, look how we want to look and live how we want to live ( for example second life). I though about all the technology I use. I have facebook and can make people look at the pictures I want THEM to look at, I can make people believe that I am doing certain things, by putting up a status. I know this is a general example but, it makes me think, since I have friends from a long time ago on facebook, are these people who they say they really are. Do I really know all these friends, or are they identities that I just think I know. This is scary. Poster argues that technology is taking a huge turn in this generation, and beginning to control everything. What will we do if it fails one day…. Will we be able to survive?
“What is at stake in these technical innovations… is not simply an increased ‘efficiency’ of interchange…but a broad and extensive change in the culture and the ay identities are structured”. This is another quote we discussed in class. With our peers we talked about how communities such as myspace, facebook, gps, etc, controls our lives, and shapes our identities. We can be who we want to be, look how we want to look and live how we want to live ( for example second life). I though about all the technology I use. I have facebook and can make people look at the pictures I want THEM to look at, I can make people believe that I am doing certain things, by putting up a status. I know this is a general example but, it makes me think, since I have friends from a long time ago on facebook, are these people who they say they really are. Do I really know all these friends, or are they identities that I just think I know. This is scary. Poster argues that technology is taking a huge turn in this generation, and beginning to control everything. What will we do if it fails one day…. Will we be able to survive?
Happy Brithday!, 3/03
Today in class I really enjoyed learning more about Poster's writing. One quote that really stood out to me was the one about virtual identities and communities.
Poster states, "What is at stake in these technical innovations...is not simply an increased efficiency of interchange... but a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured". (531) This is important because this is our life now...I hadn't ever really focused on how my generation is much more different than my parents but times definitely have changed. I think it's incredible, yet a little scary at the same time, that someone can completely make up an identity over match.com and fool everyone into thinking they are someone whom they actually aren’t. In my Gender Adaptations class today, we discussed virtual identities seen in Japanese dating-sim video games, and the fantasy of acting out these characters. I’m not a big “gamer” but I have played some videogames in my time and it’s astonishing how far they have come. Last year in CMC 200 I watched a final project movie on Grand Theft Auto and it’s effect on people. It’s scary real! I couldn’t believe they have hookers, drug deals, guns, car crashes, gangsters, and all this stuff that we can personally act our for an hour—or for however long and often we want to play. I can see why many parents do not approve of their child partaking in these activities. Especially in Grand Theft Auto…it teaches them violence and let’s them engage in behaviors and actions that there parents would most likely not let them behave in.
I think our obsession with texting, IMing, facebook/myspace, online dating, skype/email, and all the other new cultural phenomenon’s are so popular because we have evolved into a culture that loves to be “hyper –stimulated” as Habermas would say. These are new developments…and it keeps getting newer… faster. We are a society that wants the newest thing and the fastest device. I think having a “virtual identity” gives us this kind of “escapeism” from our everyday world (reality) and into a more fictional world where everything can be questioned, and no one says anything.
Poster states, "What is at stake in these technical innovations...is not simply an increased efficiency of interchange... but a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured". (531) This is important because this is our life now...I hadn't ever really focused on how my generation is much more different than my parents but times definitely have changed. I think it's incredible, yet a little scary at the same time, that someone can completely make up an identity over match.com and fool everyone into thinking they are someone whom they actually aren’t. In my Gender Adaptations class today, we discussed virtual identities seen in Japanese dating-sim video games, and the fantasy of acting out these characters. I’m not a big “gamer” but I have played some videogames in my time and it’s astonishing how far they have come. Last year in CMC 200 I watched a final project movie on Grand Theft Auto and it’s effect on people. It’s scary real! I couldn’t believe they have hookers, drug deals, guns, car crashes, gangsters, and all this stuff that we can personally act our for an hour—or for however long and often we want to play. I can see why many parents do not approve of their child partaking in these activities. Especially in Grand Theft Auto…it teaches them violence and let’s them engage in behaviors and actions that there parents would most likely not let them behave in.
I think our obsession with texting, IMing, facebook/myspace, online dating, skype/email, and all the other new cultural phenomenon’s are so popular because we have evolved into a culture that loves to be “hyper –stimulated” as Habermas would say. These are new developments…and it keeps getting newer… faster. We are a society that wants the newest thing and the fastest device. I think having a “virtual identity” gives us this kind of “escapeism” from our everyday world (reality) and into a more fictional world where everything can be questioned, and no one says anything.
Scorpio, 3/3
In class today, we discussed Poster’s article about technology in the postmodern era. Poster wrote that the new era of technology moves us away from our basic needs and gives us the falsities of basic needs when we use them. “What is at stake in these technical innovations…is not simply an increased ‘efficiency’ of interchange… but a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured.” (Poster 531) We studied this passage and found that through the various technological resources we use on a daily basis (Facebook, GPS, Text messaging, Skype…etc.), we mistake these new devices as part of who we are.
An example of Poster’s argument can be seen in the movie, “He’s Just Not That Into You”, when actor Drew Barrymore looks to her friend and whines, “I had this guy leave me a voice mail at work, so I called him at home, and then he emailed me to my BlackBerry, and so I texted to his cell, and now you just have to go around checking all these different portals just to get rejected by seven different technologies. It’s exhausting.”
Poster argues that technology has become increasingly decentralized. Whereas twenty years ago, our culture relied on centralize forms of communication: i.e. newspapers and evening news. The radical shift then stems from a change in the way people receive information and the personalization in which takes place now.
I agree with the movie quote above in saying this shift IS exhausting. Watching my frustrated Grandma work a cell phone is hilarious, yet I can now understand that she is a being of the technology before my upbringing, therefore it should not be expected that she have to learn this foreign technology.
Sitting in the library, I coincidently look to my right to find a February addition of Fortune magazine. The main article reads: “How Facebook Is Taking Over Our Lives”. I find this article a perfect example a cultural shift in self-identity through social networking cites.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technology/hempel_facebook.fortune/index.htm
An example of Poster’s argument can be seen in the movie, “He’s Just Not That Into You”, when actor Drew Barrymore looks to her friend and whines, “I had this guy leave me a voice mail at work, so I called him at home, and then he emailed me to my BlackBerry, and so I texted to his cell, and now you just have to go around checking all these different portals just to get rejected by seven different technologies. It’s exhausting.”
Poster argues that technology has become increasingly decentralized. Whereas twenty years ago, our culture relied on centralize forms of communication: i.e. newspapers and evening news. The radical shift then stems from a change in the way people receive information and the personalization in which takes place now.
I agree with the movie quote above in saying this shift IS exhausting. Watching my frustrated Grandma work a cell phone is hilarious, yet I can now understand that she is a being of the technology before my upbringing, therefore it should not be expected that she have to learn this foreign technology.
Sitting in the library, I coincidently look to my right to find a February addition of Fortune magazine. The main article reads: “How Facebook Is Taking Over Our Lives”. I find this article a perfect example a cultural shift in self-identity through social networking cites.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technology/hempel_facebook.fortune/index.htm
Monday, March 2, 2009
LightningBolt, Poster
While reading Poster’s article I couldn’t help but to take the date into consideration. If I am not mistaken the article was written in 1995. Although Poster discusses the change the internet has brought and the development of mass media communication into the 90’s, I feel that communication has drastically changed since 1995. While Poster rivals at the change the internet has brought, I wonder what he could have to say about text messaging. I would say that text messaging fits into the structure of “postmodern culture.” Poster states that “postmodern culture is often presented as an alternative to existing society which is pictured as structurally limited or fundamentally flawed” (532). Text messaging is a alternative to, what is already postmodern, talking on the phone or emailing. These two forms of communication may be seen as limited because a phone call requires focused time, with a lot of fluff in-between, and email requires someone to be sitting down at their computer. A text message allows a message to be sent with out actual focus or a person being in a certain location besides near their phone.
At first though one may not thing that text messaging fulfills Poster’s description of, “a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured” (532). At a deeper look, text messaging is done by everyone I know, including my parents. I have gone from talking to people on the phone on a regular basis to text messaging with them. This change causes me to rarely hear their voice. I would argue that this changes the way that identities are structured. More specifically than identities, relationships. Some people have entire relationships based off of text messaging. This is becoming the main form of communication in many people’s lives. I believe that Poster would have taken text messaging into consideration had he written this article ten years later.
At first though one may not thing that text messaging fulfills Poster’s description of, “a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured” (532). At a deeper look, text messaging is done by everyone I know, including my parents. I have gone from talking to people on the phone on a regular basis to text messaging with them. This change causes me to rarely hear their voice. I would argue that this changes the way that identities are structured. More specifically than identities, relationships. Some people have entire relationships based off of text messaging. This is becoming the main form of communication in many people’s lives. I believe that Poster would have taken text messaging into consideration had he written this article ten years later.
post-it note, 3/2/2009
“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…” (Poster 538).
This statement is reminiscent to me of De Saussure’s concept of the coexistence of language and sound: “in language, one can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound” (6). Without sound, language would purposely exist; same with sound. But when paired together, they create meaning.
In a capitalist world, the environment created is not natural. Therefore the merging of two separate ideas does not happen naturally as did with language. Rather an entirely new language has to be created within the context of the existing languages so that the “information superhighway” can become a natural part of our daily life. In this way it makes sense to us as a tool to use the preexisting communication methods available to us as integrated with the new mediums available to express these ideas.
Now that more information can be expressed at faster rates of speed, the images that represent ideas must become more and more coherent and concise. Otherwise, the capitalist ideas will get lost within the metaphorical piles of information available to the consumer.
A duality that exists between Bollier and Kapor about the future of the Internet and the way it operates. Bollier sees the Internet as “open[ing] qualitatively new political opportunities because it creates new loci of speech” (537). Kapor sees the Internet as a catalyst for “more enlightenment, more rationality” (537). Either way, the Internet means more information, whether the information is a new way to express oneself or a way to collaborate and come to a public understanding, which, according to Roger, is a post-modern thought…to find an answer to everything. Now we wait to see which is true, although I think that the duality still exists. There are realms of useful information on the Internet. Then there is that website about the guy who thinks he is Peter Pan – he is not advancing the race at all, but embarrassing himself in those tight, green leggings.
This statement is reminiscent to me of De Saussure’s concept of the coexistence of language and sound: “in language, one can neither divide sound from thought nor thought from sound” (6). Without sound, language would purposely exist; same with sound. But when paired together, they create meaning.
In a capitalist world, the environment created is not natural. Therefore the merging of two separate ideas does not happen naturally as did with language. Rather an entirely new language has to be created within the context of the existing languages so that the “information superhighway” can become a natural part of our daily life. In this way it makes sense to us as a tool to use the preexisting communication methods available to us as integrated with the new mediums available to express these ideas.
Now that more information can be expressed at faster rates of speed, the images that represent ideas must become more and more coherent and concise. Otherwise, the capitalist ideas will get lost within the metaphorical piles of information available to the consumer.
A duality that exists between Bollier and Kapor about the future of the Internet and the way it operates. Bollier sees the Internet as “open[ing] qualitatively new political opportunities because it creates new loci of speech” (537). Kapor sees the Internet as a catalyst for “more enlightenment, more rationality” (537). Either way, the Internet means more information, whether the information is a new way to express oneself or a way to collaborate and come to a public understanding, which, according to Roger, is a post-modern thought…to find an answer to everything. Now we wait to see which is true, although I think that the duality still exists. There are realms of useful information on the Internet. Then there is that website about the guy who thinks he is Peter Pan – he is not advancing the race at all, but embarrassing himself in those tight, green leggings.
yellowdaisy 4, poster
Reading Poster’s article about the internet made me interested in hearing on many different ways the internet has changed our lives since it first became available to the public. What was even more surprising was realizing, after Poster mentioned that President Clinton had commented on the internet’s problems, that the article had to be written in the mid 90s so it’s not even talking about the huge affect it has today. Poster started out explaining how the telephone was the big communications change in the 1800s because people were able to communicate over distances but then the internet came about and changed things even more drastically. What I found interesting was when Poster was talking about “the success of virtual communities as an indication that real communities are in decline.” This makes me think of how people today, years after this article was written, would rather communicate over websites like facebook or myspace with one another then actually meeting up with them or even calling them. Poster was actually correct when he said it was in the decline because through technology has definitely surpassed face to face communication especially with email and instant messages. Moreover, he goes on to discuss how important things like the newspaper were pre-electronically. I can connect this to how today if I want to see an article in the newspaper or even just know the weather; I automatically go on the internet instead of picking up a real paper. Additionally, it was intriguing to see how Poster connected his work with that of another theorist we studied being Lyotard. He discusses “the dangers of a generalized computerization of society in which the availability of knowledge is politically dangerous.” Lyotard and Poster are referring to how the internet makes information available to anyone which can have bad consequences because knowledge is power.
thestig, poster
“ ‘Every day, those who can afford the computer equipment and the telephone bills can be their own producers, agents, editors and audiences’ (Katz)… it is cheap, flexible, readily available, quick” (Poster 543).
We’re growing up in a very exciting time, in that the possibilities are truly endless for a small price. This has been an ongoing dialogue in all of our CMC classes, in particular international media. What I find to be most important about the advancement in technology is its ability to enable grassroots organizations to spread their word. The benefit to this is important to our CMC studies because of the importance of a grassroots organization. A grassroots organization typically is exposing a story about something that mainstream media either doesn’t pick up on, or doesn’t report fully on. The grassroots organization makes a film that is a first hand account of a social problem, whereas mainstream media would not get as involved with the problem, or may take a political position that is in the interest of the owners and shareholders.
Technology can have quite negative effects, too. Now that people can become their own “producers, agents, editors, and audiences,” we have a lower tolerance for quality film. Youtube is a universally accessible film viewer that anyone can upload film to for free. For the most part, the quality of films on youtube are junk, but people enjoy it. This is problematic because the film experience and one’s perception of what is “good” changes. It may also have effects on attention span. I met an academy award winning documentary filmmaker several years ago who used to make documentaries that were hours long. Now, he only makes films that are under three minutes. This creates an extraordinary challenge for the documentary filmmaker, and can cause a problem for the grassroots organization who has more to tell the viewer than two or three minutes allows.
We’re growing up in a very exciting time, in that the possibilities are truly endless for a small price. This has been an ongoing dialogue in all of our CMC classes, in particular international media. What I find to be most important about the advancement in technology is its ability to enable grassroots organizations to spread their word. The benefit to this is important to our CMC studies because of the importance of a grassroots organization. A grassroots organization typically is exposing a story about something that mainstream media either doesn’t pick up on, or doesn’t report fully on. The grassroots organization makes a film that is a first hand account of a social problem, whereas mainstream media would not get as involved with the problem, or may take a political position that is in the interest of the owners and shareholders.
Technology can have quite negative effects, too. Now that people can become their own “producers, agents, editors, and audiences,” we have a lower tolerance for quality film. Youtube is a universally accessible film viewer that anyone can upload film to for free. For the most part, the quality of films on youtube are junk, but people enjoy it. This is problematic because the film experience and one’s perception of what is “good” changes. It may also have effects on attention span. I met an academy award winning documentary filmmaker several years ago who used to make documentaries that were hours long. Now, he only makes films that are under three minutes. This creates an extraordinary challenge for the documentary filmmaker, and can cause a problem for the grassroots organization who has more to tell the viewer than two or three minutes allows.
Murphy, Poster
Poster starts the section on "The Postmodern Subject" with the statement: "The information superhighway and virtual reality are communications media that enrich existing forms of consumer culture" (Poster 539). The word enrich jumped off the page to me immediately, and I automatically associated it with a positive connotation. When we "enrich" our lives we are making them better, getting one step closer to happiness, and in my mind putting the pieces of our lives together. But later in his essay, Poster goes on to quote Rheingold, "...are relationships and commitments as we know them even possible in a place where identities are fluid? We reduce and encode our identities as words on a screen, decode and unpack the identities of others" (Rheingold 1993, 61). Once again, I started inserting my personal opinion and experiences (a little tmesis happening during this assignment) and I came to the conclusion that this impersonal, "virtual" communication via the internet is negative. Poster brings up great ideas about how when bloggers write on the web and tell strangers their stories without predetermined visual judgments, a new confidence is gained, and conversations take place that before may not have. The key work Poster includes is "inhibition". There is no such thing as inhibition while using the internet, there is no reason for it.
I may have mentioned before that I wish I was alive in the seventies and eightes when communication was more limited and in my mind, more simple. Cell phones, e-mail, texts, and the internet are all available and encouraged. To me, when you run into someone you talk, you decide to hang out, you make a time and location, and you talk again when you see them. People turn "virtual reality" into their own reality and things that might have been hard to say while looking a person in the eye, come right out with the web acting as a buffer. I haven't had a facebook in months, and the reason for this is I felt like I was spying on other people. There were people I had never said two words to in person, but I could tell you who their friends were, where they went for spring break, and what their favorite t.v. show was. To me that becomes a voyeuristic obsession that our modern society is experiencing. What happened to meeting someone, not their web page?
I think Poster would agree with me when I say that the internet and on a larger scale the information superhighway define us and our reality, not the other way around. With everyday that passes we become more advanced and discover more and more, which to me is taking us farther from what I think is a healthy reality with healthy relationships and TRUE identities.
I may have mentioned before that I wish I was alive in the seventies and eightes when communication was more limited and in my mind, more simple. Cell phones, e-mail, texts, and the internet are all available and encouraged. To me, when you run into someone you talk, you decide to hang out, you make a time and location, and you talk again when you see them. People turn "virtual reality" into their own reality and things that might have been hard to say while looking a person in the eye, come right out with the web acting as a buffer. I haven't had a facebook in months, and the reason for this is I felt like I was spying on other people. There were people I had never said two words to in person, but I could tell you who their friends were, where they went for spring break, and what their favorite t.v. show was. To me that becomes a voyeuristic obsession that our modern society is experiencing. What happened to meeting someone, not their web page?
I think Poster would agree with me when I say that the internet and on a larger scale the information superhighway define us and our reality, not the other way around. With everyday that passes we become more advanced and discover more and more, which to me is taking us farther from what I think is a healthy reality with healthy relationships and TRUE identities.
dmariel, Poster
When reading Mark Posters essay on Postmodern Virtualities, I came to the conclusion that technology is probably the number one thing in our society that has caused our culture to grow in this ‘anti-modern’ direction. When Poster claims that new communications systems produce new identities he describes the modern individual as rational and autonomous. On the other hand, he describes the postmodern individual as exactly the opposite. The first thing that came to my mind was the internet. The world wide web has definitely taken away the idea of human autonomy. We are never alone in the world with the internet. Everyone has become connected in this “Global Village”. Many believe that the global village has the possibility for world wide peace, yet others are more pessimistic believing that it can outline differences between cultures and undermine state sovereignty.
In my international media class last semester, I did a report on the internet undermining the territoriality of the nation-state. The web has the capability to undermine state and government sovereignty of its people. Pertaining to this topic, I discussed how in our world today, there is a huge increase in the amount of information circulating the globe and the speed at which ideas can spread. Due to this, national boundaries have become more open and easily penetrated than ever before. The internet poses a dictators dilemma, where it makes it almost impossible for governments to control information circulating in their country. But the problem is that internet connectivity is necessary for economic power and growth. The debate over internet control has focused on China, an authoritarian government with the second largest number of internet users in the world. Although they have the second largest number of internet users in the world, the government has multiple strategies for restricting the circulation of information that may pose a threat to them. In relation to this, Poster states that “so desperate are national governments, confronted by the disorder of the internet, that schemes to monitor all messages are afoot...nation states are at a loss when faced with a global communication network”.
I believe that every new technology can go bad in time. I am not saying that the Internet is not a huge part of our culture, but people are beginning to learn how to use it to their advantages, at times these uses may also be the disadvantage of the law.
In my international media class last semester, I did a report on the internet undermining the territoriality of the nation-state. The web has the capability to undermine state and government sovereignty of its people. Pertaining to this topic, I discussed how in our world today, there is a huge increase in the amount of information circulating the globe and the speed at which ideas can spread. Due to this, national boundaries have become more open and easily penetrated than ever before. The internet poses a dictators dilemma, where it makes it almost impossible for governments to control information circulating in their country. But the problem is that internet connectivity is necessary for economic power and growth. The debate over internet control has focused on China, an authoritarian government with the second largest number of internet users in the world. Although they have the second largest number of internet users in the world, the government has multiple strategies for restricting the circulation of information that may pose a threat to them. In relation to this, Poster states that “so desperate are national governments, confronted by the disorder of the internet, that schemes to monitor all messages are afoot...nation states are at a loss when faced with a global communication network”.
I believe that every new technology can go bad in time. I am not saying that the Internet is not a huge part of our culture, but people are beginning to learn how to use it to their advantages, at times these uses may also be the disadvantage of the law.
aro0823, poster
“The terms ‘virtual reality’ and ‘real time’ attest to the force of the second media age in constituting a simultaneous culture” (538).
Poster, like the majority of our other postmodern philosophers, posits notions about “transforming the identity of originals and referentialities” (538). Simulacra is thus occurring on multiple dimensions. Not only are multiple copies of real world objects are being made, but copies of virtual objects are also. Further, real world things are copied into the virtual world and virtual things are being placed in the real world. The Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon are prime 90s examples of real world things being copied into the virtual world, for the individual has the ability to mimic and control real life by building their own, idealized version on a computer screen. Houses and rollercoasters similar to ones in developments and amusement parks are available to serve as models to help ease the transition into the virtual world.
The converse of this phenomenon exists as well. Scientists and engineers design computer programs to virtually solve problems that exist in the real world. The mechanical solutions to these problems are then taken from cyberspace and applied in a real world setting. In both cases, the “direct tinkering with reality” in a virtual landscape serves to directly modify your real-life surroundings based on what you did in an alternative landscape.
Programs such as the aforementioned represent postmodernity because they allow for emphasis on the individual narrative, or as Lyotard would say, the “little story” (544). Though the individual narratives may or may not have broader societal implications, their mere existence represents an enormous shift from the time of totalized metanarratives to the age where each individual’s actions have repercussions. Though little stories “validate difference,” the highlighting on each one of them encourages the establishment of a global community where each small narrative is revered as a bigger piece of the whole instead of the whole in its entirety the primary focus (545).
Poster, like the majority of our other postmodern philosophers, posits notions about “transforming the identity of originals and referentialities” (538). Simulacra is thus occurring on multiple dimensions. Not only are multiple copies of real world objects are being made, but copies of virtual objects are also. Further, real world things are copied into the virtual world and virtual things are being placed in the real world. The Sims and Rollercoaster Tycoon are prime 90s examples of real world things being copied into the virtual world, for the individual has the ability to mimic and control real life by building their own, idealized version on a computer screen. Houses and rollercoasters similar to ones in developments and amusement parks are available to serve as models to help ease the transition into the virtual world.
The converse of this phenomenon exists as well. Scientists and engineers design computer programs to virtually solve problems that exist in the real world. The mechanical solutions to these problems are then taken from cyberspace and applied in a real world setting. In both cases, the “direct tinkering with reality” in a virtual landscape serves to directly modify your real-life surroundings based on what you did in an alternative landscape.
Programs such as the aforementioned represent postmodernity because they allow for emphasis on the individual narrative, or as Lyotard would say, the “little story” (544). Though the individual narratives may or may not have broader societal implications, their mere existence represents an enormous shift from the time of totalized metanarratives to the age where each individual’s actions have repercussions. Though little stories “validate difference,” the highlighting on each one of them encourages the establishment of a global community where each small narrative is revered as a bigger piece of the whole instead of the whole in its entirety the primary focus (545).
spaghetti, Poster
Poster compiles several quotes from different articles in an attempt to illustrate his point that technology, more specifically the Internet, has had a huge impact on culture as a whole. He further examines this cultural revolution in terms of the identity of the individual. When referring to "virtual reality," poster states, "By directly tinkering with reality, a simulational practice is set in place which alters forever the conditions under which the identity of the self is formed" (539). Here, Poster recognizes that because the environment in which individuals form their self identity has been altered as a result of the Internet and technology, those identities are different than they would be without the context.
Self identity is now defined when "...We reduce and encode our identities as words on a screen, [and] decode and unpack the identities of others" (542). This particular quote made me think of a concept from one of the communications courses I am taking this semester. We learned one does not "own" one's identity. Our identity is defined by how other perceive us. The only control an individual has in defining his or her self to the rest of the world is in the choices he or she makes. For example, we say something about ourselves and/or we want others to perceive us in the way we dress, what we choose to say, what we choose to reveal about ourselves, and in what situations. So in relation to this quote, we choose how we want to convey our self identity to others in the sense that we choose how to present ourselves on the internet. Our real identities, however, are defined by how others unpack what we choose to share.
Poster also examines the dynamics of communication in this new virtual community. He pulls a quote which references that with the Internet, the communication is now between the many and the many. I began thinking about a video I watched in my IT class, "Using the Web for Research." the video was on an anthropological perspective of Youtube. In the video, the narrator, a college professor, observes the way in which people speak when broadcasting themselves on youtube. He found that people would always address their audience saying, "hello youtube!" This is an example of the notion of communicating with the many. Here, users are addressing no one person in particular. There are merely addressing the masses. The broadcaster is constructing a self identity he or she wishes to relay to the rest of the Internet community.
I think, that this is an example of the shift in our culture from multiplicity to individualism. The emphasis is on the self. People are more concerned with the way they construct their self identity than others. So it could be argued that while the individual does not own his or her identity, he or she can construct it and manipulate it more in the Internet community than in traditional communities.
Self identity is now defined when "...We reduce and encode our identities as words on a screen, [and] decode and unpack the identities of others" (542). This particular quote made me think of a concept from one of the communications courses I am taking this semester. We learned one does not "own" one's identity. Our identity is defined by how other perceive us. The only control an individual has in defining his or her self to the rest of the world is in the choices he or she makes. For example, we say something about ourselves and/or we want others to perceive us in the way we dress, what we choose to say, what we choose to reveal about ourselves, and in what situations. So in relation to this quote, we choose how we want to convey our self identity to others in the sense that we choose how to present ourselves on the internet. Our real identities, however, are defined by how others unpack what we choose to share.
Poster also examines the dynamics of communication in this new virtual community. He pulls a quote which references that with the Internet, the communication is now between the many and the many. I began thinking about a video I watched in my IT class, "Using the Web for Research." the video was on an anthropological perspective of Youtube. In the video, the narrator, a college professor, observes the way in which people speak when broadcasting themselves on youtube. He found that people would always address their audience saying, "hello youtube!" This is an example of the notion of communicating with the many. Here, users are addressing no one person in particular. There are merely addressing the masses. The broadcaster is constructing a self identity he or she wishes to relay to the rest of the Internet community.
I think, that this is an example of the shift in our culture from multiplicity to individualism. The emphasis is on the self. People are more concerned with the way they construct their self identity than others. So it could be argued that while the individual does not own his or her identity, he or she can construct it and manipulate it more in the Internet community than in traditional communities.
Dot, Poster
When Mark Poster wrote his piece on Postmodern Virtualities in 1995, I doubt that he ever thought technology would expand as greatly as it has today. He stated that by the mid-1900s about 30 million people used the internet, I am sure that number has grown in mass quantities since then and that it will only continue to grow in years to come. He also proposed that the "transmission capacity" of the internet would increase so much that it would "be possible to transmit any type of information (audio, video or text) from any point in the network to any other point or points, and to do so in 'real time'" (535).
This idea of "real time" transference of technology over the internet has become a part of daily lives in our culture, one that if taken away would radically alter the lifestyles of millions. Take Rollins for example, everything that we do somehow revolves around the technology that the internet provides. When we wake up in the morning, we turn on our computers or I Phones to check the weather outside. The weather sources that we rely on are updated numerous times per hour to accurately portray the conditions around us, if they were not we would not be able to get an accurate idea of how to dress. Before the internet or I Phones, one would have to turn on their television and wait until the weather channel displayed their area's weather or walk outside and test the elements on their own. After dressing appropriately, one will probably check their email or blackboard to see if teachers have sent any type of notification for class that day. If a class is canceled or an assignment is due, one is able to instantly find out rather than having to wait to actually talk to the teacher to find out. I believe that the best example of this real time transference in our lives today is definitely SKYPE, the computer program which works as a video telephone of sorts, through a direct feed those you are talking to can also see exactly what you are doing. Numerous instances of "real time" transference aid us all the time and we have become so accustomed to them that we hardly recognize their presence and definitely not their significance.
Later in his piece, Poster presents the idea of narrative in cyberspace, something that has also increased since 1995. He states that "individuals appear to enjoy relating narratives to those they have never met and probably never will meet" and in our culture, especially today this is undoubtedly true (543). There are many examples of this in our culture and it would be hard to find a person who has not participated in the creation of one such cyber narrative. Facebook and MySpace are two examples of such places where people publicize stories about their lives and even post pictures to show events in their lives. On these two websites, one most communicates with ones they know, but there are sites, such as the one we are using blogger.com where people can anonymously post stories about their lives and others can anonymously read them. The implications of such narratives are also discussed by Poster, but it can easily be seen that with the ability to publicize such narratives, people are taking advantage of the growing technology around them.
Very much has changed in the ten years since Poster wrote this piece. It will be amazing to see the technological changes that take place in the next ten years in our world and how they shape the lives of those who are introduced to them.
Rubber Soul, Poster
“If modernity or the mode of production signifies patterned practices that elicit identities as autonomous and (instrumentally) rational, postmodernity or the mode of information indicates communication practices that constitute subjects as unstable, multiple, and diffuse” (540).
Poster explores the relationship between postmodernism and new communication systems. He contends that the two interact with one another to form “a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured” (533). He describes the different communication revolutions starting from the Middle Ages when people spoke and acted in different ways for business exchanges, and continues on to the widespread use of the telephones and how this was the first time that the receiver and the sender could exchange universally. He stresses this democratic power over modes of communication is important because it “results in more freedom, more enlightenment, more rationality; capitalist or centralist control results in oppression, passivity, irrationality” (537). Today we have 5 major media giants that control most of the media and the messages we receive. Such a small concentration poses many concerns. The public only sees a limited view of what these corporations decide is “newsworthy.” I’ve read about many studies that show biased political opinions more prevalent on certain News channels. People hear and see one-sided arguments instead of the big picture in our society. The Internet and virtual worlds are significant because these systems have abilities to open up wider possibilities of expressions. Take this blog, for example. People cannot only access it from wherever they want, but they can also critique it, analyze it, and respond to what I’m saying. In this respect, a whole new realm of communication affects the way people think about the world and themselves. “Without visual cues about gender, age, ethnicity and social status, conversations open up in directions that otherwise might be avoided” (542).
Poster explores the relationship between postmodernism and new communication systems. He contends that the two interact with one another to form “a broad and extensive change in the culture, in the way identities are structured” (533). He describes the different communication revolutions starting from the Middle Ages when people spoke and acted in different ways for business exchanges, and continues on to the widespread use of the telephones and how this was the first time that the receiver and the sender could exchange universally. He stresses this democratic power over modes of communication is important because it “results in more freedom, more enlightenment, more rationality; capitalist or centralist control results in oppression, passivity, irrationality” (537). Today we have 5 major media giants that control most of the media and the messages we receive. Such a small concentration poses many concerns. The public only sees a limited view of what these corporations decide is “newsworthy.” I’ve read about many studies that show biased political opinions more prevalent on certain News channels. People hear and see one-sided arguments instead of the big picture in our society. The Internet and virtual worlds are significant because these systems have abilities to open up wider possibilities of expressions. Take this blog, for example. People cannot only access it from wherever they want, but they can also critique it, analyze it, and respond to what I’m saying. In this respect, a whole new realm of communication affects the way people think about the world and themselves. “Without visual cues about gender, age, ethnicity and social status, conversations open up in directions that otherwise might be avoided” (542).
Sunday, March 1, 2009
000ooo000ooo Poster
Mark Poster definitely makes you think twice about the internet - something most of us use multiple times everyday and take entirely for granted. The internet is significant on so many levels both technologically and socially and its global reach is unprecedented. Given all of this, we have to assume that some cultural transitions will come about because of it. The thing about the internet that makes it so hard to analyze and comprehend is its surreptitious and ubiquitous nature. Although the internet is never any actual place, its presence is all around us and we are never far from accessing it. In fact, many people carry around internet access in their pocket. The internet has become so prevalent and important that we never think about it but reading Poster's piece I could not help but be amazed at the capabilities of the internet, as well as frightened by the possibilities it opens up. Though it also affords us a lot of opportunity, it is unclear which direction the internet will take us.
One quote that particularly caught my attention came at the end of the introduction (I have a different book so page numbers are useless for me). Poster states, "If modern society may be said to foster an individual who is rational, autonomous, centered, and stable... then perhaps a postmodern society is emerging which nurtures forms of identity different from, even opposite to those of modernity." Seeing this quote made me think of what effects the internet could have on this shift, and what effects this shift could have on the internet. I believe that the internet is capable of causing us to shift away from these qualities. However, it is unclear to me what effect leaving these traits behind could have on the internet. These are traits that I would ordinarily think of as "positive", but they have not always played out this way in the modern era. We have seen some very scary things happen when "rationality" over takes humanity. One could spend a long time attempting to prophesize about what effects the loss of rationality, autonomy, centerdness and stability could have on the internet, but I don't believe it is the kind of issue anyone is really fully equipped to answer. However, what about the internet's effects on these traits?
When I think of the internet's effects on society I tend to think of "social networking" as the main indicator of effects. I would consider any form of interaction over the internet to be social networking, whether it is through an online game, on a dating site, or something like that simulated life game. These games make people anonymous and, as such, unaccountable. While one could argue that this leads to a degree of autonomy, these people are also glued to their computer screens and not really physically doing anything. Their autonomy depends on their sitting still and doing nothing. Secondly, without having to be held accountable for what they say or do, people can throw rationality out the window. They are free to act on the whims of their emotions and desires, paying no attention to reality. In "cyber-space" this is harmless. But at what point does the line get blurred between "cyber-space" and life? This blurring of the lines threatens stability and centeredness. How can we maintain the balance of everything when more and more things exist in "virtual reality"? How much weight does an object hold in "virtual reality"? If we don't know whether or not something is "real" then it is hard to maintain balance in our lives with it.
One quote that particularly caught my attention came at the end of the introduction (I have a different book so page numbers are useless for me). Poster states, "If modern society may be said to foster an individual who is rational, autonomous, centered, and stable... then perhaps a postmodern society is emerging which nurtures forms of identity different from, even opposite to those of modernity." Seeing this quote made me think of what effects the internet could have on this shift, and what effects this shift could have on the internet. I believe that the internet is capable of causing us to shift away from these qualities. However, it is unclear to me what effect leaving these traits behind could have on the internet. These are traits that I would ordinarily think of as "positive", but they have not always played out this way in the modern era. We have seen some very scary things happen when "rationality" over takes humanity. One could spend a long time attempting to prophesize about what effects the loss of rationality, autonomy, centerdness and stability could have on the internet, but I don't believe it is the kind of issue anyone is really fully equipped to answer. However, what about the internet's effects on these traits?
When I think of the internet's effects on society I tend to think of "social networking" as the main indicator of effects. I would consider any form of interaction over the internet to be social networking, whether it is through an online game, on a dating site, or something like that simulated life game. These games make people anonymous and, as such, unaccountable. While one could argue that this leads to a degree of autonomy, these people are also glued to their computer screens and not really physically doing anything. Their autonomy depends on their sitting still and doing nothing. Secondly, without having to be held accountable for what they say or do, people can throw rationality out the window. They are free to act on the whims of their emotions and desires, paying no attention to reality. In "cyber-space" this is harmless. But at what point does the line get blurred between "cyber-space" and life? This blurring of the lines threatens stability and centeredness. How can we maintain the balance of everything when more and more things exist in "virtual reality"? How much weight does an object hold in "virtual reality"? If we don't know whether or not something is "real" then it is hard to maintain balance in our lives with it.
Smiley Face - Jenkins
Jenkin's article looks at the increased availability of cinematic technologies and the consequential increase in the conveyance of popular culture, from for example the adaptation of different cultural elements to media (the title of Star Wars with the words going up the screen being used in the Austin Powers 2 movie), and ultimately the movie media's sparking of amateur films to be made to meet the demands of society's ideologies while at the same time pushing the envelope with avant-gardism. What struck me most with this reading was the way that there is a presence of the previous theorists we have been studying so far in class. Secondly, there is a clear correlation between the duality of cinematic genres (the conflict between fantasy and familiar) that are the same genres that poetry was conflicted with during the Romantic period.
Firstly, the quote 'media consumers want to become media producers'(554) made me instantly think of Macherey and his quote about the ordinary critic and the writer are equally distance from truly appreciating the work. In this case, both consumer and producer are unable to fully appreciate their cinematic works when the consumer is trying to rise up in the world of the movies and the media producer is trying to maintain that sense of hierarchy from the ordinary critic. Another theorist who I was able to link to Jenkins was Macherey when Jenkins states that 'these amateur filmmakers have reframed their personal experiences or interests within the context of a popular culture mythology that is known around the world' (565). I applied the concept of intertextuality to the molding of both the amateur's experiences in their past with their present day surroundings to form a media text.
Secondly, the blur between the 'fantastical realm of space opera' and 'the familiar realm of everyday life' is discussed on page 561 in relation to the film 'George Lucas in Love.' These two different realms are the same as the realms of poetry during the Romantic period. The concept of romantic poetry was to capture the essence of nature and the self within the poem. With this came writers like William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge who embraced the ordinary parts of life and describe them with elaborate and elevated language. Coleridge's 'Biographia Literaria' in chapter 14 observes the distinct differences between the use of supernatural and ordinary life as two very distinct poetic genres. Furthermore, Wordsworth in fact advocates for more common folk normal parts of life to be part of literature to make audience feel as though they can access the work more.
Firstly, the quote 'media consumers want to become media producers'(554) made me instantly think of Macherey and his quote about the ordinary critic and the writer are equally distance from truly appreciating the work. In this case, both consumer and producer are unable to fully appreciate their cinematic works when the consumer is trying to rise up in the world of the movies and the media producer is trying to maintain that sense of hierarchy from the ordinary critic. Another theorist who I was able to link to Jenkins was Macherey when Jenkins states that 'these amateur filmmakers have reframed their personal experiences or interests within the context of a popular culture mythology that is known around the world' (565). I applied the concept of intertextuality to the molding of both the amateur's experiences in their past with their present day surroundings to form a media text.
Secondly, the blur between the 'fantastical realm of space opera' and 'the familiar realm of everyday life' is discussed on page 561 in relation to the film 'George Lucas in Love.' These two different realms are the same as the realms of poetry during the Romantic period. The concept of romantic poetry was to capture the essence of nature and the self within the poem. With this came writers like William Wordsworth and Samuel Coleridge who embraced the ordinary parts of life and describe them with elaborate and elevated language. Coleridge's 'Biographia Literaria' in chapter 14 observes the distinct differences between the use of supernatural and ordinary life as two very distinct poetic genres. Furthermore, Wordsworth in fact advocates for more common folk normal parts of life to be part of literature to make audience feel as though they can access the work more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)