Saturday, March 26, 2011
Facebook: An Unintended Haven for Bullies
The preceding was a funny video admonishing Facebook users against poor social media etiquette. I have often wondered at the sometimes shocking displays of...well meanness that have taken place on social networks. Social media, while posessessing the potential to foster human connection on a scale yet to be seen has the particularly nasty side effect of enabling some of the worst behavior imaginable. Social networks have given bullies a whole new venue to exact their torture. What is it about the screen/keyboard/avatar combination that so often divorces us from our best selves?
I believe it has something to do with a lack of true accountability. Not that status updates are anonymous, as we all know they're not. Not even close. They are, however, quite different than person to person interactions. Hence it is remarkably easy to talk nastily about a person when that person isn't physically present. It's a similar dynamic to trolling or comment flaming. Furthermore, I believe it emboldens the bully the larger their audience. Everyone knows how traditional bullying works. Cyber-bullying works essentially the same way except with a larger audience and even less accountability. There is however, evidence, which again makes me wonder at the growing incidence of cyber-bullying. If a public stream of harsh commentary is not evidence against a cyber bully then I don't know what is. At least the playground bully has plausible deniability (I'm sure I spelled that wrong.) working in their favor.
Anyway, these are a few of the things that ran through my mind while reading this week's assignments, particularly Emily Rutherford's blog, "Thoughts on Facebook and Identity." I guess since I had also just read a post on my friend's blog about a Facebook mean girl, and the death of kindness in general, and I was struck by the differences in the way social networks could be used and the reality of the way in which they too often are. I believe more thoughtful self reflection ala Rutherford may be in order. It is a "social" network after all. Shouldn't the rules of civilized "society" apply?
Monday, March 21, 2011
Sunflowers, Vincent Van Gogh 1889 - A Rhetorical Analysis
The object of study that I have chosen for my rhetorical analysis is the 1889 painting "Sunflowers" by Vincent Van Gogh as currently on display in the permanent collection of the Van Gogh museum in Amsterdam. However the iteration of the painting that is being analyzed here is likely one that even Van Gogh himself wouldn't have imagined some 100+ years ago. I will be analyzing the painting in the context of its inclusion in the Google Art Project, an online compilation of high-resolution images of artworks from galleries worldwide as well as virtual tours of the galleries in which they are housed.
Here is an introductory video which explains the Google Art Project in greater detail:
Here is a video detailing the history and context of the painting.
Also, here is another version of the original five that Van Gogh created specifically to adorn the walls of the guest room occupied by his friend and peer, Gauguin.
Remediating the Museum Experience:
The Google Art Project remediates the museum experience in an unprecedented fashion. Indeed it may be asserted by some traditionalists that the project obsolesces the traditional museum visit by presenting the contemporary digital visitor with a hyper mediated experience that could never be duplicated in a real world setting. Thus, even in its very conception, the project changes the way that we can and do view art. It essentially puts the world’s most treasured art artifacts literally at the fingertips of anyone with a high speed internet connection. This universality of access is, I believe, is the project’s most significant fait accompli - and also potentially its greatest weakness.
The Interface:
Let us examine the work itself. Via the painting’s micro site, within the larger scheme of museums and collections gathered under the project, the viewer is able to magnify his or her view of the still life to several times its actual dimensions. The site’s zoom capabilities allow the viewer to get a “closer than real life” look at the painting, that visitors to the physical museum would never be permitted. On the painting’s site the viewer can zoom in close enough to see even the tiniest details of the artist’s brush strokes on the canvas. Differences in tone and shadow can be magnified for examination so far that they actually lose their meaning within the context of the painting. This is, needless to say, the type of detail that technical students of the work have sought since its creation. "The giga-pixel experience brings us very close to the essence of the artist through detail that simply can't be seen in the gallery itself," said Freer Museum director, Julian Raby of the Art Project’s various digital recreations. Conversely, however, traditionalists assert that even given a “closer than real life” view, the online visitor still wants for the “aura” of the work that the physical museum visitor receives sheerly from his or her being in the physical presence of the original work. There is something valuable, if difficult to define, lost in imposing a three dimensional work on a two dimensional interface.
The effectiveness of the work, and the larger art project itself, is a highly subjective concept. Notwithstanding the arguments for and against presented above, viewing the painting via the Google Art Project necessarily takes it out of its intended context. Indeed as the video stated the work was created by the artist to adorn the walls of a room occupied by his friend, Gauguin. Hence it could be argued that while Van Gogh ceaselessly sought artistic development and contemporary acknowledgement throughout his career, this actual work was never intended to be seen outside the walls of his own home. Indeed it wasn’t even to be seen inside the walls of his home except for the bedroom in which his friend was staying. Given that historical perspective even the display of the work in Van Gogh museum takes it out of its intended context, and the Art Project’s digital remediation only further exaggerates that disruption.
Metaphors and Affordances:
If a virtual tour is to become a metaphor for an actual real world museum visit then some examination of the other non-tangible aspects of art becomes necessary. We’ve briefly visited context, aura and even the micro-examination of technique. Let us return however to the question of access. Historically the value of art has rested on its scarcity. High art, at least until very recently, has never been a democratic construct. This begs the question then of whether “Sunflowers” loses its value when imposed upon a digital interface. The answer to that question lies in how one defines “value.” Technocrats would argue that the beauty of the work is particularly enhanced within the digital sphere. Additionally being able virtually walk the halls of the world’s great museums via a highly intuitive interface (affordances), without ever leaving one’s home, would certainly add to the value of the art using this reasoning. Conversely, however, traditionalists would argue that the very interface of the text, a digital screen, destroys its value as the work, as Van Gogh painted it, was meant to be viewed with the naked eye. The affordances of the medium democratizes the text in a manner never before seen and never intended, thus negating its value.
I believe the true answer lies somewhere in between. The project’s designers admittedly never intended the digital text to be a replacement for the “real thing,” though social and economic forces will undoubtedly force the project to be a digital proxy for much of the viewing audience. Notwithstanding socioeconomic concerns there is evidence that the project actually drives viewer interest. Says, Christian Ghiron, Italy’s Ministry of Culture Technology Chief:
Works CitedCohen, Noam. "Stopping to Gaze, and to Zoom." New York Times. 16 Mar. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/arts/design/google-art-project-teams-with-worlds-top-museums.html>.
Kennicott, Phillip. "National Treasures: Google Art Project Unlocks Riches of World's Galleries." The Washington Post 1 Feb. 2011, Arts & Living sec. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106442.html.
Here is an introductory video which explains the Google Art Project in greater detail:
Here is a video detailing the history and context of the painting.
Also, here is another version of the original five that Van Gogh created specifically to adorn the walls of the guest room occupied by his friend and peer, Gauguin.
Remediating the Museum Experience:
The Google Art Project remediates the museum experience in an unprecedented fashion. Indeed it may be asserted by some traditionalists that the project obsolesces the traditional museum visit by presenting the contemporary digital visitor with a hyper mediated experience that could never be duplicated in a real world setting. Thus, even in its very conception, the project changes the way that we can and do view art. It essentially puts the world’s most treasured art artifacts literally at the fingertips of anyone with a high speed internet connection. This universality of access is, I believe, is the project’s most significant fait accompli - and also potentially its greatest weakness.
The Interface:
Let us examine the work itself. Via the painting’s micro site, within the larger scheme of museums and collections gathered under the project, the viewer is able to magnify his or her view of the still life to several times its actual dimensions. The site’s zoom capabilities allow the viewer to get a “closer than real life” look at the painting, that visitors to the physical museum would never be permitted. On the painting’s site the viewer can zoom in close enough to see even the tiniest details of the artist’s brush strokes on the canvas. Differences in tone and shadow can be magnified for examination so far that they actually lose their meaning within the context of the painting. This is, needless to say, the type of detail that technical students of the work have sought since its creation. "The giga-pixel experience brings us very close to the essence of the artist through detail that simply can't be seen in the gallery itself," said Freer Museum director, Julian Raby of the Art Project’s various digital recreations. Conversely, however, traditionalists assert that even given a “closer than real life” view, the online visitor still wants for the “aura” of the work that the physical museum visitor receives sheerly from his or her being in the physical presence of the original work. There is something valuable, if difficult to define, lost in imposing a three dimensional work on a two dimensional interface.
Other art museum directors who have seen the technology are impressed by it, though not convinced it will substitute for a scholarly eye in direct contact with an actual painting. Brian Kennedy, director of the Toledo Museum of Art in Ohio, said the gigapixel images can bring out details that might not be visible to ordinary museum-goers in a gallery. But scholars will still want a three-dimensional view of the art, which even a very high-resolution two-dimensional image can't provide. (Kennicott 1)Examining the Effectiveness of the text’s rhetoric:
The effectiveness of the work, and the larger art project itself, is a highly subjective concept. Notwithstanding the arguments for and against presented above, viewing the painting via the Google Art Project necessarily takes it out of its intended context. Indeed as the video stated the work was created by the artist to adorn the walls of a room occupied by his friend, Gauguin. Hence it could be argued that while Van Gogh ceaselessly sought artistic development and contemporary acknowledgement throughout his career, this actual work was never intended to be seen outside the walls of his own home. Indeed it wasn’t even to be seen inside the walls of his home except for the bedroom in which his friend was staying. Given that historical perspective even the display of the work in Van Gogh museum takes it out of its intended context, and the Art Project’s digital remediation only further exaggerates that disruption.
Metaphors and Affordances:
If a virtual tour is to become a metaphor for an actual real world museum visit then some examination of the other non-tangible aspects of art becomes necessary. We’ve briefly visited context, aura and even the micro-examination of technique. Let us return however to the question of access. Historically the value of art has rested on its scarcity. High art, at least until very recently, has never been a democratic construct. This begs the question then of whether “Sunflowers” loses its value when imposed upon a digital interface. The answer to that question lies in how one defines “value.” Technocrats would argue that the beauty of the work is particularly enhanced within the digital sphere. Additionally being able virtually walk the halls of the world’s great museums via a highly intuitive interface (affordances), without ever leaving one’s home, would certainly add to the value of the art using this reasoning. Conversely, however, traditionalists would argue that the very interface of the text, a digital screen, destroys its value as the work, as Van Gogh painted it, was meant to be viewed with the naked eye. The affordances of the medium democratizes the text in a manner never before seen and never intended, thus negating its value.
I believe the true answer lies somewhere in between. The project’s designers admittedly never intended the digital text to be a replacement for the “real thing,” though social and economic forces will undoubtedly force the project to be a digital proxy for much of the viewing audience. Notwithstanding socioeconomic concerns there is evidence that the project actually drives viewer interest. Says, Christian Ghiron, Italy’s Ministry of Culture Technology Chief:
Our goal is to get more visitors to museums, to demonstrate this can be possible…. The biggest criticism we always receive is that the more we digitize, the less visitors we have in our museums. Instead, it is exactly opposite. The more we digitize, the more you want to see it live; you cannot substitute the experience. (Cohen 2)Indeed it does appear that the ease of access, intuitive design, enhanced viewing, and supplemental information available via the painting’s site have all been designed to feed viewer desire to see the actual work, in the Amsterdam museum. Perhaps this is the new value proposition of this work in particular, and art in general, fueling viewer interest by universalizing access. Art is, after all, always meant to be seen.
Works Cited
Kennicott, Phillip. "National Treasures: Google Art Project Unlocks Riches of World's Galleries." The Washington Post 1 Feb. 2011, Arts & Living sec. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106442.html.
Happy 5th Birthday, Twitter!
Following the theme of our readings for this week it bears mentioning that the seminal communications juggernaut better known as Twitter turned five today. That's right Twitter is no longer a toddler and can be officially said to be out of it's infancy as now it is literally old enough to enter kindergarten. But twitter is most unlike any other 5 year old I've ever met.
How so? Well, how many kindergartners do you know who have 140 million playmates? Or 4 billion dollar piggy banks? Our readings have us studying the myriad ways that twitter is used as a communication tool. It seems that for as many twitter users that exist there are equally as many ways in which to use the tool. From the inane to the germane - chances are there is a twitter hashtag for any given subject (or non-subject) and an invested group of followers driving trending. I believe it is this universality that makes twitter so appealing and in the future will drive it's very sustainability.
What I find most fascinating about Twitter, however, is an enigma, disguised as a conundrum - and that is the superficiality inherent in it's universality. I believe this is what Sample was alluding to when he declared that Twitter is useless for making connections. While I don't agree that connecting via Twitter is impossible -. scores of journalists and communications professionals would argue that's just not the case - I do believe that connections born on Twitter most often only go skin deep. Twitter is a phenomenal communications tool which certainly possesses the potential to be a real conduit of human connection. However, even given all the many ways that we use the tool today, how many people can actually say that they have real relationships with their followers/followees? Or for that matter how many can say that they actually have "conversations" within the confines of the platform rather than broadcasting their own one way self interested or self serving blurbs? I mean what's with all of the brands who have been following me lately? I don't really think they're actually interested in what I have to say more than they're interested in selling me - and anyone who follows me - whatever it is that they sell.
What Sample deems a futility of connection carter calls an asymmetry.
User connections are made asymmetrically, so that we can begin the process of learning about others even without reciprocal engagement. The trending topics function semiotically as a signal to users that some issue, person or event is generating major interest in one of Twitter’s many communities. They’re also an implicit invitation for users to weigh in on the issues du jour. “Twitter is like the ticker tapes you see in Times Square,” says Halley Suitt, chief editor of Communispace. “It’s entertainment and it’s a voyeuristic medium.”I believe Carter's definition is more accurate. However I don't believe anyone would claim voyeurism breeds real life connections. Execept perhaps stalkers, that is. Of course, it would be impossible to have actual reciprocal relationships with thousands of people simultaneously in real life, or really in any setting other than one like Twitter. Hence Twitter's greatest strength is also it's inherent flaw. Hence the enigma...and the conundrum.
Anyway, these thoughts are probably beyond the grasp of a 5 year old. Even one as unique and gifted as Twitter. So Happy Birthday, little fella! Don't spend all your birthday money (that $4 billion valuation) in one place!
Saturday, March 5, 2011
When Good Logos Go Bad
Disclaimer: The following clip may contain images and language not suitable for children.
This is the opening sequence from the controversial animated film "Logorama." The film, which was released in 2009 and won the 2010 Oscar for Best Animated Short, depicts a graphically violent series of events unfolding in contemporary L.A. What made the movie controversial is that the story is told entirely through the use of corporate logos and mascots. In fact the antagonist is a violent and foul mouthed Ronald McDonald who decides to embark on a bloody shooting spree for no apparent reason, and hold a restaurant full of people (ironically a Pizza Hut, by the way) hostage. Big Boy is cast as an adolescent, hormone crazed, waitress groping menace. And "harassment" is too mild a term to describe the conversation between Regular Pringles and Spicy Pringles regarding the same much abused waitress.
It's easy to see why the brands who created these logo's were not at all happy with this film. The film appropriates their logos to create characters who behave in ways decidedly un-commercial friendly. Generally product placement is a good thing. Product placement in an Oscar winning film is advertising gold. Brands shell out copious sums of money to have their products placed in popular movies or have their logo be briefly displayed in a film. In fact Morgan Spurlock financed his upcoming documentary on advertising imagery completely from the proceeds of product placement in said film. (You can learn more about that one here.) However, in Logorama, brands shelled out copious sums of money to (in attorney's fees) to shut the film down. That is because they didn't want the symbols of their brands associated with such shocking behavior. The filmmakers also faced backlash from some audiences who took offense to the movie's appropriation of heretofore wholesome and iconic mascots.
It is the reaction of those angry audiences that I find most curious. Of course the brands would be irked at the unauthorized re-deployment of their logos. But why should anyone else care if Ronald McDonald is a depicted as a violent sociopath? Or if the Pringles mascot has a misogynistic potty mouth? Perhaps it is the affordances Kress alludes to in Reading Images: Multimodality, Representation and New Media. These logos, symbols of their respective entities, have specific cultural meaning. They are intentionally designed to be appealing and non threatening to as wide a demographic as possible. There is a certain wholesomeness that is inherent in their design, which their creators hope we ascribe to the products that they're associated with. And we have. However, we've also ascribed that wholesomeness to the symbols themselves. Hence when some audiences see these beloved icons behave badly it's unsettling. Logo's are friendly and welcoming. They evoke familiarity and nostalgia. They certainly don't swear or commit crimes...at least not without ruffling quite a few feathers. Check out the full version of the film here.
This is the opening sequence from the controversial animated film "Logorama." The film, which was released in 2009 and won the 2010 Oscar for Best Animated Short, depicts a graphically violent series of events unfolding in contemporary L.A. What made the movie controversial is that the story is told entirely through the use of corporate logos and mascots. In fact the antagonist is a violent and foul mouthed Ronald McDonald who decides to embark on a bloody shooting spree for no apparent reason, and hold a restaurant full of people (ironically a Pizza Hut, by the way) hostage. Big Boy is cast as an adolescent, hormone crazed, waitress groping menace. And "harassment" is too mild a term to describe the conversation between Regular Pringles and Spicy Pringles regarding the same much abused waitress.
It's easy to see why the brands who created these logo's were not at all happy with this film. The film appropriates their logos to create characters who behave in ways decidedly un-commercial friendly. Generally product placement is a good thing. Product placement in an Oscar winning film is advertising gold. Brands shell out copious sums of money to have their products placed in popular movies or have their logo be briefly displayed in a film. In fact Morgan Spurlock financed his upcoming documentary on advertising imagery completely from the proceeds of product placement in said film. (You can learn more about that one here.) However, in Logorama, brands shelled out copious sums of money to (in attorney's fees) to shut the film down. That is because they didn't want the symbols of their brands associated with such shocking behavior. The filmmakers also faced backlash from some audiences who took offense to the movie's appropriation of heretofore wholesome and iconic mascots.
It is the reaction of those angry audiences that I find most curious. Of course the brands would be irked at the unauthorized re-deployment of their logos. But why should anyone else care if Ronald McDonald is a depicted as a violent sociopath? Or if the Pringles mascot has a misogynistic potty mouth? Perhaps it is the affordances Kress alludes to in Reading Images: Multimodality, Representation and New Media. These logos, symbols of their respective entities, have specific cultural meaning. They are intentionally designed to be appealing and non threatening to as wide a demographic as possible. There is a certain wholesomeness that is inherent in their design, which their creators hope we ascribe to the products that they're associated with. And we have. However, we've also ascribed that wholesomeness to the symbols themselves. Hence when some audiences see these beloved icons behave badly it's unsettling. Logo's are friendly and welcoming. They evoke familiarity and nostalgia. They certainly don't swear or commit crimes...at least not without ruffling quite a few feathers. Check out the full version of the film here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)