ThoroughlyModernMeka

HUSL 6384 - Digital and Visual Rhetoric - Final Project

2011-05-10T15:01:00.000-07:00

Part I: Seminar Paper

From Text to Multimedia: Blogging Grows Up

Traditionally, blogging has been a medium characterized by being reflective, intensely personal, immediate, linear, and primarily – nay, most importantly, text based. For much of its relatively short history the phenomenon of blogging differed from traditional print media most markedly in delivery format. (That is, of course, notwithstanding standard editorial practices.) Essentially, blog followers consumed their chosen editorial content by reading text from a digital screen while print consumers held a tangible paper good to consume theirs. As blogging had its roots in text based content it is not surprising that most descriptions of the medium define it in terms relating to text. For about half of the last decade this association worked very well…then came 2005, the year of YouTube.

The advent of consumer marketed video recording devices, the ubiquitous bundling of webcams with computer hardware, the introduction of affordable and easy to use video editing software, and an intuitive push button publishing platform - one very similar to traditional text based blogging platforms, in fact – all converged to usher in a new era in blogging. Add to this the increasing popularity of photo blogging and image blogging and a pattern begins to emerge. Contemporary blogging is most often discursive, hyper mediated, non-linear and increasingly, visual. So is the definition of blogging as text based medium an outdated one that requires revision, or are these new visual online serial publications something different altogether? I believe the former is correct.

Let’s take a virtual step back and revisit the question of what, exactly, is a blog. According to Rebecca Blood, one of the pioneers of the medium:

The original weblogs were link-driven sites. Each was a mixture in unique proportions of links, commentary, and personal thoughts and essays…Their editors present links both to little-known corners of the web and to current news articles they feel are worthy of note. Such links are nearly always accompanied by the editor's commentary…Typically this commentary is characterized by an irreverent, sometimes sarcastic tone. More skillful editors manage to convey all of these things in the sentence or two with which they introduce the link (making them, as Halcyon pointed out to me, pioneers in the art and craft of microcontent). Indeed, the format of the typical weblog, providing only a very short space in which to write an entry, encourages pithiness on the part of the writer; longer commentary is often given its own space as a separate essay. (Blood, rebeccablood.net)

As indicated in Blood’s passage to blog in the year 2000 was invariably to write. Contrast that with Technorati’s annual State of the Blogosphere survey of 2,828 influential bloggers in 2009. In this landmark survey 49% of all bloggers polled across three primary disciplines - Self Employed, Corporate, and Part Timers – regularly used video in their blogs. 82% of all surveyed regularly used photos. In 2010 the statistics increase to 50% and 87% respectively.

The numbers are also very telling in respect to text only blogs. In the same survey only 13% of bloggers polled used only text in their publications in 2009. That number fell to 10% in 2010. Additionally, of those bloggers surveyed who didn’t already regularly rely on multimedia content 40% said that planned to in 2009. No corresponding statistic is given for 2010.

Hence online serial self publishers who define themselves as bloggers are overwhelmingly producing digital content that is visual rather than textual. So, if these publishers aren’t bloggers what are they? To answer that let’s briefly examine some of the commonly acknowledged characteristics of a blog. Per Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic, another blogging pioneer, blogs are:

Participatory

To blog is therefore to let go of your writing in a way, to hold it at arm’s length, open it to scrutiny, allow it to float in the ether for a while, and to let others, as Montaigne did, pivot you toward relative truth….Some e-mailers, unsurprisingly, know more about a subject than the blogger does. They will send links, stories, and facts, challenging the blogger’s view of the world, sometimes outright refuting it, but more frequently adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea. The role of a blogger is not to defend against this but to embrace it. He is similar in this way to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate. (Sullivan, TheAtlantic.com)

Personal

The blogosphere may, in fact, be the least veiled of any forum in which a writer dares to express himself. Even the most careful and self-aware blogger will reveal more about himself than he wants to in a few unguarded sentences and publish them before he has the sense to hit Delete.

The faux intimacy of the Web experience, the closeness of the e-mail and the instant message, seeps through. You feel as if you know bloggers as they go through their lives, experience the same things you are experiencing, and share the moment. (Sullivan, TheAtlantic.com)

and Immediate

On my blog, my readers and I experienced 9/11 together, in real time. I can look back and see not just how I responded to the event, but how I responded to it at 3:47 that afternoon. And at 9:46 that night. There is vividness to this immediacy that cannot be rivaled by print. (Sullivan, TheAtlantic.com)

Of course Sullivan is referring to blogging exclusively as a written form. However, the traits he detailed are in no way exclusive to textual content. In fact, the introduction of visual multimedia technology to serially published content serves to greatly amplify these characteristics in contemporary online publications. Hence not only are non text based publications actually blogs, indeed they are more blog like than their text based predecessors.

When Time magazine named “YOU” the 2006 person of the year it marked a watershed moment in publishing – both digital and traditional. The social web, Web 2.0, had reached mainstream status and the darling of all this public adoration was YouTube. Launched in 2005, YouTube put personal video broadcasting literally at the fingertips of anyone with a webcam and an internet connection. The ability to publish video content simply without any advanced knowledge of A/V production led to an explosion in the production of multimedia user generated content. Suddenly the bloggers we had been reading for years had faces, and voices…and we could see and hear them. User generated video content presented a more personal and immediate link between publisher and viewer because of a phenomenon that Sullivan himself describes as the “human brand.” Says Sullivan:

The pioneers of online journalism—Slate and Salon—are still very popular, and successful. But the more memorable stars of the Internet—even within those two sites—are all personally branded. Daily Kos, for example, is written by hundreds of bloggers, and amended by thousands of commenters. But it is named after Markos Moulitsas, who started it, and his own prose still provides a backbone to the front-page blog. The biggest news-aggregator site in the world, the Drudge Report, is named after its founder, Matt Drudge, who somehow conveys a unified sensibility through his selection of links, images, and stories. The vast, expanding universe of The Huffington Post still finds some semblance of coherence in the Cambridge-Greek twang of Arianna; the entire world of online celebrity gossip circles the drain of Perez Hilton; and the investigative journalism, reviewing, and commentary of Talking Points Memo is still tied together by the tone of Josh Marshall. Even Slate is unimaginable without Mickey Kaus’s voice.

What endures is a human brand… People have a voice for radio and a face for television. For blogging, they have a sensibility. (Sullivan, TheAtlantic.com)

If this is true then video bloggers have a voice, a face and a sensibility. All of which are always on display, and all of which are critical components in making that all important connection between blogger and audience. But what of the first criterion that a blog be participatory in nature?

In video blogging, much like traditional blogging, the comments section endures as a publisher’s primary engagement tool with his or her audience. Even from blogging’s earliest days commenters have always had the ability to include links in their comments. Increasingly video blogging platforms are being designed to include multimedia commenting capabilities. The ability to embed images and video as responses to images and video will only increase as the popularity of multimedia content continues to grow.

Also, there is the ever popular phenomenon of the remix or mashup. Appropriating and remixing the digital content of a fellow content producer is perhaps the purist form of participatory media. It requires a not only a familiarity with the content being appropriated but also a familiarity with the context of the content being appropriated. This evolution of publication from a one way broadcast to a two way conversation is one of the very cornerstones of blogging as a medium. This conversation is amplified many times over when the content in question is multimedia.

Blogging as a cultural phenomenon is still in its relative infancy in comparison to other media forms. In fact the term “infancy” rather denotes significant future development that has yet to occur. The existing definition of blogging that precludes multimedia content is one that at best no longer fits the medium. Indeed blogging has its roots in text based content. However it is the nature of all media, indeed of all life, to grow.

Works Cited

Blood, Rebecca. "Rebecca Blood : Weblogs: A History And Perspective." What's in Rebecca's Pocket? N.p., 7 Sept. 2000. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. <http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html>.

Grossman, Lev. "Time's Person of the Year: You - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. N.p., 13 Dec. 2006. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html>.

Sobel, Jon. "HOW: Technology, Traffic and Revenue - Day 3 State of the Blogosphere 2010 - Technorati Blogging." Technorati. N.p., 4 Nov. 2010. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://technorati.com/blogging/article/how-technology-traffic-and-revenue-day/>.

Sullivan, Andrew. "Why I Blog - Magazine - The Atlantic." The Atlantic — News and Analysis on Politics, Business, Culture, Technology, National, International, and Life – TheAtlantic.com. N.p., Nov. 2008. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/why-i-blog/7060/1/>.

Sussman, Matt. "Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009: Day 3: The How of Blogging." Technorati.com. N.p., 21 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://technorati.com/blogging/article/day-3-the-how-of-blogging1/>.

Part II: Remediation

Part III: Meta-Reflection

The subject of my original essay, the evolution of blogging from a textual medium to a visual one, necessitated a visual remediation. When tasked with remediating the essay it was incumbent upon me to live up to its visual promise. I felt that remediating the essay in any other form would not only have negated my thesis, but really fallen short of its potential.

In rethinking the original essay I repeatedly came back to our assigned reading by Marshall McLuhan. Interestingly at the time the class did the readings I remember drawing a distinct and contradictory conclusion from McLuhan regarding the significance of the medium in the medium/message equation. Per McLuhan, “…it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale of and form of human association and action” (203). This remediation has caused me to rethink my earlier position and indeed gain an entirely new and radical perspective. McLuhan was correct. The medium that I chose reinforced my original argument in a myriad of ways that a text based remediation never could have. However its limitations often got in the way. The medium didn’t change the message per se but it did significantly shape the telling of it. Overcoming the built in limitations of my chosen medium challenged me to reinterpret both my own vision and indeed the manner in which I attempted to digitize my essay.

For example viewers may be startled to see that I chose a Caucasian male narrator, one with a British accent who bears a striking resemblance to Larry King in fact, to represent myself in the film. This choice was as much a representation my “tongue-in-cheek” aesthetic as it was a limitation of the Xtranormal platform. There weren’t many female avatars to choose from. Of those available several were dressed in provocative and rather suggestive attire. Racial ethnic minorities were in even less represented in the available choices. This dearth of diversity may be a telling indication of the true state of gender and minority representation in contemporary media, however I will leave that subject for another reflection. Hence lacking the ability to employ a narrator that resembled my real life self, I opted to chose a narrator that was as far as possible from reality. In doing so my argument regarding how visual content increased the personal nature of blogging was simultaneously reinforced and challenged. It was strengthened in the fact that I was able to express the playful side of my personality, but weakened in that I was unable to inject a literal representation of myself into the film.

As the paper deals extensively with the subject of remix I felt it highly necessary to incorporate that genre into the remediation. I brainstormed for weeks attempting to devise a way to visually remix an essay on visual blogging that didn’t exceed my technical abilities. During this time Gibson’s take on affordance gained particular resonance:

An affordance according to Gibson exists relative to the action capabilities of particular actors. Therefore, to a thief an open window can have an affordance of "climbing through" (and subsequently stealing something), but not so to a child who is not tall enough to reach the window and therefore does not have the action possibility…the information that specifies the affordance is indeed dependant on the actor's experience and culture. (Soegaard 2010)

I found myself stymied by my personal affordances with digital media. Until this project animated characters were commodities to be consumed by me, not created. However to be “digital” requires a set of read/write capabilities that being analog does not. One doesn’t need to know how to animate a character in order to “write” a blog. In the creation of my digital remediation I was forced into the role of consumer once more, this time because I didn’t know how to animate. Hence my digital animation affordance or lack thereof, challenged me to produce my vision without compromising it too significantly. However, it could also be argued that my own technical limitations forced me to be more creative in the execution of my remediation. Ultimately I believe my goal of digitally and visually remediating my original thesis was achieved but not without a reluctant sacrifice of some creative control.

Works Cited

McLuhan, Marshall, and W T. Gordon. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press, 2003. Print.

Soegaard, Mads. "Affordances". Interaction-Design.org 22 March 2010. 10 May 2011 <http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/affordances.html>

Confessions of a Copyright Criminal

2011-04-16T21:57:00.000-07:00

Keeping in theme with this week's readings regarding copyright I did a little YouTube surfing for inspiration. Hence this week's blog post is a visual one defining and questioning the validity of copyright. Irony of irony this post, at least in part, likely violates copyright - at least according to the criteria put forth by Brad Templeton. Oh well, I've always been a bit of a rebel.

An explanation of copyright set to a catchy tune.

This Dilbert cartoon is actually a parody of Garfield. So it falls within the bounds of fair use and thus is not a violation of copyright. Ironically my posting of it probably doesn't fall within those boundaries.

Ok, I've gone legit with this one. Here's Michael Moore's take on copyright law. I am interpreting Moore's s statements in the clip as permission to repost his thoughts on copyright...by posting the clip. A very literal interpretation indeed, however it does meet Templeton's criteria. It was fun being a criminal...if only for a few minutes.

Meka.0

2011-04-09T15:32:00.000-07:00

The preceding viral video was a parody of the Tosh.0 cable show on Comedy Central which parodies viral videos on YouTube. Basically it's a parody of a parody. Yes, I've gone meta. This weeks readings have us examining the phenomenon that is viral video. Such examination also got me thinking about the cottage industry that has sprung up around viral video. I find it fascinating, perhaps a lot like Wesley actually, that viral video has effectively jumped mediums. Think about it. An entire TV show devoted to videos that can't be watched on TV...well at least not until rather recent technological advances anyway.

What are the implications for authorship with all of this medium jumping afoot. (Pun intented.) I've watched the Tosh.0 show a few times and I confess I often find it wildly funny... and just as often wildly offensive. Though I'm not presently aware of any significant backlash from the stars of the videos being parodied I often wonder how they feel about their sudden, if dubious, second layer of fame. Particularly as Comedy Central is profiting from their "work" while they aren't. Is authorship an outdated construct in the realm of viral video? Hmm. What about the videos in which the star is clearly unaware that they were being recorded? Or where the video was uploaded without the star's knowledge? Who is the author in that case...the person who filmed the video, the person who uploaded it, or the person in it? Or Daniel Tosh? Or does it even matter? Weighty questions indeed.

Furthermore, when said video is then taken out of it's context and lampooned before the world, why in the world would anyone even want to claim authorship? Well, anyone except for Daniel Tosh, that is. I've more than once wondered at the people who appear in those "Web Redemption" segments. Somehow they never actually succeed at "redeeming" themselves but always manage to look like a bigger...well, you get the idea. I suppose there is some comfort afforded in officially being in on the joke but personally I'd sooner avoid being the joke in the first place. But, apparently, that's just me.

The Evolution of the Blog

2011-04-04T16:03:00.000-07:00

Audience, structure and authority in the weblog community

Weblogs: A History and Perspective

Blogging, The Final Frontier...Maybe

2011-04-02T21:57:00.001-07:00

This week's readings are concerned with practices and implications of blogging. In the span of about a decade blogging has grown into a respected form of self publishing, with enough credibility to challenge stalwart traditional news organizations for the attention of readers. Just what does all this personal, push button publishing mean for the future of media? The answer to that, I suppose, requires a little review of recent history.

Blogging expert Rebecca Blood identifies the first generation of blogs, or weblogs as they were known then, popping up around 1998. Text heavy, link laden web pages hand coded by web enthusiasts typified this early generation of blogs and spoke to the unique interests of their author/coders. With the release of push button publishing tools like Blogger in 1999 blogging exploded and became a bona fide phenomenon. Next up: a redefining of "media" to include public participation.

It is this new definition of media that I find most fascinating. As a stalwart industry, literally monopolized in the hands of a privileged few for generations, media though one of the very cornerstones of democracy was not a democratic institution. Irony of ironies. I find it remarkable that blogging has risen to such prominence so quickly as to change the very paradigm of publishing- and to such extent that traditional publishers are often striving to look and feel more like blogs. Though with such an overwhelming surge in popularity it could be argued that a shift in modus operendi was inevitable. Still, the shift represents quite a feat.

So what's next on the horizon for this new form of publication? I'm going to venture out on a limb (a little bit anyway) and predict video blogging, or vlogging. With the ever dropping price of quality production equipment, and growing knowledge of SEO principles (You do know how dramatically video can effect search engine rankings, right?), as well as the fact that YouTube is actually currently the largest search engine on the web, I predict the next generation of self publishing authors will actually be auteurs. Interestingly, such a shift may actually necessitate another redefining of media and indeed of blogging. And the democratization of media marches on.

Facebook: An Unintended Haven for Bullies

2011-03-26T21:55:00.000-07:00

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?

Sunflowers, Vincent Van Gogh 1889 - A Rhetorical Analysis

2011-03-21T21:36:00.000-07:00

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.

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

Cohen, 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.

Happy 5th Birthday, Twitter!

2011-03-21T09:25:00.000-07:00

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!

When Good Logos Go Bad

2011-03-05T21:35:00.001-08:00

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.

Visual Representations of Text...For When We Inevitably Forget How to Read

2011-02-26T22:02:00.001-08:00

This weeks readings have us exploring the emerging prominence of images as communication tools and the corresponding decline in the usage of pure text. This is a phenomena most clearly illustrated by the growing popularity of infographics. Infographics, put simply, are the the visual representation of data. What we used to call charts in an analog life. Today's infographics, however, go far beyond the pie and bar charts of the pre-digital age. Check out this retelling of the Little Red Riding Hood fairy tale as told completely through the use of infographics.

Ok, so this one cheats a little because the author isn't presenting information per se but rather re-creating a fictional narrative. Unless Little Red Riding Hood is actually a true account of a wolf attempting to eat a young girl while she was visiting her grandma. Nevertheless, the author (illustrator?) is very successful at telling the classic tale using visual as opposed to textual cues. Also, note that this is quite different from the way in which the story would be told via a children's picture book. Now, check out the data this infographic presents:

Again, likely not what you were expecting. No stats here but there is data, and this data is presented visually. Again the author succeeds in conveying the information he has chosen quite effectively while employing limited use of textual cues. This is a feat that would come as no surprise to Julian Stallbrass who wrote in 1996; "it is obvious that the visual is the pre-eminent arena of contemporary mass culture to the extent that literacy appears to be declining in many affluent societies, not only perhaps because of declining educational resources but because the skill seems less and less relevant to many people." (Kirschenbaum 137) Does the rise of infographics signal the impending doom of text and the universal illiteracy of humanity? I suppose only time will tell, though maybe there's an infographic somewhere that can shed a little light.

Like this one.

Affordances or Affordances...Art In Everyday Objects

2011-02-19T21:39:00.000-08:00

In honor of our theme of affordance this week I decided to make my post a pictorial one. Even though each of the following objects are things that we use everyday, because of unusual design their actual identities may not be readily apparent. Let's see how many you can identify using the Norman definition of affordance. If that logic fails, try Gibson's.

Norman: When actual and perceived properties are combined, an affordance emerges as a relationship that holds between the object and the individual that is acting on the object (Norman 1999).

Gibson: An affordance according to Gibson exists relative to the action capabilities of particular actors. Therefore, to a thief an open window can have an affordance of "climbing through" (and subsequently stealing something), but not so to a child who is not tall enough to reach the window and therefore does not have the action possibility.

The Silent Tragedy of Digital Rhetoric

2011-02-15T10:00:00.000-08:00

I saw this and it made me think of the longstanding debate in EMAC on the tragedy/triumph of newspapers being eclipsed by digital media.

How Will The End Of Print Journalism Affect Old Loons Who Hoard Newspapers?

The Unbearable Lightness of the iPad...Or Kindle

2011-02-12T21:29:00.000-08:00

My birthday is coming up and my mom is getting me an iPad! Gasp! I think she is anyway, she mentioned it and a Kindle in the same sentence recently and was being kind of cryptic. In attempting to be the mature, self possessed young woman that she believes she raised I was forced to reply evenly to her hints with a gracious, "You don't have to get me a gift, mom, and those are both so expensive. Either one would be great." When I really wanted to jump up and down and scream: "iPad! iPad! iPad!" This week's readings have me doing a bit of self reflection, however, and lately I find myself questioning just what's so special about the iPad - or the Kindle for that matter - and what can I do with either of them that I can't do pretty efficiently already?

In reading the piece by noted American author Wendell Berry, "Why I am Not Going to Buy a Computer" I was particularly struck by the author's criteria for evaluating the utility of a new piece of technology in his work. (Incidentally the irony of reading this piece in a digital format on a computer is too delicious to ignore.) Notwithstanding that his article was written in 1987, prior to advent of ubiquitous internet access, Berry makes a fascinating and not un-useful argument. Here are his criteria for adopting new technology:

1. The new tool should be cheaper than the one it replaces.
2. It should be at least as small in scale as the one it replaces.
3. It should do work that is clearly and demonstrably better than the one it replaces.
4. It should use less energy than the one it replaces.
5. If possible, it should use some form of solar energy, such as that of the body.
6. It should be repairable by a person of ordinary intelligence, provided that he or she has the necessary tools.
7. It should be purchasable and repairable as near to home as possible.
8. It should come from a small, privately owned shop or store that will take it back for maintenance and repair.
9. It should not replace or disrupt anything good that already exists, and this includes family and community relationships.

When I applied Berry's criteria to both the iPad and the Kindle both devices lost...badly. Actually when examined in the context of Berry's criteria the utter failure of either device to satisfy a single one is pretty comical. Take number 9 for instance. Cory Doctorow blogs about that one extensively in the similarly titled (coincidence?) "Why I won't buy an iPad (and think you shouldn't, either)" when he talks about how the iPad has corrupted the very essence of comic book reading - sharing. Says Doctorow:

I was a comic-book kid, and I'm a comic-book grownup, and the thing that made comics for me was sharing them. If there was ever a medium that relied on kids swapping their purchases around to build an audience, it was comics. And the used market for comics! It was -- and is -- huge, and vital. I can't even count how many times I've gone spelunking in the used comic-bins at a great and musty store to find back issues that I'd missed, or sample new titles on the cheap.

So what does Marvel do to "enhance" its comics? They take away the right to give, sell or loan your comics. What an improvement. Way to take the joyous, marvellous (sic) sharing and bonding experience of comic reading and turn it into a passive, lonely undertaking that isolates, rather than unites.

Just try "trading" an iPad app. And while the Kindle does make some allowance for sharing between devices hosted on the same account it is under Amazon's strict control and can only take place within pre-defined parameters. Hmm...

Interestingly a few years ago when the Kindle was first introduced I wanted one just as badly as I wanted the iPad when my mom mentioned it to me. However I never bought one because I couldn't justify the expense for a device that would allow me to read many of the very books that I already possessed, or could just as easily and cheaply acquire without tethering myself to one comparatively expensive and restrictive delivery platform. A platform that would be pretty quickly eclipsed and obsolesced by a new platform at any moment. Enter the iPad.

Having only been pretty close to an iPad on a few occasions I can't say that I'm well versed in all that it can do. However, I do know my content consumption habits. And frankly I'm pretty good at consuming exactly the content I want, when I want it, right now - sans iPad. Just don't tell my mom!

Either device would make for a terrific gift, but necessity, maybe not so much. Also, I can't help but wonder what comes next? Perhaps the innovation announced here:

Apple Fans Chopping Off Hands In Anticipation Of New iHand

Yikes! If I were presented this as a gift option I'd actually mean it when I said "You don't have to get me a gift, mom."

Remediating Remediation

2011-02-05T20:48:00.001-08:00

One of our assigned readings this week is Remediation by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin. The central premise remediation theory is generally defined as the ongoing remixing of older media forms by newer ones in a never ending effort to establish perfect immediacy. Per Bolter and Grusin:

The contemporary entertainment industry calls such borrowing "repurposing": to take a"property" from one medium and re-use it in another. With reuse comes a necessary redefinition, but there may be no conscious interplay between media. The interplay happens, if at all, only for the reader or viewer who happens to know both versions and can compare them. (17)

For this post I attempted to "remediate" the concept of remediation. Now you may be asking yourself just how one might accomplish such an undertaking? Well I started with a very old media form: the stage play, and a very old text: Romeo and Juliet. Then I scoured the web for modern day digital re-interpretations of the text. Why Romeo and Juliet? Well the tale itself, at least in it's most popular iteration by Shakespeare, is actually a remediation of ancient Italian folklore. Per Wikipedia:

Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching back to antiquity. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562 and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582. Shakespeare borrowed heavily from both but, to expand the plot, developed supporting characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris. Believed written between 1591 and 1595, the play was first published in a quarto version in 1597.

So what does a digital reinterpretation of a medieval reinterpretation of a prior work of prose which remediated an ancient folk tale look like? Let's see:

This first piece could best be described as a hypermediated remediation of the story. The viewer experiences the story via a vast mix of media, genre's and styles. Seemingly random at first the various clips actually begin to make sense and tell a coherent narrative, particularly if the viewer is familiar with the tale. And who isn't? Interestingly if you look closely enough you can actually see a clip from the Leonardo Dicaprio version of Romeo and Juliet which in itself was a hypermediated remediation of the tale. Here is a clip of that one:

This film adaptation remediated the tale in two ways, first by preseting it via film (though it's hardly the first film adaptation of the tale), and secondly by juxtaposing the original Shakespearean language against a twenty first century post apocolyptic Los Angeles setting. In this film version the warring Capulet and Montegue familes are re-imagined as rival gangs. The score for the film used contemporary pop music to narrate the tale. The costume design is eclectic, at times contemporary and at other times ethereal seemingly borrowed from a bygone era. The conscious mixing of old and new presents a hypermediated remediation of the ancient tale. Interestingly this particular hypermediation though vastly different from the one before it achieves the same effect. However in this version even if the viewer is unfamiliar with the tale the story is greatly aided by the cues from the film's music and settings.

This remediation uses a particularly analog form in a new way. Simple hand drawings presented in meticulous sequence tell the tale via a rather simple but remarkably effective animation. There is hypermediation present here also, though less apparent than in the above samples. Can you guess what it is? The hypermediation here is represented by the appearance of digital captions and subtitles superimposed at times over the paper flip book.

In these examples we witness remediation occurring in both form and content. It could be argued that infinitely greater immediacy is achieved in these samples, (well the first two anyway) but what about perfect immediacy. By manipulating the conventions of style, dialogue, genre and setting, have the respective filmmakers actually achieved the penultimate goal of remediation? I suppose that would depend upon how successful each iteration is at drawing the viewer into the narrative. What are your thoughts?

The Message is the Medium...Maybe

2011-01-29T21:10:00.000-08:00

Among this week's readings is a work by seminal communications expert Marshall McLuhan, "The Medium is the Message." McLuhan asserts that the medium by which content is delivered is just as important, maybe even more so actually, than the content itself. Thus the medium can be a message in and of itself regardless of the content. Hmm, very interesting.

As evidence of this mutually dependent relationship McLuhan cites technologies as ubiquitious as electric light, and figures as varied as Alexis De Tocqueville and Napoleon Bonaparte. Said Napoleon, "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." No disrespect to McLuhan but I believe his analysis is a little flawed. Let's examine for a second McLuhan's own evidence with the Napoleon quote. Napoleon had it right. A hostile press can do far more damage than a thousand bayonets. And why might that be? Because of the content. Inflammatory rhetoric has a reach that extends far beyond any battlefield and has the added advantage of being self renewing. Information is infinite and has no mass. Unlike weapons, rhetoric doesn't require proximity to be effective. Additionally, rhetoric, i.e. content, has the power to mobilize mass mobs of opposition - opposition that is of course well armed. Hence it's not the medium - the newspaper - that mobilizes but the content of said newspaper. Articles detailing the latest exploits of Ke$sha or Justin Bieber don't inspire civil unrest, (not necessarily anyway) but exposes on social injustice do. Just ask the leaders of Egypt. Oh wait, we can't.

The events unfolding right now in Egypt are yet another example of the power of the message. When the government there literally shut down the internet it begged the question, why? Were Egyptian teens spending too much time playing Cityville? Was Mubarak peeved because ElBaradei had more Facebook friends? I doubt it. However could a growing resistance movement be mobilized, organized and united by a an uninterrupted flow of information? Yes. Could the flames of discontent be fed by fresh reports of abuses and injustices? You bet. By shutting down the internet the government was attempting to stifle the flow of information because it is information that inspires uprisings.

That's not to say that the medium bears no significance in the equation. Indeed it is both the medium and the message working in tandem that challenges the status quo. My argument is simply that the message may be slightly superior to the medium because without which the medium loses it's value. Again, this is supported by McLuhan's own examples. What good would a working light bulb be if we couldn't make use of it's light to consume content? We don't read the light bulb we use the light bulb to read the paper - or the blog as it were. The relationship between content and medium is mutually dependent but not necessarily one of equals.

The Birth of a Net

2011-01-23T21:49:00.000-08:00

This week's assigned materials have us examining the origin of contemporary computing and the birth of the internet that we use today. In one of our readings, "20 Things I learned About Browsers and the Web" the following line jumped out at me: "The movement of many of our daily tasks online enables us to live more fully in the real world." Really? I'm not so sure about that.

No doubt the web enabled world that we live in today certainly possesses the potential to allow us all more time to partake in "real world" activities, but how many of us actually use that time to do so? Speaking personally I know that the additional time I gain from banking online is usually spent...well...online. Hours, minutes or seconds that I don't have to spend standing in lines is generally devoted to online activities, Facebook chatting, leisure surfing, shopping, reading and re-reading beloved literary classics or just catching up on missed episodes of my favorite shows. Non leisure activities like research and homework are completed exclusively using the resources of the web. In fact I had been a grad student for an entire semester before I ever physically stepped foot in the university library. That doesn't mean, however, that I hadn't been making exhaustive use of the library's resources. Quite the contrary, in fact. Now I bet you thought I was a slacker! The point that I am getting at is that while the resources of the internet allow users more time to participate in activities of the "real world" increasingly that world exists on the internet.

The embedded videos above are part of a funny series of ads for the new Windows phone. Supposedly it's interface is so well designed that users can access the apps they need lightning fast and then get back to the business of the real world just as quickly. In the ads apparent Android and iPhone users are so immersed in their smart phones that they wander into the middle of their kid's soccer game without even noticing or accidentally drop their phone into a urinal because they couldn't put it down long enough to take a restroom break. These ads are meant to be over the top, and indeed they are quite funny. However they're also eerily close the the reality that we live in today. Now let's be honest, how many times have you found yourself live tweeting with someone sitting in the very same room with you, or Facebook chatting with your friend instead of phone chatting - or actually visiting? Recently I read a tweet from a concert goer who was viewing the concert, that she was actually at, up close on the screen of her smart phone. So what, exactly, is the 2011 definition of the "real world?" That's hard to say, however if that definition doesn't include cloud computing, online communication, smart phones and social media then it is already obsolete.

RIP Jeeves: Convergence Claims Latest Victim

2010-11-09T21:19:00.000-08:00

In Memoriam

Jeeves

1996 - 2010

I'd like to begin this post by requesting a moment of silence in observation of the passing of Ask.com formerly known as AskJeeves.

Today marks the tragic yet some would say timely passing of Ask.com, that venerable and erudite search engine that intelligently answered even the most inane and archaic of inquiries. Jeeves came of age in the Dot.com boom. Striding with elegance and panache onto a a nubile web1.0 scene, Jeeves brought an air of much needed decorum to veritable wild wild west of talking sock puppets and Napster file sharing. Prior to the global collapse of the "old" internet Jeeves served as a sage advisor and trusted guide on the information superhighway.

This week's assignment has us exploring the concepts of "Convergence" and "Remix". One of the definitions of convergence offered by Jenkins in "Convergence Culture" is: an old concept taking on new meanings. (p. 6) I think the concept of the search engine fits that description quite nicely. In the beginning the search engine was the "Oracle" one went to to research well just about anything. Jeeves ushered in an era of digital knowledge seeking that replaced analog methods of seeking information. Gone were the days of poring through the pages of dusty encyclopedias and paper archives. Unfortunately in the beginning the information superhighway was more often than not the misinformation superhighway. I believe first generation search engines, like Jeeves, Dogpile, et al may have undeservedly received blame when the links they served up were less accurate than they should have been. However one of the things I find most interesting is how the search engine tool itself evolved within it's own generation.

Again in the beginning the search engine was a tool to at least begin one's quest to find information. That information was often in the vein of a concept, idea, or subject to which the searcher was unfamiliar. However it wasn't long into Jeeves tragically short life that he took on an unexpected role in addition to his info gathering duties. Jeeves and indeed search engines in general became sort of a global phone book. As the internet evolved, died, was reborn, and evolved some more, more and more businesses co-opted the internet successfully this time to launch online storefronts. Hence it became Jeeves' job to direct coffee drinkers to the nearest Starbucks as well as seek out information on the mating habits of wombats. Witness the convergence of old media to new media and from new media to newer media.

As in the course of any career Jeeves soon found his experience and wisdom challenged by upstart whippersnappers like Google. Next to Google's search term algorithms and clean design Sir Jeeves began to show his age. Turns out natural language queries aren't where it's at. Why type in an entire question when one can just toss out a few key words? Suddenly the sage advisor was starting to resemble a fusty old codger.

So today we mourn the passing of a dear friend whose links and pages helped the world to transform the way it sought information. He leaves in his wake a host of innovators and maybe a few imitators. So it's only fitting that we all take a moment to reflect on the nature of digital search while we bid a fond adieu to one of it's pioneers. Well goodbye, old chap. Say hello to Encyclopedia Britannica for me.

Note: Early reports of Bing and Google attending Jeeves' memorial solely for the purpose of gleefully dancing on his grave are completely unfounded.

Doctor, I Think I Fractured My Attention Span!

2010-11-02T21:40:00.001-07:00

It took me over four hours to complete the Linda Stone video. That's right four hours. Now you may be asking yourself how it is that it took an otherwise intelligent person more than four hours to complete a video that is exactly twenty-one minutes and fifty-two seconds long? Well, I'm kinda guilty of Stone's thesis. I think I have Continuous Partial Attention. Although when one says it like that it sort of sounds like a diagnosis of a life threatening illness. What I mean to say is that it took me four hours to complete a twenty-two minute video because I paused it a gazillion times. Well maybe not an actual gazillion but several times anyway. Several times.

Now one may be wondering why it might be necessary to pause a twenty-two minute video more than once? An excellent question indeed. Well while watching the video I find myself surfing the web for interesting blog post ideas, monitoring CNN for nationwide election results, jotting notes for said blog posts, tweeting interesting and funny anecdotes from my day, checking my email for client inquiries, and generally fretting about my final class project. That's rather a lot to do, huh? I think Stone is certainly on to something in her analysis of the contemporary definition of multi-tasking as compared with the traditional definition. All of the tasks that I described above require cognition. None of them are automated. Hence at some point it becomes necessary to pause one or two just to have the necessary brain capacity to focus, still partially, on the others. Hence four hours after I started the video I finally finished it.

I've seen several studies recently that conclude that those who hyper multi-task actually decrease their efficiency at completing the tasks they undertake successfully. This NPR article details a French study that concluded that the human brain is ultimately set up to do no more than two tasks at a time. That's right, our frontal lobes max out at two. When the participants in the study were given a third task to complete researchers found that their accuracy suffered greatly over their initial performance when only two tasks had been assigned. So what does this mean for time starved, harried, multi-taskers like me. Well if I had time to write by hand it would be on the wall - slow down and focus. As Stone so eloquently illustrates in her examination of our social evolution from a data economy to a wisdom economy society has sort of come full circle. The information overload which currently faces today's workers and individuals begs for at least a partial return to simpler times. Value added today means time added, as in how will this particular good or service make my life easier and give me more time? Ok so maybe instead of hitting pause on the DVR I should force myself to hit the power button. Lesson learned. In fact I will no longer allow myself to hit any pause buttons anywhere any more for any reason. Hmm, I think that one may be a little harder. I'll keep working on it, anyway. Well, that's all for now, I must rush off as I have a million other things I need to get...

Just kidding! I am actually done with this particular post.

Who Moved My Congress?

2010-10-26T17:56:00.000-07:00

This week's readings examine both sides of the cyber utopia debate. In "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" author Jaron Lanier laments the advent of what he calls "the hive mind." The hive mind by Lanier's definition is nothing more than old and unsuccessful ideas of collectivism re-packaged for the digital age. Lanier views the trend of online content aggregation and meta aggregation as the death of critical thinking, informative journalism and public discourse. I think he may be on to something.

Particularly insightful in Lanier's article was his observation of collectivism in pop culture. I do think it highly ironic that in some 10 seasons of broadcast American Idol has failed to produce one...well American idol. I suppose some would disagree and cite the popularity of Kelly Clarkson. But I doubt Miss Clarkson will sell out Madison Square Garden anytime soon and I certainly wouldn't call her contributions to the musical lexicon monumental, however catchy they may be. Lanier is right, artists like John Lennon, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Joni Mitchell, Grandmaster Flash and Bob Dylan would never win a competition like AI because they are all innovators and the very mainstreamy-ness of AI places zero value on innovation. In attempting to develop an "everyman's artist" complete with a built in fan base (i.e. the people who vote for the contentestents) the producers of have produced a package that no one actually wants to buy. Witness the hive mind at work and it's particular failing. The hive mind isn't neccessarily the brightest one.

On the other side of the argument we have Pierre Levy and his work "Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace." Mr Levy fairly swoons with admiration for the possibilities afforded mankind by collective political activity in cyberspace. In the utopia that he envisions direct democracy becomes a distinct reality with literally every man, woman and child having the ability to represent themselves politically by voting online. Gone are the antiquated ideas of representative democracy and political parties. Congress is no longer even neccessary in in Levy's vision. (I can think of 534 individuals in Washington who might take particular issue with Levy's vision.) Directly opposite Lanier, Levy seems particularly taken with the notion of collectivity and its implications for personal freedom. So who is right?

While both gentlemen have valid points I think I'll have to give this one to Mr. Lanier. If only because I think the design of Levy's Intelligent Cities is rather utopian in scope. Admitttedly I am only about half way through the reading at this point so I apologize if my critique is a little premature. (However I reserve the right to revise my views in the near future.) Levy envisions a political system in which everyone participates with equal zeal and all involved make intelligent, informed choices. Sounds pretty wonderful, right? However, where Mr. Levy fails is that he doesn't allow for the personal apathy, ignrance, shortsightedness and biases that Lanier is all to aware of. "...an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions." (Lanier 9) Can we say Bush administration? How about the Birther Movement? I do realize how cynical my analysis sounds and that is the particular failing of Levy's collective intelligence. His analysis is flawed in that it relies on an electorate that is completely informed and personally invested in political outcomes. I think he may be asking a little too much in an age of severly fragmented attention spans.

Open-Source: Public Enemy #1

2010-10-19T21:15:00.000-07:00

I was searching Mashable recently looking for interesting story ideas when I came across this tasty little nugget: "Lobby Group Says Open-Source Threatens Capitalism." The piece details the efforts of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, whom we read about in "Information Feudalism", and who also broadly represents the MPAA among others, to curtail the popularity of open-source software globally. The group recently requested that developed and developing nations including Brazil, India and Indonesia be placed on an international watchlist, which "effectively puts those countries on a shortlist of governments considered “enemies of capitalism” who aren’t doing enough to protect intellectual property abroad." A little harsh, don't you think?

The major bone of contention for the alliance is the tendency for these nation's governments to use, or advocate the use of, open-source software in their governmental departments. What could be no more than a simple cost cutting measure, in the wake of the worst global economic recession since the great depression, has effectively been labeled...wait for it...communism. The fifties called, they want their Red Scare back.

As we are exploring the issues surrounding intellectual property this week I thought this article a fitting example of the "global expansion of intellectual property systems" (p.5) that Drahos and Braithwaite detail in Information Feudalism. What I find particularly ironic is that in sanctioning these nations the Alliance is actually behaving like a communist dictatorship as they are essentially stifling competition. The race towards innovation spurred by the open-source movement benefits both producers and consumers. Isn't market competition- which is precisely what open-source software represents in the intellectual property battle - the very cornerstone of capitalism? As such, shouldn't it be encouraged?

The dubious victory of literally killing market competition is ultimately a losing battle for all concerned. Especially when the mere suggestion of cost effective alternatives can be equated with subverting the entire U.S. economic system. Unfortunately as long as profits speak louder than innovation and consumer satisfaction, powerful lobbyist groups like the IIPA will reign like medieval feudal lords - and we get to be the lowly serfs. Well, I must go now. I have to delete all my bookmarks for free online photo editing tools. I would hate to be labeled a terrorist just because I'm too poor to afford PhotoShop.

[img credit: David Erickson]

On Networks and Sovereigns

2010-10-12T18:28:00.000-07:00

So I am reading this week's assignment "The Exploit: A Theory of networks" and the following passage jumps out at me:

"By contrast contemporary political thought often defines sovereignty not as the power to command or execute a law but as the power to claim exceptions to the rule. The sovereign ruler occupies a paradoxical position, at once within the law (in that the ruler forms part of the body politic) and yet outside the law (in that the sovereign can decide when the law no longer applies). Sovereignty is, then, not power or force but the ability to decide - in particular the ability to decide what constitutes an exceptional situation, one that calls for a "state of exception" and a suspension of the law. (p. 38)

Notwithstanding the usual suspects, historical and contemporary political leaders, I immediately thought of celebrities when I read this. Yes, I applied network theory to Hollywood. I'll cover the political leaders shortly.

One of the most salient Hollywood examples that comes to mind is the recent case of Roman Polanski. Here we have the sovereign, Mr. Polanski fighting extradition on some very serious charges. The basis of defense is pretty much "I'm famous and all that happened a long time ago. Therefore the law shouldn't apply to me." Around this sovereign has arisen a network of supporters - those 700 or so (depending on which reports you read) actors, actresses, directors, producers, etc. who signed a petition demanding his immediate release. The crux of their argument, "He's enormously talented, that really bad thing happened a long time ago, and further we don't like the way he was apprehended. Therefore the law should make an exception." I will withhold judgement as to the validity (or lack thereof) of these arguments. Ok, maybe I won't.

Now this network, much like the networks Galloway and Thacker present, isn't organized or governed by one central figure. Not even Polanski. The nodes - the actors, et al - are are a particularly heterogeneous bunch whose connections to each other outside of the petition may or may not exist. I suppose you could consider their connection to Hollywood or the film industry as a constant, but to each other, not so much. Further like the Galloway/Thacker model, the nodes may or may not even be directly connected to the sovereign.

I think it is the idea of the "sovereign" that I find particularly fascinating. Examples of sovereign like figures abound in both contemporary and historical culture. Another literal sovereign that comes to mind is King Henry VII. As an actual sovereign King Henry attempted to break a network - the Church of England - so that he could do what was previously un-doable; divorce his wife and marry his mistress. When the King found himself subject to the rules of the church and therefore unable to legitimately divorce his wife he did what any good sovereign would do. He invalidated the church. From where did he derive the power for such an invalidation? He was king, and as such should be above the law, even that law of the church. Here we see network theory in action once again. Though this may be what Galloway and Thacker refer to as a "disciplinary" society ( p. 36) or the beginning of the breakdown of one.

So how does network theory apply to new media. I think the most obvious candidate for examination is the Internet. It functions cooperatively yet has no single overarching, governing body - though recently net neutrality opponents have attempted to grab control. It's myriad nodes - either net users, or the actual web of disparate servers - aren't necessarily connected to each other in any collective sort of organization. What I find particularly interesting is the sphere of influence exerted by particularly powerful nodes. I'm referring to human nodes in this meaning. I wonder if the net will produce digital sovereigns that mimic or rival the sovereigns of yore? Perhaps it already has.

What Is and Isn't New Media (Includes a Case Study Overview)

2010-10-05T20:25:00.000-07:00

This week we were tasked with reading Lev Manovich's "The Language of New Media." In the text Manovich explores both the cultural and historical symbols synonymous with new media objects and traces how they came to be such. For instance why is it that the home screen on one's PC is called a "desktop"? Or how it came to be that our work output takes the form and hierarchy of "files"? Well, in a nutshell, this symbology may have more to do with the original function of the computer as a work tool than the media playground that is the PC of today. However, let's take a brief look at a media object that I know I can't live without and see if it is actually new media as according to Manovich - the iPod, or iTunes as it were.

So beginning on page 27 Manovich enumerates exactly what the properties of new media objects are. They are:

1. Numerical Representation: All new media objects, whether created from scratch on computers or converted from analog media sources, are composed of digital code; they are numerical representations. (p. 27)

2. Modularity: Media elements, be they images, sounds, shapes, or behaviors, are represented as collections of discrete samples (pixels, polygons, voxels, characters, scripts). (p. 30) Because all elements are stored independently, they can be modified at any time without having to change the... (p.30)

3. Automation: The numerical coding of media (principal 1) and the modular structure of a media object (principle 2) allow for the automation of many operations involved in media creation, manipulation, and access. Thus human intentionality can be removed from the creative process, at least in part. (p.32)

4. Variability: A new media object is not something fixed once and for all, but something that can exist in different, potentially infinite versions. (p. 36)

5. Transcoding: Similarly, new media in general can be thought of as consisting of two distinct layers - the "cultural layer" and the "computer layer." (p. 46) Because new media is created on computers, distributed via computers, and stored and archived on computers the logic of a computer can be expected to significantly influence the traditional cultural logic of media; that is , we may expect that the computer layer will affect the cultural layer. (p. 46)

Now, you may be wondering why certain portions of these quotes have been placed in bold type. Well there is a method to my madness. I have combed my iTunes library and put together an an EMAC 6300 playlist consisting of four very distinct songs. (Also, if you're interested, it can be downloaded on iTunes as an iMix for $3.96.)The tracks are all quite different in their styles, artists and genres. It is my contention that per Manovich's specifications, particularly the sections I have highlighted in bold, only one of these tracks actually fits the definition of "new media."

That's right, just one. My methodology was simple. First of all I examined the tracks as content and form separately. If we examine them for form alone then all of the songs would qualify as new media simply by virtue of their interface, ie digital tracks in a digital playlist. However, if we examine the songs as content, paying specific attention to production, then our outcome is quite different. When I applied Manovich's principles the tracks that failed the new media test did so on the criteria that is presented in bold type.

Once iTunes releases my list publicly I will include a link for preview. However, if you want to preview the tracks individually they are:

Symphony No.3 in E-flat Major - Artist: Nicolaus Esterhazy Sinfonia, composed by Beethoven
One Step Beyond - Artist: Karsh Kale
Stay By My Side (Acoustic) - Artist: Mishka
Blue In Green - Artist: Miles Davis

In the meantime, feel free to ruminate on the essence of musical composition in the digital age.

UPDATE: Here is a link to the iTunes iMix. EMAC 6300 New Media Objects Discussion Playlist

2nd UPDATE: Here is a link to my Prezi. Music and New Media: A Critical Look at Manovich's Criteria

Mona Lisa's Smile

2010-09-28T19:44:00.000-07:00

One of the things I found fascinating about one of this week's readings, Remediation by Bolter and Grusin, is that though it is much newer than some of our other texts it seemed - to me at least - singularly outdated. The analysis and examination of virtual reality, a term I don't believe I have actually heard

since 1997, dated the text and made me question it's relevance in today's socially networked world. Of course the themes that Bolter and Grusin explore are evergreen in their nature. The ongoing cycle of re-interpreting, ie remediating older media onto new forms is timeless and especially relevant in the digital space. However I found their particular vehicle of analysis distracting. Interestingly I found the work of McLuhan, written some 50 years ago, prior even to the introduction of the personal computer, infinitely more relevant to discussions of emerging media. How interesting?

The purpose of this post, however, is to explore the goal of remediation. If remediation could be said to have an overarching "goal" it would be to improve upon preceding media in some tangible way. Of course this is a grossly simplified definition that assumes a collective participation on the part of technological innovators worldwide. However, generally when new tech toys are sold to the public marketing claims never fail to tout how they improve upon prior technology. The smartphone improves upon the cell phone, which improved upon the wired phone, which improved upon the telegraph and so on. Naturally the definition of "improvement" is highly subjective. However remediation in it's attempt to transcribe older media onto new forms often amounts to not much more than an attempt make it better in some way. Consider for a moment the Mona Lisa.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what came to mind at the mention of Da Vinci's

seminal work. The talking Mona Lisa is an animated interactive piece currently

on display in Singapore's Alive Gallery. The goal of the Alive Gallery is

literally to bring historical works of art to life. Viewers can actually

interact with the paintings and ask them questions and the paintings will

respond. Here are a few of the questions one can ask Mona Lisa:

Why don't you have any eyebrows?

Why is your smile so popular?

Where were you painted?

What is in the background?

All inquiries that if posed by anyone other than an eight year old talking to an animated object might be considered quite rude. My question is: Is this an improvement or an abomination? I suppose it depends on whom you ask. This particular gallery came up for discussion in a previous semester with about half of the class thinking it quite cool, and the other half ready to tar and feather the gallery owners. On the one hand I can see the appeal of making high art accessible to an audience that it has never reached before. However I do have serious concerns as to that audience's ability to appreciate the work if it literally has to be able to talk back to them first.

The traditionalist in me says that paintings aren't supposed to move or talk. (Also I can't help but picture Da Vinci spinning in his grave at what has been done to his work.) But is this interpretation completely lacking in value? Maybe. Maybe not. I can envision a youngster getting some knowledge out of being able to interact with a work of art, like gaining historical context, or learning about the artist. The problem, at least as I see it, comes in that exhibits like this also foster a disrespect for the aura of the work. A large part of the value of the piece lies in it's ambiguity. Who's to say that whomever programs Mona Lisa's response to the question about her smile has any idea why it's so popular? Or if she is even smiling? Art historians have been debating that for centuries. The answer to that particular question could never be anything more than a highly subjective interpretation. I doubt, however, that an audience of small children, will be sophisticated enough to make that distinction for themselves. Moreover, I wonder if in presenting talking works of art we are setting these kids on a path to a lifetime of disregard for the intrinsic value of the piece, and art itself. I'm not so sure that remediation worked here. Yes it did make the art interactive but at what cost? For me one thing is for certain, my kids (when I have them) will never have a conversation with Mona Lisa if I can help it.

Actors 2.0: Humanity in the Age of Digital Reproduction

2010-09-21T21:41:00.000-07:00

"The stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role. The film actor is often denied this opportunity. His creation is by no means all of a piece; it is composed of many separate performances." (p.10)

The quote above pulled from this week's reading of "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" by Walter Benjamin immediately brought to mind the movie Avatar. Specifically I was reminded of the raw emotion evoked by the character Neytiri when she discovers Jake's duplicity, and indeed throughout the entire film. If, according to Benjamin, a stage actor identifies himself with the character of his role - an opportunity that is denied to the film actor - how does that interpretation change when the actor is digital?

All of the awards and accolades heaped upon the film Avatar had in common that the film presented a very realistic vision of a very make-believe world. Certainly everyone I know raved about how "real" the characters and settings read on screen. That is quite a remarkable accomplishment given that the characters are 10 foot tall blue humanoid beings who have tails. And live in trees. What struck me about the film, more even than the lush opulence of the cinematography, were the absolutely human performances of the digital actors. When Neytiri rips into Jack for deceiving her and her dooming her people I knew exactly how she felt. The emotions evident in her facial expressions are exactly what a woman deceived and betrayed by her boyfriend - and whose betrayal threatens to wipe out her entire race - would feel. The clip above shows a tiny bit of that scene and then goes on to explain how the filmmakers achieved such realistic effect. How did they do it? By very closely recording the actual facial expressions of the human actors. As Benjamin further elucidates, "Experts have long recognized that in the film 'the greatest effects are almost always obtained by 'acting' as little as possible...'" (p. 10)

In this example these digital actors (in the final theatrical presentation) are completely divorced from their human counterparts however to produce an authentic performance it became necessary to closely record and augment their humanity. Applying Benjamin's model we see that the same rule applies. Though denied a live audience to react to, the film actor, even the digital one, still draws on the universal human experience to convey his performance. I wonder if the same rule will apply when it becomes commonplace for films - not just kiddie movies - to use completely digitally rendered characters with no human actors ever involved in the process?

On Writing Well

2010-09-07T21:57:00.000-07:00

While reading this week's class assignment the following exchange between Phaedrus and Socrates practically leapt off the screen at me:

Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.

Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.

Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.

Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?

Phaedr. How so?

Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?

Phaedr. True.

Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.

Phaedr. Very true.

Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.

Phaedr. No doubt.

Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?

Phaedr. Very true.

Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?

Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.

Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Phaedr. Clearly.

In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:

Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.

Phaedr. Certainly not.

Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.

Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.

While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying. That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary. However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?

The Emerging Media Ecosystem

2010-08-31T21:06:00.000-07:00

Check out this headline: "Meet the First Plant That Requires Facebook Fans to Survive." Yes, it's about a plant - actual vegetation - that requires social media interaction to thrive. I saw this story on Mashable today and it started me thinking about all the ways in which electronic media really drive everyday life. It begs the question, "Can there be a such thing as too much progress?"

Now before you go labeling me a spineless technophobe - I'm really not, by the way. I would marry my Android phone if I wasn't afraid of how weird the wedding photos might look - consider for a moment the preceding two thousand years of human history. Somehow, remarkably, for most of existance we mere mortals have managed to live, and even reproduce, without the miracle that is Facebook. I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dad "liked" my mom the old fashioned way. In the days of yore people actually watered plants, and plants actually managed to grow and feed the population. I'm not arguing against technological progress, I just wonder if progress always well...progresses.

Think for a moment about the cotton gin. A technological wonder to some, the ruling slave owners, the absolute devil to others, the slaves who were now consigned to more centuries of servitude. Had Eli Whitney bothered to ask them I'm sure their answer would have been a resounding "Screw progress!"

A friend of mine recently told me the story of his little sister who was put on "Internet punishment" for getting a bad grade. As far as I know the boundaries of her grounding did not preclude actual human interaction. Yet in all the weeks of her miserable confinement it never occurred to her to pick up the phone or better yet invite her friends over. The kid literally did not know how to live without social media. This is the way in which I believe technological progress has actually crippled human progress. And I say this as someone who makes her living (in theory anyway) advising business owners how to promote themselves via social media.

In reading the blog of one of my classmates, Little Miss Cales - Caleigh I am struck by the fact that she predicts a veritable "Lord of the Flies" type Armageddon should the nation's electronic resources fall victim to attack. I think she is 100% right. Sadly. Somehow we genius humans have technologically advanced ourselves right out of our collective humanity. Remarkable. Can't call, text, tweet, or facebook your neighbor? Try knocking on their door.