Happy 5th Birthday, Twitter!

Following the theme of our readings for this week it bears mentioning that the seminal communications juggernaut better known as Twitter turned five today.  That's right Twitter is no longer a toddler and can be officially said to be out of it's infancy as now  it is literally old enough to enter kindergarten. But twitter is most unlike any other 5 year old I've ever met.

How so? Well, how many kindergartners do you know who have 140 million playmates? Or 4 billion dollar piggy banks?  Our readings have us studying the myriad ways that twitter is used as a communication tool. It seems that for as many twitter users that exist there are equally as many ways in which to use the tool. From the inane to the germane  - chances are there is a twitter hashtag for any given subject (or non-subject) and an invested group of followers driving trending.  I believe it is this universality that makes twitter so appealing and in the future will drive it's very sustainability.

What I find most fascinating about Twitter, however,  is an enigma, disguised as a conundrum - and that is the superficiality inherent in it's universality.  I believe this is what Sample was alluding to when he declared that Twitter is useless for making connections.  While I don't agree that connecting via Twitter is impossible -. scores of journalists and communications professionals would argue that's just not the case - I do believe that connections born on Twitter most often only go skin deep.  Twitter is a phenomenal communications tool which certainly possesses the potential to be a real conduit of human connection. However, even given all the many ways that we use the tool today, how many people can actually say that they have real relationships with their followers/followees? Or for that matter how many can say that they actually have "conversations" within the confines of the platform rather than broadcasting their own one way self interested or self serving blurbs? I mean what's with all of the brands who have been following me lately? I don't really think they're actually interested in what I have to say more than they're interested in selling me - and anyone who follows me - whatever it is that they sell.

What Sample deems a futility of connection carter calls an asymmetry.

User connections are made asymmetrically, so that we can begin the process of learning about others even without reciprocal engagement. The trending topics function semiotically as a signal to users that some issue, person or event is generating major interest in one of Twitter’s many communities. They’re also an implicit invitation for users to weigh in on the issues du jour. “Twitter is like the ticker tapes you see in Times Square,” says Halley Suitt, chief editor of Communispace. “It’s entertainment and it’s a voyeuristic medium.”

I believe Carter's definition is more accurate.  However I don't believe anyone would claim voyeurism breeds real life connections. Execept perhaps stalkers, that is.  Of course, it would be impossible to have actual reciprocal relationships with thousands of people simultaneously in real life, or really in any setting other than one like Twitter.  Hence Twitter's greatest strength is also it's inherent flaw. Hence the enigma...and the conundrum.

Anyway, these thoughts are probably beyond the grasp of a 5 year old. Even one as unique and gifted as Twitter. So Happy Birthday, little fella! Don't spend all your birthday money (that $4 billion valuation) in one place!

The Unbearable Lightness of the iPad...Or Kindle

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."

Mona Lisa's Smile

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.

On Writing Well

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

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.