RIP Jeeves: Convergence Claims Latest Victim

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.

Who Moved My Congress?

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.

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.

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.