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?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
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:
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:
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."
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."
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Remediating Remediation
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:
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:
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 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)
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?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The Message is the Medium...Maybe
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.
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.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Birth of a Net
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.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
RIP Jeeves: Convergence Claims Latest Victim
In Memoriam
Jeeves
1996 - 2010
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.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Doctor, I Think I Fractured My Attention Span!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)