Thoughts in relation to Jose van Dijck reading:
In the reading, Jose agrees with Maurice Halbwachs, that "personal memory can only exist in relation to collective memory". Nonetheless, she insists on the primacy of the personal: "The sum of individual memories never equals collectivity". For Dijck, memories might be technologically mediated, but are still personal to individuals. For instance, the Holocoust as mentioned by her was made known to the public sphere by accumulating individual memories and artefacts and merge them together as a collective. In the modern world, projections of such a historical event through technology such as films and audio visual documentaries shown us how memory can be so personal and yet so widely shared. The author mentioned that
"media and memory transform each other" and she has coined the phrase "mediated memories" to define the notion.
Blogs have been a social phenomenon as a space for people to express themselves and to keep a web diary of their lives, replacing the traditional means of diary keeping. But have we ever wondered why blogs are so widely popular? And to what extent it is personal when people you might not even know have access to your ramblings online? Bloggers demostrates privacy and exerts their personal aura through blogs and at the same time allows openness for others to judge and see their thoughts. I would say that most famous bloggers use their own personal charisma such as humour or wit to their advantage and apply them into advertorials to garner revenues. Thus, it meshes both individualism and collectivism. Besides, the availability of the archive serves as a tool for us to reminisense and look up previous happenings.
In the reading, the author mentioned that memory could be transform and that memory is as malleable as the technologies that contribute to the creation of memory objects. Selective memory is another topic that intrigues me. For example, it is usually absolute for us to try to eradicate or alter memories that are hurtful to us. And with the emergence of technology, getting rid of unwanted experiences could be represented through the process of deleting files or videos. Besides that, we can always alter our photographs by editing the photos with the pool of photo editing software out there in the market. As we rely so heavily on computers to store our files of photographic, e-mails, videos, music and others, deleting them is just a click away. Moreover, blog entries could be deleted whenever the author feel like it and that shows us that the author has the control over what contents and to what degree of exposure they want to display on their pages to their readers. Again, enhancing Jose van Dijck's point of the inevitable correlation of personal and collective memories. Memories cold be transformed to suit our own individual needs and desires. However, is it that easy to erase painful memories and does technology helps humans to achieve that?
Monday, October 18, 2010
Eye Candy of the Ego
Thoughts in relation to Quaranta, “Life and Its Double”:
"It is my on-screen alter ego. Often it has nothing to do with me, but is assigned by the game, and merely carries out the conventional actions possible in that particular setting (fighting, shooting, etc). But what happens if we are given the option of customizing that avatar, and my mission becomes that of constructing a second life in the virtual space I have access to?"
The alluring technology of enabling us to project our alter egos by customising our very avatar seduces us with instantaneous fulfillment to our inner ego. In Second Life, we could have our very own representation in the virtual world where we are not bounded by law and we are free to mould our avatars into whoever we want from appearances, careers and social life. That is why I would argue that participants are led to believe they have been given the powers of omnipotent where they can channel their inner desires through their avatars. I had come across several news where the actual person in the real world did not resenble their avatars in anyway some even opt for an avatar from the opposite sex. However, in my opinion, the avatars do symbolise the users as they represent their deepest and inner desires, hopes, virtues and definitely their vices. With anonimity, users are free to be a shape shifter in the virtual world and that environment captivates the users to immerse completely in the second life, spend plenty of time and money in the virtual space and tend to lose their own sense of identity in the real world. Extremely avid participants could lead themselves to severe mental disorders.
Saying that, I do not mean that users do not project their real self onto their avatars. In fact, as mentioned in the lecture last week this is the case of bad digital. For example in Facebook, we have the control over the content of our page and we intend to post the ideal side of ourselves. The ability to do so lure us to be so engaging with social networking sites as it provides a platform for us to stroke our ego and how we like others to see us.
"But it was with the advent of pop culture, a star system that set out to become the new Olympus, and a series of media (photography, film and video) capable of capturing its aura, that the avatar became so powerful that in a certain sense it began to live its own life, and to condition the subject it was the image of."
The media feeds us with what is ideal and what is not. The celebrity phenomenon and the once popular trend of skinny models are projected to us through a myriad of mediums. And we strive to be that someone who is in reality, a real person like each and everyone of us. With an established industry of beauty, people are attempting to mimic what is considered perfect and they would create a well constructed avatar of themselves. So why are we so subconciously self concious and why are we so afraid of what others think of us? And lastly, why is it difficult for us to resist the temptation of being the victim of our very own alter egos and narcissism?
"It is my on-screen alter ego. Often it has nothing to do with me, but is assigned by the game, and merely carries out the conventional actions possible in that particular setting (fighting, shooting, etc). But what happens if we are given the option of customizing that avatar, and my mission becomes that of constructing a second life in the virtual space I have access to?"
The alluring technology of enabling us to project our alter egos by customising our very avatar seduces us with instantaneous fulfillment to our inner ego. In Second Life, we could have our very own representation in the virtual world where we are not bounded by law and we are free to mould our avatars into whoever we want from appearances, careers and social life. That is why I would argue that participants are led to believe they have been given the powers of omnipotent where they can channel their inner desires through their avatars. I had come across several news where the actual person in the real world did not resenble their avatars in anyway some even opt for an avatar from the opposite sex. However, in my opinion, the avatars do symbolise the users as they represent their deepest and inner desires, hopes, virtues and definitely their vices. With anonimity, users are free to be a shape shifter in the virtual world and that environment captivates the users to immerse completely in the second life, spend plenty of time and money in the virtual space and tend to lose their own sense of identity in the real world. Extremely avid participants could lead themselves to severe mental disorders.
Saying that, I do not mean that users do not project their real self onto their avatars. In fact, as mentioned in the lecture last week this is the case of bad digital. For example in Facebook, we have the control over the content of our page and we intend to post the ideal side of ourselves. The ability to do so lure us to be so engaging with social networking sites as it provides a platform for us to stroke our ego and how we like others to see us.
"But it was with the advent of pop culture, a star system that set out to become the new Olympus, and a series of media (photography, film and video) capable of capturing its aura, that the avatar became so powerful that in a certain sense it began to live its own life, and to condition the subject it was the image of."
The media feeds us with what is ideal and what is not. The celebrity phenomenon and the once popular trend of skinny models are projected to us through a myriad of mediums. And we strive to be that someone who is in reality, a real person like each and everyone of us. With an established industry of beauty, people are attempting to mimic what is considered perfect and they would create a well constructed avatar of themselves. So why are we so subconciously self concious and why are we so afraid of what others think of us? And lastly, why is it difficult for us to resist the temptation of being the victim of our very own alter egos and narcissism?
Monday, October 11, 2010
Copyright Blunder
Thoughts in relation to The Fair(y) Use Tale and the Barbie in A Blender Day:
Copyright was imposed to protect the original works of the creator. But the question we should ask ourselves is copyright halting the creativity and freedom of the common people? The Fair(y) Use of Tale video clearly projected the issue by playing with the snippets from different Disney films to emphasize the problem with copyright. It is rather contradicting when we are exposed to the popular culture so extensively by major corporations and yet we are only constricted to express our views and sometimes forced to swallow information we were fed to down our throats. These popular cultures are often off limits and fair use rights are challenged. It was mentioned in the video that the monetary value of these protected works is the drive behind copyright and law suits against free speech. Major companies have an image they would want to preserve in order to sell and market their products. Therefore, they tried to stuff corks in the bottleneck of creativity and freedom outside their corporations and because these companies could outspend the regular individuals who wish to express and comment on popular icons and symbols, individuals became more reserved and idle to popular cultures.
There are always two sides to the story, so why we as consumers are only fed with the upsides of a product when it is obvious that there other negative facets? And why we are constricted to abide and uphold the major corporations aims of projecting a profitable image? And most importantly, why are we subjected to be walking ambassadors to the copyrighted materials? Ridiculously, some works of expression which projected a good image of the product were not sued but adopted and bought by the major companies.
Copyright was imposed to protect the original works of the creator. But the question we should ask ourselves is copyright halting the creativity and freedom of the common people? The Fair(y) Use of Tale video clearly projected the issue by playing with the snippets from different Disney films to emphasize the problem with copyright. It is rather contradicting when we are exposed to the popular culture so extensively by major corporations and yet we are only constricted to express our views and sometimes forced to swallow information we were fed to down our throats. These popular cultures are often off limits and fair use rights are challenged. It was mentioned in the video that the monetary value of these protected works is the drive behind copyright and law suits against free speech. Major companies have an image they would want to preserve in order to sell and market their products. Therefore, they tried to stuff corks in the bottleneck of creativity and freedom outside their corporations and because these companies could outspend the regular individuals who wish to express and comment on popular icons and symbols, individuals became more reserved and idle to popular cultures.
There are always two sides to the story, so why we as consumers are only fed with the upsides of a product when it is obvious that there other negative facets? And why we are constricted to abide and uphold the major corporations aims of projecting a profitable image? And most importantly, why are we subjected to be walking ambassadors to the copyrighted materials? Ridiculously, some works of expression which projected a good image of the product were not sued but adopted and bought by the major companies.
Soul Artists and the Success of Motown Music
Thoughts in relation to Vaidhyanathan, S., The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System (2004):
Anarchist theory influenced the rise of punk rock in the United States and England, and anarchist practice influenced the rise of hip-hop culture. Anarchy, according to the reading became a youth phenomenon by the end of the twentieth century. Despite the common misconception that anarchy should be feared and it merely involves rebellious violent acts, I think anarchy contributed to heaps of popular culture worldwide. Back in the earlier days where the blacks are discriminated and apartheid structures are widely implemented, anything that is associated with the blacks was considered wrong and was taboos to the whites. Consequently, people started to realise the oppression against the blacks should be condemned. Radical movements to fight for the equality of the blacks and to go against the structured social system in the United States was soon widespread. “The soul of anarchism—spontaneity, theoretical flexibility, simplicity, local autonomy, and hedonism—appealed strongly to these young people.” Young people were appealed by the idea of anarchism and were the driving force behind many demonstrations and protests to get the support and attention they need to impose change. We could see how young people lead protests to spread the word out. This is especially evident in HairSpray when demonstration to fight for the rights to air jazz music in public broadcasting stations were held. In the movie, we could see how jazz and blues were initially enjoyed among the minority and they had to resort to seclusion in order to express themselves musically in basements. It was the influence of anarchy that finally made jazz a celebrated genre throughout the USA. Another example would be the rise of Motown Music, a blend of Blues, Jazz, R&B, Classical, Pop and Soul which became a popular phenomenon worldwide in the early 80s. This daring bold experimental genre would easily not being accepted as it would be considered a deviant style to the American music culture. However, the persistence and endless determination of the blacks and music enthusiasts in spreading Motown inspired music generated the popular rise of soul artists. Therefore, anarchist theory is exceptionally effective in terms of generating new creative ideas and should not be oppressed. Public noises turned public nuisances are not entirely disadvantageous.
In today’s context, file sharing and peer to peer theory should therefore serves as a platform to foster creativity with boundless limits. We should have the freedom to express our views for the consumption of the mass public and consume what we consider as meaningful and useful.
Anarchist theory influenced the rise of punk rock in the United States and England, and anarchist practice influenced the rise of hip-hop culture. Anarchy, according to the reading became a youth phenomenon by the end of the twentieth century. Despite the common misconception that anarchy should be feared and it merely involves rebellious violent acts, I think anarchy contributed to heaps of popular culture worldwide. Back in the earlier days where the blacks are discriminated and apartheid structures are widely implemented, anything that is associated with the blacks was considered wrong and was taboos to the whites. Consequently, people started to realise the oppression against the blacks should be condemned. Radical movements to fight for the equality of the blacks and to go against the structured social system in the United States was soon widespread. “The soul of anarchism—spontaneity, theoretical flexibility, simplicity, local autonomy, and hedonism—appealed strongly to these young people.” Young people were appealed by the idea of anarchism and were the driving force behind many demonstrations and protests to get the support and attention they need to impose change. We could see how young people lead protests to spread the word out. This is especially evident in HairSpray when demonstration to fight for the rights to air jazz music in public broadcasting stations were held. In the movie, we could see how jazz and blues were initially enjoyed among the minority and they had to resort to seclusion in order to express themselves musically in basements. It was the influence of anarchy that finally made jazz a celebrated genre throughout the USA. Another example would be the rise of Motown Music, a blend of Blues, Jazz, R&B, Classical, Pop and Soul which became a popular phenomenon worldwide in the early 80s. This daring bold experimental genre would easily not being accepted as it would be considered a deviant style to the American music culture. However, the persistence and endless determination of the blacks and music enthusiasts in spreading Motown inspired music generated the popular rise of soul artists. Therefore, anarchist theory is exceptionally effective in terms of generating new creative ideas and should not be oppressed. Public noises turned public nuisances are not entirely disadvantageous.
In today’s context, file sharing and peer to peer theory should therefore serves as a platform to foster creativity with boundless limits. We should have the freedom to express our views for the consumption of the mass public and consume what we consider as meaningful and useful.
"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Thoughts in relation to Bauwens 1000 Days of Theory (2005):
Peer to peer projects are initiated by a core of founders who strives to meet the project’s original aims and constantly provide insights and inputs to the common objectives. Participants can freely determine their behaviour and linkages without the intermediary of obligatory hubs. Why P2P? What captures my attention is how with P2P, people voluntarily and cooperatively construct a commons without any monetary exchange but rather for the good and advantages of the people. In this capitalistic driven era, monopolisation of profit driven companies are dominating the economy. Big companies like News Corp are doing whatever they can to garner huge revenues and most recently, Rupert Murdoch imposed a minimal fee for online users to gain full access to the Wall Street journals. He believed that professionals, elites and business agents would have the ability financially to do so. This is a complete contradiction to the P2P principle of non-reciprocal exchanges. The communist principle: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” depicts the idea of P2P as individuals should have the freedom to develop what they need or desire and therefore, P2P provides them with sources and platforms to experiment and do so in order to flourish creativity for the common good.
I think we should be grateful for P2P projects as the thought of not being treated as merely buyers of the money pinching industries all around the world is somewhat gratifying. It is as if we are now treated and influenced by the myriads of media mediums to purchase or obtain something. Everything, including basic softwares are labelled and copyrighted by companies and we are subjected to get all these necessities for a hefty price. So why buy when you can create? And why buy when you can have them for free? Why exclude the poorer community from getting information that should be available to them to adapt to the technological driven era we are in?
Immaterial should be available for the information, education and entertainment hungry community to foster creativity, for leisure and to downplay the domination of huge profit driven companies. We as citizens should be allowed to create new ideas that will benefits the society as a whole and share them with the rest of the world, not just solely depending what profit driven companies have to offer us.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Friendster or Fakester?
I reckon Donath and Boyd (2004) idea of "public displays of connections" is a very interesting element of the social networking sites. As mentioned in the reading, the expanded network serves as an authenticity tool to validate one's true identity. We can usually tell if a profile is completely bogus and fake by looking at the activities and common friends.
A Revelation
Although I am aware of the 'fakesters' out there, it does not really strikes me that I am somewhat insofar a 'fakester' too. SNS allows us to have the ultimate control of the contents on our profiles from the display photos to the messages we share on the pages online. Thus, we have the privilege to omit information that is genuine but could tarnish the impression we set to achieve in the eys of those who can access your profile. For instance, I would never post up an unflattering photo of myself and I even cringe when my friend tag a photo of me loooking like a famished llama which I untagged in a jiffy, knowing that hundreds of people would see it. I did not even realise that I am developing some sheer sense of narcissism, attempting to create a profile that depicts the better side of me. Saying that reminded me of a section in the reading which mentione that Frienster was first created to compete with a rival dating site. Creating a favourable profile to attract potential dates and even though its objectives are not limited to merely meeting dates, we subconciously are letting what we perceive others will think of us as a guide to the ways we act and behave on SNSs.
So, why are we so self concious? The level of attractiveness is very much at play in today's SNSs. I came across a few acquiantance of mine with Facebook profiles that are bombarded with frivolous pictures of themselves, some even digitally enhanced. And with the 'LIKE' tool, people would take time to express that they like the photo and even comment on those self photos. I think that creates a sense of confidence and satisfaction in one's self, knowing that all these compliments are visible to others too.
*edited 27/9
In relation to the readings, the SNS provides the user an opportunity to express their individualistic traits and to enhance and customise their profiles. As the control is in the user's hand, anyone could have create a profile with fabricated information of themselves. Although there is an age limitation in order to create a profile in Facebook, there is no legitimate or credible verfication needed to verify users's age. It is obvious the unlimited exposure to the open public social domain and inappropriate materials shared on SNSs are not suitable for minor's consumption and that is probably why there is an age constraint in the first place. However, the privacy and safety of young users are still questionable with the rise of online stalkers and pedophiles that masquerade their true identities. Once, I saw a parent speaking on the Today's show urging parents to have a SNS profile and to keep on a look out on what their kids are doing online. Some parents retorted and argued that it would be invading their children's privacy and probably straint the relationship between them and their children. As blogs and news feed features are integrated into SNSs, it is considered a very private space for children to express themselves and rant without their guardians' intervention. There are both sides to the argument and it is definitely an issue we should be pondering on.
A Revelation
Although I am aware of the 'fakesters' out there, it does not really strikes me that I am somewhat insofar a 'fakester' too. SNS allows us to have the ultimate control of the contents on our profiles from the display photos to the messages we share on the pages online. Thus, we have the privilege to omit information that is genuine but could tarnish the impression we set to achieve in the eys of those who can access your profile. For instance, I would never post up an unflattering photo of myself and I even cringe when my friend tag a photo of me loooking like a famished llama which I untagged in a jiffy, knowing that hundreds of people would see it. I did not even realise that I am developing some sheer sense of narcissism, attempting to create a profile that depicts the better side of me. Saying that reminded me of a section in the reading which mentione that Frienster was first created to compete with a rival dating site. Creating a favourable profile to attract potential dates and even though its objectives are not limited to merely meeting dates, we subconciously are letting what we perceive others will think of us as a guide to the ways we act and behave on SNSs.
So, why are we so self concious? The level of attractiveness is very much at play in today's SNSs. I came across a few acquiantance of mine with Facebook profiles that are bombarded with frivolous pictures of themselves, some even digitally enhanced. And with the 'LIKE' tool, people would take time to express that they like the photo and even comment on those self photos. I think that creates a sense of confidence and satisfaction in one's self, knowing that all these compliments are visible to others too.
*edited 27/9
In relation to the readings, the SNS provides the user an opportunity to express their individualistic traits and to enhance and customise their profiles. As the control is in the user's hand, anyone could have create a profile with fabricated information of themselves. Although there is an age limitation in order to create a profile in Facebook, there is no legitimate or credible verfication needed to verify users's age. It is obvious the unlimited exposure to the open public social domain and inappropriate materials shared on SNSs are not suitable for minor's consumption and that is probably why there is an age constraint in the first place. However, the privacy and safety of young users are still questionable with the rise of online stalkers and pedophiles that masquerade their true identities. Once, I saw a parent speaking on the Today's show urging parents to have a SNS profile and to keep on a look out on what their kids are doing online. Some parents retorted and argued that it would be invading their children's privacy and probably straint the relationship between them and their children. As blogs and news feed features are integrated into SNSs, it is considered a very private space for children to express themselves and rant without their guardians' intervention. There are both sides to the argument and it is definitely an issue we should be pondering on.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The Fabrication of Individualised Intimacy
Thoughts in relation to Palmer (2003) reading:
Nothing is free in this profit driven society we are in. Personalisation in many events disguises the business companies’ marketing scheme. Take Facebook for instance, we are given a portal to express who we are, things we like, choose which applications and which fan page we like to support. From these seemingly innocent and harmless fun activities on a public domain, business companies are segmenting and targeting their potential customers. As Facebook draws its revenues from advertisements on their web pages, it establishes a symbiosis relationship with companies who wish to reach their target audience. As mentioned in class this week, Facebook provides them with detailed information on how Facebook users navigate the page and the activities they are engaged in.
Moreover, I am pretty sure we are aware of the cliché tag lines companies use to ensure potential customers that they will be treated with privilege. “The red carpet experience”, the term “VIP” and membership are few of the examples they use to encourage consumers to purchase whatever they are promoting. People usually fall for it despite the overused line as we wanted to be treated differently. I don’t know about others but getting a personalized letter with my name on it is rather an intriguing and gratifying feeling even though we know hundreds of these same letters are sent to others. Thus, our narcissism is an ultimate marketing tool as we indirectly prefer some sort of personalization and customization.
Another example I could think of is the Xbox gaming console. Personalization is emphasized heavily as users are able to create their very own avatar from choosing their features to picking their wardrobes. As I recalled, it was a very exciting experience as I can customize the avatar to look as identical to me. And realizing our need to unlock more options, we can purchase more gadgets, features and clothes for our avatar through their marketplace via Xbox Live (online) from time to time. Thus, cashing in more revenues to the developer’s account.
It is true that we appear to be in control but we must always be aware and cautious of the underlying motives of the profit driven companies. It is no longer the traditional way of business where suppliers meet the demands of the consumer. It could be argued that the suppliers are now influencing and promoting potential consumers’ desires to meet the companies’ supplies discreetly. Masking behind these so called personalised gestures and tactics.
*edited 27/9
In the reading, Castells' argument that the Internet is "the material support for networked individualism" further enhanced the crucial role of personalisation in conducting business online. Thus, when we purchase a Dell laptop online, we are allowed to choose the specific specs that are catered to our own individual needs. If we are an avid gamer, a better graphics card could be integrated in the laptop and so on. The question we should ask ourselves while purchasing products online is are we subconciously drawn by the personalisation notion into purchasing stuff that we want rather than the essentials and end up spending way too much. Is that ethical to manipulate our desires through endless repetitive suggestions as a marketing tool? Then again, we as end users must be aware of these marketing stunts and not let ourselves got carried away.
Nothing is free in this profit driven society we are in. Personalisation in many events disguises the business companies’ marketing scheme. Take Facebook for instance, we are given a portal to express who we are, things we like, choose which applications and which fan page we like to support. From these seemingly innocent and harmless fun activities on a public domain, business companies are segmenting and targeting their potential customers. As Facebook draws its revenues from advertisements on their web pages, it establishes a symbiosis relationship with companies who wish to reach their target audience. As mentioned in class this week, Facebook provides them with detailed information on how Facebook users navigate the page and the activities they are engaged in.
Moreover, I am pretty sure we are aware of the cliché tag lines companies use to ensure potential customers that they will be treated with privilege. “The red carpet experience”, the term “VIP” and membership are few of the examples they use to encourage consumers to purchase whatever they are promoting. People usually fall for it despite the overused line as we wanted to be treated differently. I don’t know about others but getting a personalized letter with my name on it is rather an intriguing and gratifying feeling even though we know hundreds of these same letters are sent to others. Thus, our narcissism is an ultimate marketing tool as we indirectly prefer some sort of personalization and customization.
Another example I could think of is the Xbox gaming console. Personalization is emphasized heavily as users are able to create their very own avatar from choosing their features to picking their wardrobes. As I recalled, it was a very exciting experience as I can customize the avatar to look as identical to me. And realizing our need to unlock more options, we can purchase more gadgets, features and clothes for our avatar through their marketplace via Xbox Live (online) from time to time. Thus, cashing in more revenues to the developer’s account.
It is true that we appear to be in control but we must always be aware and cautious of the underlying motives of the profit driven companies. It is no longer the traditional way of business where suppliers meet the demands of the consumer. It could be argued that the suppliers are now influencing and promoting potential consumers’ desires to meet the companies’ supplies discreetly. Masking behind these so called personalised gestures and tactics.
*edited 27/9
In the reading, Castells' argument that the Internet is "the material support for networked individualism" further enhanced the crucial role of personalisation in conducting business online. Thus, when we purchase a Dell laptop online, we are allowed to choose the specific specs that are catered to our own individual needs. If we are an avid gamer, a better graphics card could be integrated in the laptop and so on. The question we should ask ourselves while purchasing products online is are we subconciously drawn by the personalisation notion into purchasing stuff that we want rather than the essentials and end up spending way too much. Is that ethical to manipulate our desires through endless repetitive suggestions as a marketing tool? Then again, we as end users must be aware of these marketing stunts and not let ourselves got carried away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)