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.
Seeking Solace in a Foreign Place
Thoughts in relation to Meyrowitz (2004) reading:
The idea of locality as a backdrop rather than a physical place we must engage and commit to could be applied to students studying abroad. ‘There is no essential connection between the physical setting we are in and the mediated experiences we are having in that location.’ As international students often communicate and keep in touch with their families back in their home country, the physical space they are currently at is nothing more than a backdrop for students to engage in interactions through an array of media. Often like mentioned in the reading, we find ourselves describing and relaying information regarding the place we are currently at and what we were doing to someone communicating to us from a distant place. Moreover, students have the privilege to choose their level of commitment towards the location they are currently at. International student might not need to commit to the local community or express their concerns over local news as they receive up to date news on their own countries via a call back home or browsing their countries’ news site online. Thus, further strengthens Meyrowitz’s idea of locality as a backdrop. I’ve met a couple of international students who do not seem to be aware of what is going on in Victoria and some do not even know who is the Prime Minister of Australia. Besides that, some might find it difficult to fit in with the locals and seek solace in familiar sights and voices from their own country through communication devices.
However, while some might not be interested in news on the foreign place they are at, some might beg to differ. Travelling became such a common activity among the globalized society, that it no longer seems like we are bounded to the ongoing and history of our birthplace. In fact, we are now offered a myriad of options in terms of information we want to access. For instance, a student from Thailand might be yearning to study at the United States due to the exposure of the American programmes in her country. No doubt she will be aware of the news ongoing in the States even as she travels there to pursue her studies. The relocations of locality are nothing new in our modern society as global information is publicise. The migrating trend is increasingly popular over the years now as people are now more willing to abandon their locality for another in hopes of a better life.
We are now free to pick what suits our aspirations and interests. Also, we can exit the physical place we are at psychologically; resorting in alternative ways to seek what reflects us as a person and what makes us feel comfortable. In a nutshell, the physical space we are at does not necessary serves its purpose other than a space where we utilize mediated experiences whether to quench our thirst for information, support or for our social purposes.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Everywhere and Nowhere
Thoughts in relation to Poster (2004) reading:
"If information moves without the human body, if media moves information to bodies, and if bodies and media move together through space, in all three cases the body is everywhere and nowhere."
It is difficult to eradicate the bodily presence from the use of mobile communication just because we do not need to move about to disseminate messages to someone at a different place. It was argued that our body is obsolete as we can now send messages across with myriad of mobile technologies such as phone messaging and e-mails. We are no longer obliged to move about and meet up with someone else in order to pass a message. Thus, can we now conclude that our body is no longer in use? Is this the space anxiety many media theorists mentioned in their findings?
I would argued that the mobility of message sending has became a part of our body, an essential we would want it to be at close proximity to our body. For instance, the portability of laptop and mobile phones has made these gadgets part of our everyday lives. Thus, our body is not exactly out of use, instead the body works together with the mobile technologies to meet our social or educational demands or to amplify their existing culture. Mentioned in the reading, the Italians integrate mobile phone with their culture. This is similiar to how the world are now integrating mobile technologies to fulfil their political, social or cultural needs. The body is engage in disseminating messages by accessing to the Internet in a cyber cafe or dropping by a coffee place with wifi access and ringing up someone on your mobile phone.
As virtual reality and the idea where the mind leaves the body arised, our body nonetheless, indirectly participate in the process where sensors are connected to our physical body in order for us to be immerse in a virtual reality. Therefore, our body is everywhere eventhough it could appear as a mirage to someone in a distant.
"If information moves without the human body, if media moves information to bodies, and if bodies and media move together through space, in all three cases the body is everywhere and nowhere."
It is difficult to eradicate the bodily presence from the use of mobile communication just because we do not need to move about to disseminate messages to someone at a different place. It was argued that our body is obsolete as we can now send messages across with myriad of mobile technologies such as phone messaging and e-mails. We are no longer obliged to move about and meet up with someone else in order to pass a message. Thus, can we now conclude that our body is no longer in use? Is this the space anxiety many media theorists mentioned in their findings?
I would argued that the mobility of message sending has became a part of our body, an essential we would want it to be at close proximity to our body. For instance, the portability of laptop and mobile phones has made these gadgets part of our everyday lives. Thus, our body is not exactly out of use, instead the body works together with the mobile technologies to meet our social or educational demands or to amplify their existing culture. Mentioned in the reading, the Italians integrate mobile phone with their culture. This is similiar to how the world are now integrating mobile technologies to fulfil their political, social or cultural needs. The body is engage in disseminating messages by accessing to the Internet in a cyber cafe or dropping by a coffee place with wifi access and ringing up someone on your mobile phone.
As virtual reality and the idea where the mind leaves the body arised, our body nonetheless, indirectly participate in the process where sensors are connected to our physical body in order for us to be immerse in a virtual reality. Therefore, our body is everywhere eventhough it could appear as a mirage to someone in a distant.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Writing Trauma vs The Glorification of Writing
Thoughts in relation to Toff's (1997) reading:
What interests me the most is the writing trauma experienced by many ancient Greeks like Socrates. In the literate world we are residing in, we could only fathom the chaos without the ability to write and jot down characters in our everyday lives. It was argued that the birth of writing destroys the communal and naturalistic nature of human beings and yet what is puzzling to me is that the most effective methods of relating and disseminating knowledge is through writings. If it is not for the birth of writing, many historical events, research and philosophies might vanquish, swallowed by the tides of time. In ancient China, where examination is given the utmost importance in order to receive the greatest degree of respect and wealth, writing is celebrated as an eminent gift of intelligence. Some even argued that the birth of writing is the birth of civilisation. Even though this is bold claim, but the ability to keep records and knowledge on a tangible source made history and knowledge to pass on from generations to generations. Therefore, it is understandable that critics like Derrida questioned the irony of Plato and Socrates's contempt towards writing when their work and even some condemnatory complaints were lodged through writing.
The technology of writing definitely changed the way the mind thinks and constructs as mentioned in the reading as I can argue that we could now envision and imagine what it mentioned on a written text without the need to be at a close proximity with the source/author. This could not be done through an oral society where message are reinforced through repetition and on the human's memory alone, resulting in opposing and contradictory reception of the message's meaning. So how did the inception of the writing world changes how the mind works? The bible for instance in the book of Genesis, describes to us explicitly in words how God created the world. In biblical context again, the word of God is recorded in order for Christians all around the world to get the same message and praise the word of God knowingly. If writing is a language of virus and it is claimed inhuman as mentioned in the reading, how will the religious context of utilizing the birth of alphabets plays in this statement? In Eastern religions, sacred manuscripts are highly glorified as a guideline to how human beings should behave. Thus, it is not something we should be afraid of.
Moving on to the cyberworld now, the Dadaist theory supports that everyone could be an author now through the myriad of sources available to us via the Internet. The evolution of writing made hypertext possible and opens up plenty creative outlets and opportunities for human to improvise and advance for a better future. All in all, I think I see more good than harm in writing.
What interests me the most is the writing trauma experienced by many ancient Greeks like Socrates. In the literate world we are residing in, we could only fathom the chaos without the ability to write and jot down characters in our everyday lives. It was argued that the birth of writing destroys the communal and naturalistic nature of human beings and yet what is puzzling to me is that the most effective methods of relating and disseminating knowledge is through writings. If it is not for the birth of writing, many historical events, research and philosophies might vanquish, swallowed by the tides of time. In ancient China, where examination is given the utmost importance in order to receive the greatest degree of respect and wealth, writing is celebrated as an eminent gift of intelligence. Some even argued that the birth of writing is the birth of civilisation. Even though this is bold claim, but the ability to keep records and knowledge on a tangible source made history and knowledge to pass on from generations to generations. Therefore, it is understandable that critics like Derrida questioned the irony of Plato and Socrates's contempt towards writing when their work and even some condemnatory complaints were lodged through writing.
The technology of writing definitely changed the way the mind thinks and constructs as mentioned in the reading as I can argue that we could now envision and imagine what it mentioned on a written text without the need to be at a close proximity with the source/author. This could not be done through an oral society where message are reinforced through repetition and on the human's memory alone, resulting in opposing and contradictory reception of the message's meaning. So how did the inception of the writing world changes how the mind works? The bible for instance in the book of Genesis, describes to us explicitly in words how God created the world. In biblical context again, the word of God is recorded in order for Christians all around the world to get the same message and praise the word of God knowingly. If writing is a language of virus and it is claimed inhuman as mentioned in the reading, how will the religious context of utilizing the birth of alphabets plays in this statement? In Eastern religions, sacred manuscripts are highly glorified as a guideline to how human beings should behave. Thus, it is not something we should be afraid of.
Moving on to the cyberworld now, the Dadaist theory supports that everyone could be an author now through the myriad of sources available to us via the Internet. The evolution of writing made hypertext possible and opens up plenty creative outlets and opportunities for human to improvise and advance for a better future. All in all, I think I see more good than harm in writing.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
From Page Space to e Space.
Thoughts in relation to Drucker (2003)'s reading:
What I find really interesting about this reading is the meticulous considerations the developers of e-books have in order to emulate and even improve the functions of traditional books. But nonetheless, I do not really see how e-books can ever replace traditional books in any way. The sensation of actually touching the texture of the paper whether it is coarse or smooth at our fingertips is definitely more gratifying to me. And like what was mentioned in yesterday's class, some of us actually prefer owning a traditional book and keep them as a collection. What would be of bookshelves if people starts to read entirely from e-books? What would be of libraries and bookstores? Would'nt that makes us unappreciative human beings as we tend to take our historical inventions for granted? And there is definitely the possibility that we will lose electronic data in case of a technological glitch and so on.
Moreover, every e-books are the same in their format electronically. For example, we read e-book texts from a bright flat screen whereas we can truly see and touch the design of an embossed title of a tangible book's cover page. Recently, I got an elaboratedly designed book with pop-ups and stickers for my niece. That reminded me how these features could not possibly be incorporated in e-books. Despite all these arguments, I do think that e-books are very helpful and beneficial in a number of ways especially for educational purposes. As students, we could have access to endless resources in a click of the mouse and all the reading materials are available online. As I prefer to read it in a hardcopy, I will print them out. Besides, reading online could be really distracting as I tend to check out other sites (Facebook or blogs). But then again, it traces back to the individual's own preference.
Therefore, I think both traditional and e-books should co-exist. As mentioned in the reading, traditional books are already virtual in its own way, telling our mind to visualize and imagine. E-books are truly a breakthrough in the world we are living in but so are traditional books centuries ago. Hence, we should not take them for granted as technolgy advances.
What I find really interesting about this reading is the meticulous considerations the developers of e-books have in order to emulate and even improve the functions of traditional books. But nonetheless, I do not really see how e-books can ever replace traditional books in any way. The sensation of actually touching the texture of the paper whether it is coarse or smooth at our fingertips is definitely more gratifying to me. And like what was mentioned in yesterday's class, some of us actually prefer owning a traditional book and keep them as a collection. What would be of bookshelves if people starts to read entirely from e-books? What would be of libraries and bookstores? Would'nt that makes us unappreciative human beings as we tend to take our historical inventions for granted? And there is definitely the possibility that we will lose electronic data in case of a technological glitch and so on.
Moreover, every e-books are the same in their format electronically. For example, we read e-book texts from a bright flat screen whereas we can truly see and touch the design of an embossed title of a tangible book's cover page. Recently, I got an elaboratedly designed book with pop-ups and stickers for my niece. That reminded me how these features could not possibly be incorporated in e-books. Despite all these arguments, I do think that e-books are very helpful and beneficial in a number of ways especially for educational purposes. As students, we could have access to endless resources in a click of the mouse and all the reading materials are available online. As I prefer to read it in a hardcopy, I will print them out. Besides, reading online could be really distracting as I tend to check out other sites (Facebook or blogs). But then again, it traces back to the individual's own preference.
Therefore, I think both traditional and e-books should co-exist. As mentioned in the reading, traditional books are already virtual in its own way, telling our mind to visualize and imagine. E-books are truly a breakthrough in the world we are living in but so are traditional books centuries ago. Hence, we should not take them for granted as technolgy advances.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Fantasy of Death, The Death of Fantasy
Thoughts in relation to McKenzie (2003) reading:
McKenzie has a fascinating view on the distinction between virtual reality and the real world we are living in. He questioned if the representation of the virtual reality actually exceeds the 'realness' of the reality. Using Bradbury's story of two children murdering their parents using a home-based virtual reality environment, he suggests that we would be more like the children, rejecting the reality we are residing in and immerse wholly into a virtually make believe world. Relating back to the discussions we have in yesterday's tutorial, the possibility of choosing the reality we want to be in does not seems that far-fetch anymore. So, would I choose to abandon my psychical body and live in my virtually perfect world? In my opinion, we should never fall into the temptation of a perfectly crafted world as not only it will disrupt the real world we are living in, it will definitely create a chaotic world where people lose their friends and families and worst their leaders. Not to mention how creepy it would be to see people in their motionless state or behaving oddly in wires or capsules.
However, I would consider the utilization of the virtual reality technology for national security purposes similar to the armies in the movie, 'Surrogates'. Albeit the incident in the movie happens in real time, the concept of mind leaving the body could still be applied here. In my opinion, that would produce a favourable result in terms of minimizing the amount of casualties of men-at-arms.
Moreover, if the representation of the virtual reality exceed the realness of the reality, there would be heaps of confusion and the constant questioning of authenticity of the world we are in.
In a nutshell, the ability to immerse ourselves in a fantasy-like world challenges the fantasy of death and consequently, marks the death of fantasy.
McKenzie has a fascinating view on the distinction between virtual reality and the real world we are living in. He questioned if the representation of the virtual reality actually exceeds the 'realness' of the reality. Using Bradbury's story of two children murdering their parents using a home-based virtual reality environment, he suggests that we would be more like the children, rejecting the reality we are residing in and immerse wholly into a virtually make believe world. Relating back to the discussions we have in yesterday's tutorial, the possibility of choosing the reality we want to be in does not seems that far-fetch anymore. So, would I choose to abandon my psychical body and live in my virtually perfect world? In my opinion, we should never fall into the temptation of a perfectly crafted world as not only it will disrupt the real world we are living in, it will definitely create a chaotic world where people lose their friends and families and worst their leaders. Not to mention how creepy it would be to see people in their motionless state or behaving oddly in wires or capsules.
However, I would consider the utilization of the virtual reality technology for national security purposes similar to the armies in the movie, 'Surrogates'. Albeit the incident in the movie happens in real time, the concept of mind leaving the body could still be applied here. In my opinion, that would produce a favourable result in terms of minimizing the amount of casualties of men-at-arms.
Moreover, if the representation of the virtual reality exceed the realness of the reality, there would be heaps of confusion and the constant questioning of authenticity of the world we are in.
In a nutshell, the ability to immerse ourselves in a fantasy-like world challenges the fantasy of death and consequently, marks the death of fantasy.
The Rise of the Tech Hackers.
Thoughts in relation to the Benedikt (1993) reading:
I was exceptionally drawn by the role of the cyberspace as an avenue for the acting out on mythic realities mentioned in thread one. Indeed, from a very young age, we were told tales of the mythical world that are out of the world we are residing in. I could vividly remember the desire to be in the fantasy whimsical tales that are fed to me through various media. From books, bedtime stories told by my grandma, Disney movies to television. The need to be apart of something wildly out from this world lingers even as I grow older. Children in the world we are living in are thrown into the complexity of advanced technology. Unlike the generation before them, they did not have the opportunity to experience the evolution of these technology. Nonetheless, they are exposed to fables, superheroes comics and endless movies which enables them to have fantasies to be apart of those seemingly interesting or bizarre worlds. For many young boys, the hunger for empowerment, to be adored, to complete an impossible mission, identical to the fictional heroes. In my opinion, the hunger usually stays with them as they grow up. Thus, the emergence of online games provides them a platform to perform and achieve the power they could not receive in real life. The other night, my boyfriend told me about this particular player was obviously hacking the online gaming system so that he could achieve the highest score by gunning down as much enemies as possible. That got me contemplating what drives some people to resort to all sorts of rebellious ways to be on top of their game? Fame? Getting the attention they want? Narcissism?
Putting aside the issue regarding online games, I once heard of the story of a young boy who managed to crack into America's CIA security system. These seemingly complex nodes of encrypted codes is challenged by a deluge of what we now dubbed as 'tech hackers'. So what are they trying to prove? Is it true that they struggle into adulthood and seek satisfaction in acting out against the technology? Or they seek for the thrill of discovering something even more complex than what we have in real life?
The cyberspace open up endless opportunities for us to be apart of what would have be considered as impossible in the past, to quench our need to dwell in fiction. These reasons could be the answers to the rapid rise of a new generation of tech hackers in this era.
I was exceptionally drawn by the role of the cyberspace as an avenue for the acting out on mythic realities mentioned in thread one. Indeed, from a very young age, we were told tales of the mythical world that are out of the world we are residing in. I could vividly remember the desire to be in the fantasy whimsical tales that are fed to me through various media. From books, bedtime stories told by my grandma, Disney movies to television. The need to be apart of something wildly out from this world lingers even as I grow older. Children in the world we are living in are thrown into the complexity of advanced technology. Unlike the generation before them, they did not have the opportunity to experience the evolution of these technology. Nonetheless, they are exposed to fables, superheroes comics and endless movies which enables them to have fantasies to be apart of those seemingly interesting or bizarre worlds. For many young boys, the hunger for empowerment, to be adored, to complete an impossible mission, identical to the fictional heroes. In my opinion, the hunger usually stays with them as they grow up. Thus, the emergence of online games provides them a platform to perform and achieve the power they could not receive in real life. The other night, my boyfriend told me about this particular player was obviously hacking the online gaming system so that he could achieve the highest score by gunning down as much enemies as possible. That got me contemplating what drives some people to resort to all sorts of rebellious ways to be on top of their game? Fame? Getting the attention they want? Narcissism?
Putting aside the issue regarding online games, I once heard of the story of a young boy who managed to crack into America's CIA security system. These seemingly complex nodes of encrypted codes is challenged by a deluge of what we now dubbed as 'tech hackers'. So what are they trying to prove? Is it true that they struggle into adulthood and seek satisfaction in acting out against the technology? Or they seek for the thrill of discovering something even more complex than what we have in real life?
The cyberspace open up endless opportunities for us to be apart of what would have be considered as impossible in the past, to quench our need to dwell in fiction. These reasons could be the answers to the rapid rise of a new generation of tech hackers in this era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)