During our last class we discussed how video games provide us with the knowledge on how machines impact our lives and how we impact machines. In other words, video games provide a new kind of intimacy or erroticism. Naturally, a lot of us got confused as to what that meant and I blurted out that that sort of thing makes my mind go in the gutter. Indeed, erroticism is linked to biological sex yet there are other aspects to erroticism. In other words it is not soley limited to heteronormal sexual activity, nor is it specifically linked to gentailia. Rather errotic is linked to pleasure, libido and desire, it is sensualized, yet it doesn't have to refer soley to a man-woman relationship. It could refer to a fetish or even a man-animal sort of relationship. For example, someone could find himself obsessed with a pinball machine--there's something very sensual about it--with all those bells and levers and flashing lights--and of course there's the obvious sexual innuendo of trying to get a ball into a hole. Our teacher even referred to the bit in which there are flashing lights and bells as the "climax." Yet it's not necessarily sex, it's sexualized due to libido. There's definately pleasure in video games--and not just because of characters like Laura Croft. It's more that one finds themselves wanting to play a video game all night if they are that absorbed in it. Sometimes, I find myself playing until my arms start to ache or my feet fall asleep. Then, I may find myyself so absorbed in the game that I can't wait until I can get back to it.One time, when I was sick from school, I was actually partially happy because it meant that I could play some more of Paper Mario and the Thousand Year Door.
Here's a link to intimacy and addiction in video games.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Social Networks Increase One's Health?
To be honest, I have not been truly sick since 2 years ago during my Sophomore year at college--most likely due to some bad cafeteria food. Sure, I get sore throats, and runny noses from time to time--but I haven't come down with an actual fever lately--even when I'm in contact with a friend who happens to be sick. I haven't caught anything from them, dispite our close contact.
I always thought it was due to me having a strong immune system, yet there's another plausible theory behind my strong health. Supposedly, having a vast social network--both weak and strong ties, provides one with strong health. Thus, those who have strong social networks that consist of family members, relatives,and friends are less likely to have a heart attack or pregnancy problems. Yet the ironic part is that the bigger the social network the more germs we are exposed to--although at the same time, research has discovered that the bigger one's social ties, the less likely one is to be afflicted with a contagious disease. In other words the more social interaction one partakes in the healthier and happier one is. Truth be told, I am pretty happy--and i do have a pretty vast social network.Social networks have a direct impact on one's physical and mental well being.
Research has also shown that generally amongst elderly white couples--when the spouse dies, the other one dies shortly after--maybe after a few weeks, months or a year or two.However When a spouse dies in an elderly black couple, the other one lives on longer due to having plenty of weak and strong social ties. Thus, elderly black couples are more socially integrated than their white counterparts.
Here's a link that mentions how social networks on facebook and twitter can actually improve one's health.
I always thought it was due to me having a strong immune system, yet there's another plausible theory behind my strong health. Supposedly, having a vast social network--both weak and strong ties, provides one with strong health. Thus, those who have strong social networks that consist of family members, relatives,and friends are less likely to have a heart attack or pregnancy problems. Yet the ironic part is that the bigger the social network the more germs we are exposed to--although at the same time, research has discovered that the bigger one's social ties, the less likely one is to be afflicted with a contagious disease. In other words the more social interaction one partakes in the healthier and happier one is. Truth be told, I am pretty happy--and i do have a pretty vast social network.Social networks have a direct impact on one's physical and mental well being.
Research has also shown that generally amongst elderly white couples--when the spouse dies, the other one dies shortly after--maybe after a few weeks, months or a year or two.However When a spouse dies in an elderly black couple, the other one lives on longer due to having plenty of weak and strong social ties. Thus, elderly black couples are more socially integrated than their white counterparts.
Here's a link that mentions how social networks on facebook and twitter can actually improve one's health.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Bye Bye Book?
There's a new technology out there that most likely will make books forever obsolete. It's called a Kindle. It's sort of like an i-Pod for the book. You can buy and download copies of books online for it--and then read without having to turn any pages. Yet in my opinion, this sounds rather impersonal. I can't picture parents reading their children a bedtime story from a Kindle--although I've been told that they download illustrations too.
The novel first emerged during the Renaissance. It's form embodied the middle class and it has dominated society for the last 400 years or so. In general, the novel contains a main character and a plot and it linear. That means that it includes a beginning and an end.The linear novel is also a way of thinking about the world,yourself, and your life. The novel itself represents your life, and what plans are in store for you. The main charater of the novel is you and the plot is your life.
However, it seems as if we may soon abandon the book. Technologies are never neutral as they contain ways of living and thinking. While linear text represents one type of living and understanding, hypertext is that of a dynamic language. Unlike the typical novel, it is non-linear. There is no beginning, and no end. In a way, it's much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Compared to the containment of linear text, hypertext is quite complex. Through hypertext, life looks nothing like you thought it would. Hypertext is fluid and full of contingency and indeterminacy. It changes right before your very eyes. What you thought was one thing, is suddenly another. Hypertext wouldn't just lead to the end of books, but also allow us to save trees.Here's a link about the Kindle possibly making books obsolete.
The novel first emerged during the Renaissance. It's form embodied the middle class and it has dominated society for the last 400 years or so. In general, the novel contains a main character and a plot and it linear. That means that it includes a beginning and an end.The linear novel is also a way of thinking about the world,yourself, and your life. The novel itself represents your life, and what plans are in store for you. The main charater of the novel is you and the plot is your life.
However, it seems as if we may soon abandon the book. Technologies are never neutral as they contain ways of living and thinking. While linear text represents one type of living and understanding, hypertext is that of a dynamic language. Unlike the typical novel, it is non-linear. There is no beginning, and no end. In a way, it's much like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Compared to the containment of linear text, hypertext is quite complex. Through hypertext, life looks nothing like you thought it would. Hypertext is fluid and full of contingency and indeterminacy. It changes right before your very eyes. What you thought was one thing, is suddenly another. Hypertext wouldn't just lead to the end of books, but also allow us to save trees.Here's a link about the Kindle possibly making books obsolete.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Mythinformation
There are many myths involving how computers can make society better. There's the idea that through the love of technology-technophilia--we can level society making it structurally contained, restrained and directed. Computers are believed to spread equality through knowledge, thus it can change the economy structurally. We are told that the internet can do anything.
There were two groups attempting to spread greater political information throughout society One group was old school--it relied upon surveys and polls and questionaires. the other was known as Zero Ground and spread environmental consciousness through the internet. One would think that Zeroground won over the traditional method. In actuality, the opposite occured. Zeroground disipated into nothingness while the traditional method affected the political process because it was both convenient and efficiant. Thus it politically increased participation in contrast to that of the internet.
There's also the myth that through the use of computers, people are more knowledgable in our society. This sadly, does not actually seem to be the case. Knowledge and information are constantly mixed up with one another. In reality they are two separate things. Information represents decrete units of facts, dates, numbers and names. Knowledge on the other hand is a much broader narative--in other words theory. With knowledge, facts begin to make sense.
In reality, we don't have more knowledge, rather we have more information. Yet it is false that we don't have any knowledge at all. If that were true we would not be able to dress ourselves. We definately have experiencial knowledge in the form of pre-existing framework. One's political orientation is based upon knowledge.
As mentioned earlier, information is not knowledge. It consists merely of facts. Another myth is that knowledge is power--actually knowledge causes the opposite to happen. We become disenchanted because there are too many structures, we can't do anything about it because we lack the power to change it. Yet in an indifferent sense, knowledge is power because we can control and prevent change. Making knowledge makes power. Also those with knowledge already have power and are capable of reinforcing it such as doctors.
Another myth is that information increases democracy. Yet good middle jobs are disapearing, leaving behind either really bad jobs or really good jobs--but mostly really bad jobs. COntrary to popular belief, outsourcing is not the main problem. Most of those jobs being outsourced are ones that we don't want anyway. Information is not liberating us, it is more difficult to earn a decent living. There is increased surveillance and the goventment benefits more from it.
Here is a link focusing on mythinformation
There were two groups attempting to spread greater political information throughout society One group was old school--it relied upon surveys and polls and questionaires. the other was known as Zero Ground and spread environmental consciousness through the internet. One would think that Zeroground won over the traditional method. In actuality, the opposite occured. Zeroground disipated into nothingness while the traditional method affected the political process because it was both convenient and efficiant. Thus it politically increased participation in contrast to that of the internet.
There's also the myth that through the use of computers, people are more knowledgable in our society. This sadly, does not actually seem to be the case. Knowledge and information are constantly mixed up with one another. In reality they are two separate things. Information represents decrete units of facts, dates, numbers and names. Knowledge on the other hand is a much broader narative--in other words theory. With knowledge, facts begin to make sense.
In reality, we don't have more knowledge, rather we have more information. Yet it is false that we don't have any knowledge at all. If that were true we would not be able to dress ourselves. We definately have experiencial knowledge in the form of pre-existing framework. One's political orientation is based upon knowledge.
As mentioned earlier, information is not knowledge. It consists merely of facts. Another myth is that knowledge is power--actually knowledge causes the opposite to happen. We become disenchanted because there are too many structures, we can't do anything about it because we lack the power to change it. Yet in an indifferent sense, knowledge is power because we can control and prevent change. Making knowledge makes power. Also those with knowledge already have power and are capable of reinforcing it such as doctors.
Another myth is that information increases democracy. Yet good middle jobs are disapearing, leaving behind either really bad jobs or really good jobs--but mostly really bad jobs. COntrary to popular belief, outsourcing is not the main problem. Most of those jobs being outsourced are ones that we don't want anyway. Information is not liberating us, it is more difficult to earn a decent living. There is increased surveillance and the goventment benefits more from it.
Here is a link focusing on mythinformation
Friday, April 2, 2010
Theories behind why communities are falling apart
Today, communities are becoming more and more disorganized and focus more upon the individual than upon groups. There are several theories behind this disorganized network community. One of them is that of the nation-state in which a large scale institution manages our lives through complex bureaucracy and a set of laws. Nation-states regulate social interactions. This results in local communities losing their autonomy. While the community is now producing individuals, at the same time the nation-state is destroying the community--which is now governed by a national government.
Another theory is that of globalization--or a world system. Due to the pressure of capital we are forced to move and pursue capital--in other words outsourcing. This fragments the nuclear family and also destroys communities. Through capitalization a global financial capital is produced.
Another theory is that of instrumental bureaucratization which transforms traditional communification. Things must be efficient.
Another reason or theory involves cities such as diverse interest groups, sorting and mobility and diversity.
A final reason is that of transportation--which results in cost efficiency of communication.
Here's a site that explains what a network community is.
Another theory is that of globalization--or a world system. Due to the pressure of capital we are forced to move and pursue capital--in other words outsourcing. This fragments the nuclear family and also destroys communities. Through capitalization a global financial capital is produced.
Another theory is that of instrumental bureaucratization which transforms traditional communification. Things must be efficient.
Another reason or theory involves cities such as diverse interest groups, sorting and mobility and diversity.
A final reason is that of transportation--which results in cost efficiency of communication.
Here's a site that explains what a network community is.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Why YouTube Can Be Better Than Television.
To be honest, I don't watch tv too often anymore--with the exception of my DVDs. Instead, most of the things that I watch aren't through the tv anymore but rather through my computer screen. In other words, I avidly watch YouTube. On YouTube, of course, one can watch videos of practically everything(although most copyrighted material often gets taken down eventually)much like the television. However, there is a huge difference between YouTube and one's television set.
Although Television sets have become more sophisticated over the years and can now allow one to record and tape what one wants to watch as well as fastfoward through commercials, there is still something that YouTube can do that the television can't--and that makes all the difference. Through television ,we become passive consumers. We simply stare at the TV--generally alone and while we may laugh or cry at a particular program--unless we're watching it with others, no one will never know how we truely feel about it.
On the other hand, through the internet--especially through YouTube, we become prosumers. Besides consuming what we watch, we produce as well. Basically, on YouTube, not only can one watch a video, one can respond to it as well. For example, if I were to watch a video of a cute kitten on YouTube--or basically any website which would permit me to respond to the video--I would comment upon it "Cute kitten." Now--everyone who watches this video knows that I think the kitten is cute. Yet it goes further than simply commenting upon a video. One can respond to the commenter. They could basically agree--or disagree--or laugh at the commenter's comment--or get into a huge political arguement or flamewar that has absolutely nothing to do with the cute kitten.
In addition to being able to comment upon a video either to express how much one loves or hates it, there is something else that YouTube does that I find both fascinating and stupid--we can now rate each other's comments on YouTube. I find this fascinating because I often look back at a video that I had previously commented upon in order to see if I have been marked up or down. For example,one of my comments upon--yes a cute cat video was rated +8--in other words, 8 other users agreed with me or liked my comment. However, I also find it stupid because commenters can also be rated negatively. This makes complete sense if someone has posted a rude or degrading comment--yet it can be pointless at times when a perfectly innocent comment praising the video is marked down. It's happened to me sometimes--I'll have a perfectly normal comment--nothing rude marked down--then eventually I'll either find a few months later that it's either been marked up much higher--or that it's been marked as negative. I guess I find it a bit stupid because we are freely expressing our opinions--and those who don't like it are given the opportunity to do so. It's also rather stupid because most people watch the video to rate the video itself--not the commenters.
Apparently, this comment rating system on YouTube is an example of "Web 2.0"--the division between form and content. In YouTube's case, the form is the site's format itself--such as the text--the tiny box that commenters place their opinions into. The content consists of the thoughts that go inside that tiny box--the form. Thus form has an impact upon content and provides us with an endless circle of circulation and interaction.
Here is an example of prosumer activity on Youtube--countless commenters--rated positively, negatively, and neutrally(the rating remains at 0) with a video of--what else? A cute kitten.
In addition--here is an amusing--yet sadly true article listing the 8 most obnoxious internet commenters Ironically enough--this website itself is an example of people being prosumers because (if they have an account on this site) they are able to comment upon what they have read--or start a giant pointless flamewar with another poster.
Although Television sets have become more sophisticated over the years and can now allow one to record and tape what one wants to watch as well as fastfoward through commercials, there is still something that YouTube can do that the television can't--and that makes all the difference. Through television ,we become passive consumers. We simply stare at the TV--generally alone and while we may laugh or cry at a particular program--unless we're watching it with others, no one will never know how we truely feel about it.
On the other hand, through the internet--especially through YouTube, we become prosumers. Besides consuming what we watch, we produce as well. Basically, on YouTube, not only can one watch a video, one can respond to it as well. For example, if I were to watch a video of a cute kitten on YouTube--or basically any website which would permit me to respond to the video--I would comment upon it "Cute kitten." Now--everyone who watches this video knows that I think the kitten is cute. Yet it goes further than simply commenting upon a video. One can respond to the commenter. They could basically agree--or disagree--or laugh at the commenter's comment--or get into a huge political arguement or flamewar that has absolutely nothing to do with the cute kitten.
In addition to being able to comment upon a video either to express how much one loves or hates it, there is something else that YouTube does that I find both fascinating and stupid--we can now rate each other's comments on YouTube. I find this fascinating because I often look back at a video that I had previously commented upon in order to see if I have been marked up or down. For example,one of my comments upon--yes a cute cat video was rated +8--in other words, 8 other users agreed with me or liked my comment. However, I also find it stupid because commenters can also be rated negatively. This makes complete sense if someone has posted a rude or degrading comment--yet it can be pointless at times when a perfectly innocent comment praising the video is marked down. It's happened to me sometimes--I'll have a perfectly normal comment--nothing rude marked down--then eventually I'll either find a few months later that it's either been marked up much higher--or that it's been marked as negative. I guess I find it a bit stupid because we are freely expressing our opinions--and those who don't like it are given the opportunity to do so. It's also rather stupid because most people watch the video to rate the video itself--not the commenters.
Apparently, this comment rating system on YouTube is an example of "Web 2.0"--the division between form and content. In YouTube's case, the form is the site's format itself--such as the text--the tiny box that commenters place their opinions into. The content consists of the thoughts that go inside that tiny box--the form. Thus form has an impact upon content and provides us with an endless circle of circulation and interaction.
Here is an example of prosumer activity on Youtube--countless commenters--rated positively, negatively, and neutrally(the rating remains at 0) with a video of--what else? A cute kitten.
In addition--here is an amusing--yet sadly true article listing the 8 most obnoxious internet commenters Ironically enough--this website itself is an example of people being prosumers because (if they have an account on this site) they are able to comment upon what they have read--or start a giant pointless flamewar with another poster.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Dynabook--like an iPad
Also in my previous class, I learned about a concept that had been envisioned since the mid 1970s that sounds exactly like an iPad. Basically Alan Kay and Adele Goldberg who woked at Xerox Palo Alto Research Center came up with the concept of the notebook computer--what they called a dynabook. The idea was that it would be able to read back recorded inforrmation. It would be the size and shape of a notebook yet it would contain "enough power to outrace your senses of sight and hearing, enough capacity to store for later retrieval thousands of page-equivalents of reference materials, poems, letters, recipes, records, drawings, animations, musical scores, waveforms, dynamic simulations, and anything else you would like to remember and change" (The New Media Reader, 2003, pg. 394). Basically they envisioned a device that would be both small and portable as well as "both take in and give out information in quantities approaching that of human sensory systems" (pg. 394)
According to my teacher, the concept of the Dynabook is similar to today's iPad due to being portable and containing a great amount of storage in which not only would the device be able to store data, word text,and images,it would also be able to store music, games and videos as well. Unfortunately while the Dynabook as a concept sounds amazing--its decendent, the iPad truthfully doesn't seem so fantastic. (In a previous blog, I admitted that I really didn't understand the iPad and believed that it may actually be a flop)
Here's a link to a blog in which someone praises the iPad as being the living embodiment of the envisioned Dynabook--and the technology of the future.
According to my teacher, the concept of the Dynabook is similar to today's iPad due to being portable and containing a great amount of storage in which not only would the device be able to store data, word text,and images,it would also be able to store music, games and videos as well. Unfortunately while the Dynabook as a concept sounds amazing--its decendent, the iPad truthfully doesn't seem so fantastic. (In a previous blog, I admitted that I really didn't understand the iPad and believed that it may actually be a flop)
Here's a link to a blog in which someone praises the iPad as being the living embodiment of the envisioned Dynabook--and the technology of the future.
Dream Laptop
In my last class, we had to get into our groups and envision a dream laptop--basically our laptop could do anything--even surpassing the possible. It would be very cool if laptops could turn into portable tables. Basically the laptop would have a sturdy (not one of those flimsy folding tables)table attached to it--I'd call it the tabletop. It would be nice--I'd never have to worry about where to store a laptop again and I wouldn't have to sit with it in my lap because I could simply prop up the table whenever and wherever I needed it.
Another group envisioned a laptop that could make clothing. While this may not be good for the economy as we would no longer need department stores,I must admit this would be rather cool. I like the idea of putting inside a printer a piece of cloth instead of paper and then watch a custom made T-shirt pop out of it! It would be especially nice because I'm rather small and it is sometimes difficult to get certain types of clothing. If the computer made my own clothing--I could chose the exact size I needed. This would come in handy for shoes and sneakers. I have a very narrow foot, so I can never actually choose what kind of shoes I want. I can only chose them based on comfort, so I basically wear New Balance sneakers. If I could design my own shoes via a laptop--then they could be both comfortable and stylish--and would forever solve my footwear problem.
I also like the idea of having my laptop give me a massage when I get tired from straining my neck up at the screen in order to read something. It would have robotic arms that would shoot out whenever I needed them to. The computer could be water-proof too--and it could have cupholders! Okay, I'm kind of joking about the cupholders--although they'd probably get mixed up with the cd rom drive anyway. I kinda just wanted to mention it because there's an infamous urban legend in which an individual calls tech support because he broke his computer's "cupholder" Here's a link to a version of it.
Another group envisioned a laptop that could make clothing. While this may not be good for the economy as we would no longer need department stores,I must admit this would be rather cool. I like the idea of putting inside a printer a piece of cloth instead of paper and then watch a custom made T-shirt pop out of it! It would be especially nice because I'm rather small and it is sometimes difficult to get certain types of clothing. If the computer made my own clothing--I could chose the exact size I needed. This would come in handy for shoes and sneakers. I have a very narrow foot, so I can never actually choose what kind of shoes I want. I can only chose them based on comfort, so I basically wear New Balance sneakers. If I could design my own shoes via a laptop--then they could be both comfortable and stylish--and would forever solve my footwear problem.
I also like the idea of having my laptop give me a massage when I get tired from straining my neck up at the screen in order to read something. It would have robotic arms that would shoot out whenever I needed them to. The computer could be water-proof too--and it could have cupholders! Okay, I'm kind of joking about the cupholders--although they'd probably get mixed up with the cd rom drive anyway. I kinda just wanted to mention it because there's an infamous urban legend in which an individual calls tech support because he broke his computer's "cupholder" Here's a link to a version of it.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Software architecture machines
Apparently, architecture also applies to the way in which we construct computers. The software is the brain and logic of the computer. In a way, we sort of live in software systems--the computer is like a house--which may be why it's referred to as software architecture in the first place.Through human-computer interaction the best type of software system can be designed. There are three types of models. The first model is you.. There is nothing natural about the look or feel of a computer. They are designed for particular types of people. So when it comes to you being the model, it is relevant to know who is going to be the user, what the user is going to use it for, and what's in demand at the time. The second model is the computer itself--although you are the most important element in software systems as the computer is designed around you. This model refers to the computer as the model and your model of it. In other words--what you think the computer does. The final model is the computer's model of your model of its model of you--that is to say an idea of what you think it is. Through communicatioation and confidence-- both user and computer are able to recognize each other's model of one another. A good software system is a good relationship because you understand how it views you. It's basically like getting to know someone. Through confidence and trust, the software gets to know you. A human computer interaction is thus like a social interaction.
Also in class, I learned about Android--which is a mobile operative system--I've actually never heard of it before. That's most likely because I'm not very tech savy. I think I found a link that gives me a basic idea of what it is--although it sounds sort of complicated. Here's the link
Also in class, I learned about Android--which is a mobile operative system--I've actually never heard of it before. That's most likely because I'm not very tech savy. I think I found a link that gives me a basic idea of what it is--although it sounds sort of complicated. Here's the link
Things I don't understand-- Windows Vista
I always was a bit old-fashioned but then again, humans are said to really dislike change. So to be honest--I actually still own a Windows XP laptop--I've had it since approximately 2006--just before Windows Vista came out. To be honest--I'm quite terrified of Windows Vista. My parents had to get a new computer around my sophomore year--it has Windows Vista. I refuse to use microsoft word on it--I use my own laptop for that. The reason is because the layout of microsoft word on Windows Vista is so different from the layout I have grown up on.Instead of texted windows that I can easily open up to change the font or double space my work such as the "format" button, there are pictures. This frustrates me because the pictures are not labeled appropriately. In fact, sometimes I don't even know which button will allow me to print my document because there isn't a simple "file-print" button anymore. Of course the only downside to keeping my windows XP is that it is not compatible with the newer program, so I can't always view document files that are sent to me--unless they are converted beforehand. I generally have to go into the library if I need to view a document that I can't view on my computer. Apparently I'm not the only one frustrated with Windows Vista's version of Microsoft Word--many people agree that it stinks. Yet I'm unfortunately certain that it's here to stay, and I might as well get use to it. I wouldn't even be surprised if my own mother who is generally less tech savy than me is fluent in using it. Perhaps for once, she'll have to teach me something related to computers.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Things I don't understand: the iPad
Despite the ongoing progress of modern technology, we may still create a few flops.A few days ago in the college cafeteria, I was having a conversation with a friend about the iPad that Apple has recently come out with. Being slightly less tech savy than the average college student, I had absolutely no idea at first what an iPad did--besides function as a rather large iPod. The friend explained to me that that was exactly what it was--a big iPod with the ability to surf the web and download videos and music. He believes that it will be a flop because it can everything that an iPod can already do--and it's less functionable--and more expensive than a standard laptop or notebook. It also doesn't sound very practical. The main version can only store 16 gigabytes on it. I may not know how much 16 gigabytes can store, but I'm certain that it's less than how much my standard regular non-iTouch iPod can store--and that thing is relatively inexpensive. On the otherhand, while we are in an economic depression this iPad runs at about $500, it really doesn't seem worth it. I agree with my friend--this thing probably makes a better hat than for what it was originally intended to do. This link sums up my thoughts nicely.
Vandalism or Art? Another look at Graffiti
It's not uncommon to see graffiti spray painted upon the walls of buildings--especially in cities. Generally graffiti is frowned upon in society--but not for the reasons you'd expect. Contrary to popular belief, it has nothing to do with the concept of tagging on walls to begin with, nor does it have to do with the content. Sure people generally spray paint curse words and graphic images--yet I bet somebody could paint an accurate replica of the Mona Lisa on one of those buildings and it would still be looked upon as negatively.The main reason graffiti is looked down upon is because it steps out of the code--that is to say it strays from a particular logical system that is operating throughout our society--a sort of limited algorhythm to be exact. Thus to the overall logic of society, and the logic social order, graffiti is seen as a "gross" disruptive display. Yet at the same time graffiti can be looked upon as a way of stepping out of this logic system. If one is unsatisfied with their system, instead of trying to merely change it through the system itself, one would be far more successful if he or she were to step outside of the system altogether--hence why we have graffiti. It is a way of challenging our system--by doing something outside of the system--not from within it. In other words, we can't challenge the game by playing it but rather by making a new game to play instead.
While not exactly,"graffiti" this picture of a monster made out of traffic cones has caused a major dispute over whether its artist should be arrested for vandalism. While the monster is definately awesome, the main concern is that the artist stole and chopped up some traffic cones in order to create the monster.
Here's a link to the full story
Friday, February 19, 2010
Maxist Analysis of New Media and What it Means
Vulgar Marxism is an analysis of industrial capitalism--it is an 18th-19th century mode of production. Technological development is industrialization in its concrete form. It is a mechanical innovation and forever transformed labor. Originally labor came through humans and animals--such as workers operating the textile industry or horse drawn ploughs. Basically these sources of labor used the body and muscle power. Yet through technological development labor is liberated and the efficiency of labor is thus increased. Yet mechanical labor is not free, it costs money and the cost is generally coming from someone else. In a way, we are literally living off the backs of dead animals and their stored labor. In other words, the heat used to warm our homes comes from fossil fuel, which is technically composed from the remains of dead dinosaurs and other once living creatures.
As mechanical labor began to gradually replace human labor, thus people became less central to the production process.
Additonally, in class we learned about use value and exchange value. Use value is what something is worth to you. Exchange value on the other hand is the idea that everything has a value and the result is that it determines how much you can sell something for, such as one's house.
Here is a link further discussing exchange value
As mechanical labor began to gradually replace human labor, thus people became less central to the production process.
Additonally, in class we learned about use value and exchange value. Use value is what something is worth to you. Exchange value on the other hand is the idea that everything has a value and the result is that it determines how much you can sell something for, such as one's house.
Here is a link further discussing exchange value
Marshall McLuhan's Four Epochs of History
According to Marshall McLuhan history can be understood through technology. He then divides history into four parts or epochs. The first epoch he calls the oral tribe culture. In general oral makes knowledge living,and is subject to change, interpretation, and embellishment. Sadly, the oral tribe culture is dead--or at least almost dead. Where it still exists is in small areas where native, indiginous people dwell. However this culture generally dies out when technology colonizes and assimilates various countries. Generally this technology manages to culturally embed itself whether it's wanted or not.In the oral tribe culture, everything is preliterate and depends upon the art of memory. Thus an entire work must be memorized word for word.
The second epoch is known as manuscript culture. At this point in history, writing came into being around 4000 or 3000 bc. Basically instead of memorizing an entire work like in oral tribe culture now someone would dictate what to write to you. To a certain degree, manuscript culture is tied to oral culture. Social resodance came into being awell which is a type of social thinking. The manuscript culture was hierarchial. As mentioned earlier things were dictated and then written down. Most noted for this were the monestaries of the dark ages.
The third epoch is called the Gutenberg Galaxy. Basically around this time, the printing press came into being--the Gutenberg press to be exact. With one press, many books could be created--many different books thus revolutionizing the basis of knowledge. The Gutenberg Galaxy transformed society entirely due to the printing press' great speed, it was able to reduce the labor that was originally neccesary to produce knowledge, and it had movable type. A fragmentated process of our world was able to occur. This fragment process produces flexibility while at the same time is fixed. While the process of the printing press was flexible, the product it produced was no longer flexible causing a cognitive shift. Through the Gutenberg Galaxy things had to now be ordered and make sense.Everything thrives upon rationality in which everything is ordered and linear. Rationality is responsible for producing major structures of society such as countries and nation states. The printing press itself produces books which in turn produced citizens. In order for nations to be formed, through the emergence of the novel, national subject bonds were created through specific imaginary, natinal mythology--sort of like our history of the founding of the United States of America as an independent nation from that of England. These national subject bonds resulted in people becoming uniform because they shared similar knowledge, and thus became close.
The final epoch is known as the electronic digital age which is today's society. New technology includes such things as the alphabet, radio and printing press because they totalized change in society. The electronic digigital age is also known as automation. It frees us from mundane labor. Here is futher information on these epochs.
The second epoch is known as manuscript culture. At this point in history, writing came into being around 4000 or 3000 bc. Basically instead of memorizing an entire work like in oral tribe culture now someone would dictate what to write to you. To a certain degree, manuscript culture is tied to oral culture. Social resodance came into being awell which is a type of social thinking. The manuscript culture was hierarchial. As mentioned earlier things were dictated and then written down. Most noted for this were the monestaries of the dark ages.
The third epoch is called the Gutenberg Galaxy. Basically around this time, the printing press came into being--the Gutenberg press to be exact. With one press, many books could be created--many different books thus revolutionizing the basis of knowledge. The Gutenberg Galaxy transformed society entirely due to the printing press' great speed, it was able to reduce the labor that was originally neccesary to produce knowledge, and it had movable type. A fragmentated process of our world was able to occur. This fragment process produces flexibility while at the same time is fixed. While the process of the printing press was flexible, the product it produced was no longer flexible causing a cognitive shift. Through the Gutenberg Galaxy things had to now be ordered and make sense.Everything thrives upon rationality in which everything is ordered and linear. Rationality is responsible for producing major structures of society such as countries and nation states. The printing press itself produces books which in turn produced citizens. In order for nations to be formed, through the emergence of the novel, national subject bonds were created through specific imaginary, natinal mythology--sort of like our history of the founding of the United States of America as an independent nation from that of England. These national subject bonds resulted in people becoming uniform because they shared similar knowledge, and thus became close.
The final epoch is known as the electronic digital age which is today's society. New technology includes such things as the alphabet, radio and printing press because they totalized change in society. The electronic digigital age is also known as automation. It frees us from mundane labor. Here is futher information on these epochs.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Happenings according to Allan Kaprow
In the previous post, I described in my own words what a happening is. Here I will quote Allan Kaprow from my textbook The New Media Reader edited by Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort.The following passages are from
"Happenings" in the New York Scene
In the words of Allan Kaprow "Happenings are events that, put simply happen. Though the best of them have a decided impact-- that is, how we feel, "here is something important" -- They appear to go nowhere and do not make any particular literary point. In contrast to the arts of the past, they have no structured beginning, middle, or end. Their form is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won, except the certainty of a number of occurrences to which we are more than normally attentive. They exist for a single performance, or only a few, and are gone forever as new ones take their place" (Kaprow 85).
Kaprow continues by explaining how happenings are different from traditional theatrical performances. "First there is the context , the place of conception and enactment. The most intense and essential Happenings have been spawned in old lofts, basements, vacant stores, natural surroundings, and the street, where very small audiences, or groups of visitors, are commingled in some way with the event, flowing in and among its parts. There is no separation of audience and play (as there is even in round or pit theaters); the elevated picture-window view of most playhouses is gone, as are the expectations of curtain openings and tableaux vivantsand curtain closings..." (85).
Another key difference is "...that a Hapenning has no plot, no obvious "philosophy," and is materialized in an improviastory fashion, like jazz, and like much contemporary painting, where we do not know exactly what is going to happen next. The action leads itself any way it wishes, and the artist controls it only to the degree that it keeps on "shaking" right. A mmodern play rarely has such an impromtu basis, for plays are still first written. A Happening is generated in action by a headful of ideas or a flimsily jotted-down score of "root" directions" (86).
Lastly, Kaprow makes mention of the impermanence of Happenings. "Composed so that a premium is placed on the unforeseen, a Happening cnannot be reproduced. The few performances given of each work differ considerably from one another; and the work is over before habits begin to set in. The physical materials used to create the environment of Happenings are the most perishable kind: newspapers, junk, rags, old wooden crates knocked together, cardboard cartons cut up, real trees, food, borrowed machines, etc. They cannot last for long in whatever arrangement they are put. A Happening is thus fresh, while it lasts, for better or worse" (86).
I guess I wanted to quote specifically from my textbook in order to compare my mundane, slightly fuzzy version of what a Happening is in my own words to a clearer version, obviously composed by someone who knew what he was talking about.
In addition, I have provided a link to an article about recreation of some of Kaprow's most famous Happenings through an "art show" of sorts in a museum of all places. Link
"Happenings" in the New York Scene
In the words of Allan Kaprow "Happenings are events that, put simply happen. Though the best of them have a decided impact-- that is, how we feel, "here is something important" -- They appear to go nowhere and do not make any particular literary point. In contrast to the arts of the past, they have no structured beginning, middle, or end. Their form is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won, except the certainty of a number of occurrences to which we are more than normally attentive. They exist for a single performance, or only a few, and are gone forever as new ones take their place" (Kaprow 85).
Kaprow continues by explaining how happenings are different from traditional theatrical performances. "First there is the context , the place of conception and enactment. The most intense and essential Happenings have been spawned in old lofts, basements, vacant stores, natural surroundings, and the street, where very small audiences, or groups of visitors, are commingled in some way with the event, flowing in and among its parts. There is no separation of audience and play (as there is even in round or pit theaters); the elevated picture-window view of most playhouses is gone, as are the expectations of curtain openings and tableaux vivantsand curtain closings..." (85).
Another key difference is "...that a Hapenning has no plot, no obvious "philosophy," and is materialized in an improviastory fashion, like jazz, and like much contemporary painting, where we do not know exactly what is going to happen next. The action leads itself any way it wishes, and the artist controls it only to the degree that it keeps on "shaking" right. A mmodern play rarely has such an impromtu basis, for plays are still first written. A Happening is generated in action by a headful of ideas or a flimsily jotted-down score of "root" directions" (86).
Lastly, Kaprow makes mention of the impermanence of Happenings. "Composed so that a premium is placed on the unforeseen, a Happening cnannot be reproduced. The few performances given of each work differ considerably from one another; and the work is over before habits begin to set in. The physical materials used to create the environment of Happenings are the most perishable kind: newspapers, junk, rags, old wooden crates knocked together, cardboard cartons cut up, real trees, food, borrowed machines, etc. They cannot last for long in whatever arrangement they are put. A Happening is thus fresh, while it lasts, for better or worse" (86).
I guess I wanted to quote specifically from my textbook in order to compare my mundane, slightly fuzzy version of what a Happening is in my own words to a clearer version, obviously composed by someone who knew what he was talking about.
In addition, I have provided a link to an article about recreation of some of Kaprow's most famous Happenings through an "art show" of sorts in a museum of all places. Link
The Happening--Not the M. Night Shyamalan film
A happening is a particular type of art form. It emerged from performance art and was at its prime during the 1950s and 60s. The term was coined by Allan Kaprow who apparently was responsible for organizing some of these abstract, interactive performances and events.In a happening, there is no purpose, and no control--unlike that of traditional art and authority which contains both a purpose and a degree of control in both the individual artist and the viewer.
Yet a happening is not an individual form of art or occurance. It is collective,a group, social. It is indeterminate, created by whim, chance, or fancy. The happening is impermenence. In other words, it is not static. On the contrary, there is flux, change. If a particular happening (performance) is repeated, chances are that it will never be exactly the same. In a way, it's like improv where anything can happen and does. In addition, happenings are dependent upon context, it matters where it is held, and all depends upon the space it is held within--be it physical, mental, social or political. The Happening is a counter rationality, as it is different to what most humans are use to. For instance, there is no permenece--humans (myself included) generally do not like change. Humans also prefer controland purpose as well as success as oposed to failure--chance--which is basically what the happening is all about. It is about chance or failure, as well as the idea of embracing the idea of failure as a possibility and even as a sort of success. Hence it has the ability to envoke, and provoke fear.
Here is an example of a Happening that occured in 1963.
Yet a happening is not an individual form of art or occurance. It is collective,a group, social. It is indeterminate, created by whim, chance, or fancy. The happening is impermenence. In other words, it is not static. On the contrary, there is flux, change. If a particular happening (performance) is repeated, chances are that it will never be exactly the same. In a way, it's like improv where anything can happen and does. In addition, happenings are dependent upon context, it matters where it is held, and all depends upon the space it is held within--be it physical, mental, social or political. The Happening is a counter rationality, as it is different to what most humans are use to. For instance, there is no permenece--humans (myself included) generally do not like change. Humans also prefer controland purpose as well as success as oposed to failure--chance--which is basically what the happening is all about. It is about chance or failure, as well as the idea of embracing the idea of failure as a possibility and even as a sort of success. Hence it has the ability to envoke, and provoke fear.
Here is an example of a Happening that occured in 1963.
Friday, February 5, 2010
We can rebuild grandma--and make her better
The idea of a cyborg being is slowly revealing itself to be more fact than fiction. Of course, that does not mean that the world is going to become a dystopia where machines attempt to destroy all humans because they are deemed "obsolete." No, I highly doubt that humans can become "Terminators." However, we are becoming increasingly dependent upon computers and technology--resulting in a symbiosis of sorts. Symbiosis is a interaction between two different organisms who hav a beneficial codependency upon one another. In other words, one cannot survive without the other. A cyborg is the result of a mutual beneficience between technology and a human. However, we are not entirely dependent upon machines just yet, and humanity can survive without technology. Therefore, there should be no fear of a distopia in which humans are entirely enslaved by technology--not yet anyway.
However,while we are not entirely dependent upon machines. Some machines can not exist without a person who has a condition. Vice-versa, a person with a condition may not survive or last as long in ease without a machine attached to him or her. In other words, the machine helps the person with a condition live more comfortably--and more freely. I tend to joke with my mother that my grandmother is slowly becoming a cyborg. Now this doesn't mean that grandma's eyes glow bright red when she looks upon us, nor does she constantly scan for information. What I mean is that my grandmother has had to get knee replacements and a hip replacement because she (thankfully) has managed to live longer than her own body parts. Grandma even had a chance to try out a microchip that if it worked successfully with her body, would be implanted inside her in order to lessen her arthritic pain. The device I believe is remote controllable and instead of feeling pain, grandma would simply feel a tingling sensation. Unfortunately, this new technology was found to be incompatible with grandma. In other words, it did not lessen grandma's pain--so that's one less piece of technology inside of grandma.Apparently cyborg technology isn't so far away--or as impossible as we once imagined.
However,while we are not entirely dependent upon machines. Some machines can not exist without a person who has a condition. Vice-versa, a person with a condition may not survive or last as long in ease without a machine attached to him or her. In other words, the machine helps the person with a condition live more comfortably--and more freely. I tend to joke with my mother that my grandmother is slowly becoming a cyborg. Now this doesn't mean that grandma's eyes glow bright red when she looks upon us, nor does she constantly scan for information. What I mean is that my grandmother has had to get knee replacements and a hip replacement because she (thankfully) has managed to live longer than her own body parts. Grandma even had a chance to try out a microchip that if it worked successfully with her body, would be implanted inside her in order to lessen her arthritic pain. The device I believe is remote controllable and instead of feeling pain, grandma would simply feel a tingling sensation. Unfortunately, this new technology was found to be incompatible with grandma. In other words, it did not lessen grandma's pain--so that's one less piece of technology inside of grandma.Apparently cyborg technology isn't so far away--or as impossible as we once imagined.
The brain is NOT a computer
To be honest, when I was younger, I use to compare my brain to a computer. Afterall, it was a complex piece of "machinery" capable of infinite memory storage. Anything I thought of could appear within a matter of seconds--almost like a search engine. The only problem is that this comparison doesn't actually work. Apparently my brain is NOT a computer--nor is a computer an exact replica of the mind--an electric brain so to speak. Apparently the brain relies upon association--the minute one item appears in the mind--at the vey next second another item can appear suddenly through the suggestion of that association of thoughts.
What especially makes the brain different from the computer is that it's not just a storage box--it's an archive--an association box. Computers do not work through association. Instead they work through identification. In addition, Bush's vision of the memex--a brain-like storage device appeared at first to me as little more than a primative version of a computer. However, it's not at all like that. In fact, it's much more complex than a computer because it would be an association box--not merely a storage box. It would be able to remember notes, and the order in which they were placed. Most importantly it would work through the linking of associations. To this day, a computer can't even do that. The memory of a computer--especially when it comes to the internet is merely short-termed, while a memex would have been able to recall data that it had been given several years ago.
Here is a link that explains why the brain is NOT a computer.Link
What especially makes the brain different from the computer is that it's not just a storage box--it's an archive--an association box. Computers do not work through association. Instead they work through identification. In addition, Bush's vision of the memex--a brain-like storage device appeared at first to me as little more than a primative version of a computer. However, it's not at all like that. In fact, it's much more complex than a computer because it would be an association box--not merely a storage box. It would be able to remember notes, and the order in which they were placed. Most importantly it would work through the linking of associations. To this day, a computer can't even do that. The memory of a computer--especially when it comes to the internet is merely short-termed, while a memex would have been able to recall data that it had been given several years ago.
Here is a link that explains why the brain is NOT a computer.Link
Friday, January 29, 2010
A Vision of Students Today--my response
After watching "A Vision of Students Today" I am somewhat surprised that the method in which classes are taught--which originated during the 19th century is viewed by some to be obsolete. To be honest though, I do disagree with some of the points that the students in the video made. For example, unlike these students, my classes do not take place in lecture hall filled with over a hundred students. Generally I'm in a small class that contains up to 20 students--and at most perhaps 40 if it is a larger class. Also, all of the professors that I've had throughout my four years know my name--even when I no longer frequent their classrooms or happen to bump into them outside of class. Then again, I may just be fortunate to have made a positive impact upon my professors--or perhaps it's because I always sit up front where the professor can see me.
Anyhow--back on track, I'm actually comfortable with the method in which I am taught in my classes--but that may just be because I've been taught to learn this way since elementary school. There are some points I agree with though. I don't always read all of my assigned textbook readings--sometimes I just don't have enough time to do so. Other times the readings are impossibly long and uninteresting--and due in a rather short time. Yet, I still get good grades because I complete all of my written assignments on time and actively participate in class. Also, while the textbooks themselves may not be interesting, the professor's lectures generally are.
Another reason I am comfortable with this "obsolete" teaching method is because at times I believe that I myself am obsolete. Unlike most students, I have a cellphone, but I don't know how to text, nor do I wish to do so because it seems so impersonal. Also, I don't go on my cellphone for hours a day. I do use it to talk to my boyfriend daily--but our talks are generally shorter than the average college student. Also, I have Facebook--but I have it rather reluctantly. I was finally convinced to get a facebook page by my boyfriend--but I hardly use it because I'm not used to it yet. Ironically, my mom actually urges me to use it when I'm home on winter break or vacation because she wants me to stay in touch with my friends. However, I guess I'm just a bit parnoid that I'll write something stupid that will prevent me from getting a good job in the future.
Don't get me wrong though, I am a computer junkie, and whenever I have free time on my hands, I will surf the web for hours--at least two or three--for non-school related reasons.Yet I definately don't feel as tech savy as other classmates.
Here is an article that frankly frightens me as it mentions that not only are classrooms obsolete--but so are teachers and that we are better off learning for free through technology. In otherwords, schools, classrooms and teachers can be "easily" replaced with TECHNOLOGY
Anyhow--back on track, I'm actually comfortable with the method in which I am taught in my classes--but that may just be because I've been taught to learn this way since elementary school. There are some points I agree with though. I don't always read all of my assigned textbook readings--sometimes I just don't have enough time to do so. Other times the readings are impossibly long and uninteresting--and due in a rather short time. Yet, I still get good grades because I complete all of my written assignments on time and actively participate in class. Also, while the textbooks themselves may not be interesting, the professor's lectures generally are.
Another reason I am comfortable with this "obsolete" teaching method is because at times I believe that I myself am obsolete. Unlike most students, I have a cellphone, but I don't know how to text, nor do I wish to do so because it seems so impersonal. Also, I don't go on my cellphone for hours a day. I do use it to talk to my boyfriend daily--but our talks are generally shorter than the average college student. Also, I have Facebook--but I have it rather reluctantly. I was finally convinced to get a facebook page by my boyfriend--but I hardly use it because I'm not used to it yet. Ironically, my mom actually urges me to use it when I'm home on winter break or vacation because she wants me to stay in touch with my friends. However, I guess I'm just a bit parnoid that I'll write something stupid that will prevent me from getting a good job in the future.
Don't get me wrong though, I am a computer junkie, and whenever I have free time on my hands, I will surf the web for hours--at least two or three--for non-school related reasons.Yet I definately don't feel as tech savy as other classmates.
Here is an article that frankly frightens me as it mentions that not only are classrooms obsolete--but so are teachers and that we are better off learning for free through technology. In otherwords, schools, classrooms and teachers can be "easily" replaced with TECHNOLOGY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)