To be quite frank, with you, after continuing my readings in this book, the people that are giving their viewpoints (not just the authors who have done, in my opinion, a marvelous job defending their views, but we at the receiving end ) are not even sure what they are fighting for or against! Some say cyberspace is a reality that opens up new possiblities; others think that cyberspace is a made-up reality that does not need to exist. One view sees cyberspace as a force to be reckoned with and embraced because, as the old cliche goes, "This is the wave of the future", while another view states that we are still grounded on earth and cyberspace should be controlled. Neil Postman wonders if we really need cyberspace, meaning that we can actually live without it. One of my classmates feels that we are "corporate pawns", but I highly have to disagree with that because that statement makes us all look like some ignorant buffoons with no brain. The reality is that we do have thinking ability and we don't need to be influenced by anyone because we have a choice. While this matter may be difficult to resolve, it is not hard to realize that there are conflicting sides to this issue. It is also safe to say that the main perpetrators of this cyberspace issue like to be engaged in what I call "The Blame Game".
Yes, the blame game, because the private sector (meaning business) infiltrated every nook and cranny with computers and in a way monopolized their industries by cutting and downsizing their companies in favor of computer technology. By convincing the government to receive funding for their technological research, the corporations made Clinton's government an offer it couldn't refuse (quoting "The Godfather"). When you cut out jobs, you weaken the economy. It's like giving illegal immigrants cheap labor to do, thus shifting the income potential to those higher up. Talk about decentralization, computers devalue work and produce an inefficient economy and industry because those higher up the ladder hoard all of the money and don't give anything back. Also, the corporations that invested in this technology went out on an advertising rampage to subliminally seduce the weak minds of those in the population, young people of course, and then adults followed suit, leading them to believe that they have to own a computer because it is the future and it is modern. So the ones who perpetrated the whole thing turn around, blame the millions who got hooked on cyberspace like a drug, and pointed the finger back at them blaming them (the people) for their crazy demand of computers. In turn, corporations begin crying foul (Microsoft, Google, etc.) so they now want to start regulating the marketplace for tons of reasons: copyright infringement, privacy, cybercrime, you name it, a bunch of made-up maladies that plague cyberspace, and all because these companies gave the people what they "thought" they wanted, when in fact, this was a made-up reality to fatten their pockets. And now you talk about regulating cyberspace? GET REAL!!
I honestly believe in copyright protection. Let's look at it from a professional point of view. I have heard the recent phrase that with computer technology, the user is both the consumer and producer of his/her work. Now examine that statement closely. By allowing a commoner to publish or produce his/her work online and "borrow from other sources", the person is "cheapening" (and I mentioned it in a previous post) the art or the profession of Public Commuincations, which should only be reserved for those like us who are investing thousands of dollars on an education to work in a capacity that proves rewarding, for those professors we have who impart their knowledge on us, and for those professionals who do this work for a living. Their ideas AND work should be protected and should not be susceptible to the hands of those that possess little to no skills or who do it with the intent to capitalize from it at a low-end scale. This is a slap in the face for us, and this merits that work done on our part receives the protection it deserves under copyright protection. However, I also think that copyrighted work should be available to the masses for acquiring knowledge and for reflection when used in the education field or just for the sake of being informed about life. As long as the work is not reproduced for illicit gain, any copyrighted work should be shared amongst people assuming that broader knowledge will be attained. See, it is a complicated issue but it needs to be dealt with carefully. On the internet, copyright law should be enforced, especially if it is work that has been published and is out in the market. A word to the wise: maybe with regulation of the internet people will become discouraged in putting their work out on cyberspace and will resort to traditional methods of distribution, which have proven very effective over time. It seems that people all over, businesses included, need some "wake-up call" to let them realize that a virtual reality is not such a happy place to live in. This is probably the best way to tell those heavy users of cyberspace, "The honeymoon's over!"
Is there a way to stop this technology machine from becoming a monster? Sure, Just Say NO! Sounds easy to say but difficult to do, sure, but it is not impossible. As Postman suggests, we need to search within ourselves and sometimes look at our society to understand and deeply examine if this is something we can live without or curtail to some degree. Hey, we lived in a world without cyberspace and there was more of an order. Today, it is all a mess, yes decentralized. And ironically, the behavior online mirrors the trends in human behavior. I'll give two examples: years ago you could go to McDonald's and people would make two or three lines to order. Today a line is a convoluted mess. People step all over you and no one seems to know what register to go to, that is if there are more than one cashier available! Their reduction in personnel is another idea rooted in our cyberspace or the idea of "flextime" at work, as Professor Strate mentions in his chapter on Cybertime. Another example is in the way people dress, it's like they just woke up from bed. Years ago, people, especially men, would dress up or be more orderly in their appearance. This similar attitude is present in cyberspace. Decentralization is not the best world to live in. Too much decentralization leads to entropy, and entropy could lead to some conflict. Corporations need to stop playing the blme game and take responsibility for the troubles they have created in creating cyberspace. People, in turn, need to start weakening corporate power, by not continually falling into the cyber-trap set out for everyone. One of the ways to do it...exercising self-control when it comes to the use of a computer and what you want to be displayed. Amen.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Internet and Information Warfare
After finishing the second half of Strate’s “Communication and Cyberspace,“ I have a clearer understanding that communication technologies alter the relationship between space and navigation and the positives and negatives linked to that statement. Both the body and mind are necessary for concept of self and physical interaction stimulates body, which in turn, stimulates the mind. However, the line between living people and artificial environments is blurred when one interacts online. We can never get a sense of who we are REALLY talking to online, where we are in the electronic environment, or who WE really are. When I say who somebody REALLY is, I’m not talking about their identity. Indeed, a lot of people online are honest about their age and name. I’m talking about acquiring a sense of what they are like in person, their behavior, and their body language. I learned in Communication classes that body language speaks volumes of truth that vocal language can not. Therefore, a concept of self can not be developed properly without face to face interaction. However, to remediate this, webcams change what I was just talking about so we can have face to face interaction, but is it really face to face interaction or face to machine interaction? This blows my mind because sometimes when I’m talking to someone online, even if it’s a personal friend who I know, I forget that the person I’m talking to is a real human being with thoughts and emotions. Thinking like this can cause someone to just say whatever they want, not realizing that this very real person will respond to your every word. From my experience, its easier to say harsher words online than it is in person.
Symbol systems of cyberspace involve oral, literate, and iconic modes. Everything about a computer, except the hardware itself, is symbolic. Thinking about computers in this way actually makes me feel immersed into cyberspace. The illusion of immersion in a virtual landscape is based on the interface between user and computer and boundaries between form dissolves. Everything in cyberspace is symbolic and these symbols are mere representations of what should be there in real life. Therefore, links and icons become symbols of what they should be, such as a virtual trash can on the interface representing a real trash can. Traveling in cyberspace takes on new meaning by clicking links because we can travel across a virtual country that is supposed to be a symbolic representation of a real country. Even the language used in conversations online has taken on a new form of rhetoric where we abbreviate words, misspell them, and use symbols as substitutes for words. I have already asked whether cyberspace is real or not, but thinking in terms of symbols, then cyberspace is not real because everything is a representation of what it should be.
Jurgen Habermas and other communication scholars believe that public opinion emerged from the discussions and deliberations that took place in 18th century salons and coffeehouses of Europe and emerging from these communication scholars in the twentieth century came ideas of public opinion theories. Habermas developed strict criteria for what he believed should constitute the modern day public sphere. Habermas argued that for the public sphere to be successful, one must be able to express his opinion freely and logically, one must have access to the public sphere, there must not be a hierarchy present, and those in the public sphere must have equal footing in there participation. The Internet is considered by many scholars to be the modern day equivalent of a true public sphere, but my argument is that this clearly not the case. In trying to form a virtual community, I would argue computers actually decentralize us. Cultures, that are continuous, colonize cyberspace and results in information warfare (I like the phrase information warfare) because everyone HAS to have a voice now. Rarely does mutual agreement among discourse in the public sphere leading to peaceful democratic deliberation occur. Most of the time one simply sees a repetition of the same voices. Though freedom of speech should be a guaranteed right online, some scholars fear there are those who abuse this right and courts, owners, and corporations do enforce laws when they feel discourse is threatening to their goals. Also, their are those who choose not to or simply cannot afford to participate in the public sphere due to disinterest or economic restraints. Finally, flaming, or cyber bullying, is common online and caused by the limitations of computers. I find it rather funny when one becomes mad at a post by a complete stranger who they will probably never meet and feels absolutely compelled to strike back. What’s the point? Anyway, keeping in mind the fact that a virtual community does not necessarily mean an online public sphere, even still, how can an online public sphere exist with this many obstacles in the way?
Online publishing requires less distribution, its cheaper, and breaks up monopolies. That, to me, is a good thing. The problem that is always on everyone’s mind, however, is how easy it is to plagiarize another’s work. Let’s look at students and teachers for example. On one hand I don’t think the authors mind if a student takes quotes directly from their work. In fact, I think most authors would be happy the student chose to pick them and write about their works. If all a student did was mention the author’s name and cite them, then all would be fine, but the problem is not all students do this or not all students do this correctly and that’s when plagiarism becomes an issue. Teachers believe the student simply took another’s work and didn’t bother to cite them or rewrite their words out of sheer laziness. In larger scenarios, like Disney … well I don’t understand Disney. They are way too stingy. I also don’t understand why an author has to turn his works over to the public domain after a certain number of years. The poor guy probably has died, can’t defend himself or reclaim his work, and the only contributions he made to society and means of remembering him has been handed over to the public domain for someone else to take credit for. Also, the reading claims that traditional classrooms will forfeit books and replace them with hypertext, but this is too expensive to imagine at the moment. Even if hypertext replaces textbooks, hypertext still limits readers and I doubt readers will absorb the information on a screen better than they would in a traditional textbook. That’s an example of taking technology a little too far.
Technology also made information into a commodity that is bought and sold. This idea is very interesting to me. Technologies, which deliver information and have advanced over the years, cost money. We pay to acquire information, which at one point was thought of to be free of charge, and most people are not even aware of this. In addition, most people are in denial of the side effects of computers. For example, unstimulated by actual reality, people seek virtual reality, online interaction, and video games. Now I don’t know if Neil Postman is saying the magnitude of this problem is huge, but I don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, you can not spend every minute of every day outside interacting with people. These new interactions and technologies are alternative forms of entertainment in the same way one would go see a broadway show or catch a movie at a theater with a friend. Just because they are done inside the house, does not necessarily mean people are unstimulated by actual reality. Also, a lot of technologies can be performed outside of the house nowadays anyways. For example, an arcade is a real place that exists in reality. One has to travel to an arcade in order to interact in a technological environment and play video games.
The last highlight of the reading I’d like to point out is the idea of a computer as a clock. This part of the reading was yet another new way for me to think about computers. The computer is a numerical extension of a calculating machine. Computers and clocks are devices to be set up and produce information (kind of reminds me of Deism - we are the gods and designers of computers). The computer is a clock that determines when one’s operation has ended and another begins. The clock is a self operating automated machine. The processing speed is the speed of the clock inside computer. One can obviously draw parallels here between a clock and a computer, but what is interesting to me is that digital time displayed by the clocks in computers offers a new concept of time. That is, time as a sequence of numbers. Microseconds are turned into information to give an EXACT time. This EXACT time was never available on analog clocks. Computers also represents time symbolically and the interactions people perform on computers is not necessarily time based. For example, we do not have to be on a computer at a certain time to receive email. It gets stored and we access it at our own time, like phone messages.
Symbol systems of cyberspace involve oral, literate, and iconic modes. Everything about a computer, except the hardware itself, is symbolic. Thinking about computers in this way actually makes me feel immersed into cyberspace. The illusion of immersion in a virtual landscape is based on the interface between user and computer and boundaries between form dissolves. Everything in cyberspace is symbolic and these symbols are mere representations of what should be there in real life. Therefore, links and icons become symbols of what they should be, such as a virtual trash can on the interface representing a real trash can. Traveling in cyberspace takes on new meaning by clicking links because we can travel across a virtual country that is supposed to be a symbolic representation of a real country. Even the language used in conversations online has taken on a new form of rhetoric where we abbreviate words, misspell them, and use symbols as substitutes for words. I have already asked whether cyberspace is real or not, but thinking in terms of symbols, then cyberspace is not real because everything is a representation of what it should be.
Jurgen Habermas and other communication scholars believe that public opinion emerged from the discussions and deliberations that took place in 18th century salons and coffeehouses of Europe and emerging from these communication scholars in the twentieth century came ideas of public opinion theories. Habermas developed strict criteria for what he believed should constitute the modern day public sphere. Habermas argued that for the public sphere to be successful, one must be able to express his opinion freely and logically, one must have access to the public sphere, there must not be a hierarchy present, and those in the public sphere must have equal footing in there participation. The Internet is considered by many scholars to be the modern day equivalent of a true public sphere, but my argument is that this clearly not the case. In trying to form a virtual community, I would argue computers actually decentralize us. Cultures, that are continuous, colonize cyberspace and results in information warfare (I like the phrase information warfare) because everyone HAS to have a voice now. Rarely does mutual agreement among discourse in the public sphere leading to peaceful democratic deliberation occur. Most of the time one simply sees a repetition of the same voices. Though freedom of speech should be a guaranteed right online, some scholars fear there are those who abuse this right and courts, owners, and corporations do enforce laws when they feel discourse is threatening to their goals. Also, their are those who choose not to or simply cannot afford to participate in the public sphere due to disinterest or economic restraints. Finally, flaming, or cyber bullying, is common online and caused by the limitations of computers. I find it rather funny when one becomes mad at a post by a complete stranger who they will probably never meet and feels absolutely compelled to strike back. What’s the point? Anyway, keeping in mind the fact that a virtual community does not necessarily mean an online public sphere, even still, how can an online public sphere exist with this many obstacles in the way?
Online publishing requires less distribution, its cheaper, and breaks up monopolies. That, to me, is a good thing. The problem that is always on everyone’s mind, however, is how easy it is to plagiarize another’s work. Let’s look at students and teachers for example. On one hand I don’t think the authors mind if a student takes quotes directly from their work. In fact, I think most authors would be happy the student chose to pick them and write about their works. If all a student did was mention the author’s name and cite them, then all would be fine, but the problem is not all students do this or not all students do this correctly and that’s when plagiarism becomes an issue. Teachers believe the student simply took another’s work and didn’t bother to cite them or rewrite their words out of sheer laziness. In larger scenarios, like Disney … well I don’t understand Disney. They are way too stingy. I also don’t understand why an author has to turn his works over to the public domain after a certain number of years. The poor guy probably has died, can’t defend himself or reclaim his work, and the only contributions he made to society and means of remembering him has been handed over to the public domain for someone else to take credit for. Also, the reading claims that traditional classrooms will forfeit books and replace them with hypertext, but this is too expensive to imagine at the moment. Even if hypertext replaces textbooks, hypertext still limits readers and I doubt readers will absorb the information on a screen better than they would in a traditional textbook. That’s an example of taking technology a little too far.
Technology also made information into a commodity that is bought and sold. This idea is very interesting to me. Technologies, which deliver information and have advanced over the years, cost money. We pay to acquire information, which at one point was thought of to be free of charge, and most people are not even aware of this. In addition, most people are in denial of the side effects of computers. For example, unstimulated by actual reality, people seek virtual reality, online interaction, and video games. Now I don’t know if Neil Postman is saying the magnitude of this problem is huge, but I don’t see it as a big deal. I mean, you can not spend every minute of every day outside interacting with people. These new interactions and technologies are alternative forms of entertainment in the same way one would go see a broadway show or catch a movie at a theater with a friend. Just because they are done inside the house, does not necessarily mean people are unstimulated by actual reality. Also, a lot of technologies can be performed outside of the house nowadays anyways. For example, an arcade is a real place that exists in reality. One has to travel to an arcade in order to interact in a technological environment and play video games.
The last highlight of the reading I’d like to point out is the idea of a computer as a clock. This part of the reading was yet another new way for me to think about computers. The computer is a numerical extension of a calculating machine. Computers and clocks are devices to be set up and produce information (kind of reminds me of Deism - we are the gods and designers of computers). The computer is a clock that determines when one’s operation has ended and another begins. The clock is a self operating automated machine. The processing speed is the speed of the clock inside computer. One can obviously draw parallels here between a clock and a computer, but what is interesting to me is that digital time displayed by the clocks in computers offers a new concept of time. That is, time as a sequence of numbers. Microseconds are turned into information to give an EXACT time. This EXACT time was never available on analog clocks. Computers also represents time symbolically and the interactions people perform on computers is not necessarily time based. For example, we do not have to be on a computer at a certain time to receive email. It gets stored and we access it at our own time, like phone messages.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Communication and Cybrespace
Firstly, I enjoyed the introduction. The material was easy to understand. Several definitions of cyberspace were given such as, where data is located, social interaction, virtual reality, cyberculture, etc...
Cyberspace is something that is part of our daily lives and has become necessary for our social lives, education, knowledge, employment...However, I have never sat down and thought about what cyberspace really is, what it is made of, how it works or why it works. Perhaps this means that I don't have a true understanding of what it really is or maybe I don't apprecaite it. This makes me think that I really view the computer as a machine/appliance...
Moving on to the history of telecommunications--its hard to believe that the telegraph was only invented in the mid-19th century. It is amazing to see how far we have come from the telegraph with radio, fax machines, satellites, etc...
I'm alittle confused about the term hypertext--Professor Strate will you go over this?
I thought the idea of defining spaces in cyberspace was interesting--for we define these spaces by access rather than ownership. When you access the World Wide Web, you have everything available right at your fingertips.
The Internet is seen as a "transport medium"--transporting information or providing information to the user. However, cyberspace is considered to be the "environment" where all of this information is kept and regulated. furthermore, "cyberspace can be a place to go and get things to use, a place to ask questions and give answers..." (p54) So, the Internet and cyberspace have a constant connection.
I do witness how virtual reality can be "overwhelming." How many times are you on the computer, watching TV and on the phone at the same time? Since we are taking part in so many mediums at once--Charles Larson suggests that we lose our sense of community. He compares this to watching a movie--the audience can cheer or boo but there is a sense of community established. However, when on the computer--many tend to be engaging in other mediums simultaneously and community is lost. Prior to reading this book, I would have never thought about creating a sense of community within the cyberspace world.
Cyberspace is something that is part of our daily lives and has become necessary for our social lives, education, knowledge, employment...However, I have never sat down and thought about what cyberspace really is, what it is made of, how it works or why it works. Perhaps this means that I don't have a true understanding of what it really is or maybe I don't apprecaite it. This makes me think that I really view the computer as a machine/appliance...
Moving on to the history of telecommunications--its hard to believe that the telegraph was only invented in the mid-19th century. It is amazing to see how far we have come from the telegraph with radio, fax machines, satellites, etc...
I'm alittle confused about the term hypertext--Professor Strate will you go over this?
I thought the idea of defining spaces in cyberspace was interesting--for we define these spaces by access rather than ownership. When you access the World Wide Web, you have everything available right at your fingertips.
The Internet is seen as a "transport medium"--transporting information or providing information to the user. However, cyberspace is considered to be the "environment" where all of this information is kept and regulated. furthermore, "cyberspace can be a place to go and get things to use, a place to ask questions and give answers..." (p54) So, the Internet and cyberspace have a constant connection.
I do witness how virtual reality can be "overwhelming." How many times are you on the computer, watching TV and on the phone at the same time? Since we are taking part in so many mediums at once--Charles Larson suggests that we lose our sense of community. He compares this to watching a movie--the audience can cheer or boo but there is a sense of community established. However, when on the computer--many tend to be engaging in other mediums simultaneously and community is lost. Prior to reading this book, I would have never thought about creating a sense of community within the cyberspace world.
Cyberspace: Reality or Forced Reality?
It was kind of refreshing to take a break from the last two books and open up to one which sounds more earthy. at least from my point of view. The introduction to the book clarifies cyberspace in a way that I didn't understand and it simplified the meaning and the angles which other writings that I have come across don't do. Professor Strate does a good job explaining this and giving us the historical timeline of what events have constituted our arrival to this notion or concept we know as "cyberspace". I like the way that space is defined, as existing independently from human beings. It is a conceived notion we have of some "area" that we designate to be for our use. The three types of space: physical, perceptual, and conceptual present three dimensions in which we can effectuate our exchange of ideas and/or physical exchange of actions. (We can call this the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the blessed trinity for those of us who are Catholics). The cyberspace myth is one that has been created to make sense of the perceptual and conceptual spaces, but it is the conceptual space that is more befitting for cyberspace. It is here where the exchange of ideas, communication, and actions (such as making an online payment) takes place. This results from the "interconnection" of computers along a network making communication between or among individuals possible.
Another element that stood out for me was the element of seeing people as "cyborgs". Yes, The Terminator gave us an example of what a cyborg is and what it does, being half man-half machine. However, it is our relation to the computer and the way we use it, by clicking on a mouse, scrolling down a web page, and multitasking on the desktop which, according to the authors of the book, render us as cyborgs. The term may sound far-fetched but it does provide some technical description to what we as individuals perform on a daily basis. In a way, computers dictate our behavior and in another way, we control the machine to perform the functions we desire. It is that relation from man to machine which turns us into some technological "creation" because we are relating with an inanimate object that communicates in some foreign language (code). But it is this cyberspace where we are now connecting with people, sending and receiving money, accessing information, producing works of art and/or business, emailing, etc., the list goes on and on. Although many people will want to believe we have entered the "Twilight Zone", it is an environment that has been created so that tasks that need immediate attention can be completed in a shorter amount of time. Yes, this is the reality that has been created, or as I like to say, "forced upon us". 99 percent of the population may think it is a work of nature and of the "powers that be". I am quite sure that there is no Divine Intervention here, but this is the "space" that has been bestowed upon us, attempting to undermine our "physical space" as humans.
To say that this creates some form of a culture, as the introduction implies, is, in my opinion, something that can be argued. To me, a culture requires physical one-on-one interaction. Let's look briefly at cultures that have been created in the past. Aside from foreign cultures, such as ethnic ones, let's look at our current 20th century cultures that have come about. One that comes to my mind is the Hippie culture of the late 1960s. Here we have a group of kids, mostly in their late teens and early twenties, who believe that the Vietnam War is wrong and refuse to go fight. They backlashed against this government of ours that has been and is to this day "square" and unrealistic to the needs of people, which was sending people abroad to get killed to fight against Communist intervention. These kids got together, dodged the draft, and began changing their way of dress, promoted demonstrations for peace, and believed in the principle of peace and love (of course sex, drugs, and rock and roll were also part of it!). Most important, there was people interaction, human, which made possible a counterrevolution, one that is deeply needed in today's world or at least a resurgence of it. Unfortunately, with the digital age and computers, that does not seem to have the same effect. Here, codes, binary information, etc. are phenomena that have been created but do not present that human interaction necessary. It is a weak culture which is only getting absorbed by corporate greed and ulterior motives, promoting a false sense of security to the users of the technology. I wouldn't call this a culture, but rather, a progressive alternative to accomplishing tasks. It seems like the more we use a computer, the more aloof we become to our surroundings and human ineraction is not fostered, so this results in decadence and corrosion of our society. Think about it, cyberspace may be faster, it may provide some type of a "voice for some", and perhaps a ray of hope for others, but since there is no "physical space" in cyberspace, it vanishes into thin air, leaving some cloud of dust and confusion for all.
To answer the question of reality or foced reality, I see it as a forced reality. For those who want to accept it as a reality, it's their choice to do so. We won't discredit the internet for what it has done for us in the last fifteen years and we won't deny the existence of cyberspace. Calling people cyborgs is not appropriate just because some person knows how to handle a computer. We are still humans beings and we have mental functions and abilities that render us as being above-average in intelligence or even geniuses. Knowing how to use a computer does not make us smarter than an average person. I also don't want to sound like a skeptic but I do see where it is not necessary to take cyberspace and embrace it in its entirety. It should not be taken as the sole source for communication; it should be an "alternative" source of communication. Otherwise this action would justify the streamlining principle, or searching for uniformity in things, and that would defeat the initial purpose of the technology to begin: the purpose for individuality. Regading policing methods for cyberspace, yes, policing and even regulations would be appropriate to "regulate" behaviors that would seem inappropriate, but I wouldn't classify those measures as comparable to physical policing of streets and a justice system comprised of humans. These latter two have thinking abilities and provide for physical interaction, providing a more meaningful "experience". These things should be examined first before getting lost in a "fantasy world" with no concrete nature.
To finalize my post, it all comes down to choice. Put it this way, this is one of the features of our human life that is difficult but the most rewarding. Making a choice is what really makes a difference in the way we want our lives to run, especially with cyberspace as a phenomenon. We can choose whether we want this to control our lives or we can opt to control it and reduce it to its intended purpose, in other words give it its place as an expedient of information. I like the bit about Neil Postman asking, "Do we really need cyberspace?" In other words, here we can really take stock and determine if this is what we truly need to operate our lives. There are things in life we can go without, and perhaps we can determine, in time, if this cyberspace concept is one we can sacrifice, especially when we know for a fact that it makes us grow father away from our society.
Another element that stood out for me was the element of seeing people as "cyborgs". Yes, The Terminator gave us an example of what a cyborg is and what it does, being half man-half machine. However, it is our relation to the computer and the way we use it, by clicking on a mouse, scrolling down a web page, and multitasking on the desktop which, according to the authors of the book, render us as cyborgs. The term may sound far-fetched but it does provide some technical description to what we as individuals perform on a daily basis. In a way, computers dictate our behavior and in another way, we control the machine to perform the functions we desire. It is that relation from man to machine which turns us into some technological "creation" because we are relating with an inanimate object that communicates in some foreign language (code). But it is this cyberspace where we are now connecting with people, sending and receiving money, accessing information, producing works of art and/or business, emailing, etc., the list goes on and on. Although many people will want to believe we have entered the "Twilight Zone", it is an environment that has been created so that tasks that need immediate attention can be completed in a shorter amount of time. Yes, this is the reality that has been created, or as I like to say, "forced upon us". 99 percent of the population may think it is a work of nature and of the "powers that be". I am quite sure that there is no Divine Intervention here, but this is the "space" that has been bestowed upon us, attempting to undermine our "physical space" as humans.
To say that this creates some form of a culture, as the introduction implies, is, in my opinion, something that can be argued. To me, a culture requires physical one-on-one interaction. Let's look briefly at cultures that have been created in the past. Aside from foreign cultures, such as ethnic ones, let's look at our current 20th century cultures that have come about. One that comes to my mind is the Hippie culture of the late 1960s. Here we have a group of kids, mostly in their late teens and early twenties, who believe that the Vietnam War is wrong and refuse to go fight. They backlashed against this government of ours that has been and is to this day "square" and unrealistic to the needs of people, which was sending people abroad to get killed to fight against Communist intervention. These kids got together, dodged the draft, and began changing their way of dress, promoted demonstrations for peace, and believed in the principle of peace and love (of course sex, drugs, and rock and roll were also part of it!). Most important, there was people interaction, human, which made possible a counterrevolution, one that is deeply needed in today's world or at least a resurgence of it. Unfortunately, with the digital age and computers, that does not seem to have the same effect. Here, codes, binary information, etc. are phenomena that have been created but do not present that human interaction necessary. It is a weak culture which is only getting absorbed by corporate greed and ulterior motives, promoting a false sense of security to the users of the technology. I wouldn't call this a culture, but rather, a progressive alternative to accomplishing tasks. It seems like the more we use a computer, the more aloof we become to our surroundings and human ineraction is not fostered, so this results in decadence and corrosion of our society. Think about it, cyberspace may be faster, it may provide some type of a "voice for some", and perhaps a ray of hope for others, but since there is no "physical space" in cyberspace, it vanishes into thin air, leaving some cloud of dust and confusion for all.
To answer the question of reality or foced reality, I see it as a forced reality. For those who want to accept it as a reality, it's their choice to do so. We won't discredit the internet for what it has done for us in the last fifteen years and we won't deny the existence of cyberspace. Calling people cyborgs is not appropriate just because some person knows how to handle a computer. We are still humans beings and we have mental functions and abilities that render us as being above-average in intelligence or even geniuses. Knowing how to use a computer does not make us smarter than an average person. I also don't want to sound like a skeptic but I do see where it is not necessary to take cyberspace and embrace it in its entirety. It should not be taken as the sole source for communication; it should be an "alternative" source of communication. Otherwise this action would justify the streamlining principle, or searching for uniformity in things, and that would defeat the initial purpose of the technology to begin: the purpose for individuality. Regading policing methods for cyberspace, yes, policing and even regulations would be appropriate to "regulate" behaviors that would seem inappropriate, but I wouldn't classify those measures as comparable to physical policing of streets and a justice system comprised of humans. These latter two have thinking abilities and provide for physical interaction, providing a more meaningful "experience". These things should be examined first before getting lost in a "fantasy world" with no concrete nature.
To finalize my post, it all comes down to choice. Put it this way, this is one of the features of our human life that is difficult but the most rewarding. Making a choice is what really makes a difference in the way we want our lives to run, especially with cyberspace as a phenomenon. We can choose whether we want this to control our lives or we can opt to control it and reduce it to its intended purpose, in other words give it its place as an expedient of information. I like the bit about Neil Postman asking, "Do we really need cyberspace?" In other words, here we can really take stock and determine if this is what we truly need to operate our lives. There are things in life we can go without, and perhaps we can determine, in time, if this cyberspace concept is one we can sacrifice, especially when we know for a fact that it makes us grow father away from our society.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Cyberspace And The Need For It
The intro to Strate’s Communication and Cyberspace is very technical. The computer and new media related definitions provided in the intro do an excellent job of summarizing the development of telecommunications and where we stand in the electronic environment. This book aims to explain the ways in which communication and social interaction is mediated by computers and apply forms, functions, and meaning to cyberspace. In addition, this book attempts to explain how cyberspace functions as alternatives for traditional locations and how cyberspace differs from their real-life counterparts.
The contributors of this book seem to struggle with defining the terms they present, but do an excellent job of providing multiple definitions from various sources that also tried to define these terms. The term that still puzzles me after reading through the first half of this book is how to define cyberspace. What is cyberspace? Of course, this term puzzled the authors most too. This is my take on cyberspace: Telecommunications led to a convergence of media which then led to computers. Computers led to the idea of cyberspace, but the internet can also be used to define cyberspace. I believe the best way to define cyberspace is not through technological terms or social interactions, but simple through the space itself. Let's examine the word CYBERSPACE itself. I define space not in a physical or social way, but as the absence of something physical or social. Space is just there and it's empty until something or someone occupies it. I picture cyberspace as a vacant parking lot. The space of the lot is already there and empty. It simply just exists and when we add cars or buildings the space becomes filled. I see cyberspace in the same way. This “cyberspace,” though it doesn’t have any physical existence, is already there and was empty at some point. However, we have occupied this space with the addition of websites and we continue to take up more space through the addition of more websites everyday. In turn, due to the linking of these websites, cyberspace then becomes an interconnection among different computers and closed networks. I'd also like to point out, though I'm not sure if this is correct or not, that the Electromagnetic Spectrum is real and plays a large part in the way technologies are distributed to companies, governments, and the military. I would guess if one had to point to something real and call it cyberspace, then the Electromagnetic Spectrum would be that vacant parking lot I was talking about. It is safe to assume that no matter how one attempts to define cyberspace, new media effected our idea of physical space.
As humans we like to control and manipulate content and we use this information to control and govern our environments. This is one of the benefits of digital technology. Following that logic and figuring that almost every new sector of our lives use computers, which incorporates digital technology, it begs the question of whether we have total control of our environments or not. Also, what environment are we in control of? If you are referring to our actual environments in reality, I doubt we are ever in complete control of that. We are never in complete control of our electronic environments either because computers can always be hacked, tweaked by others, or prone to viruses. In fact, at any moment a computer can break down. There's no reason for it other than the physical technology wearing out over time. My brother bought an HDTV 3 years ago and the store that sold it to him said the HDTV has a lifespan of an estimated 10,000 hours. Who determines that number and how do they determine something like that? It's like telling a patient in a hospital he has cancer and only 6 months to live. Anyway, if hardware is being designed so the user is more distant from his computer, then software seems, or should seem, to be doing just the opposite. Relating back to Bolter, one of the benefits of appreciating the interface is so that we become designers of our own environments. In turn, we become less distant from our hardware as we create our own perceptual space and try to control our own electronic environments.
Also as humans, we have needs and desires. In fact, one branch of communications (and even psychology), called Uses and Gratifications, is devoted solely to explaining how technologies aid in fulfilling our own desires. This approach was developed in the 1940s to study the gratifications that attract and hold audiences to the kinds of media and the types of content that satisfy their social and psychological needs. This theory assumes users of media take an active part in the communication process, are goal oriented in their media use, and users have alternate choices to satisfy their needs. One of our biggest needs, and indeed for some this becomes a fear, is the need to be with, among, or connected to people. No one really ever wants to be alone. Therefore, we have adopted technologies to fulfill our own needs and desires and have advanced so far in these technologies that we use cyberspace to function as an alternative for traditional reality and locations. For example, instead of going on an actual date or to a real zoo, people can now go on virtual dates or to a virtual zoo. No one ever has to be alone anymore as they can just sign on, enter a random chat room, and start babbling away. Obviously, these virtual gimmicks come no where close to their real experiences, but the goal of the designers of these gimmicks is to design an interface so convincing and interactive you feel as if you are actual on a date or at the zoo. Another example, is social networking sites. In fact, I can not think of a better site than Facebook to prove technology satisfies our need to be connected and never alone. Through cyberspace, we acquire social lives and go to virtual places and this becomes a substitution for public life. In fact, for most people, we have developed such a dependency for social interaction in cyberspace that one of the first things people do when they wake up is check and update there Facebook as if it has become part of their everyday, morning routine. Whether this should be the way we conduct our social lives is the result of online networking and interactive sites and at this point, it seems more of a psychological question than a communication's one.
I certainly believe there is a digital divide, especially during these economic times, not only in this society, but in the world at hand. The gap between who can use technology and gain access to information is large and growing. The very worst case scenario is that possibly in the future, those nations that are not currently or do not become technologically advanced will ultimately die out because communicating with them through our sophisticated media will be difficult, forcing those nations to become more distant and eventually isolated. This is like Darwinism, except it's the Darwinism of technology. To illustrate this point further, think about the way HDTV has revolutionized television. If one did not buy an HDTV or a converter by now, he is not able to watch television or become informed of the outside world, unless he buys a newspaper or goes online. However, if he can not afford a converter box, then he probably can not go online either. Also, dial-up modems used to be fantastic, but if one does not switch over to the faster DSL and cable modems, then he will have difficulties online and become frustrated accessing websites, talking online, and downloading large file sizes. How can a teacher of grammar school expect kids to do research and homework online when possibly not all of the kids can get access to a home computer? I have noticed this in my own life. Though I still watch television, use the internet, and talk on the phone since grammar and high school, I was forced to upgrade the technologies behind all the electronic media I use for speed and convenience purposes and the reason for this is that I had to adapt to the changing times otherwise I would have become left behind as far as communication is concerned. I wasn't aware of this change as a kid, but I am now.
The contributors of this book seem to struggle with defining the terms they present, but do an excellent job of providing multiple definitions from various sources that also tried to define these terms. The term that still puzzles me after reading through the first half of this book is how to define cyberspace. What is cyberspace? Of course, this term puzzled the authors most too. This is my take on cyberspace: Telecommunications led to a convergence of media which then led to computers. Computers led to the idea of cyberspace, but the internet can also be used to define cyberspace. I believe the best way to define cyberspace is not through technological terms or social interactions, but simple through the space itself. Let's examine the word CYBERSPACE itself. I define space not in a physical or social way, but as the absence of something physical or social. Space is just there and it's empty until something or someone occupies it. I picture cyberspace as a vacant parking lot. The space of the lot is already there and empty. It simply just exists and when we add cars or buildings the space becomes filled. I see cyberspace in the same way. This “cyberspace,” though it doesn’t have any physical existence, is already there and was empty at some point. However, we have occupied this space with the addition of websites and we continue to take up more space through the addition of more websites everyday. In turn, due to the linking of these websites, cyberspace then becomes an interconnection among different computers and closed networks. I'd also like to point out, though I'm not sure if this is correct or not, that the Electromagnetic Spectrum is real and plays a large part in the way technologies are distributed to companies, governments, and the military. I would guess if one had to point to something real and call it cyberspace, then the Electromagnetic Spectrum would be that vacant parking lot I was talking about. It is safe to assume that no matter how one attempts to define cyberspace, new media effected our idea of physical space.
As humans we like to control and manipulate content and we use this information to control and govern our environments. This is one of the benefits of digital technology. Following that logic and figuring that almost every new sector of our lives use computers, which incorporates digital technology, it begs the question of whether we have total control of our environments or not. Also, what environment are we in control of? If you are referring to our actual environments in reality, I doubt we are ever in complete control of that. We are never in complete control of our electronic environments either because computers can always be hacked, tweaked by others, or prone to viruses. In fact, at any moment a computer can break down. There's no reason for it other than the physical technology wearing out over time. My brother bought an HDTV 3 years ago and the store that sold it to him said the HDTV has a lifespan of an estimated 10,000 hours. Who determines that number and how do they determine something like that? It's like telling a patient in a hospital he has cancer and only 6 months to live. Anyway, if hardware is being designed so the user is more distant from his computer, then software seems, or should seem, to be doing just the opposite. Relating back to Bolter, one of the benefits of appreciating the interface is so that we become designers of our own environments. In turn, we become less distant from our hardware as we create our own perceptual space and try to control our own electronic environments.
Also as humans, we have needs and desires. In fact, one branch of communications (and even psychology), called Uses and Gratifications, is devoted solely to explaining how technologies aid in fulfilling our own desires. This approach was developed in the 1940s to study the gratifications that attract and hold audiences to the kinds of media and the types of content that satisfy their social and psychological needs. This theory assumes users of media take an active part in the communication process, are goal oriented in their media use, and users have alternate choices to satisfy their needs. One of our biggest needs, and indeed for some this becomes a fear, is the need to be with, among, or connected to people. No one really ever wants to be alone. Therefore, we have adopted technologies to fulfill our own needs and desires and have advanced so far in these technologies that we use cyberspace to function as an alternative for traditional reality and locations. For example, instead of going on an actual date or to a real zoo, people can now go on virtual dates or to a virtual zoo. No one ever has to be alone anymore as they can just sign on, enter a random chat room, and start babbling away. Obviously, these virtual gimmicks come no where close to their real experiences, but the goal of the designers of these gimmicks is to design an interface so convincing and interactive you feel as if you are actual on a date or at the zoo. Another example, is social networking sites. In fact, I can not think of a better site than Facebook to prove technology satisfies our need to be connected and never alone. Through cyberspace, we acquire social lives and go to virtual places and this becomes a substitution for public life. In fact, for most people, we have developed such a dependency for social interaction in cyberspace that one of the first things people do when they wake up is check and update there Facebook as if it has become part of their everyday, morning routine. Whether this should be the way we conduct our social lives is the result of online networking and interactive sites and at this point, it seems more of a psychological question than a communication's one.
I certainly believe there is a digital divide, especially during these economic times, not only in this society, but in the world at hand. The gap between who can use technology and gain access to information is large and growing. The very worst case scenario is that possibly in the future, those nations that are not currently or do not become technologically advanced will ultimately die out because communicating with them through our sophisticated media will be difficult, forcing those nations to become more distant and eventually isolated. This is like Darwinism, except it's the Darwinism of technology. To illustrate this point further, think about the way HDTV has revolutionized television. If one did not buy an HDTV or a converter by now, he is not able to watch television or become informed of the outside world, unless he buys a newspaper or goes online. However, if he can not afford a converter box, then he probably can not go online either. Also, dial-up modems used to be fantastic, but if one does not switch over to the faster DSL and cable modems, then he will have difficulties online and become frustrated accessing websites, talking online, and downloading large file sizes. How can a teacher of grammar school expect kids to do research and homework online when possibly not all of the kids can get access to a home computer? I have noticed this in my own life. Though I still watch television, use the internet, and talk on the phone since grammar and high school, I was forced to upgrade the technologies behind all the electronic media I use for speed and convenience purposes and the reason for this is that I had to adapt to the changing times otherwise I would have become left behind as far as communication is concerned. I wasn't aware of this change as a kid, but I am now.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Manovich-The Language of New Media, Part 2
As I continued reading Manovich's, The Language of New Media--I realized that he offers A LOT of information. It it safe to say that he gives quite a detailed timeline of new media/photography/cinematography. I was able to connect a lot of my previous knowledge on this topic with the information that he presents, which was helpful.
Throughout the second part of this book, Manovich answers the following question: "How does computerization affect our very concept of moving images?" (p287) The beginnings of cinema or rather "the art of motion" was able to convey a "convincing illusion of dynamic reality." Manovich helps differentiate between old cinema and new cinema. Old cinema consists of filming reality, live action footage. New cinema generates scenes on the computer with 3-D animation and includes special effects (which are also generated by the computer). I would also like to note that at times, Manovich makes out the computer to be a machine. A machine that generates a product (film/photography).
(Above Fresco is by Boticelli)
Something that I learned throughout this reading--Avant-garde cinema (painting directly on the film or combining several images into on frame.) This film was completely altered and was taken far from the original. One example below.
Throughout the second part of this book, Manovich answers the following question: "How does computerization affect our very concept of moving images?" (p287) The beginnings of cinema or rather "the art of motion" was able to convey a "convincing illusion of dynamic reality." Manovich helps differentiate between old cinema and new cinema. Old cinema consists of filming reality, live action footage. New cinema generates scenes on the computer with 3-D animation and includes special effects (which are also generated by the computer). I would also like to note that at times, Manovich makes out the computer to be a machine. A machine that generates a product (film/photography).
Old cinema=reality
New cinema=elastic reality.
(Here, Manovich makes the difference between the two simple to understand. Old cinema portrays reality as new cinema portrays a changed reality.)
Due to Manovich's art background--he makes several references to different art forms when explaining the history of old and new cinema. I appreciate his knowledge of art history and how he is able to relate to other art forms, mediums and styles. He relates old cinema to the art of the Renaissance. A main medium during this time was known as fresco painting. Once dry, fresco paintings are difficult to alter--similar to old cinema--what you see is what you got! However, he then relates new cinema to oil painting. Oil paint is known to be very forgiving and if needed, oil paintings can be altered with water and/or additional paint--just how new cinema can be changed with computer technology. Think of editing software such as Adobe Photoshop or After Effects as the new oil paint. Oil paint allowed for the original to be changed just how these computer programs can change or add to the original product. I LOVED this part of the book. I was able to understand the history of cinema due to my previous knowledge and it made perfect sense to me!
Here is an example of fresco painting: (In case some of you did not know--fresco painting entitles painting on wet plaster)
(Above Fresco is by Boticelli)
Something that I learned throughout this reading--Avant-garde cinema (painting directly on the film or combining several images into on frame.) This film was completely altered and was taken far from the original. One example below.
Language of New Media: Is It Truly New or Is It Recycled?
In continuing with Manovich's book, it is quite unclear yet what his intended purpose is. You may say that he is attempting to help us understand this idea of "new media" by outlining its components. His overall purpose is to try to "impress" us with his vast knowledge of computer technology and cinematography. Indirectly, he acts as a "marketing" agent of some sort in convincing us why we need to utilize new media in our everyday lives, thus creating him as another reinforcer to a behavior we already possess. But you know, it is not that simple. Individuals still possess thinking ability and creative possibilities, and from Manovich's point of view, he may (although that is also unclear) believe that compuers can 1) help a person achieve that creative ability or 2) become the subject of a computer and allow it to "think" for the user. This point made me a bit wary and adds to my deep concern about the technological dependence that we humans have developed as a result.
Manovich spends much time differentiating between digital and analog media, providing similarities and differences alike, with the hopes of finding what really distinguishes new media from old. He also invests time pointing out that digital media can lose some of its information in the process of transferrence from an analog source, which made me realize that he accepts the shortcomings of a "digital" form of communication. His 6 points in scrutinizing new vs. old media results in both not having much of a difference but rather, these two media are alternative takes. Cinema has perfected, over the years, the qualities of discrete representation, random access, and multimedia, and these are present in new media, so we cannot say that the above-mentioned are exclusive of new media. While film involves scenes that are "fixed" and involve successive time as its order of presentation, digital media involves discretion, and its parts can be modulated. Manovich also claims that digital works are never the same, that they can be "customized", whereas in analog technology, copies are made of an original production, not allowing for customization. Apparently, he doesn't really defend his points well enough because he later admits that there is a shortcoming to any new media, especially when dealing with the "personal" factor involved.
I found one issue quite hard to fully understand: the issue of the cultural layer versus the compuer layer. The cultural layer involves: encycloclopedia and short story; story and plot; composition and point of view; mimesis and catharsis; comedy and tragedy, whereas the computer layer encompasses process and packet; sorting and matching; fuction and variable; computer language and data structure. Because new media is created on computers, it is expected to significantly influence the traditional culture of logic (p. 46). It doesn't seem that Manovich offers a valid explanation as to how and why the computer layer affects the cultural. From what I understand, a computer is fed, through its program, a logic or pattern of thought and, in turn, it produces some desired outcome. To say that the computer layer is some divine power that affects culture sounds bogus.
So far, the one possible response I could find in this book is not that positive. It appears that new media has undermined traditional media and the communications field by allowing common individuals to become "producers" of their own work, which is amateur at best. It tricks us into thinking that we have power, but we really are dummies that have lost all thinking ability and, in worst case scenario" any logic. The people who do this kind of work for a living are the ones being harmed because they go to school and acquire job experience so they can be professionals at their art, and they want their talent to be recognized. By doing so, I hate to say that new media "cheapens" the art form of communications. Turning media into some mathematical equation is a very narrow way of interpreting an effort that has taken a century to perfect. There is room for two methods of producing and providing media to the masses, the old and the new. Continuing with illusions, such as that of virtual reality, only destroy language. If we are going to allow a machine to destroy our reasoning capabilities and reduce us to mere animals, then we might as well (to use an old phrase) "turn in our membership cards to the human race"!
Manovich spends much time differentiating between digital and analog media, providing similarities and differences alike, with the hopes of finding what really distinguishes new media from old. He also invests time pointing out that digital media can lose some of its information in the process of transferrence from an analog source, which made me realize that he accepts the shortcomings of a "digital" form of communication. His 6 points in scrutinizing new vs. old media results in both not having much of a difference but rather, these two media are alternative takes. Cinema has perfected, over the years, the qualities of discrete representation, random access, and multimedia, and these are present in new media, so we cannot say that the above-mentioned are exclusive of new media. While film involves scenes that are "fixed" and involve successive time as its order of presentation, digital media involves discretion, and its parts can be modulated. Manovich also claims that digital works are never the same, that they can be "customized", whereas in analog technology, copies are made of an original production, not allowing for customization. Apparently, he doesn't really defend his points well enough because he later admits that there is a shortcoming to any new media, especially when dealing with the "personal" factor involved.
I found one issue quite hard to fully understand: the issue of the cultural layer versus the compuer layer. The cultural layer involves: encycloclopedia and short story; story and plot; composition and point of view; mimesis and catharsis; comedy and tragedy, whereas the computer layer encompasses process and packet; sorting and matching; fuction and variable; computer language and data structure. Because new media is created on computers, it is expected to significantly influence the traditional culture of logic (p. 46). It doesn't seem that Manovich offers a valid explanation as to how and why the computer layer affects the cultural. From what I understand, a computer is fed, through its program, a logic or pattern of thought and, in turn, it produces some desired outcome. To say that the computer layer is some divine power that affects culture sounds bogus.
So far, the one possible response I could find in this book is not that positive. It appears that new media has undermined traditional media and the communications field by allowing common individuals to become "producers" of their own work, which is amateur at best. It tricks us into thinking that we have power, but we really are dummies that have lost all thinking ability and, in worst case scenario" any logic. The people who do this kind of work for a living are the ones being harmed because they go to school and acquire job experience so they can be professionals at their art, and they want their talent to be recognized. By doing so, I hate to say that new media "cheapens" the art form of communications. Turning media into some mathematical equation is a very narrow way of interpreting an effort that has taken a century to perfect. There is room for two methods of producing and providing media to the masses, the old and the new. Continuing with illusions, such as that of virtual reality, only destroy language. If we are going to allow a machine to destroy our reasoning capabilities and reduce us to mere animals, then we might as well (to use an old phrase) "turn in our membership cards to the human race"!
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The New Language Of Our Society
After finishing Leo Manovich’s “The Language of New Media,” I can certainly understand why he titled this book the way he did and realize his observations are mere guesses as to what the future may hold. Similar to the way film has its own technical language, such as chiaroscuro, continuity, splicing, etc…, new media also has its own technical language, such as modulation, encoding, algorhytms, etc… The term “language” is not to be taken metaphorically or overanalyzed, but rather the “language” is simply the nuts and bolts that make up computer technology similar to how our alphabet makes up our English language.
So what is the “language” of computers (or new media in general)? As mentioned already in previous posts, new media consists of numerical representation (data), modularity (elements existing interdependently), automation (automatic modification), variability (multiplication of objects), and transcoding (ability to change formats). Technically speaking, thinking of new media in these terms reduces computers to nothing more than a machine that carries info, but as we all know, computers do so much more than just carry info. All new technologies from here on out are or are most likely going to be computer based and follow the above language. Again, this language reduces new media as numerical data accessible for computers. This begs the question whether our society has become so dependent on the development and fostering of new media, such as digital technology replacing film, that we have or will soon abandon our old language and become a mathematical, technological society, like the Jetsons. Can you imagine having even the simplest tasks, like walking on floors and preparing meals, computerized for us so that floors move and meals are prepared with the push of a button?
New technologies often help construct a new type of society. Clearly the society we live in today is different from that of the 1800s and I agree with the class discussions that the discovery of electricity had everything to do with that. Manovich writes about how strategies of working with computer data become our general cognitive strategies of our current society. At the same time, the design of software and the human-computer interface reflects a larger social logic, ideology, and imaginary of the contemporary society. This sort of relates back to my earlier point and what Bolter was arguing for in “Windows and Mirrors.” If society, especially computer designers, have become so accustomed to working with computer data, then they should be more aware of the interface they are using because the interface shapes how users see the computer itself. ALL of our actions on computers, though the outcome may be different, use the same commands and buttons. Therefore, we should be more aware of the icons we open up into folders, the start menu, and the way we navigate through the programs. Going back to the Jetson's comparison, a nice interface on a computer screen displaying detailed information about the selection of food categories would be very helpful in preparing meals. Hey, it could happen. This seems to be the direction we are heading in considering, again, that most new technological innovations are computer based and the language of our current culture consists of automation, modularity, variability, etc....
Manovich seems to heavily favor cyberspace and virtual reality when he talks about computer games. It seems like I can never escape talking about virtual reality in any of my posts, which makes me wonder if that too will play a center stage in our culture's new language. However, for now my position on virtual reality remains the same. That is, we as humans are fixed to our physical laws and space and can never completely enter into another. When we do enter into a new reality, that is called death. Manovich writes about how the majority of navigable virtual spaces mimic existing physical reality and relates this to the free roaming capabilities present in video games. While I’ll admit you certainly can free roam in video games, even there you are fixed to a certain amount of space. While first person games with the ability to free roam may come the closet to the illusion that we are in a virtual world, I think it is safe to say every gamer knows he is still in our present reality.
So what is the “language” of computers (or new media in general)? As mentioned already in previous posts, new media consists of numerical representation (data), modularity (elements existing interdependently), automation (automatic modification), variability (multiplication of objects), and transcoding (ability to change formats). Technically speaking, thinking of new media in these terms reduces computers to nothing more than a machine that carries info, but as we all know, computers do so much more than just carry info. All new technologies from here on out are or are most likely going to be computer based and follow the above language. Again, this language reduces new media as numerical data accessible for computers. This begs the question whether our society has become so dependent on the development and fostering of new media, such as digital technology replacing film, that we have or will soon abandon our old language and become a mathematical, technological society, like the Jetsons. Can you imagine having even the simplest tasks, like walking on floors and preparing meals, computerized for us so that floors move and meals are prepared with the push of a button?
New technologies often help construct a new type of society. Clearly the society we live in today is different from that of the 1800s and I agree with the class discussions that the discovery of electricity had everything to do with that. Manovich writes about how strategies of working with computer data become our general cognitive strategies of our current society. At the same time, the design of software and the human-computer interface reflects a larger social logic, ideology, and imaginary of the contemporary society. This sort of relates back to my earlier point and what Bolter was arguing for in “Windows and Mirrors.” If society, especially computer designers, have become so accustomed to working with computer data, then they should be more aware of the interface they are using because the interface shapes how users see the computer itself. ALL of our actions on computers, though the outcome may be different, use the same commands and buttons. Therefore, we should be more aware of the icons we open up into folders, the start menu, and the way we navigate through the programs. Going back to the Jetson's comparison, a nice interface on a computer screen displaying detailed information about the selection of food categories would be very helpful in preparing meals. Hey, it could happen. This seems to be the direction we are heading in considering, again, that most new technological innovations are computer based and the language of our current culture consists of automation, modularity, variability, etc....
Manovich seems to heavily favor cyberspace and virtual reality when he talks about computer games. It seems like I can never escape talking about virtual reality in any of my posts, which makes me wonder if that too will play a center stage in our culture's new language. However, for now my position on virtual reality remains the same. That is, we as humans are fixed to our physical laws and space and can never completely enter into another. When we do enter into a new reality, that is called death. Manovich writes about how the majority of navigable virtual spaces mimic existing physical reality and relates this to the free roaming capabilities present in video games. While I’ll admit you certainly can free roam in video games, even there you are fixed to a certain amount of space. While first person games with the ability to free roam may come the closet to the illusion that we are in a virtual world, I think it is safe to say every gamer knows he is still in our present reality.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Continuing with Manovich
Yes, Manovich is quite an interesting cat, I tell you! He comes from humble beginnings, a product of the old school (which is by far superior!) and this foundation helped him become a creator or one of the founders of the computer technology we now use and abuse. It is proper when he begins by determining that all computer technology or new media relies on a "numerical" foundation. His five principles are:numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. I see here two key elements: continuity and randomness. These are by far the two most dominant conditions present in our technology today. Remember the term random access memory: this is an example of the "unpredictability of accessing information. When you put these elements together , the result is a computer serving as a medium. One of the five elements I found very interesting was modularity, where you can make a whole sentence or program with distinct parts to it and yet the parts remain independent of each other. Plus, you can modify each part using the original program that created it. The discretion aspect also appealed to me when Manovich linked discretion in a computer program to language. it makes perfect sense! We talk using sentences, different forms of expression, and we attempt to mirror that in our programs. This, in turn, allows for automation to take place, that end result we see when some figure "jumps out" on the screen.
I also agree that Manovich ties new media well with old media. Remember that without old media, the new would not be possible, so in a way, it is helpful to understand this idea. Taking old photographs, newspapers, documents, etc., and transforming them into numerical bits of information can lead to endless possibilities. I also like the idea that computers, with their sets of instructions, work quite the same as a factory assembly line. Instead, this rote behavior is left to a machine that operates when this "digital" or numeric information is translated into some intelligible language.
I also agree that Manovich ties new media well with old media. Remember that without old media, the new would not be possible, so in a way, it is helpful to understand this idea. Taking old photographs, newspapers, documents, etc., and transforming them into numerical bits of information can lead to endless possibilities. I also like the idea that computers, with their sets of instructions, work quite the same as a factory assembly line. Instead, this rote behavior is left to a machine that operates when this "digital" or numeric information is translated into some intelligible language.
Manovich-The Language of New Media
Firstly, I wanted to say that I enjoyed reading about Manovich's background. Although he wanted to be a painter, he went to "matematicheskaya" school (mathematical) instead. However, he then took art classes. He seems to have an interesting back ground at first. However, it seems like the perfect emergence of a new medium--digital computer.
Manovich opens with discussing what is new media and what are the main principles behind them. This was simple to understand--numeric representation, automation, transcoding, modularity, variability. I found it interesting when Manovich discusses how one would determine what exactly new media consists of. He gives a good example--a photograph on a CD that neeeds a computer in order to be viewed vs. photographs in a photo album. A photogrpah on a CD is considered new media and the photographs in a photo album are not. However, he goes into further detail describing how new media is also a combination of computers and media technologies. He also gives example of this--"graphs, moving images, sounds, shapes and texts." (p20)
Manovich brings up the idea of the computer as a machine for media production vs. the computer as a tool for media production. This is similar to Bolter and Gromala's idea of a computer being known as an appliance.
It also seems that this new media seems to be about data and mathematics. "...an image or a shape can be described using a mathematical function." (p27) I always assumed that it all had alot to do with commands.
Something that I learned was the difference between high level automations and low level automations. High level automation are objects being generated because the computer "understands the meanings embedded in the object." And low level automations are created as the "computer used modifiers or creates it from scratch. "(Professor Strate--can you go over this in more detail in class next week?).
Overall, the most interesting concept was seeing the world through a frame. This begins with paintings and evolves into computers, cameras, etc. Due to new media--we see everyday life through frames...all day long. These frames are everywhere and help create continuous images of the world. As these frames are part of our daily, rountine lives--it is easy to see how people take these for granted.
Manovich opens with discussing what is new media and what are the main principles behind them. This was simple to understand--numeric representation, automation, transcoding, modularity, variability. I found it interesting when Manovich discusses how one would determine what exactly new media consists of. He gives a good example--a photograph on a CD that neeeds a computer in order to be viewed vs. photographs in a photo album. A photogrpah on a CD is considered new media and the photographs in a photo album are not. However, he goes into further detail describing how new media is also a combination of computers and media technologies. He also gives example of this--"graphs, moving images, sounds, shapes and texts." (p20)
Manovich brings up the idea of the computer as a machine for media production vs. the computer as a tool for media production. This is similar to Bolter and Gromala's idea of a computer being known as an appliance.
It also seems that this new media seems to be about data and mathematics. "...an image or a shape can be described using a mathematical function." (p27) I always assumed that it all had alot to do with commands.
Something that I learned was the difference between high level automations and low level automations. High level automation are objects being generated because the computer "understands the meanings embedded in the object." And low level automations are created as the "computer used modifiers or creates it from scratch. "(Professor Strate--can you go over this in more detail in class next week?).
Overall, the most interesting concept was seeing the world through a frame. This begins with paintings and evolves into computers, cameras, etc. Due to new media--we see everyday life through frames...all day long. These frames are everywhere and help create continuous images of the world. As these frames are part of our daily, rountine lives--it is easy to see how people take these for granted.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Linking Remediation with Manovich's New Media
In our last class, we talked about remediation and how it is a way of "assimilating the new technology with the old". Throughout history, we have seen older technology being replaced with new, and consequently, people that have encountered the new technology have dealt with the issue by applying knowlege of the old to deal with the novel. The use of new ways of technology continue striving for "immediacy" but now aim at establishing "hypermediacy", meaning we want to achieve a compelling experience while at the same time not becoming too transparent. The interface and our relating to the interface is necessary, especially when something goes wrong.
So, in a way, this last concept that I mentioned works itself into Manovich's book and his explanation of "new media". Manovich begins by giving us a tour of how film technology has created some form of a "virtual reality", with the way a camera operates in filming and the different techniques used. This is similar to what the computer does for us on a daily basis. However, he makes a good point when he mentions that computer technology has a shortcoming which film has an advantage: new media designers have to learn how to merge database and narrative into a new form (Manovich, xxviii). As long as that is not implemented and the research is not done which will remediate this situation, film, in my opinion and possibly in manovich's, film technology will be regarded as superior. Sure computers create some form of virtual reality for us but they have yet to offer some type of experience that still makes us aware of the "interface", meaning, we are still on planet Earth and we are human beings interacting with a machine which we control. Manovich also points out and realizes that much of new media relies on older (8) and so far in his introduction paralleles filmography to computers.
It is important to understand that in the process we should not detach from reality. rather, our goal is to achieve knowledge necessary to engage simultaneously between immediacy and hypermediacy. But then again, as I mentioned in a previous post, the more power someone has, the more he/she wants it. It's an addiction...
So, in a way, this last concept that I mentioned works itself into Manovich's book and his explanation of "new media". Manovich begins by giving us a tour of how film technology has created some form of a "virtual reality", with the way a camera operates in filming and the different techniques used. This is similar to what the computer does for us on a daily basis. However, he makes a good point when he mentions that computer technology has a shortcoming which film has an advantage: new media designers have to learn how to merge database and narrative into a new form (Manovich, xxviii). As long as that is not implemented and the research is not done which will remediate this situation, film, in my opinion and possibly in manovich's, film technology will be regarded as superior. Sure computers create some form of virtual reality for us but they have yet to offer some type of experience that still makes us aware of the "interface", meaning, we are still on planet Earth and we are human beings interacting with a machine which we control. Manovich also points out and realizes that much of new media relies on older (8) and so far in his introduction paralleles filmography to computers.
It is important to understand that in the process we should not detach from reality. rather, our goal is to achieve knowledge necessary to engage simultaneously between immediacy and hypermediacy. But then again, as I mentioned in a previous post, the more power someone has, the more he/she wants it. It's an addiction...
Development of Film and Digital Technology
Nowadays, the jaws of most people drop when they witness spectacular explosions and horrifying camera illusions that have come to dominate today’s American films. I consider this not only a tragedy, but a terrible nostalgia for the classics.
Since I’m a big film buff myself, I enjoyed the way Leo Manovich parallels the development of new media with the development of old media, especially film, in his book titled “The Language of New Media.” Technologies that are outdated today, such as the kinetoscope, were just as fascinating to those in 1890 in the same way computers bewilder us today. He also wishes to explain the logic driving the development of new media similar to the way historians attempt to trace the development of film. Computers have redefined old cultures, such as film and music, and created new cultures, such as video gamers and digital animators. One can argue that computers have completely taken over our culture and can represent all forms of old media, such as digital animation taking over classic film production or IPODs taking over CDs.
Manovich claims that film is a realistic representation of reality in which the effects and camera angles of film create the language used to express this reality. This is all true, but I’d like to argue that digital film and new media does not always represent reality in the way classic film does nor do they represent reality in the way Manovich claims it does.
I agree that film is a systematic account of narrative strategy and agree that the language behind film is rich in history. Since the early days of the Kodak Camera introduced by George Eastman in the 1880s, inventors wanted to take their own series of still images and trick the mind into seeing motion based on the theory of persistence of vision. Inventors from this point forward worked towards advancing the tricks and theatrical techniques one would associate with a cinematographer today. Examples of advancements in cinema technology include Thomas Edison’s introduction of the Kinetoscope and splicing in films, George Melies’ stumble upon editing, Edwin Porter’s use of close-up shots, D.W. Griffith’s syntax of motion pictures, and Alfred Hitchcock’s brilliant uses of montage, mise en scene, and chiaroscuro effects.
I also appreciate specific films in American history, such as Casbablanca, Vertigo, Citizen Kane, and Star Wars, that originally utilized the effects which tremendously contributed to the kinds of illusions people see in today‘s movies. These films are the best examples which demonstrate how the elements of special effects, music, editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects overlap and add meaning to each of these films, bring life to the characters, and assist the directors in portraying the messages they are trying to convey. However, today’s films fall short of delivering the experience retro films do. In favoring theatrical glamour, digital effects, and high expectations for large earnings, Hollywood movies recently have been subjected to denying the public of new experiences. Instead of classic films being produced, what the public sees today is predictable, repetitive content of what film studios think the public wants to see. Meaningful plots and story lines have been sacrificed for eye candy and overused special effects. The explosions in disaster scenes in modern films, for example, do not necessarily contribute to the film in any significant way, but simply allows the viewer to see more of the same things. In addition, a digitized sword fight may represent a real-life sword fight in theory, but it can never come close to the intensity and excitement of a real-life, actual sword fight portrayed by real actors. Therefore, while the adventation of computer technology may be progressing us forward in terms of value, production quality, and technical language in films, we have suffered a great loss in film that no advancement in digital cinematography could ever replace.
I speculate Manovich would argue my point by saying that "synthetic computer-generated imagery is not an inferior representation of our reality, but a realistic representation of a different reality." Indeed he is right, IF that is what movie and game developers claim they are aiming to do. I’ve played many video games and seen digitized movies where the worlds I am placed in or view on the screen are strictly fantasy. After all, isn’t one of the many great aspects of movies and video games is that we can do things or go to places we can not do or go to in real life? As long as video game companies and digitized artists claim that Aeos is a fantasy world, I have no problem entering into that reality for a time being and playing pretend. However, the graphics behind video games and digitized movies are beginning to look so real one must not confuse the differences between reality and fantasy. One of the goals of most video game graphic designers is to acheive the most realistic graphics possible. The problem occurs when creators of digitized fantasy worlds claim with their realistic graphics that these fantasy worlds are representations of our reality and our world. This is where, again, Manovich’s point about how these worlds are a realistic representation of an alternative reality comes in handy.
Since I’m a big film buff myself, I enjoyed the way Leo Manovich parallels the development of new media with the development of old media, especially film, in his book titled “The Language of New Media.” Technologies that are outdated today, such as the kinetoscope, were just as fascinating to those in 1890 in the same way computers bewilder us today. He also wishes to explain the logic driving the development of new media similar to the way historians attempt to trace the development of film. Computers have redefined old cultures, such as film and music, and created new cultures, such as video gamers and digital animators. One can argue that computers have completely taken over our culture and can represent all forms of old media, such as digital animation taking over classic film production or IPODs taking over CDs.
Manovich claims that film is a realistic representation of reality in which the effects and camera angles of film create the language used to express this reality. This is all true, but I’d like to argue that digital film and new media does not always represent reality in the way classic film does nor do they represent reality in the way Manovich claims it does.
I agree that film is a systematic account of narrative strategy and agree that the language behind film is rich in history. Since the early days of the Kodak Camera introduced by George Eastman in the 1880s, inventors wanted to take their own series of still images and trick the mind into seeing motion based on the theory of persistence of vision. Inventors from this point forward worked towards advancing the tricks and theatrical techniques one would associate with a cinematographer today. Examples of advancements in cinema technology include Thomas Edison’s introduction of the Kinetoscope and splicing in films, George Melies’ stumble upon editing, Edwin Porter’s use of close-up shots, D.W. Griffith’s syntax of motion pictures, and Alfred Hitchcock’s brilliant uses of montage, mise en scene, and chiaroscuro effects.
I also appreciate specific films in American history, such as Casbablanca, Vertigo, Citizen Kane, and Star Wars, that originally utilized the effects which tremendously contributed to the kinds of illusions people see in today‘s movies. These films are the best examples which demonstrate how the elements of special effects, music, editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects overlap and add meaning to each of these films, bring life to the characters, and assist the directors in portraying the messages they are trying to convey. However, today’s films fall short of delivering the experience retro films do. In favoring theatrical glamour, digital effects, and high expectations for large earnings, Hollywood movies recently have been subjected to denying the public of new experiences. Instead of classic films being produced, what the public sees today is predictable, repetitive content of what film studios think the public wants to see. Meaningful plots and story lines have been sacrificed for eye candy and overused special effects. The explosions in disaster scenes in modern films, for example, do not necessarily contribute to the film in any significant way, but simply allows the viewer to see more of the same things. In addition, a digitized sword fight may represent a real-life sword fight in theory, but it can never come close to the intensity and excitement of a real-life, actual sword fight portrayed by real actors. Therefore, while the adventation of computer technology may be progressing us forward in terms of value, production quality, and technical language in films, we have suffered a great loss in film that no advancement in digital cinematography could ever replace.
I speculate Manovich would argue my point by saying that "synthetic computer-generated imagery is not an inferior representation of our reality, but a realistic representation of a different reality." Indeed he is right, IF that is what movie and game developers claim they are aiming to do. I’ve played many video games and seen digitized movies where the worlds I am placed in or view on the screen are strictly fantasy. After all, isn’t one of the many great aspects of movies and video games is that we can do things or go to places we can not do or go to in real life? As long as video game companies and digitized artists claim that Aeos is a fantasy world, I have no problem entering into that reality for a time being and playing pretend. However, the graphics behind video games and digitized movies are beginning to look so real one must not confuse the differences between reality and fantasy. One of the goals of most video game graphic designers is to acheive the most realistic graphics possible. The problem occurs when creators of digitized fantasy worlds claim with their realistic graphics that these fantasy worlds are representations of our reality and our world. This is where, again, Manovich’s point about how these worlds are a realistic representation of an alternative reality comes in handy.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Windows and Mirrors-Part 1 and 2.
David Bolter's and Diane Gromala's Windows and Mirrors puts a different spin on computers, computer technology and all of it's capabilities. Like any other form of technology--computers have changed over time. Instead of viewing a computer as an appliance, Bolter and Gromala explain how the computer has evolved into a informational appliance and has now become a form of media similar to the radio, TV and film. The following quote helped me understand what Bolter and Gromala are trying to explain--"It is the task of digital art to fascinate, exhilarate and sometimes provoke us. Appliances on the other hand don't fascinate us, they brown our toast." (p2) Here, I completely understand why and how computers are far from a typical appliance like a toaster. In the past I have thought that computers were just an appliance--it was just something that helped me complete tasks. However, a computer today does far more than help me complete tasks. A computer can act as art, a book, a photo album, a television, a radio, etc... Computers have become a larger part of the entertainment world--Bolter and Gromala refer to this as the digital entertainment.
Due to my back ground in visual arts and art history I found the Art Gallery of SIGGRAPH 2000 very interesting. SIGGRAPH 2000 was far more than an art gallery as it was also considered a conference where "computer specialists and industry researchers met to review work on subjects like psycho-physiological models of shading and lighting, the moderling of snow, the animation of clouds and non-photo realistic virtual reality." (p10) It was a clear combination of art and technology. Due to this combination, the audience's experience while viewing this art was out of the ordinary. Instead of connecting with a painting on a museum wall, the audience was taking part in an interactive experience. The viewer was becoming involved with the art. My favorite piece is titled, TEXT RAIN: Catching the Falling Letters. This piece is completely interactive and the viewer becomes physically involved. The viewer stands in front of a screen of falling letters. However, the letters stop once the come into contact with the viewer's image on the screen. The viewer becomes part of the show and interacts with the digital art. When viewing traditional art in a museum, the audience is just an observer and their is a clear divide between the art and the audience. What I love about this digital art is that the audience has a chance to manipulate the artwork. As the viewer and the art come together in TEXT RAIN--the viewer has the capability to interact and make their own art as they choose how and when to move their body on the screen. This is something that is far different from traditional art but this is one way that art has changed over time--just how the computer has changed from an appliance to a medium in media.
This also leads to defining the differences between visual art and graphic design/digital art. Both are engaging and can be experimental at times. However, graphic design/digital art involves "the user."This is something I would like to pose to the rest of the class--What do you think is the difference between visual art and graphic design/digital art? What do you prefer?
At the end of the book, there is more conversation about digital art and how it is defined. Bolter and Gromala relate it to playing a "musical instrument...as users we perform the design." (p147) Digital art forms a interactive relationship with the user. As the user interacts, designs are created. The user designs their own art due to the interactive relationship. Most importantly--the user has control within digital art to create and design.
Due to my back ground in visual arts and art history I found the Art Gallery of SIGGRAPH 2000 very interesting. SIGGRAPH 2000 was far more than an art gallery as it was also considered a conference where "computer specialists and industry researchers met to review work on subjects like psycho-physiological models of shading and lighting, the moderling of snow, the animation of clouds and non-photo realistic virtual reality." (p10) It was a clear combination of art and technology. Due to this combination, the audience's experience while viewing this art was out of the ordinary. Instead of connecting with a painting on a museum wall, the audience was taking part in an interactive experience. The viewer was becoming involved with the art. My favorite piece is titled, TEXT RAIN: Catching the Falling Letters. This piece is completely interactive and the viewer becomes physically involved. The viewer stands in front of a screen of falling letters. However, the letters stop once the come into contact with the viewer's image on the screen. The viewer becomes part of the show and interacts with the digital art. When viewing traditional art in a museum, the audience is just an observer and their is a clear divide between the art and the audience. What I love about this digital art is that the audience has a chance to manipulate the artwork. As the viewer and the art come together in TEXT RAIN--the viewer has the capability to interact and make their own art as they choose how and when to move their body on the screen. This is something that is far different from traditional art but this is one way that art has changed over time--just how the computer has changed from an appliance to a medium in media.
This also leads to defining the differences between visual art and graphic design/digital art. Both are engaging and can be experimental at times. However, graphic design/digital art involves "the user."This is something I would like to pose to the rest of the class--What do you think is the difference between visual art and graphic design/digital art? What do you prefer?
At the end of the book, there is more conversation about digital art and how it is defined. Bolter and Gromala relate it to playing a "musical instrument...as users we perform the design." (p147) Digital art forms a interactive relationship with the user. As the user interacts, designs are created. The user designs their own art due to the interactive relationship. Most importantly--the user has control within digital art to create and design.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Mirror vs. Window in Relation to Technology
Continuing with the reading of Bolter and Gromala's book, the authors continue showing two sides of the issue in computer technology. Whereas before, they differentiated the structuralist versus the designer argument, they now show us the difference that exists between technology as a mirror and technology as a window. Many times, both may seem the same but they really represent different "experiences". Bolter states that a mirror is something that provides a reflection of our world and who we are. Computer technology does that in one aspect: the codes and the images, not to mention the information, is that which reflects our workings and our ideas back to us. It is what we make of the technology that is rendering its results back at us for "feedback". Feedback is important because it allows for the "control" of our situation, a measure which we will use to figure out our progress. The example of the "Wooden Mirror" exhibit at the SIGGRAPH 2000 also provies us with an idea of how technology can help give us that "feedback" and reflection of us by forming an image of ourselves on a bed of wooden tiles. Now here, there were two concepts in function. This "mirror" utilized an analog feature and combined its use with digital technology, thus resulting in this image. This also caused for some experience to take place for the viewer, and the creator's intentions for this experience were experienced by both ends.
On the other hand, the "window" concept can be a bit more complex. Its origins begin as far back as in the era of paintings. Painters and even photographers later on strived for "clarity and simplicity". Many techniques, such as linear perspective, allowed for pictures to represent some message or vision, and the viewer ultimately needed to exercise that ability to "look through" the painting or picture for the intended effect. This "transparency" has been the goal of many artists for centuries. This same transparency is the goal of computer graphics designers today when using the style of "photorealism" to create their designs on the web. These methods have allowed for the creation of some reality of the world we live in, that window which people look out of or into to find some meaning, thus creating an "experience" of life. However, while computer technology strives to perfect this transparency of the world for us, it tends to create more complexity in its programs and undermines, in this way, the transparency that should exist in the experience itself. The attention is diverted more to the interface and its functionality rather than on the simplicity and clarity that should be the end result. It's almost like an addiction: the more power you have and use, the more you want it.
In conclusion, I can agree with Mike's stand on virtual reality. I also want to point out that there is a time when too much is enough. Walking around like zombies wearing spectacles that allow us to "engage" in some virtual experience is not my idea of fun! It is a far-fetched infantile idea that can only be derived from a science fiction movie. Having control of information and of files, and other entertainment, does not necessitate having to "step into" this unreal world because, let's face it, we are still human beings and the ways we access the information are clear enough! Using a mouse and relating to images on a screen are troublesome enough, but they achieve their overall purpose. We cannot just step into another dimension and engage in give-and-take with a machine. For that price, I would rather get high on some drug and "see the colors", as in the good old days of the 1960s and even the glorious 1970s! It's not bad to think about the possibilities, but there are other ways that virtual reality can be used, let's say perhaps in the field of medicine or for scientists to perfect their formulas. I believe in a time and a place for everything, and virtual reality has its place, in fiction books and movies.
On the other hand, the "window" concept can be a bit more complex. Its origins begin as far back as in the era of paintings. Painters and even photographers later on strived for "clarity and simplicity". Many techniques, such as linear perspective, allowed for pictures to represent some message or vision, and the viewer ultimately needed to exercise that ability to "look through" the painting or picture for the intended effect. This "transparency" has been the goal of many artists for centuries. This same transparency is the goal of computer graphics designers today when using the style of "photorealism" to create their designs on the web. These methods have allowed for the creation of some reality of the world we live in, that window which people look out of or into to find some meaning, thus creating an "experience" of life. However, while computer technology strives to perfect this transparency of the world for us, it tends to create more complexity in its programs and undermines, in this way, the transparency that should exist in the experience itself. The attention is diverted more to the interface and its functionality rather than on the simplicity and clarity that should be the end result. It's almost like an addiction: the more power you have and use, the more you want it.
In conclusion, I can agree with Mike's stand on virtual reality. I also want to point out that there is a time when too much is enough. Walking around like zombies wearing spectacles that allow us to "engage" in some virtual experience is not my idea of fun! It is a far-fetched infantile idea that can only be derived from a science fiction movie. Having control of information and of files, and other entertainment, does not necessitate having to "step into" this unreal world because, let's face it, we are still human beings and the ways we access the information are clear enough! Using a mouse and relating to images on a screen are troublesome enough, but they achieve their overall purpose. We cannot just step into another dimension and engage in give-and-take with a machine. For that price, I would rather get high on some drug and "see the colors", as in the good old days of the 1960s and even the glorious 1970s! It's not bad to think about the possibilities, but there are other ways that virtual reality can be used, let's say perhaps in the field of medicine or for scientists to perfect their formulas. I believe in a time and a place for everything, and virtual reality has its place, in fiction books and movies.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Virtual Reality Flaws
Bolter becomes much more abstract and far out there in the second half of his Windows and Mirrors book. His discussions on virtual reality and digital design seem to offer more of a spiritual experience rather than a theoretical one. On the other hand, one can argue that spirituality is grounded in theories first. Digital design starts out as a physical experience. In other words, designers begin by clicking a mouse and moving a pointer. Then, the sights and sounds designers place on a page, if done properly, are supposed to ignite the senses of those using the page and bring them into a virtual reality experience where what they see and hear becomes their world and they forget everything around them. Thus, there is a strong relationship between the physical world (sight, smell) and the virtual world (mind). Virtual reality is supposed to be enveloping and make you feel as if you are never at a single point in time and space. The 3D depth illusions are supposed to simulate an experience so convincing that you feel like you are in an alternative reality. In theory, this seems to make sense because all our experiences involve both senses and thought. The two can not be separated. However, there's the classical argument that the mind and body can be separated.
There have been attempts at virtual reality experiences, such as Nintendo's Virtual Boy, but none that I can think of has ever come close. Its nearly impossible for me to imagine escaping my present reality and entering into some pseudo-reality and the technology isn't there yet to make it happen. This seems to be more of a utopian vision of technology at its highest level. However, if this were to happen one day, I'd consider it more of a spiritual experience rather than a technological one.
Bolter claims there are those who see cyberspace as a place where we can see through each other's bodies to the pure minds that live within. I understand the internet can not be detached from the rest of the world and it connects all individuals together, but this notion is laughable and maybe even creepy to say the least. The amount of privacy would be less than what it is, or isn't, now. People aren't even aware that with the amount of speed and convenience we have gained through the internet over the years, the amount of privacy we have lost has increased tremendously. In addition, while the internet brings the public closer together, the internet simultaneously isolates the public because if everyone, especially young teenagers, stayed in their houses in chat rooms all day, then no one would go out into the real world and communicate face-to-face. As a result, this could hinder the way in which young teenagers relate to the public when they become older because their social skills may be damaged or not develop properly.
There have been attempts at virtual reality experiences, such as Nintendo's Virtual Boy, but none that I can think of has ever come close. Its nearly impossible for me to imagine escaping my present reality and entering into some pseudo-reality and the technology isn't there yet to make it happen. This seems to be more of a utopian vision of technology at its highest level. However, if this were to happen one day, I'd consider it more of a spiritual experience rather than a technological one.
Bolter claims there are those who see cyberspace as a place where we can see through each other's bodies to the pure minds that live within. I understand the internet can not be detached from the rest of the world and it connects all individuals together, but this notion is laughable and maybe even creepy to say the least. The amount of privacy would be less than what it is, or isn't, now. People aren't even aware that with the amount of speed and convenience we have gained through the internet over the years, the amount of privacy we have lost has increased tremendously. In addition, while the internet brings the public closer together, the internet simultaneously isolates the public because if everyone, especially young teenagers, stayed in their houses in chat rooms all day, then no one would go out into the real world and communicate face-to-face. As a result, this could hinder the way in which young teenagers relate to the public when they become older because their social skills may be damaged or not develop properly.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Evolution of the Computer and Its Effects On Us
I would like to add to Mike's posting and mention a few of my personal observations in the last fifteen years. Computers and computer technology have come a long way from their origins. When walking throughout our history and upon observing and examining the many forms of communication that humans have utilized, this has got to be the ultimate form of communication that has made significant contribution to the way we conduct our lives. Who would have guessed thirty-five or even twenty-five years ago that our access of information could become so instantaneous? Apparently nobody would ever dream of that, but what people don't realize are two things: 1) computer technology that we use at a mainstream level today was already being used thirty-five years ago by the government and even by some major companies, and 2) this computer technology that we all take for granted is a continuation of the older forms of computing power, which still provides the foundation for the current use of the technology. call this, if you will, the information or digital "grid". After taking my first class on Tuesday, the concept of electricity befits the computer technology that we experience. I have also witnessed and experienced firsthand the beginnings of the current technological wave when the World Wide Eb first began to be utilized at my college in the mid 1990s. Although many things have changed, even dramatically, the initial premise, of uniting text and forms of links and matching them with corresponding images has prevailed and has acquired strength, thus enabling computing power to become the "medium" that it it today.
True, we have come a long way from being simple adding machines, to an artificial "brain", to symbol manipulators. Bolter and Gromala devised, in my opinion, an elegant introduction in their book by "laying the law down" about the battle between the structuralists and the designers. As in everything in life which comes in pairs, a conflict needs to exist in our computer world where two forces of good and evil are fighting to "make the world a better place"! This makes perfect sense because while the structuralist side argues that producing information is more important and that the computer needs to be an "inofmration appliance", the designer side (which ironically came from the structuralist side!) considers that by providing images, the person accesing the information can make sense of the "experience". This method would allow (as in the real world example of weaving words and images on paper) for the information to correspond to the images, so visual communication could be possible. Another point mentioned in the beginning of Bolter and Gromala's book was distinguishing between the computer as being just an "appliance" versus the computer being a "medium". With an appliance, the object literally performs the intended function, with no give-and-take involved. Using an appliance could be considered to be mainly done for convenience purposes. On the othetr hand, with a computer, you engage in some sort of "experience", where we achieve some sort of goal, such as obtaining knowledge or even receiving pleasure from the experience itself. This is the give-and-take factor that makes computers invaluable to our lives. Bolter places a computer in the same category as books, television sets, and photgraph albums. He continues on to talk about the SIGGRAPH 2000 convention where much of the technology we know of today was showcased, such as Sony Playstation 2, Photoshop, etc. One station he focused on particularly was Text Rain, which was an interactive screen that involved a person projecting their image against a wall and experiencing an illusion of interaction with some virtual letters. This presentation was regarded as an "expression of its viewers as of its creators. In other words, here we see that the receiver is also a part of the experience and it is not only that of the creator of the program or presentation. Technology allows for the consumer to be both the consumer and the "creator" as well, often engaging in the workings of the program.
In conclusion for this first posting, I can say that the first few pages of the book provide a very accurate description and timeline of how computer technology has come to affect our lives and what more there is to come. As Mike mentioned in his post,, and to paraphrase him, this idea of technology is basically people aware of prgression coming together to create and improve the technology that already exists in order to make our world a better place to live in. And that is what computing technology has accomplished and continues to do so. I will, however, disagree with the idea that the computer as we know it will disappear. Even if every "appliance" around is outfitted with computer chips, the PC will always be needed to perform the many functions that it performs for us on a daily basis.
True, we have come a long way from being simple adding machines, to an artificial "brain", to symbol manipulators. Bolter and Gromala devised, in my opinion, an elegant introduction in their book by "laying the law down" about the battle between the structuralists and the designers. As in everything in life which comes in pairs, a conflict needs to exist in our computer world where two forces of good and evil are fighting to "make the world a better place"! This makes perfect sense because while the structuralist side argues that producing information is more important and that the computer needs to be an "inofmration appliance", the designer side (which ironically came from the structuralist side!) considers that by providing images, the person accesing the information can make sense of the "experience". This method would allow (as in the real world example of weaving words and images on paper) for the information to correspond to the images, so visual communication could be possible. Another point mentioned in the beginning of Bolter and Gromala's book was distinguishing between the computer as being just an "appliance" versus the computer being a "medium". With an appliance, the object literally performs the intended function, with no give-and-take involved. Using an appliance could be considered to be mainly done for convenience purposes. On the othetr hand, with a computer, you engage in some sort of "experience", where we achieve some sort of goal, such as obtaining knowledge or even receiving pleasure from the experience itself. This is the give-and-take factor that makes computers invaluable to our lives. Bolter places a computer in the same category as books, television sets, and photgraph albums. He continues on to talk about the SIGGRAPH 2000 convention where much of the technology we know of today was showcased, such as Sony Playstation 2, Photoshop, etc. One station he focused on particularly was Text Rain, which was an interactive screen that involved a person projecting their image against a wall and experiencing an illusion of interaction with some virtual letters. This presentation was regarded as an "expression of its viewers as of its creators. In other words, here we see that the receiver is also a part of the experience and it is not only that of the creator of the program or presentation. Technology allows for the consumer to be both the consumer and the "creator" as well, often engaging in the workings of the program.
In conclusion for this first posting, I can say that the first few pages of the book provide a very accurate description and timeline of how computer technology has come to affect our lives and what more there is to come. As Mike mentioned in his post,, and to paraphrase him, this idea of technology is basically people aware of prgression coming together to create and improve the technology that already exists in order to make our world a better place to live in. And that is what computing technology has accomplished and continues to do so. I will, however, disagree with the idea that the computer as we know it will disappear. Even if every "appliance" around is outfitted with computer chips, the PC will always be needed to perform the many functions that it performs for us on a daily basis.
Creating Meaning Through Meaningless Things
As a result of being born into an information society where the world is based globally on communicating through electronic media, the avoidance of digital technology is nearly impossible. Digital technology, specifically computers, is inescapable and has become significant in our culture for better or for worse. Fortunately, the introduction of high definition televisions, cable modems, and cell phones symbolizes that as long as our generation progresses, there will always be others working towards improving the media to make our lives as convenient as possible. Further, this is evidence of the changing of times in our society because throughout human existence, those individuals capable of inventing or patenting their breakthrough creations are the ones constantly try to advance in technology and perform whatever it takes to ensue the easiest life possible for all mankind. Sources of the media play an inevitable, crucial, and increasing role in the lives of millions of people and grappling with how to understand and comprehend the ways in which digital media effect society is arguably by no means a simple task. Allowing children and adults to communicate and express themselves through the media is what binds humanity together.
Having said all that as well as reading the first half of Jay David Bolter's Windows and Mirrors, I have a better awareness of the evolution and impact of computers over the past century and how meaning evolves from seemingly meaningless words and pictures. After all, it's one thing to talk about the development of the technology itself, but I believe it's more important to discuss how we interact with and experience the technology that average computer users takes for granted everyday.
Bolter goes into detail about the history and development of the computer and world wide web and I like how he pointed out that the computer and its uses nowadays has completely changed from what the original creators intended it to be used for. The computer was designed to be some sort of artificial, super human calculating machine which would control us, but rather, we control the content of computers. The original meaning behind the essence of computers has changed. After all, computers are machines and machines by definition lack emotion, which is a quality that separates us from machines. Remember, the Terminator is just a movie.
All objects, words, signs, symbols, and pictures lack meaning in themselves until the creator or observer of these objects, words, signs, symbols, and pictures ascribe meaning to them. This notion becomes more complex when one factors in cultural differences and how many pictures or symbols can have multiple meanings depending on the observer. I find the ability of the human mind to figure out what meanings to give to what objects another wonderful example of how deeply complex and human we really are and how machines are just machines. After all, computers can not give meanings to pictures; they only display them.
Bolter makes a clear statement that digital media should be transparent and reflective. As he continues through the development of computers, he acknowledges how computers also evolved from texts and words to sound, graphics, and networking. This ability to network, receive feedback, and add graphics and sound moves way beyond the dull and simple process of information gathering computers were originally used for. Now, we can manipulate and interact with the content others put on web pages and this interaction becomes a direct reflection on ourselves in regard to who we are and the meanings we create around ourselves. The better we have gained control of our technology, the more creators are able to create and express their own meanings and views of the world. Think about the next time you post a comment in response to a YouTube video or be consciously aware of what you type next time you update your Facebook. The video is just a video and the experience in itself means nothing. However, your comments become a reflection of the type of person you are and the meaning you received from watching that video or that experience you wish to share. Even more importantly is the dialogue you engage in with those who comment back. This is evidence that other people read what you had to say and are now expressing their view. Therefore, the computer is more than just a medium or a piece of artificial intelligence. Rather, the computer is a form of expression and interaction between viewers and creators that bind us and bring us to life.
Bolter also makes a point about how there are those who believe the appearence of web pages should be determined by users and that the elaborate visual design of web pages is neccessary. In other words, the form of a website and the content of a website can not be separated. I agree and disagree with this statement. Even if a particular website has a plain, black background, if a person wants information that badly from this website, he'll still read the words on the page to acquire information. However, clear menus, links, and proper colors of backgrounds and texts do greatly aid in making a website more presentable and enjoyable. After all, people like eye candy. If it works in advertising and television commercials, then it works for the internet as well. As computers evolved, graphic designers of computers evolved as well to add pictures, sounds, and colors to what once were dull websites. I would imagine people would flock to or favor those pages that are more colorful, decorated, and interactive over dull black and white text pages. Again, how people present web sites is a reflection upon who they are. Remember how you set up your MySpace page? The page itself is just a page, but the background, colors, and song of choice you added gave meaning to that page and was most likely a reflection of your favorite colors or preferred genre of music. Therefore, through computers and the internet, we express ourselves to the world at all times even if we are not always consciously aware we are doing so and through easy to use design sites, like MySpace and Facebook, we have all become graphic designers to an extent.
Having said all that as well as reading the first half of Jay David Bolter's Windows and Mirrors, I have a better awareness of the evolution and impact of computers over the past century and how meaning evolves from seemingly meaningless words and pictures. After all, it's one thing to talk about the development of the technology itself, but I believe it's more important to discuss how we interact with and experience the technology that average computer users takes for granted everyday.
Bolter goes into detail about the history and development of the computer and world wide web and I like how he pointed out that the computer and its uses nowadays has completely changed from what the original creators intended it to be used for. The computer was designed to be some sort of artificial, super human calculating machine which would control us, but rather, we control the content of computers. The original meaning behind the essence of computers has changed. After all, computers are machines and machines by definition lack emotion, which is a quality that separates us from machines. Remember, the Terminator is just a movie.
All objects, words, signs, symbols, and pictures lack meaning in themselves until the creator or observer of these objects, words, signs, symbols, and pictures ascribe meaning to them. This notion becomes more complex when one factors in cultural differences and how many pictures or symbols can have multiple meanings depending on the observer. I find the ability of the human mind to figure out what meanings to give to what objects another wonderful example of how deeply complex and human we really are and how machines are just machines. After all, computers can not give meanings to pictures; they only display them.
Bolter makes a clear statement that digital media should be transparent and reflective. As he continues through the development of computers, he acknowledges how computers also evolved from texts and words to sound, graphics, and networking. This ability to network, receive feedback, and add graphics and sound moves way beyond the dull and simple process of information gathering computers were originally used for. Now, we can manipulate and interact with the content others put on web pages and this interaction becomes a direct reflection on ourselves in regard to who we are and the meanings we create around ourselves. The better we have gained control of our technology, the more creators are able to create and express their own meanings and views of the world. Think about the next time you post a comment in response to a YouTube video or be consciously aware of what you type next time you update your Facebook. The video is just a video and the experience in itself means nothing. However, your comments become a reflection of the type of person you are and the meaning you received from watching that video or that experience you wish to share. Even more importantly is the dialogue you engage in with those who comment back. This is evidence that other people read what you had to say and are now expressing their view. Therefore, the computer is more than just a medium or a piece of artificial intelligence. Rather, the computer is a form of expression and interaction between viewers and creators that bind us and bring us to life.
Bolter also makes a point about how there are those who believe the appearence of web pages should be determined by users and that the elaborate visual design of web pages is neccessary. In other words, the form of a website and the content of a website can not be separated. I agree and disagree with this statement. Even if a particular website has a plain, black background, if a person wants information that badly from this website, he'll still read the words on the page to acquire information. However, clear menus, links, and proper colors of backgrounds and texts do greatly aid in making a website more presentable and enjoyable. After all, people like eye candy. If it works in advertising and television commercials, then it works for the internet as well. As computers evolved, graphic designers of computers evolved as well to add pictures, sounds, and colors to what once were dull websites. I would imagine people would flock to or favor those pages that are more colorful, decorated, and interactive over dull black and white text pages. Again, how people present web sites is a reflection upon who they are. Remember how you set up your MySpace page? The page itself is just a page, but the background, colors, and song of choice you added gave meaning to that page and was most likely a reflection of your favorite colors or preferred genre of music. Therefore, through computers and the internet, we express ourselves to the world at all times even if we are not always consciously aware we are doing so and through easy to use design sites, like MySpace and Facebook, we have all become graphic designers to an extent.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Our Syllabus
COMM 6300 Summer 2010
Public Communication in Digital Environments
Dr. Lance Strate; Faculty Memorial Hall, Room 434A; 718.817.4864; 718.817.4868 (fax)
Office Hours: before or after class or by appointment
Required Texts
Jay David Bolter & Diane Gromala, Windows and Mirrors: Interaction Design, Digital Art, and the Myth of Transparency.
Paul Levinson, New New Media.
Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media.
Lance Strate, Ron L. Jacobson, and Stephanie B. Gibson, Communication and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment (Second Edition).
Requirements
1. Regular attendance.
2. Relevant and sensible class participation and online interaction.
3. Careful reading of assigned texts.
4. Postings on the class blog at least two times a week related to readings, class discussion, and analysis of new media, and commenting on posts put up by others.
5. A term paper in the form of a scholarly article or essay. The paper should follow an accepted style guide (e.g., APA, MLA) and should be thoroughly proofread. Term papers will be due on July 1 in both a print version and as a post on the class blog (which can include links, images, and audiovisual material).
6. An in-class presentation on the final day of class based on your term paper.
Overview:
This course is devoted to the exploration of the computer as a medium of communication, and to the related technologies that make computer-mediated communication possible. This includes those communication technologies known as new media, the internet, online communications, and concepts such as cyberspace, virtual reality, hypermedia, and of course digital media. The goal of this course is not, however, to study the technological workings of computer technology in all its detail, but rather to gain a general understanding of how these media work, and work us over. In other words, the main concern is with how we communicate in our new media environments, and how that communication differs from the way that we have interacted previously; how we think, feel, and behave in virtual worlds; how we form our sense of self and identity online (and off); how we form our sense of community online (and off). No special skill in computing is needed for this class, but it is assumed that students have access to and are familiar with e-mail and the Web.
Tentative Schedule:
June 1 Introduction to the Class
June 3 The Computer as Medium I
Reading Due: Bolter & Gromala, Windows and Mirrors
June 8 The Computer as Medium II
Reading Due: Bolter & Gromala, Windows and Mirrors
June 10 New Media as Language and Art I ***No Class Meeting***
Reading Due: Manovich, The Language of New Media
June 15 New Media as Language and Art II
Reading Due: Manovich, The Language of New Media
June 17 Communication and Cyberspace: Overview and Function
Reading Due: Strate et al, Communication & Cyberspace, Intro., Sects.1-2
June 22 Communication and Cyberspace: Form and Meaning
Reading Due: Strate et al, Communication & Cyberspace, Sects.3-4, Epil.
June 24 Web 2.0 & Social Media I
Reading Due: Levinson, New New Media
June 29 Web 2.0 & Social Media I
Reading Due: Levinson, New New Media
July 1 Presentations
Welcome
Welcome! This is the class blog for COMM 6300 Public Communication in Digital Environments, a graduate class in the Communication and Media Studies Department at Fordham University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)