In New Media: A Critical Introduction, Lister et al. (ch. 2.7.1, 2009) quote Bolter and Grusin, who stated that "if the medium really disappeared, as is the apparent goal of the logic of transparency, the viewer would not be amazed because she would not know of the medium's presence" (1999). After growing up on science fiction movies, the present seems far less consumed by technology than I would have anticipated, and I believe that this "transparency" of the medium is why. While the actuality of technology is definitely different than what science fiction writers anticipated, as in no flying cars or armies of human clones, it has actually far extended some writers' visions in terms of what we are able to do with computers. Today we have the ability to relay digital content from across the globe in seconds from something that is able to fit into our pockets. Technology is a huge part of our lives, so why does it feel so natural? It seems that one of the ways that we have made technology fit into our lives is by disguising it as other things, thus making the medium "disappear."
Science fiction draws attention to the technology. The writers' goal is to make sure that the viewer is amazed by it. They celebrate the steel buildings, and purposely make them look like nothing we have ever seen before. The computers that they envisioned for 2019 in Blade Runner (1982) look like computers from the time the movie was made, which are closer to gigantic calculators, clearly mechanical and largely unfamiliar. The writers probably did not think to disguise the computer, and probably would not have wanted to. They embraced the technology and made no effort to hide it. This is the general case, and the result is that few sci-fi depictions of the future look very natural or comfortable, but we are amazed by the technology.
What might make our world feel so much less consumed by technology than in science fiction, despite the impact that technology has on our lives, is our tendency to divert our attention from it. One way that we do this is by balancing out the inorganic with the organic. As I write this, I sit at my laptop, and stare out at the grazing buffalo in Yellowstone National Park -- as my desktop background, of course. I suppose I could instead have picked a background of circuitry, to remind myself of the masterful machine I am using, but the green rolling hills instead remind me of a window to the natural world. This disguises the medium, creating, in fact, a sort of virtual natural environment, with the result of making me less aware of the technology I am using and creating the illusion that technology is less a factor in my life than it really is.
Balancing out the inorganic with the organic is just one way that we try to disguise technology and make it easier for us to adapt to. In general, we seem to migrate between technologies and media by making them simulate environments we are already familiar with. Instead of us adapting to "computing environments" we make the computers adapt to ours. Not only does this make us more comfortable, but it also seems to aid in accessibility and decrease the device's learning curve. So, instead of having a computer that acts like something that processes words and numbers, zeros and ones, I have a computer that simulates a desktop, making it not actually look like a computer and thus making the medium itself less apparent. Of course, as we get used to computers they will start to develop more and more of their own conventions that are unlike anything else, but it was this disguising of the medium that made most people comfortable with using them in the first place.
Of course, the other side of this coin is the obvious effort to emphasis the "new" in every new medium and new technology, however in many ways it is the "new" itself that is doing the hiding of the medium. The end result is actually a seamless integration with the medium and the content. In another quote, while discussing the excitement that surrounds the prospects of new gadgets and technology, Brian Lam states in the Gizmodo article "Shine On, You Crazy Gadgets" that "the best tech, as it approaches a zenith of purpose and polish, becomes invisible. It gets out of the way of the user, and becomes just a portal to...stuff"(2010). How true this is! While I am talking on facebook, I do not sit and think "Wow! Today I am able to sit down and, through the magic of the world wide web, communicate with my friend across the world in real time." Instead, I just sit down, and talk to my friend. After a short time the novelty wears off and it feels completely normal.
Lam finishes off his article by making the very important point, that "It's not shiny things that captivate me anymore; it's what they shine"(2010). So, while the novelty of the medium might wear off, what the medium convey will be the ultimate message. The opening quote of this post was taken from a discussion on CG. In most CG heavy movies, I am in awe of the fact that we have the technology to create these effects, however once this awe wears off there still remains the thrill of being able to experience the content that I would not have been able to without CG (the medium), and as far as I am concerned this is pretty amazing on its own in many cases. So, all in all, I guess McLuhan lost out in this round.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Lam. "Shine On, You Crazy Gadget." Gizmodo. Jan 1, 2010. Web. March 17, 2010.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Technological Determinism: McLuhan and Williams: Do We Control the Media or Does the Media Control Us?
The end of first part of the New Media: A Critical Introduction is spent examining the philosophies of two of the most influential philosophers of new media: Raymond Williams and Marshall McLuhan (ch 1.6 - 1.6.6). Both men have impacted the philosophy and studies of new media and are deemed relevant, however their differing philosophies have created somewhat conflicting ways of looking at new media. Essentially, McLuahn writes about the impact that media has on us, while Williams says that since we determine how we use the media we are the ones who decide the media's effect (Lister et al. 1.6.1). So, which way of the two men is correct?
In general, I can understand Williams' frustration with McLuahn's way of thinking. While reading about Baudrillard, and post-modernist perspectives of new media (Lister et al., ch 1.2.6) stemming from McLuhan's philosophies (Lister et al. 1.6.4), I also felt like media and technology were taken out of the context of our intended uses for them, which seems to, in reality, be a largely limiting factor. This might be a little bit more obvious to me after having witnessed a future that hardly resembles that which science fiction writers of the past had predicted. In general, social factors have gotten in the way of allowing media and technology to consume our lives to the extent that it might have been predicted earlier, and it seems fair to say that our society has influenced technology at least as much as technology has influenced society in response. While for me it was apparent that we, ourselves, are controlling what type of an impact technology has on our lives, Williams, more accurately and importantly, notes that existing power structures limit how technologies impact our lives whether most people want them to or not (as is the case with the medium of writing and illiteracy discussed by Lister et al. in case study 1.9).
I do think, however, that the theories spawned from McLuhan's perspective on the power of media and technological determination are very important as well. I state "the theories spawned from," because from the reading it seemed that followers of McLuhan, such as Baudrillard (Lister et al. 1.6.4), were stronger proponents of technological determinism than he might even have been. Anyhow, if we did not decide to use media the way we do, there would be no reason for McLuhan to even be writing about it, so it seems that he is already one step head of Williams in a sense. So, assuming that we decide to, and the existing power structures enable us to use the medium, how does us using the medium in turn effect us?
While it seems to me that the vast majority of the effect of these new media are due to the content, this puts the discussion back in the realm of Williams, in that it seems easier for us to be in control of the content than the effects of the medium as a whole, and as McLuhan makes clear, he is focused on the media itself as the message (Lister et al., 1.6.2) which is a much better grounds for making a point of technological determinism.
What strikes me as part of the problem with Williams is that he seems to assume people as all knowing, which in turn means that by allowing the medium into our lives we ourselves have invited its effects. However people are not all knowing and we can not necessarily predict the full spectrum of the effect that using a new medium will have on us. We are not always capable of determining exactly what the impact of a new medium is going to be, and thus we are not completely in control of it. For example, while we might have wanted TV to be a part of our lives initially since we thought of it as a great thing for its ability to engage our visual and auditory senses as McLuhan did (Lister et al., 1.6.2), we might not have perceived the more subtle effects of the medium that we did not intend to expose ourselves to.
In addition, there is also the question of addiction and temptation. While the medium is to blame for this as much as chocolate is for being too tasty, there remains the fact that if this medium was never introduced people might have had more rational control over their lives. I do believe, that to an extent, we do not watch TV, but TV makes us watch it. What seems to click and feel good about a medium is sometimes beyond our logical intention for it, and I would argue to an extent that if there is something inherent in a medium that directs how we use it, that thing would be its capacity for giving us the most pleasure and sense of power. While what gives us pleasure and a sense of power are partially social constructs, they are also in a large part biological constructs, and in that sense are more set in stone by our genetics, getting us into the question of an even larger determinism. Ultimately I would say that when a new medium is able to find the key to making us feel these things, its use starts to slip out of our logical control.
In general, however, the most obvious answer the question of "whether or not a media technology has the power to transform a culture (Lister et al. ch 1.6) " might be found when we just think of a new media in terms of enabling. While we might have wanted to communicate something, it simply is not possible without a medium capable of it. So, yes, the medium itself is a crucial step in transforming the culture, and thus the medium itself seems to have the power to create change. The response to this seems to be: "but an object is inanimate, it is not doing it, we are doing it with it," so then I guess it is possible to answer Lister et al.'s question in ch 1.6 only if we change the wording a bit. What we want to and are now able to accomplish through new media has the power to change a culture. This empowers us and dictates our responsibility while also stating the importance and the potential for change that having a new media creates.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
In general, I can understand Williams' frustration with McLuahn's way of thinking. While reading about Baudrillard, and post-modernist perspectives of new media (Lister et al., ch 1.2.6) stemming from McLuhan's philosophies (Lister et al. 1.6.4), I also felt like media and technology were taken out of the context of our intended uses for them, which seems to, in reality, be a largely limiting factor. This might be a little bit more obvious to me after having witnessed a future that hardly resembles that which science fiction writers of the past had predicted. In general, social factors have gotten in the way of allowing media and technology to consume our lives to the extent that it might have been predicted earlier, and it seems fair to say that our society has influenced technology at least as much as technology has influenced society in response. While for me it was apparent that we, ourselves, are controlling what type of an impact technology has on our lives, Williams, more accurately and importantly, notes that existing power structures limit how technologies impact our lives whether most people want them to or not (as is the case with the medium of writing and illiteracy discussed by Lister et al. in case study 1.9).
I do think, however, that the theories spawned from McLuhan's perspective on the power of media and technological determination are very important as well. I state "the theories spawned from," because from the reading it seemed that followers of McLuhan, such as Baudrillard (Lister et al. 1.6.4), were stronger proponents of technological determinism than he might even have been. Anyhow, if we did not decide to use media the way we do, there would be no reason for McLuhan to even be writing about it, so it seems that he is already one step head of Williams in a sense. So, assuming that we decide to, and the existing power structures enable us to use the medium, how does us using the medium in turn effect us?
While it seems to me that the vast majority of the effect of these new media are due to the content, this puts the discussion back in the realm of Williams, in that it seems easier for us to be in control of the content than the effects of the medium as a whole, and as McLuhan makes clear, he is focused on the media itself as the message (Lister et al., 1.6.2) which is a much better grounds for making a point of technological determinism.
What strikes me as part of the problem with Williams is that he seems to assume people as all knowing, which in turn means that by allowing the medium into our lives we ourselves have invited its effects. However people are not all knowing and we can not necessarily predict the full spectrum of the effect that using a new medium will have on us. We are not always capable of determining exactly what the impact of a new medium is going to be, and thus we are not completely in control of it. For example, while we might have wanted TV to be a part of our lives initially since we thought of it as a great thing for its ability to engage our visual and auditory senses as McLuhan did (Lister et al., 1.6.2), we might not have perceived the more subtle effects of the medium that we did not intend to expose ourselves to.
In addition, there is also the question of addiction and temptation. While the medium is to blame for this as much as chocolate is for being too tasty, there remains the fact that if this medium was never introduced people might have had more rational control over their lives. I do believe, that to an extent, we do not watch TV, but TV makes us watch it. What seems to click and feel good about a medium is sometimes beyond our logical intention for it, and I would argue to an extent that if there is something inherent in a medium that directs how we use it, that thing would be its capacity for giving us the most pleasure and sense of power. While what gives us pleasure and a sense of power are partially social constructs, they are also in a large part biological constructs, and in that sense are more set in stone by our genetics, getting us into the question of an even larger determinism. Ultimately I would say that when a new medium is able to find the key to making us feel these things, its use starts to slip out of our logical control.
In general, however, the most obvious answer the question of "whether or not a media technology has the power to transform a culture (Lister et al. ch 1.6) " might be found when we just think of a new media in terms of enabling. While we might have wanted to communicate something, it simply is not possible without a medium capable of it. So, yes, the medium itself is a crucial step in transforming the culture, and thus the medium itself seems to have the power to create change. The response to this seems to be: "but an object is inanimate, it is not doing it, we are doing it with it," so then I guess it is possible to answer Lister et al.'s question in ch 1.6 only if we change the wording a bit. What we want to and are now able to accomplish through new media has the power to change a culture. This empowers us and dictates our responsibility while also stating the importance and the potential for change that having a new media creates.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Monday, February 22, 2010
New Media and Nature
I know I talked about Avatar last week, but this week I want to talk about another thing the movie brought up for me. Just to put it out there I'm definitely not Avatar obsessed, but I think that the movie is worth writing about since it has relationships to new media on so many different levels.
It was in my late teens I think when really started to see what may have been more obvious for others, which is the benefit of connecting with the natural world. While the excitement in the outdoors might not be as in your face as movies or video games, it is free, it is your own (in the sense you that you find it for yourself), it is awe inspiringly complex, awe inspiringly simple, and the connection is much more intense and feels better than anything I believe new media can offer. It also seems to be able to offer answers to quite a few questions if you look for them. It seems like especially since the Enlightenment, as people move away from religion, it has become more important to find a sort of spiritual fulfillment else where, and nature seems is an obvious places for this. As the type of person who gets so caught up in doing work that I can go for days with only a few hours outdoors, keeping this in mind is especially important.
Then come in nature documentaries. To me they seem to serve as a cheap nature fix. While these do help me to appreciate the outside world, and teach me things that I wouldn't have learned from just "being outdoors" I can not help but feel a little bit strange that my I spend most of my time experiencing the outside world from my couch. I feel like new media generally encourages us to live a synthetic connection with the natural world, but to what point is it real? I know it can definitely feel real sometimes, and according to my New Media teacher, Nicola Martinez, it really does feel like we are actually there, but does it have the same spiritual benefits? For some reason, Avatar made the connection feel incredibly hollow to me.
Of course, there is a beauty and a spiritual quality in exploring the depths of our imagination and feeling the emotions that we can feel through new media and media in general. This is essentially what keeps me coming back.
The the discussion of the relationship between technology, entertainment, and the natural world is definitely not a new one, however I feel like I have not heard it talked about very much recently. Anyhow, I guess I wrote this for myself as a reminder that as a new media artist, while I strive to create exciting new worlds it is also important to look at the world that is here around me.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Martinez, Nicola. "History and Theory of New Media Week 4" Google Wave with author, quote from PhD Dissertation. Feb 16, 2010.
Anyhow, one of the things that got me thinking the most about in the movie was our relationship to nature, as one of the main themes in the movies is connection to the living world, while at the same time the movie as a whole was about and encouraged us to disconnect from the real world. In general, the movie did the strange thing of celebrating something that is more organic than than the truly organic. The whole thing struck me as a little bit off, but in general, I guess that after contemplating these conflicting ideas I ended up thinking more about how I should be embracing the natural world, and in general made me worried about how new media could be increasing the gap between it and myself.
Anxieties about new media are brought up by Lister, et al. in chapter 1.5.3 of New Media: A Critical Introduction, which got me thing about this. People have always had worries about new technology. I remember reading something along the line of that when writing was introduced to ancient Greece, people were worried about its impact on oral tradition and people's memories. In general, it seems obvious that people who enjoy the current situation are always going to be afraid of change.
In general though, new media didn't create this gap between us and the organic world, it has been growing some time. In America, jobs on farms started to be displaced by jobs in factories over a hundred years ago. It seems like now, there is actually an emphasis being put on having greener workplaces, so in certain ways the situation might even be getting better. In Blade Runner and other science fiction movies, they portray a future with our world covered in metal with everything as having been in some way engineered by man. I believe that in many ways society is fighting against this post-modernist image of the future, and I generally don't see it happening, but my fear is that new media does encourage us to lose touch with our natural surroundings. I think that generally, most people feel the need to get outside and to have organic things around them, however I know that I can lose touch with that need pretty easily and I think it might be that way for some other adults. When I was a kid, growing up with the internet and TV, I didn't even see the importance of spending time outside at all, and I would say many kids today are probably the same way.
It was in my late teens I think when really started to see what may have been more obvious for others, which is the benefit of connecting with the natural world. While the excitement in the outdoors might not be as in your face as movies or video games, it is free, it is your own (in the sense you that you find it for yourself), it is awe inspiringly complex, awe inspiringly simple, and the connection is much more intense and feels better than anything I believe new media can offer. It also seems to be able to offer answers to quite a few questions if you look for them. It seems like especially since the Enlightenment, as people move away from religion, it has become more important to find a sort of spiritual fulfillment else where, and nature seems is an obvious places for this. As the type of person who gets so caught up in doing work that I can go for days with only a few hours outdoors, keeping this in mind is especially important.
Then come in nature documentaries. To me they seem to serve as a cheap nature fix. While these do help me to appreciate the outside world, and teach me things that I wouldn't have learned from just "being outdoors" I can not help but feel a little bit strange that my I spend most of my time experiencing the outside world from my couch. I feel like new media generally encourages us to live a synthetic connection with the natural world, but to what point is it real? I know it can definitely feel real sometimes, and according to my New Media teacher, Nicola Martinez, it really does feel like we are actually there, but does it have the same spiritual benefits? For some reason, Avatar made the connection feel incredibly hollow to me.
Of course, there is a beauty and a spiritual quality in exploring the depths of our imagination and feeling the emotions that we can feel through new media and media in general. This is essentially what keeps me coming back.
The the discussion of the relationship between technology, entertainment, and the natural world is definitely not a new one, however I feel like I have not heard it talked about very much recently. Anyhow, I guess I wrote this for myself as a reminder that as a new media artist, while I strive to create exciting new worlds it is also important to look at the world that is here around me.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Martinez, Nicola. "History and Theory of New Media Week 4" Google Wave with author, quote from PhD Dissertation. Feb 16, 2010.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Purpose, New Media, and Avatar
These are some of my thoughts pertaining to my reading thus far in the Digital Media: A Critical Introduction book. I have used chapters instead of page numbers for citations, since I'm reading it on Kindle for PC, which uses a different page numbering system.
In chapter 1.4.2 in Digital Media: A Critical Introduction, Lister et al. outline many interesting points on new media and its use and potential uses or "affordances". These points inspire us to ask ourselves what exactly a medium lends itself to and how can it best be put to use. Digital Art and animation are probably my favorites out of all the new media, so lets start there.
For me, the first answer that pops into my head is AVATAR (in very large, exciting letters). The possibilities for creating simulations of reality, or imagined realities, seems amazing. We are given this crazy, complex world around us, and for some reason one of our driving instincts is to figure out how it came to be, and to bisect it down to some mathematical formula. Obviously, this serves some great purposes. As a aspiring new media artist, however, I'm primarily interested in how I can transform this newly digitized reality, and make it more exciting than the one we see every day. I guess this is considered creating the Baudrilliard's hyperreal, discussed by Lister et al. in chapter 1.2.6 of the book, though I do not fully understand that term, and he seems to use it in reference to even creations which are not stretched intentionally away from reality. Anyhow, digital art and animation seem to be perfectly suited for this purpose.
While it is important to ask ourselves what a new medium "affords" us, it is important to first ask ourselves the obvious question of what exactly we want this medium to do. In chapter 1.4.2, Lister et al. reference Raymond Williams: "Williams argues that there is nothing inherent in the nature of a media technology that it is responsible for the way society uses it." While this makes sense, we can not dismiss the obvious fact that something was initially created to serve some specific purpose, and while we are not limited to that purpose, it is probably going to be our primary intent. If I can use something to make a bowl of soup, I do not really care, when what I want to be doing is making pancakes, which was why I originally created this random imaginary gizmo. Of course, beyond that, after we have had enough pancakes to eat, we must exercise our curiosity and ask ourselves, "ok, so what else besides make pancakes can I create with this cool new toy?" I suppose, if we were not so hungry for pancakes in the first place, we might have found out that it actually can make belgian waffles, which would have been way, way tastier than pancakes, but we did not think about it when we were making the contraption. This would be the importance of determining a new media's "affordance" and in chapter 1.4.2, they discuss the need for experimentation to find out all these neat things we can do with each new media.
To be honest, in terms of animation and special effects, I think we have found the way to make a whole Krispy Kream doughnuts factory. At the moment, I can not really envision how it could be better, but then again, I have not actually talked to the people who worked on Avatar, and I am sure they would have a few ideas. I guess, on many levels, our own knowledge is really the only thing holding back from the possibilities of uses of computers. While the processor speed and other more material factors make a difference, in many cases making something happen is just a matter of someone sorting through the code to do so. In general, the main afforance of a new digital medium is based on what we make it to do. Their usefulness is primarily limited by what we have wanted to accomplish with them, and, what we can feed them with code. With most tools we might find added uses other than what they were created to do, however, in the days of computing, we could have probably achieved this new found purpose a different way by beginning with the purpose in mind.
On a slightly different note, Avatar is also interesting when you consider the fact that, while it was created utilizing new media, it is a movie relased for cinemas, which is more of an old medium. The authors note an interesting quote from Clement Greenburg, in which he discusses the new media of his time, photography, and how the function of paintings changes with the invention of it: "painting should utilize color and surface since photography was better for illustrative and narrative work. Painting could now realize its true nature." If an old media is to survive, it has to take advantage of what makes it special from new media. Avatar does a great job of doing that with the old medium of cinematic movies. While the movie makes great use of computer effects, it also really seems to find the "true nature" of old medium of cinematic distribution in a world with rising new forms of distribution. As people are now frequently able to pirate movies before they even leave the theaters, the point in going out to watch movies is diminishing. I think that all movies are best on the big screen, but some movies really just have to be watched on one. It seems that movies without all these visuals could end up moving towards internet distribution, while more visual movies are left to shine on the big screen. One good example of how this is working already is in the comedy genre. Will Farell and other comedians are basically as funny on the small screen as on the big screen, and Funny or Die makes great use of their talents at a low budget for everyone to watch, which I am sure makes them quite a hefty sum in advertising revenue and affords them more creative opportunities. For the audience, it is definitely worth sacrificing seeing them on the big screen to get the opportunity to watch them at home for free and with more material being put out. While I have not heard of internet distribution of any full-length Hollywood features, I think that it could definitely be a possibility for smaller studios or films that are more plot and dialog based. There is still nothing like seeing any movie on the big screen, but I also think that many interesting opportunities could afford themselves to the medium of internet distribution.
In general, there is tons more to be said about the uses and affordance of digital effects and simulation and computing in general. These are just a few of my initial thoughts on the subject.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
In chapter 1.4.2 in Digital Media: A Critical Introduction, Lister et al. outline many interesting points on new media and its use and potential uses or "affordances". These points inspire us to ask ourselves what exactly a medium lends itself to and how can it best be put to use. Digital Art and animation are probably my favorites out of all the new media, so lets start there.
For me, the first answer that pops into my head is AVATAR (in very large, exciting letters). The possibilities for creating simulations of reality, or imagined realities, seems amazing. We are given this crazy, complex world around us, and for some reason one of our driving instincts is to figure out how it came to be, and to bisect it down to some mathematical formula. Obviously, this serves some great purposes. As a aspiring new media artist, however, I'm primarily interested in how I can transform this newly digitized reality, and make it more exciting than the one we see every day. I guess this is considered creating the Baudrilliard's hyperreal, discussed by Lister et al. in chapter 1.2.6 of the book, though I do not fully understand that term, and he seems to use it in reference to even creations which are not stretched intentionally away from reality. Anyhow, digital art and animation seem to be perfectly suited for this purpose.
While it is important to ask ourselves what a new medium "affords" us, it is important to first ask ourselves the obvious question of what exactly we want this medium to do. In chapter 1.4.2, Lister et al. reference Raymond Williams: "Williams argues that there is nothing inherent in the nature of a media technology that it is responsible for the way society uses it." While this makes sense, we can not dismiss the obvious fact that something was initially created to serve some specific purpose, and while we are not limited to that purpose, it is probably going to be our primary intent. If I can use something to make a bowl of soup, I do not really care, when what I want to be doing is making pancakes, which was why I originally created this random imaginary gizmo. Of course, beyond that, after we have had enough pancakes to eat, we must exercise our curiosity and ask ourselves, "ok, so what else besides make pancakes can I create with this cool new toy?" I suppose, if we were not so hungry for pancakes in the first place, we might have found out that it actually can make belgian waffles, which would have been way, way tastier than pancakes, but we did not think about it when we were making the contraption. This would be the importance of determining a new media's "affordance" and in chapter 1.4.2, they discuss the need for experimentation to find out all these neat things we can do with each new media.
To be honest, in terms of animation and special effects, I think we have found the way to make a whole Krispy Kream doughnuts factory. At the moment, I can not really envision how it could be better, but then again, I have not actually talked to the people who worked on Avatar, and I am sure they would have a few ideas. I guess, on many levels, our own knowledge is really the only thing holding back from the possibilities of uses of computers. While the processor speed and other more material factors make a difference, in many cases making something happen is just a matter of someone sorting through the code to do so. In general, the main afforance of a new digital medium is based on what we make it to do. Their usefulness is primarily limited by what we have wanted to accomplish with them, and, what we can feed them with code. With most tools we might find added uses other than what they were created to do, however, in the days of computing, we could have probably achieved this new found purpose a different way by beginning with the purpose in mind.
On a slightly different note, Avatar is also interesting when you consider the fact that, while it was created utilizing new media, it is a movie relased for cinemas, which is more of an old medium. The authors note an interesting quote from Clement Greenburg, in which he discusses the new media of his time, photography, and how the function of paintings changes with the invention of it: "painting should utilize color and surface since photography was better for illustrative and narrative work. Painting could now realize its true nature." If an old media is to survive, it has to take advantage of what makes it special from new media. Avatar does a great job of doing that with the old medium of cinematic movies. While the movie makes great use of computer effects, it also really seems to find the "true nature" of old medium of cinematic distribution in a world with rising new forms of distribution. As people are now frequently able to pirate movies before they even leave the theaters, the point in going out to watch movies is diminishing. I think that all movies are best on the big screen, but some movies really just have to be watched on one. It seems that movies without all these visuals could end up moving towards internet distribution, while more visual movies are left to shine on the big screen. One good example of how this is working already is in the comedy genre. Will Farell and other comedians are basically as funny on the small screen as on the big screen, and Funny or Die makes great use of their talents at a low budget for everyone to watch, which I am sure makes them quite a hefty sum in advertising revenue and affords them more creative opportunities. For the audience, it is definitely worth sacrificing seeing them on the big screen to get the opportunity to watch them at home for free and with more material being put out. While I have not heard of internet distribution of any full-length Hollywood features, I think that it could definitely be a possibility for smaller studios or films that are more plot and dialog based. There is still nothing like seeing any movie on the big screen, but I also think that many interesting opportunities could afford themselves to the medium of internet distribution.
In general, there is tons more to be said about the uses and affordance of digital effects and simulation and computing in general. These are just a few of my initial thoughts on the subject.
References
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Thoughts on Google Wave
During my course in digital media, all teacher student communications are taking place in google wave. These communications are one my first experiences with the program, and I decided that starting out with the program was a good opportunity to explore some questions I had about it and to make some comments.
I've had google wave for maybe a month, and checked my account only a couple of times. While it seemed interesting, I did not really seem to have any real reason to explore it until now. As soon as Nicola, (my History and Theory of New Media teacher) and I agreed to use it we came up with the problem of reminding ourselves to check it. One of the most important problems I foresee for google wave is people forgetting about it. There are a few things that could keep me (and other users) coming back to the program, which is something that google has to focus on at this point in development.
It seems like if google wave is going to be an e-mail replacement, it should somehow sync with what I have for e-mail right now. This means that I want my old e-mails to come to my google wave in-box. I'm going to check whatever program people send me things in, and whatever I'm checking is what I'm going to be sending people things out of. This means that I want my gmail mail (where people actually send me things) forwarded to my google wave, and to be able to respond to e-mails through google wave. So is this possible?
According to google, this is not possible, for now. Until this happens I do not for-see google wave replacing e-mail anytime soon, but once membership is open to the public it could be less of a problem.
Since it would be pointless for me to integrate google wave into part of my work flow at this point and check it every day, I need a way to let me know when I do have new waves. For windows , I installed the firefox plugin. For my mac I installed Hiroshi's Unofficial Google Wave Notifier, which works like google notifier and sits on the top of my screen and works with growl.
Another main issue I had from jumping into wave was the fact that I did not really have any way to really test it out or see examples. My first experience with wave made it seem more like e-mail, however what I knew about wave made it sound like it had more public forum capabilities, but how to access these public forms so I could see what wave was capable of?
The answer is not something I would have guessed on my own. In the search box, you have to search with: public
This is a great example of the power of search modifiers. They are things which I will probably explore more in depth later in this course when I talk about different methods of finding information.
Anyhow, upon googling "with:public" I was bombarded by my first massive wave experience, it's almost...too much...
Using wave as a messenger seems like it would not be fun as it would just create massive waves that aren't so relevant unless you're using the wave for only that purpose..."hey how's everyone today" "fine" "dandy" "everything's good" "I have a cold"...wave does not seem like the place for it, at least not in documents that you want to put to use eventually. A good way to get around this would be to have a way to collapse irrelevant messages or highlight important bits of conversation. Generally, it would also be nice to have a way to collapse all subtopics.
Subtopics are one of the biggest things in google wave, for more information on them see this bit on inline editing: http://www.tubechop.com/watch/15061
Google wave has the potential to be embedded into a webpage, for easy updating and easy commenting. I do not really think it will replace a traditional blog structure though. It could be used more like a twitter page, or a photo gallery page, since I'm guessing you'd only be able to access the information in one spot (like a blog page without being able to click on individual posts), and, depending upon the user permissions, it could be also be a bit too collaborative to serve as a way to maintain content. I think that, most likely, waves would be replacing discussion boards and wikis (which are two things I don't participate in that often so are more difficult for me to compare to).
I use Evernote constantly, especially for my school notes, and random other tidbits. Normally my writing work-flow involves taking lots of notes in Evernote, building those note into sentences in the same document, and then piecing together into a more coherent whole in google docs. Basically, 90% of everything I do is done in browser or in Evernote. To be honest I don't have too many problems with it, but I also think google wave has potential to be a more dynamic note taker. I especially like the idea of non inline editing, since it could be a helpful way of expanding my outlines. After playing with wave I do not think you can really use it in the same manner as Evernote though. So far it seems much less accessible in terms of searching notes, and harder to take fast notes (I normally use Evernote like word pad, with a standalone note without the whole app up so I can have my browser and my note side by side).
A large part of what makes humans unique is our aptitude for interacting with tools. There are an abundance of blogs out there dedicated to new gadgets we can play with. Each one involves us adapting ourselves differently in order to accomplish new tasks or old tasks more efficiently. As my first blog post dedicated to new media (and, a sort of, new gadget) I ask you to take a look back at our ancestors, the stick wielding monkeys.
Our desires to play in new interfaces and explore new technologies is a little bit strange. I'm completely guilty of doing it even when I have no idea how it will ever serve me (I feel like this a little bit with google wave right now), but it is kinda fun. It could also be one of the thing that helps us to adapt to new media. Since things started changing rapidly around the industrial revolution we have gotten used to the excitement of new things, and though sometimes we may not know exactly what they amount to we seem to enjoy dreaming of the possibilities and learning to adapt ourselves.
History of e-mail (and maybe even snail mail)
Different methods for different content/content structure (for what do we use e-mail, wave, facebook, etc)
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-wave-search/15785/
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/15061
http://blog.yakitara.com/2009/10/unofficial-google-wave-notifier-for-mac.html
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/14973
I've had google wave for maybe a month, and checked my account only a couple of times. While it seemed interesting, I did not really seem to have any real reason to explore it until now. As soon as Nicola, (my History and Theory of New Media teacher) and I agreed to use it we came up with the problem of reminding ourselves to check it. One of the most important problems I foresee for google wave is people forgetting about it. There are a few things that could keep me (and other users) coming back to the program, which is something that google has to focus on at this point in development.
Can I Forward e-mail to wave?
It seems like if google wave is going to be an e-mail replacement, it should somehow sync with what I have for e-mail right now. This means that I want my old e-mails to come to my google wave in-box. I'm going to check whatever program people send me things in, and whatever I'm checking is what I'm going to be sending people things out of. This means that I want my gmail mail (where people actually send me things) forwarded to my google wave, and to be able to respond to e-mails through google wave. So is this possible?
According to google, this is not possible, for now. Until this happens I do not for-see google wave replacing e-mail anytime soon, but once membership is open to the public it could be less of a problem.
Google Wave Notifications?
Since it would be pointless for me to integrate google wave into part of my work flow at this point and check it every day, I need a way to let me know when I do have new waves. For windows , I installed the firefox plugin. For my mac I installed Hiroshi's Unofficial Google Wave Notifier, which works like google notifier and sits on the top of my screen and works with growl.
How to Join Public Waves
Another main issue I had from jumping into wave was the fact that I did not really have any way to really test it out or see examples. My first experience with wave made it seem more like e-mail, however what I knew about wave made it sound like it had more public forum capabilities, but how to access these public forms so I could see what wave was capable of?
The answer is not something I would have guessed on my own. In the search box, you have to search with: public
This is a great example of the power of search modifiers. They are things which I will probably explore more in depth later in this course when I talk about different methods of finding information.
Wave as an Instant Messenger
Anyhow, upon googling "with:public" I was bombarded by my first massive wave experience, it's almost...too much...
Using wave as a messenger seems like it would not be fun as it would just create massive waves that aren't so relevant unless you're using the wave for only that purpose..."hey how's everyone today" "fine" "dandy" "everything's good" "I have a cold"...wave does not seem like the place for it, at least not in documents that you want to put to use eventually. A good way to get around this would be to have a way to collapse irrelevant messages or highlight important bits of conversation. Generally, it would also be nice to have a way to collapse all subtopics.
Subtopics are one of the biggest things in google wave, for more information on them see this bit on inline editing: http://www.tubechop.com/watch/15061
Google Wave as a CMS?
Google wave has the potential to be embedded into a webpage, for easy updating and easy commenting. I do not really think it will replace a traditional blog structure though. It could be used more like a twitter page, or a photo gallery page, since I'm guessing you'd only be able to access the information in one spot (like a blog page without being able to click on individual posts), and, depending upon the user permissions, it could be also be a bit too collaborative to serve as a way to maintain content. I think that, most likely, waves would be replacing discussion boards and wikis (which are two things I don't participate in that often so are more difficult for me to compare to).
Google Wave For Personal Note Taking
I use Evernote constantly, especially for my school notes, and random other tidbits. Normally my writing work-flow involves taking lots of notes in Evernote, building those note into sentences in the same document, and then piecing together into a more coherent whole in google docs. Basically, 90% of everything I do is done in browser or in Evernote. To be honest I don't have too many problems with it, but I also think google wave has potential to be a more dynamic note taker. I especially like the idea of non inline editing, since it could be a helpful way of expanding my outlines. After playing with wave I do not think you can really use it in the same manner as Evernote though. So far it seems much less accessible in terms of searching notes, and harder to take fast notes (I normally use Evernote like word pad, with a standalone note without the whole app up so I can have my browser and my note side by side).
Man and Tools
A large part of what makes humans unique is our aptitude for interacting with tools. There are an abundance of blogs out there dedicated to new gadgets we can play with. Each one involves us adapting ourselves differently in order to accomplish new tasks or old tasks more efficiently. As my first blog post dedicated to new media (and, a sort of, new gadget) I ask you to take a look back at our ancestors, the stick wielding monkeys.
Our desires to play in new interfaces and explore new technologies is a little bit strange. I'm completely guilty of doing it even when I have no idea how it will ever serve me (I feel like this a little bit with google wave right now), but it is kinda fun. It could also be one of the thing that helps us to adapt to new media. Since things started changing rapidly around the industrial revolution we have gotten used to the excitement of new things, and though sometimes we may not know exactly what they amount to we seem to enjoy dreaming of the possibilities and learning to adapt ourselves.
Additional Topics To Explore Pertaining to Wave
History of e-mail (and maybe even snail mail)
Different methods for different content/content structure (for what do we use e-mail, wave, facebook, etc)
I found these posts / pages helpful in answering my specific questions
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-wave-search/15785/
http://www.tubechop.com/watch/15061
http://blog.yakitara.com/2009/10/unofficial-google-wave-notifier-for-mac.html
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/14973
Friday, January 29, 2010
A History of New Media: Course
For the next semester, I am going to be using this blog for my academic writings for my course on the History of New Media. This is a reflective statement on the purpose of this course for me, and will include questions and topics to be explored through the study. This is my first draft of the purpose:
As a digital media artist, it is very important for me to know where new media is going and where it came from. By being aware of the past of new media I can put the future of new media into perspective, see what works and doesn't work, find inspiration, and see how it fits into a larger picture. Knowing about emerging areas of new media is critical for me, and through this course I hope to be able to appreciate these areas on a new level. I will also gain experience in new media through out this course by posting my assignments to a blog and by communicating with my teacher in google wave. In general, coming into a course I never can be sure what to expect from it, all that I know with this one is that I hope to be able to place new media into a larger context, and gain various philosophical and technical perspectives on it. I will also have a chance to put my technical and theoretical knowledge to use in my final project.
For now, I think that a good approach to this course is to explore one area of new media technology each week, and the theory and history behind it. Some topics I would like to discuss include:
This list is evolving and changing, just as the purpose of the course itself.
As a digital media artist, it is very important for me to know where new media is going and where it came from. By being aware of the past of new media I can put the future of new media into perspective, see what works and doesn't work, find inspiration, and see how it fits into a larger picture. Knowing about emerging areas of new media is critical for me, and through this course I hope to be able to appreciate these areas on a new level. I will also gain experience in new media through out this course by posting my assignments to a blog and by communicating with my teacher in google wave. In general, coming into a course I never can be sure what to expect from it, all that I know with this one is that I hope to be able to place new media into a larger context, and gain various philosophical and technical perspectives on it. I will also have a chance to put my technical and theoretical knowledge to use in my final project.
For now, I think that a good approach to this course is to explore one area of new media technology each week, and the theory and history behind it. Some topics I would like to discuss include:
- HTML 5 / CSS 2
- CMS
- Animation fronteirs
- Search Methods/ locating information
- Kindle / Text Readers (I'm using kindle to read my New Media book)
- Flash
- Accessibility / Usability / Human - Media Interaction
- Open source / pirating
- Advertising
- Simulation
- User-generated content
- Video Formats
- Online Identity / Community / Internet Trends
This list is evolving and changing, just as the purpose of the course itself.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Things to Know Before Making Aliyah: Some of the Red Tape I've Encountered
I figured I'd post a few things about Aliyah I've learned, since I did massive searches on the topic and this information still managed to elude me.
I decided that I wanted to make Aliyah while I was traveling in Australia, I called the Jewish Agency For Israel and they told me it wasn't a problem, just come to Israel and make it here.
The first problem I ran into was in the airport. I went to check in to my flight to Israel and they told me I couldn't fly because I had a one way ticket into Israel. I explained to them that I was planning on making aliyah but they still made me get a two way ticket and I almost missed my flight.
The next thing: Someone while I was in Israel told me that I'd have no problem working here if I was Jewish. First of all, unless you have citizenship or a working visa you can't work in Israel! Until I get my Tudat Zehut (Israeli ID, the last thing I'm waiting on for citizenship) I'm getting by on babysitting jobs.
Third and the thing that almost cost me the most: The Misrad Hapanim now requires a police report in order to make Aliyah. I was not informed of this before coming here, and when I found out I called my local police department from the states and was told I needed to be there in person to get it, obviously a problem as I was in Israel. Nefesh B'Nefesh (an organization that helps with the aliyah process) worked something out with the Misrad Hapanim (Office of the Interior, who finalizes the Aliyah) so I could submit a paper signed by a lawyer. You need this police report in order to get a work permit as well! If I had wanted to update my visa only to a working visa I would not have been able to do it as Nefesh B'Nefesh only assists with making aliyah!
Also, I planned my Aliyah very poorly, and I'm pretty dependent upon it coming through so I can really start my life here. Nefesh B'Nefesh told me it should take under two months from the date they process my application (November 1st) to process my application. It's been almost two weeks longer. Nefesh B'Nefesh has been helpful in general, but they don't have complete control over when get your Tudat Zehut, the Misrad Hapanim does since they have to go through them, so plan accordingly. I'll update this when I actually get my Tudat Zehut.
Some Resouces
www.nbn.co.il
www.janglo.net (for once you're in Israel)
I decided that I wanted to make Aliyah while I was traveling in Australia, I called the Jewish Agency For Israel and they told me it wasn't a problem, just come to Israel and make it here.
The first problem I ran into was in the airport. I went to check in to my flight to Israel and they told me I couldn't fly because I had a one way ticket into Israel. I explained to them that I was planning on making aliyah but they still made me get a two way ticket and I almost missed my flight.
The next thing: Someone while I was in Israel told me that I'd have no problem working here if I was Jewish. First of all, unless you have citizenship or a working visa you can't work in Israel! Until I get my Tudat Zehut (Israeli ID, the last thing I'm waiting on for citizenship) I'm getting by on babysitting jobs.
Third and the thing that almost cost me the most: The Misrad Hapanim now requires a police report in order to make Aliyah. I was not informed of this before coming here, and when I found out I called my local police department from the states and was told I needed to be there in person to get it, obviously a problem as I was in Israel. Nefesh B'Nefesh (an organization that helps with the aliyah process) worked something out with the Misrad Hapanim (Office of the Interior, who finalizes the Aliyah) so I could submit a paper signed by a lawyer. You need this police report in order to get a work permit as well! If I had wanted to update my visa only to a working visa I would not have been able to do it as Nefesh B'Nefesh only assists with making aliyah!
Also, I planned my Aliyah very poorly, and I'm pretty dependent upon it coming through so I can really start my life here. Nefesh B'Nefesh told me it should take under two months from the date they process my application (November 1st) to process my application. It's been almost two weeks longer. Nefesh B'Nefesh has been helpful in general, but they don't have complete control over when get your Tudat Zehut, the Misrad Hapanim does since they have to go through them, so plan accordingly. I'll update this when I actually get my Tudat Zehut.
Some Resouces
www.nbn.co.il
www.janglo.net (for once you're in Israel)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
