The topic of internet piracy is complex, and is guided to a large degree by economic and technical factors. Internet piracy and new media are very much interwoven, however, as the internet and digitization of content is what has enabled this content to separate from its more material form making it less easy to secure. This is the case with broadcast as well, however with digital media the non analogue form also makes it easy to reproduce this content an relive it whenever you chose. In 1994, Steve Jones accurately predicted that the internet will "ensnarl difficult legal matters concerning piracy, copyright and ethics." Everything about the internet leads to distributing content, however how far can it go? Now that content know no bounds, should they be allowed to roam free or is it possible to keep them boxed in? This article attempts to dissect some of these issues, on a theoretical, historical, and practical level.
What's New About Internet Piracy?
A good way to think about the history of illegal replication of content is terms of the distribution or exhibition medium and technology and the reproduction medium and technology. All of these factors have come together currently with the internet like never before to create the perfect environment for freely replicating content. However, content always been able to be unsecured and reproduced. Essentially, the difference in ease of replication lies in how complex the construction of the content, how easy it is to access a copy of the content to be reproduced, and how malleable and accurate the reproduction medium and technology are.
Prior to the age of mechanical reproduction it was possible to knock-off works of art, although with much more difficulty. At this time very few copies were ever made so coming across one to replicate was very difficult, and each replication took an immense amount of time and skill. One can imagine, however, that this would have still always disturbed those who are responsible for the original works.
Since the age of mechanical reproduction, this has only grown easier and easier. In the example of the printing press, the reproduction technology was very expensive and complex and thus centralized. At the same time, however, content could be accessed by most people. The same is true with broadcast up until the invention of tape recording.
The tape recorder allowed people to fairly accurately and easily replicate content, however the amount of hassle involved and the loss in quality still made a large market for the original content. In the case of movies and full albums of music, it was still necessary to rent, buy, or borrow a physical copy of the work, meaning that the person had to be closer to the original. This threat was still enough to cause the recording industry to panic, however. Quoted as number 24 on KFUPM Blog's Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions.. was “Home Taping Is Killing Music," which was a "1980s campaign by the BPI, claiming that people recording music off the radio onto cassette would destroy the music industry".
Clearly, illegally replicating content is not a new issue. Today, however, the content is able to be distributed without a noticeable amount of quality loss from one single copy around the world through a peer-to-peer network. Each replication is as easy as a mouse click in many cases, and it is difficult to imagine the quality getting any better. Essentially, with the current technology today it is very difficult to come up with reasons for anyone purchasing music other than the obvious moral ones.
The Economics of Piracy and Open Access
Having this extreme decrease in incentive for purchasing digital content is clearly alarming to the people that are producing the content, but it might not be as bad as they think. There is no question that internet piracy (and the shift to digital content in general) has and will continue to change the industry, however everything pertaining to the way we receive and distribute content has gone through massive changes in the last hundred years and along with it the industries responsible for that content.
There are advantages to internet piracy in terms of promotion, however will these make up for the losses that the industry experiences? In the music industry, there has definitely been a significant decline in music sales (PBI via TIME Labs). Although there are many different factors influencing this decline is it fair to assume that internet piracy has played a part (Jassens et al., p 83). However, according to TIME Labs, there has also been an increase in revenue from concert sales, and a small increase in PRS revenues (from when artists' music is played in public), which make up for the lost record sales. This extra money primarily goes to promoters and artists, and thus the record companies are making far less.
This leans in the direction that the ultimate fear of the artists getting hurt by piracy will not be realized. The statistics among different types of artists, however, would probably show varying results. These statistics are only in terms of the recording industry as well, and not for other types of digital content which might have to search further for outside opportunities to make up for lost sales.
A few theoretical questions arise from the idea that piracy is not hurting artists. Right now, the lost jobs in the music industry is being emphasized, and if this is the case, is it better to keep people employed or move on to a method that makes the artists more money and makes more people happy? Is it OK to pirate material against the producers or the artists wishes if we are are not actually hurting their profits?
Putting And End To Piracy
Despite the fact that piracy and open access might be good for artists themselves, the entertainment industry and some artists are not happy about people being able to download their music without their permission, and are doing their best to stop it from happening.
The UK Digital Economy Bill, passed March 16, 2010, was a big step in this direction. It is unclear what the eventual impact of the bill will be, but it is already starting to drive file sharing technology further in attempts to get around the law (Brandon, 2010). This is similar to the rise of BitTorrents after the case against Napster discussed by Lister et al. in Ch. 3.12 of New Media: a Critical Introduction.
Other measures have been taken to protect content through other forms of DRM, or digital rights management. While some content has managed to stay relatively protected (such as Kindle books), there are ways of getting around DRMs for DVD's and CD's. It only takes one person with the knowledge in how to remove this protection to publish a torrent and distribute it to the online masses. DRM also places restrictions on where and how people can use this inherently less limited content, which people are highly critical of.
Limitations on content are not new, however. Kristin R. Escheufelder points out that are "non-technological use restrictions" as well, such as restricting access to archival information (Kasprowski, 50). In terms of commercial content, I would add to that all the past material restrictions the content was bound by until the time of file sharing and CD burning at home. The internet age does seem to have made us feel a bit entitled.
DRM, however, is probably so frustrating to most in that it is an example of "impeding the very gains that new technology was assumed to provide," as Lister, et al. discuss in ch. 3.12. People are very resistant to most DRM measures, and only in cases such as the Kindle ebooks have they remained able to protect content. In general, it seems like securing digital content tends to alienate users and has largely been ineffective in the past. This can always change, however, and if Kindle is able to be successful in keeping the content secure and in providing satisfactory accessibility for its customers this might shift the direction that the industry goes.
Adapting to Open Access
Another approach is being taken that goes with, as opposed to against the current of open access. Many companies have been trying to offer free, legal alternatives to internet piracy. For music and television shows, this model normally looks similar to that which has been used in the past for free broadcasting. Normally, accessing these shows or music through a legal site is much easier than downloading it illegally, and people seem more than willing to watch commercials in exchange (Newman, np). Promoters get the benefits of additional statistics and easier access for consumers to their products through linking. There are many question, however, that arise from this model as it becomes pushed on content which was not traditionally supported this way. It makes sense to think that DVDs, upon release, might go straight to streaming online with advertising revenue as opposed to having them downloaded for free without any revenue at all. How will this content adapt to being based on advertising revenue? Will it be able to support it? How much can advertising be a part of people's lives before they grow tired of it?
Additional Ideas on Open Access, Piracy, and Digital Content
Another interesting topic is where the limits on digital content will end. If we were to develop a completely open access model, the internet would be funded by things that can still be limited by materials, ie are not reproducible easily, and advertising revenues. What if one day we have the easy ability to reproduce more material goods at home? In a way this is already happening with the online DIY communities, however is still very inaccessible to many. If we look to science fiction we can see food and objects materializing themselves. If this were to happen, with the technology available to many, that would essentially make everything digital, and thus free. If this happens, will everything be supported by advertising? How exactly would it work?
Also, as things become digital, what happens with the "aura" of the content? The idea of people wanting to be close to the artistic original is discussed by Dowdell in "How to Protect Digital Content," as well as Walter Benjamin in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (p. 4). Currently, this (in the form of concert revenues) is what is supporting the music industry. I would also wonder about this in terms of the future of collecting, and if it will grow more popular or if we will let the aura that used to surround going to the record store and buying albums or movies fade away.
Conclusion
There are many different paths the distribution of digital content can take. The final one is going to be based on the technology at hand as well as social and economic factors. Only the future will tell exactly how we will receive content in ten years.
Resources
Boyce, Brandon. "Anonymizer services grow with UK piracy bill." Neowin.net. 21 April 2010. Accessed from http://www.neowin.net/news/anonymizer-services-grow-with-uk-piracy-bill Web. 25 Apr. 2010
Benjamin, Walter. "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." 1935.
Dowdell, John. "How to Protect Digital Content." Adobe.com (no date). Accessed from http://www.adobe.com/devnet/jd_forum/jd013.html on April 21, 2010.
Janssens, Jelle, Stijn Vandaele, and Tom Vander Beken. "The Music Industry on (the) Line? Surviving Music Piracy in a Digital Era." European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice 17.2 (2009): 77-96. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Kasprowski, Rafal. "Perspectives on DRM: Between Digital Rights Management and Digital Restrictions Management." Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 36.3 (2010): 49-54. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 25 Apr. 2010.
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
NEWMAN, ANDREW ADAM. "With Ads, Music Downloads Will Be Singing a New Tune." New York Times 30 Dec. 2009: 3. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 25 Apr. 2010.
Unknown. "Radiohead genertaion believes music is free." Telegraph.co.uk. 07 Oct. 2007. Accessed from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2817231/Radiohead-generation-believes-music-is-free.html on April 28, 2010.
Uknown. "Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions." KFUPM Blog. Accessed from http://hameed.kfupmblog.ac/20090619/top-30-failed-technology-predictions/ on April 28, 2010.
Unknown. "Do music artists fare better in a world with illegal file-sharing?" Times Labs Blog. 12 Nov. 2009. Accessed from http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/ on April 28, 2010.'
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
New Media Research Proposal
Purpose of Research
At what point do our uses of a medium start slipping out of our control, and which psychological factors (or needs) lead it to do such? I propose that "slipping out of our control" includes actually compulsive behaviors, in addition to things we simply know we should not do but do anyhow. "Blind" behaviors may be taken into consideration as well, however that may be beyond the scope of this research. It is possible to argue that when we find a use for a medium that has such an impact on us, the true power and potential of that medium has been discovered.
I am conducting this research because it seems that the way we use a medium is not always within our own logical control. This research is aimed to support looking at new media from the perspective of technological determination, and is against Williams theory that "there is nothing inherent in a medium that dictates how we will use it" (Lister et al., ch 1.4.2). The idea that there are psychological factors that dictate the way we use a medium indicates that once the medium is created, it is only a matter of realizing the best way to fulfill these psychological factors before we discover the inherent purpose of the medium. The illogical aspects of its use further emphasize the power of discovering this inherent nature, and the absence of our own ability to determine how we will use a medium ourselves.
Specifically, this research is aimed at advocating for two points: One, that there is something inherent in the medium that dictates the way we use it, and two, that in many ways once this inherent use is discovered we start to lose control over our own usage of the medium.
Many things can be accomplished by this research. It can help us to prevent compulsive and self-destructive uses of a new medium, to predict the uses of a new medium, and to find ways to use the power behind these driving psychological factors in a productive manor.
Some questions that may be helpful to think about in this discussion and research are:
- The basic question of the most popular uses of new media? What are trends among these uses? Which of these uses do we see as ourselves using counter productively, or without control?
- Are there societal differences in these things? If so how extensive.
- What is it about these uses that make them problematic, or take away our control?
- How does the medium itself promote these uses?
- How does the medium itself transform these uses (an essential question in this debate).
- How content specific are these uses?
- Are there historical ties to these uses? If yes, were these historical ties as consuming or counter productive? Why or why not?
- Gossip, social hierarchy, attention and Facebook
- Porn and ancient art
- Drugs/alcohol
- Legality and censorship
- Fascination with the new and novel
- Social factors which influence addictive use
- How do people make money off of these behaviors? Is greed the ultimate enabler of these activities?
- Would these activities be as consuming if we had less time on our hands?
- How we can take control back? How does taking control back fit in with technological determinism?
Answering these questions also helps to tie the research back to the theories that this research is aimed at supporting.
Opening Statement
Chapter 1.6 of New Media: A Critical Introduction, Lister et al. invite us to ask if technology actually has the power to change us in itself. This question is based in the philosophies of two of the most influential writers on new media, Marshall McLuhan, who said that big cultural shifts can come about through new media technologies, and Raymond Williams, who said that we are the ones who decide how we use the medium, and thus create this change (Lister et al., ch 1.6).
In general, Williams' perspective is important in that it invites us to investigate why we use the medium as we do, however it seems to imply that we are in total control over its use. If Williams was right, a medium's use and effects on us would only lie within a fairly logical model, however that does not seem to be the case. Through this research, I hope to find that there are very basic psychological, often illogical, tendencies that we have which dictate how we use a new technology, and that the pull towards these tendencies is so powerful that we will accept or welcome most of the change that comes with acting them out through a new medium. This argument, while it uses Williams' theory in its analysis, leans away from it in emphasizing that in in a way there is something inherent in the way that we use the medium and thus the medium does have the potential to change us.
While there are many intelligent people shaping new media, I am focusing on on the mindless consumers of new media, since I believe that this research will prove that they have a very large role in the end uses for new media. Ultimately, I do believe that the responsibility for how a medium is used lies in our hands, however I believe that it is a mistake to talk about how we impact new media without having humility and understanding where our own cognitive control starts to slip away.
Expected Outcomes
I am expecting to see that people are capable of using new media in ways similar to drugs, alcohol, and other compulsive and/or self destructive behaviors. I am also expecting to be able to generate a list of specific factors that contribute to these types of uses, and that these use have exhibited themselves in similar ways and to different extents throughout history. I also am expecting to be able to illustrate how these findings help to validate the purpose in examining new media from the perspective of technological determinism by illustrating that there is something inherent in a medium that dictates how we will use it.
Summary of Internet Sources
Carbonell, Xavier, et al. "A bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature on Internet, video games, and cell phone addiction." Journal of the Medical Library Association 97.2 (2009): 102-107. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 10 Apr. 2010.
O'Keefe, Alice. "Goodbye telly, hello boredom." New Statesman 135.4789 (2006): 15. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2010.
Horvath, Cary W. "Measuring Television Addiction." Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48.3 (2004): 378-398. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2010.
Schell, Jesse. "Design Outside the Box." DICE 2010. Lecture. Web. 11 Apr. 2010 from http://g4tv.com/videos/44277/dice-2010-design-outside-the-box-presentation/.
McGonigal, Jane. "Gaming can make a better world." TED Conference. Feb. 2010. Lecture. TED: Ideas Worth Spreading. TED, March 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2010.
Paskowski, Marianne. "CONFESSIONS OF A '24' JUNKIE." Television Week 29 May 2006: 8. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Apr. 2010.
Sources Cited
Lister, et al. New Media: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Disguising The Medium
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
