Many of the elements that I talked about in previous blogs are actually present through my act of blogging. For example, I talked about creating identity and community using new media, while still considering elements of privacy. The students of CMN2170 have created our own little community through these blogs. We are able to see each other’s entries, comment on them, and use them for our own reflections. This also includes another topic I discussed, the public sphere. We are discussing and debating issues of our time with the help of our blogs. As much as I don`t like to admit it, there is also a hint of narcissism in these blogs. Every entry I post is a reflection of what I believe about new media, and I want the whole world to know it. I am contributing my own thoughts, and I don’t care who knows it.

Using these blogs as a project for class made me realize how new media technologies are becoming more prevalent in our education system. In every one of my classes there is a projection screen with Internet access to present slideshows or examples to the class. Teachers will put the course material online for students to access, and students will bring their laptops to class to -ahem – take notes.

Is the increase of technology in our classrooms a positive or negative thing? I would argue that it is both, it all depends how the technology is used. For example, when teachers post course content online, students will often take advantage of the easy access and decide to skip class. On the other hand, it also provides students with the opportunity to spend more time studying or understanding the notes if they happen to miss a class for a legitimate reason. The use of laptops faces a similar dilemma. Students will either use their laptops for good cause to take notes, or they will use it as a distraction from the lecture.

Dr. Strangelove has started to film his lectures and post them online. This is the same idea as posting notes, and is confronted with the same issue. Students will either abuse or benefit from the easy access to course content. However, when he asked us to create a blog, he was asking us to contribute to new media (both the technology and the course), and I think we have only benefited.

This interactivity has recently expanded to high art. In an upcoming production of Mozart’s opera “Così Fan Tutte”, audience members are asked to bring their cell phones and vote for who they wish to be married at the end of the production. Cast members will then act out the chosen ending.

When audiences are able to contribute to the outcome of either a television show or an opera, the line between production and consumption becomes blurred. No longer are producers providing entertainment as-is for consumers, but rather, we as the audience help to create a production. Christina Spurgeon and Gerard Goggin call this “consumer-citizen”. They explain, “what is decisive in the consumer-citizen’s appropriation and domestication of the technology, and the shaping of mobile phone culture associated with it, is enhanced control, interactive communication, and the habitus of anywhere, anytime connectivity.”

Although our ability to interact with the media we consume is a positive thing, I have to wonder if it’s gone too far. We seem to be unable to do anything without the help of technology. What used to be considered a high art production could now potentially be transformed into just another popular culture trend. If we can’t even separate ourselves from cell phones to enjoy a classical opera, then we have become far too dependent on technology.

—
Sources

“Bring Your Cell Phone, Please”

Christina Spurgeon & Gerald Goggin “Mobiles into Media: Premium Rate SMS and the Adaptation of Television to Interactive Communication Cultures” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies.Vol. 21, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 317–329

In an article called “The ‘Me’ Decade and the Third Great Awakening”, Tom Wolfe argues that narcissism flourished because of a surplus of wealth. Americans used their excess income and leisure time to pursue self-fulfillment. For my generation, free time is normally spent watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the Net. These new media technologies provide instant gratification for us, and it seems that’s all we’re interested in.

Not only do new media technologies provide entertainment as immediate self-fulfillment, but we also demonstrate narcissism in the way we express ourselves so openly. Facebook and MySpace pages are perfect examples of our narcissistic society. We create full pages that provide every detail about ourselves, we post hundreds of pictures of us and friends, and we feel the need to have as many friends as possible, even if we don’t know half of them.

Why is it that we are so obsessed with ourselves? The capitalist system is one reason. Corporations spend millions of dollars in advertising trying to convince us of a perfect image that we should all be able to obtain. We must consume in order to reach this idealistic image. Another reason is the importance we assign to celebrities. We follow their every move, listen to their every word, and validate their status as God-like individuals.

For a number of years scholars have argued that we live in a narcissistic society, and with the increase of consumer culture, celebrity culture, and “Me” culture, new media has only increased our egos and our need for instant gratification.

———
Sources

Tyler, Imogen. “From `The Me Decade’ to `The Me Millennium’: The cultural history of narcissism.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 2007; 10; 343

More and more, people are looking to new media technologies like the Internet as a primary source of news and debate. This has seriously threatened written newspapers, as they risk disappearing from society completely. Although newspapers could potentially migrate to the Net, people are using different ways of discussing current issues and ideas, like blogging.

This creates a shift in the public sphere from the hands of the rich and powerful, to the – as Jon LaJoie would say – everyday, normal guy. There is less gatekeeping, less influence from corporations, and more public discussion.

The public sphere is critical for a democracy because it is the voice of the people that counts. New media technologies are facilitating the ability for everyone to contribute to the public sphere at any time. Dr. Strangelove says, “The fundamental significance of the Internet lies in its production of an alternative symbolic economy and its expansion of the number of contenders that may participate in the normative debate.” (219)

Because of the Internet, the public sphere is not limited to wealthy men, to newspaper content, or to corporations, but rather to anyone and everyone. We now have the opportunity to speak freely and voice our opinions. New media technologies are changing the public sphere, and bringing it back into the hands of the public, where it belongs.

Lawrence Lessig said that the way we think, and the way we make sense of the world is through re-mixing. This video is an appropriation of Silence of the Lambs in two ways. Not only did the creators transform this scene of the movie into a musical, but they did it using Lego!

The creates a whole new meaning to this scene of Silence of the Lambs. It’s hard to take it seriously, and the wierd, creepiness you get in the movie is totally abolished. Who didn’t love playing with Lego as a child? And, personally, I think musicals are a little…well lets just say not what the original Silence of the Lambs was going for. The mood and tone of this re-mix is the complete opposite of what the original intended.

So why does our generation feel the need to appropriate? Normally when I think of appropriation, I think of mocking or critiquing, but Silence of the Lambs is a classic, award-winning movie. So why the new meaning?

Dr. Strangelove says that appropriation is a cultural practice, and often it is used to subvert the intended meaning of the original message. However, for re-mixes such as this video, I believe appropriation is used more to express creativity.

New media technologies have allowed individuals to take old popular culture items and transform them into something completely different. To me, this is just our generation’s way of entertainment and expression of talent. We’re taking old meanings, adding or changing things around a bit, and creating something different for ourselves, and new media has allowed us to share this with millions of other people.

We remix because we want our own meanings. We remix because we want to show the world that we are capable of creating new meanings. We remix because we want to express ourselves.

We remix because we can.

I’m not going to lie, I have used Wikipedia once or twice for a quick explanation on something that I am unclear about, but I would never trust the information I read as an academic source. The fact that anyone can edit the pages at anytime severley diminishes the credibility of Wikipedia. Although there are some “rules” and expectations for Wiki-users, some “vandalism” is inevitably going to go unnoticed.

Zittrain provides three attributes of Wikipedia that, according to him, has led to its success and the maintenance of generativity. The first is “verkeersbordvrij”, where there are few rules and no gatekeepers. The second is a discussion page to accompany every main page. The final attribute is a core of initial editors “who shared a common ethos and some substantive expertise.” (134)

Although I do not necessarily agree with Wikipedia, these attributes have appeared to work in the past. Given that there are no rules or gatekeepers, Wikipedia relies on the honesty and co-operation of its users. This creates a website that is great if it works, but disastrous if it doesn’t. With the ability to edit pages as they please, everyone is given the same opportunity to contribute information. But, as I said before, it is inevitable that some people will edit pages with false information and that it will go unnoticed. With this attribute, Wikipedia is adopting a ”give a little, lose a little” attitude. While they are encouraging generativity, they also run the risk of vandalism.

I think having a discussion page for every main page is also a good attribute because it fosters debate and critique of the information. People are able to question why changes were made, reject edits that they do not agree with, and offer contradictions to information. This is good for Wikipedia because it means that users are not passively accepting the information, but rather actively seeking out the truth. An issue with this, however, is knowing who to believe. If there is an ongoing debate about a certain topic, which side wins and gets their information posted? How do we even know which is true or false? What do we do when it comes to opinions, and not facts? For example Zittrain provides the example of a debate on scientology as a cult or a religion. Depending on your beliefs, it could really be either. So which goes on the main page? 

This is where the third attribute comes into play. A core group of editors with a common philosophy and expertise who have the power to create or lift a lock, or settle a dispute. Although these special administrators are objectively trying to create pages with correct information, their decisions could also be subjective. For the Scientology as religion or cult debate, the administrator could look to the discussion page to see the majority opinions, but ultimately it is their decision to make the final edit. Their personal beliefs could bias them in favour of a certain side or opinion.

Despite Wikipedia’s flaws, its three initial attributes have nonetheless worked, and allowed the website to expand all around the world. This is the ideal website for Zittrain when it comes to generativity. Anyone is able to contribute at any time; there is debate and discussion, not passivity, and few rules or enforcements to discourage contribution.

Although this combination has worked for Wikipedia, I don’t think it is the ideal recipe for the Internet as a whole. It is important for websites like YouTube or blogging sites to maintain generativity for free speech and amateur content, but rules are necessary to govern what is appropriate and inappropriate. It would be impossible to simply trust all Internet users to follow a “code of honour” and think that it could work.

A system of roads with no signs may force people to drive more mindfully and be conscious of other drivers, but every day there will still be some jerk that drives like a maniac and gets away with it because no one is telling him otherwise.

YouTube users often use video blogs to create a sense of identity. Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley explained that we create a sense of self in 3 steps. First we imagine how others perceive us, second we imagine how others judge us based on this perception, and third we develop a sense of self through others’ judgments. Video blogs on YouTube allow the participant to easily mould identity and manage the way the world perceives them. This means people can explore different identities and take on different personalities when they are speaking to the camera, and to the unknown audience.

 Video bloggers share their everyday and personal experience for the entire world to see, and amateur film makers can post their content freely to express their deepest hopes, dreams, fears, and desires. Behavioural scientists have explained that the voluntary disclosure of personal information is a source of intimacy and can lead to healthy interpersonal relations. But, since video blogs are normally targeted to a global audience, the personal disclosure isn’t exactly forming interpersonal relationships. I would say that providing information about yourself, whether through YouTube vlogs or Facebook pages, creates a type of intimate stranger relationship with the whole world. However, since so many people are willing to provide information about their personal lives, it is almost as if a community is formed. In fact, many vlogs are addressed to the “YouTube community”.

So, although people are expressing themselves individually through video blogs, they still remain attached to this sense of community. The online journal is an expression of individuality, but with the different communication possibilities, like comments and video responses, a community is in fact developed. YouTube users have a shared sense of attachment because of the interaction. Stine Gotved, professor at the University of Copenhagen, explains, “the visibility of others and the visibility of oneself interacting in the space are crucial factors in online community life.”

YouTube acts as a physical meeting space for the members of this virtual community to share experiences, thoughts and ideas. Gotved says that “the shared space on the screen makes it easier to experience the community’s existence and thereby to connect.”

Through new media technologies like Facebook and YouTube video blogs, people are breaking down barriers of privacy in order to create identities, share personal experiences, and connect with an online, interactive community of strangers. 

Sources

Gotved, Stine. “Spatial Dimensions in Communities” Space & Culture. Vol.5, no.4. November 2002 405-414.

Are we “sleepwalking into an Orwellian society”?

What better way to research this question than to put it to the test. A Canadian filmmaker is transforming his prosthetic eye into a miniature hidden camera to “explore privacy issues” and investigate our ever-increasing surveillance society.

Jonathan Zittrain talks about the possibility of surveillance through tethered appliances like OnStar or BlackBerries. He says “Abuse of surveillance has traditionally been limited not simply by the conscience of those searching or by procedural rules prohibiting the introduction of illegally obtained evidence, but also by the public’s own objections.” (p.117)

Traditionally, surveillance of the public has been frowned upon for ethical and privacy reasons, but Zittrain argues that these issues are losing significance.

In an article about surveillance technologies, sociologists Stephen Graham and David Wood draw on Michael Foucault’s “Panopticism” (“the tendency towards a disciplinary state based on direct surveillance”) as a metaphor for today’s society. However, with increased digitization, the idea of panopticism must be re-evalutated.

Mark Poster says “Today’s circuits of communication and the databases they generate constitute a Superpanopticon, a system of surveillance without walls, windows, towers or guards. The quantitative advances in the technologies of surveillance result in a qualitative change in the microphysics of power.”

Not only do we have to consider surveillance technologies in stores and on the street, but also in our home computers and cell phones. The filmmaker, Rob Spence will go farther than anyone else to better understand the impact of these surveillance technologies on our society. He will get a first-hand experience of what people think and how they react to the idea of being monitored by, well, who knows?

Sources

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2009/03/11/8707496.html

            Graham, Stephen and David Wood. “Digitizing Surveillance: Categorization, Space, Inequality”. Critical Social Policy 2003;23;227

           Poster, Mark. “The Mode of Information”. Polity Press: Cambridge. 1990

           Zittrain, Jonathan. “The Future of the Internet: And how to stop it”. Yale University Press: New Haven and London. 2008

Although this video is pretty funny, I can’t help but feel sorry for the little kid. He’s just come back from the dentist and he’s probably very confused about the way he’s feeling. The dad seems to be doing a decent job at trying to calm him down, but a video camera in David’s face is probably not helping the situation.

I understand that parents like to videotape their kids doing silly things, but I don’t understand why it needs to be broadcasted on YouTube. This poor little boy is probably feeling pretty vulnerable and the father is almost exploiting him. I don’t think it’s really fair for the children on YouTube who’s parents post videos of them on the Internet.