1. Mediated memories: personal cultural memory as object of cultural analysis.
The title of the topic for this week: "the recording of everyday life" immediately reminds me of Dominic's wife (Inception) when she was sitting on the balcony and preparing to jump down . I have no idea why and what is the relation between everyday life and her, but i guess the fact that she lived her life under the lens of imagination and somehow it is just like the way we see ourselves in photograph. Yes, even though, photos say a lot about us, the lens capture the best moments, detailed-moments or surreal moments of our life. Sometimes, they are too real to be true(I am not saying that they are fake). As it is said in the text, in photocentric culture, we dont merely see ourselves as ourselves but "a profound confusion of image and afterlife". we disguise our identities?
the question is "How did photography change the notion of the author?"
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Week 9
IMMERSIVE EFFECTS: COMMUNICATION AND SECOND LIFE
I had never heard of Second Life before this week's lecture and i was so impressed how second life and people who made this thing work got so much benefits out of it. I mean, why would we need a second life? Excuse me? Is it because they cannot handle their real life so we have to seek the second life- an online life to satisfy their imagination? FAIL! Again i think about a lot of people, who cannot connect themselves with others, are obsessed with filling their life with STUFF, namely stuff from EBAY...lol...it is just so easy nowadays...to create an account, become a member, and start buying things you don't need to fill your house with junk. Yet, the internet and this online world is so available and so imaginative; plus, we don't need to move our ass, we don't need to open our mouth, we don't need to actually communicate but still "communicate" with the whole world. I imagine when telephone was born, people must have gone crazy by its magic of communication!
After all, what is communication? Shall we stick communication with its traditional definition? oops, what is its traditional definition anyways? Do we actually have one? Is open your mouth and talk to people a traditional communication? or write a letter then send them by pigeon/ horse/ post a traditional communication? or shall i say all of them are just merely means of communication? As all forms are reformed, sooner or later as a circle of life? Shall we accept Second Life as a new way of communication and regard it as a good tool to connect people ( well, because, it actually connects people, it just depends on our opinions to say whether it has bad or good effects).
I had never heard of Second Life before this week's lecture and i was so impressed how second life and people who made this thing work got so much benefits out of it. I mean, why would we need a second life? Excuse me? Is it because they cannot handle their real life so we have to seek the second life- an online life to satisfy their imagination? FAIL! Again i think about a lot of people, who cannot connect themselves with others, are obsessed with filling their life with STUFF, namely stuff from EBAY...lol...it is just so easy nowadays...to create an account, become a member, and start buying things you don't need to fill your house with junk. Yet, the internet and this online world is so available and so imaginative; plus, we don't need to move our ass, we don't need to open our mouth, we don't need to actually communicate but still "communicate" with the whole world. I imagine when telephone was born, people must have gone crazy by its magic of communication!
After all, what is communication? Shall we stick communication with its traditional definition? oops, what is its traditional definition anyways? Do we actually have one? Is open your mouth and talk to people a traditional communication? or write a letter then send them by pigeon/ horse/ post a traditional communication? or shall i say all of them are just merely means of communication? As all forms are reformed, sooner or later as a circle of life? Shall we accept Second Life as a new way of communication and regard it as a good tool to connect people ( well, because, it actually connects people, it just depends on our opinions to say whether it has bad or good effects).
Week8
NETWORK FICTIONS, FANDOMS, CELEBRITY AND LAWS.
Week8's topic reminds me of one lecture from Popular culture i did last year. Mark Finn gave a lecture about Pornography and censorship in popular culture. Pornography is very much a perfect example of how porn and porn stars ( can i call them celebrity?) and the laws are not sticking together at all and it is very much a controversial topic. The rapid expand of pornography and this industry's profits over the years are unbelievable. People are making hundreds of thousands dollars by making porn. I do not really know how the industry can work this well but it seems to me that porn movies and this whole thing have no laws and limitation. No one can actually measure the quantity of these movies is every year and who make them and how they sell them. There are so much pornography out there on the internet but we cannot control ,and many issues with porn such as violence, the adult content ect...seem never to be under control. What laws and how are we going to control over them in this "peer to peer technologies culture"? The internet has been giving us so much freedom to too much freedom! I mean...how the heck could we control zillions of anonymous people going online and offline with zillions fake accounts on the internet, doing pretty much whatever the heck they want? There might be a solution but it is the matter of time?
I remember that one classmate told us about her writing job was to edit other people's works to be hers~ gossip online magazine kind of thing. I mean, we- media students who are gonna be media scholars should be aware of how we change the content of the media. I mean we are educated and trained to know this network cultures, shall we act as deliverers of pure and clear information to the readers as we are supposed to do? People nowadays jump in the media so quickly and wrong that we cannot recognize the laws of media anymore; especially, the online media. The laws are there, codes of ethics are there, even recently i saw ads about rules of censorship and codes of ethics on channel 7 or 9 and i just think wao...this is great...but actually...who cares? We just break the rules so easily and so often and we become so ignorant.
Week8's topic reminds me of one lecture from Popular culture i did last year. Mark Finn gave a lecture about Pornography and censorship in popular culture. Pornography is very much a perfect example of how porn and porn stars ( can i call them celebrity?) and the laws are not sticking together at all and it is very much a controversial topic. The rapid expand of pornography and this industry's profits over the years are unbelievable. People are making hundreds of thousands dollars by making porn. I do not really know how the industry can work this well but it seems to me that porn movies and this whole thing have no laws and limitation. No one can actually measure the quantity of these movies is every year and who make them and how they sell them. There are so much pornography out there on the internet but we cannot control ,and many issues with porn such as violence, the adult content ect...seem never to be under control. What laws and how are we going to control over them in this "peer to peer technologies culture"? The internet has been giving us so much freedom to too much freedom! I mean...how the heck could we control zillions of anonymous people going online and offline with zillions fake accounts on the internet, doing pretty much whatever the heck they want? There might be a solution but it is the matter of time?
I remember that one classmate told us about her writing job was to edit other people's works to be hers~ gossip online magazine kind of thing. I mean, we- media students who are gonna be media scholars should be aware of how we change the content of the media. I mean we are educated and trained to know this network cultures, shall we act as deliverers of pure and clear information to the readers as we are supposed to do? People nowadays jump in the media so quickly and wrong that we cannot recognize the laws of media anymore; especially, the online media. The laws are there, codes of ethics are there, even recently i saw ads about rules of censorship and codes of ethics on channel 7 or 9 and i just think wao...this is great...but actually...who cares? We just break the rules so easily and so often and we become so ignorant.
Week 6
Social networking sites and social network sites ( SNSs).
The first article gives us a close look at definition, history and some studies of social network sites such as Facebook, Myspace and some other popular SNSs. Basically, SNSs is to construct a profile and share a connection between you and others; and finally to view and spread out your connections with the system of others' sites.the common activities in these SNSs are using profile which includes picture, introduction, quote, biography, video sharing ...or commenting on each other's pages to interact. The idea of SNSs: such as a profitable online dating site Match.com was to help people make better romantic partners on the internet. The idea of internet 8-10 years ago would be very much different with what we think it is nowadays. A lot of people think that internet dating is dangerous because after all, online people could be real or unreal. However, years ago, online dating sites could be trustful and people might think they'd better meet people online with their rich source (profile and pictures) rather than meeting real strangers offline.
The author defines Social networking sites as relationship between strangers through internet websites or the extended social network.This is the case when a person add a person who is absolutely strange to you on the internet but they are in some whatever way connect or interested in one another. Once you are on other people' friendlist, they have an honour to view your profile and "stalk" you as much as they want and as much as you want them to. The queer thing about "friendlist" here is that it does not necessarily mean friendship, but varied reasons. I myself have facebook. I do not add random people or accept friend requests from random people. I only add strangers who are poets/ writers i really really love and before i add them, i send them a polite message explaining why i want to add them. I used it as a tool of communication with my friends in my home country, but now i start having some new friends at university the purpose of using facebook is different such as I sometimes use it as a mobile phone, not to call, but to send messages to my friends who are actually addicted to facebook and they are online on facebook mostly 15 hours/ day. I used facebook to post links and share my interests in studying and matters with my friends. By saying friends here, i mean friendship. So actually, to me facebook is very useful and i can make benefits out of it. As an international student and a very demanding person in connection, I feel less lonely and more connected with my friends who are here in Australia or in Vietnam. So I think, this social network site really makes a good sense. I mean, we, users of the internet, choose to use these SNSs as social networking sites or not to. It really depends on your purposes and interests.
The first article gives us a close look at definition, history and some studies of social network sites such as Facebook, Myspace and some other popular SNSs. Basically, SNSs is to construct a profile and share a connection between you and others; and finally to view and spread out your connections with the system of others' sites.the common activities in these SNSs are using profile which includes picture, introduction, quote, biography, video sharing ...or commenting on each other's pages to interact. The idea of SNSs: such as a profitable online dating site Match.com was to help people make better romantic partners on the internet. The idea of internet 8-10 years ago would be very much different with what we think it is nowadays. A lot of people think that internet dating is dangerous because after all, online people could be real or unreal. However, years ago, online dating sites could be trustful and people might think they'd better meet people online with their rich source (profile and pictures) rather than meeting real strangers offline.
The author defines Social networking sites as relationship between strangers through internet websites or the extended social network.This is the case when a person add a person who is absolutely strange to you on the internet but they are in some whatever way connect or interested in one another. Once you are on other people' friendlist, they have an honour to view your profile and "stalk" you as much as they want and as much as you want them to. The queer thing about "friendlist" here is that it does not necessarily mean friendship, but varied reasons. I myself have facebook. I do not add random people or accept friend requests from random people. I only add strangers who are poets/ writers i really really love and before i add them, i send them a polite message explaining why i want to add them. I used it as a tool of communication with my friends in my home country, but now i start having some new friends at university the purpose of using facebook is different such as I sometimes use it as a mobile phone, not to call, but to send messages to my friends who are actually addicted to facebook and they are online on facebook mostly 15 hours/ day. I used facebook to post links and share my interests in studying and matters with my friends. By saying friends here, i mean friendship. So actually, to me facebook is very useful and i can make benefits out of it. As an international student and a very demanding person in connection, I feel less lonely and more connected with my friends who are here in Australia or in Vietnam. So I think, this social network site really makes a good sense. I mean, we, users of the internet, choose to use these SNSs as social networking sites or not to. It really depends on your purposes and interests.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Week 2
CYBERSPACE
The article gives us a many definitions of cyberspace in different angles. Cyberspace as a world of knowledge, entertainment, cyberspace in the purpose of "for sale", cyberspace as a virtual world. Cyberspace seems to be a very queer thing and it seems to be true in every single definition here in this article.
Karl Popper - a philosopher of science of this century and his 3 worlds are brought in this discussion in relation to cyberspace. According to him, world 1 is an objective world of material, natural things and their physical properties. World 2 is a subjective world of consciousness. And finally, "world 3 is the world of objective, real and public structures which are not necessarily intentional products of the minds of living creatures, interacting with each other and with the natural world 1".
The article gives us a many definitions of cyberspace in different angles. Cyberspace as a world of knowledge, entertainment, cyberspace in the purpose of "for sale", cyberspace as a virtual world. Cyberspace seems to be a very queer thing and it seems to be true in every single definition here in this article.
Karl Popper - a philosopher of science of this century and his 3 worlds are brought in this discussion in relation to cyberspace. According to him, world 1 is an objective world of material, natural things and their physical properties. World 2 is a subjective world of consciousness. And finally, "world 3 is the world of objective, real and public structures which are not necessarily intentional products of the minds of living creatures, interacting with each other and with the natural world 1".
Week 7
SHARING CULTURE: PEER TO PEER TECHNOLOGIES
PUBLIC NOISES!!!
In the article, the author raises the argument of how global electronic technologies have changed everyday people's concepts of communicating. Nowadays, people have so many choices to satisfy their demands on communications; and it is so easy to seek for this dynamic devices out there. Also, the possibility of relating one person to another in this technology world is so huge. Therefore " the act of saying "why cant we share music with millions of people around the world?" or "why cant we coordinate mass demonstrations with thousands of people we have never met? "...has had profound consequences". Truly, I see, this is no more an "act of saying", this has become an activity we have been involving for many years. Youtube videos have been sharing widely and globally; there are hundreds of thousands free online links and websites that once we have an internet access, we can give and take information with zillions of people around the world. NO matter it is gossip or politics, economics global electronic networks make widespread anarchistic activity possible. This is called ' peer-to- peer communications'! Now, information from private to public is being spread out so easily and quickly and it is so out of control. I am not sure to say anarchy is a bad thing because in fact, this kind of communication is so easy and it gives me so many options to fit my timetable and work. In short, anarchy is flexible and enjoyable. It could give individuals so many benefits; but in contrast, it gives governments and such leaders a hard job to complete to get control over information because there are a lot of problems causing by internet: violence or the maintenance of property and authority. Internet and technologies overall are parts of globalization; and talking about globalization, we cannot ignore the existence of money ( economics). Information is for free? Not! its a commodity which we sell and buy. Intellectual property therefore is a big issue as we sell/buy music, movies and many other sorts of arts via the internet and it is out of control as information is so much out there and out of control on the online world.
Yes, we are living in a "communist culture" where peer to peer technologies are the central of the culture. It sounds very doable and flexible as an idea of communist (i think!) but it has so much conflict with capitalization (globalization) and we do need time and pressure to solve the problems because this sharing culture is actually a threat to our society with its on going debate with authorship and such things.
PUBLIC NOISES!!!
In the article, the author raises the argument of how global electronic technologies have changed everyday people's concepts of communicating. Nowadays, people have so many choices to satisfy their demands on communications; and it is so easy to seek for this dynamic devices out there. Also, the possibility of relating one person to another in this technology world is so huge. Therefore " the act of saying "why cant we share music with millions of people around the world?" or "why cant we coordinate mass demonstrations with thousands of people we have never met? "...has had profound consequences". Truly, I see, this is no more an "act of saying", this has become an activity we have been involving for many years. Youtube videos have been sharing widely and globally; there are hundreds of thousands free online links and websites that once we have an internet access, we can give and take information with zillions of people around the world. NO matter it is gossip or politics, economics global electronic networks make widespread anarchistic activity possible. This is called ' peer-to- peer communications'! Now, information from private to public is being spread out so easily and quickly and it is so out of control. I am not sure to say anarchy is a bad thing because in fact, this kind of communication is so easy and it gives me so many options to fit my timetable and work. In short, anarchy is flexible and enjoyable. It could give individuals so many benefits; but in contrast, it gives governments and such leaders a hard job to complete to get control over information because there are a lot of problems causing by internet: violence or the maintenance of property and authority. Internet and technologies overall are parts of globalization; and talking about globalization, we cannot ignore the existence of money ( economics). Information is for free? Not! its a commodity which we sell and buy. Intellectual property therefore is a big issue as we sell/buy music, movies and many other sorts of arts via the internet and it is out of control as information is so much out there and out of control on the online world.
Yes, we are living in a "communist culture" where peer to peer technologies are the central of the culture. It sounds very doable and flexible as an idea of communist (i think!) but it has so much conflict with capitalization (globalization) and we do need time and pressure to solve the problems because this sharing culture is actually a threat to our society with its on going debate with authorship and such things.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Week 5
1. The paradox of user control
Customization is one of the key features of digital media and the digital media is becoming an obligation to suit flexible personality by contemporary capitalism. Also, it is mentioned that the way we function computer screen with various settings is like creating our identities, putting our characteristics on a mirror. Blogs, facebook, twitter profiles are some clear examples of how we can be creative create our identities via technologies screen. However, we still lack of determining positions on screen as no technologies are perfect. Is that why we keep inventing more and more super unbelievable convenient devices which are upgraded every time they are new released?
Digital media technologies are pulling television in to 2 opposing directions which are individualism and globalization. I found it true that real time screen now tend to be viewed in private situations as we have more mobile devices that we can use for private functions. For example, with an Iphone which can multifunction, we can secretly do whatever we want, everywhere, anytime...we don't necessarily need to sit down in front of the TV and watch any TV show but we can easily download them via the Internet. Therefore, the notion of family TV time together is no more popular. As i see, people tend to have more portable devices with them.
2. The age of egocasting.
Television has had a huge impact on our daily life. Then the remote control became in power with its peculiar function thats changes human viewing habits. the remote controls allow us in individual to proactively adjust channels and later on, automatically, devices such as Walkman, the video cassette recorder and portable devices like Ipods have allowed us to have our own world of individual's control over the devices. we have not only created technologies but also embraced them to be able to suit out taste and preferences.
The study of the remote control reported that "it was 1985 before more televisions were sold with remote than without" and in 2000, the average houshold contained 4 remote controls. And children are ones who can quickly master functions of remote controls. Men tend to change channels during primetime viewing than women do.
Remote control then naturally made it easierfor viewers to be choosy. By grazing and channel-surfing, users have their choices of preferences upgraded. We tend to search for something better and more interesting. the remote control affects the way we watch TV. However, it could do little to control when people watch TV. With this issue, the Digital Video Recorder( DVR), namely Tivo. In America, Tivo has become a dominant device in living room as it can multifunction all in one.
After that, Ipod was born and born and the music itself and its industry suddenly becomes so different in terms of "experience". The way we listen to music is so much changed now.
In short,
Customization is one of the key features of digital media and the digital media is becoming an obligation to suit flexible personality by contemporary capitalism. Also, it is mentioned that the way we function computer screen with various settings is like creating our identities, putting our characteristics on a mirror. Blogs, facebook, twitter profiles are some clear examples of how we can be creative create our identities via technologies screen. However, we still lack of determining positions on screen as no technologies are perfect. Is that why we keep inventing more and more super unbelievable convenient devices which are upgraded every time they are new released?
Digital media technologies are pulling television in to 2 opposing directions which are individualism and globalization. I found it true that real time screen now tend to be viewed in private situations as we have more mobile devices that we can use for private functions. For example, with an Iphone which can multifunction, we can secretly do whatever we want, everywhere, anytime...we don't necessarily need to sit down in front of the TV and watch any TV show but we can easily download them via the Internet. Therefore, the notion of family TV time together is no more popular. As i see, people tend to have more portable devices with them.
2. The age of egocasting.
Television has had a huge impact on our daily life. Then the remote control became in power with its peculiar function thats changes human viewing habits. the remote controls allow us in individual to proactively adjust channels and later on, automatically, devices such as Walkman, the video cassette recorder and portable devices like Ipods have allowed us to have our own world of individual's control over the devices. we have not only created technologies but also embraced them to be able to suit out taste and preferences.
The study of the remote control reported that "it was 1985 before more televisions were sold with remote than without" and in 2000, the average houshold contained 4 remote controls. And children are ones who can quickly master functions of remote controls. Men tend to change channels during primetime viewing than women do.
Remote control then naturally made it easierfor viewers to be choosy. By grazing and channel-surfing, users have their choices of preferences upgraded. We tend to search for something better and more interesting. the remote control affects the way we watch TV. However, it could do little to control when people watch TV. With this issue, the Digital Video Recorder( DVR), namely Tivo. In America, Tivo has become a dominant device in living room as it can multifunction all in one.
After that, Ipod was born and born and the music itself and its industry suddenly becomes so different in terms of "experience". The way we listen to music is so much changed now.
In short,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)