Mindful Meditation on Media

you thought i was done...

2005-12-10T03:50:00.000-08:00

forgot to give ya my project site:

pages.pomona.edu/~csj02003

guess ya know who i am now.

-wild c 15

it's over!?! =) =( =)

2005-12-10T01:54:00.000-08:00

alright, alright. so this is the last blog, and i'm finally gonna do everything i've wanted to do with this blog all semester, but didn't think i could. i'm gonna forget capital letters, i'm gonna write words like "gonna," and i might even intntionally missssspell a word or to. wow! that feels awesome!!! ok, so this entire semester i took the blog completely seriously. i would write a standard one-page, single-spaced reading response in Word, and copy and paste it on blogger. it was time-consuming, tedious, and completely ungratifying because i got NO feedback on the the quality of my thoughts or writing style. because writing this blogs, which more than once turned out to be 4-page essays, took me so long, it wasn't until waaaaay into the semester that i finally made time to start looking at everyone else's blogs, and i was stunned...for a couple reasons. first thought: jealousy. their posts were like journals, like unplanned, free-flowing thoughts, like a discussion. they were fun to read and had interesting references to applications that pple actually go to on the web. THAT is something i am really interested in because i know so little about it. sometimes i feel completely out of the loop with all this new media stuff because i've never done livejournal or xanga. before this class, i never wrote a blog or "stepped" into a chat room or knew about online comics or thought video games had any redeeming value besdies (oh yeah! i am sooo leaving that type-o!) developing hand-eye coordination, and i even thought that was a lame reward--try basketball!

so, anyways, after being jealous, and then being interested, i then became curious: could i write like that, too? are they disobeying the instructions? did i not understand the instructions? from the first day of class i remember hearing that one blog is supposed to be a reading response, and one general thoughts. when i took KF's intro class my frosh year, i worked my A** (can i actually say it?) off with those reading responses. the grade was out of 10 points, and i aimed for that 10 like there was no tomorrow. i'm not a complete grade-grubber, but the cool thing about KF's grading was that, in general, i felt i totally earned every grade i got. so a 10 meant that i was writing to my potential. coming into this class, i thought blogging would be no different. write it in word and post in online. simple. ok, so i know nothing about online social culture. not getting feedback left me unmotivated; why should i devote so much time to creating a (at least in mind) perfectly shaped piece of writing if no one's gonna read it?? that has been confusing me the whole class--what's important? when is a blog NOT good or a project idea NOT developed enough? yeah, i'll write for me; it's not jsut(<--oh yeah!) for the class. and honestly when i did sit down and write those four-page essays on wikipedia or virtual reality in the movie vanilla sky and did that research to find out that cryogenic freezing actually does exist and when i started taking the freedom of the blog to comment on how i wanted to use new media and how i was finally starting to see it in sites i was using, like the pomona website, something as standard as that--when all of this happened, i did have a good time and learning was fun and invigorating.

as i have come to realize that there is virtually no restrictions to these blogs except for the fact that they have to actually be here and have at least something to do with the reading, i have really had to think about the value of traditional assignments or lack thereof and the restrictions of expression or likelihood of the assignment getting done and being a polished piece that everyone can read...they say that the internet gives pple a voice, but it can almost seem liek (<--that's rgiht!<--doubel<--triple time!!!) the opposite. when i write on assignment on paper, i know at least someone is gonna read it and really consider it--the teacher. i also know that i will keep it and perhaps reference it later in the year, during another semester or even after college. i do that sometimes with elementary school stuff. if you put your heart into something and really grow in the process of doing it, you want to remember it and you want at least SOMEBODY to validate it, to validate you and who you are and what you are trying to become. so then, the internet is like throwing a letter in a bottle into the ocean--it might seem romantic--because potentially aaaannybody could read it--but realistically, your ideas are lost to the world. it's largely symbolic, and it's largely for the cathartic purposes of the actor. and right now, that is what this blog is for me. i really don't think anyone is gonna read it, and even if you do, i don't think you're going to read up to here. (if someone does, please send a reply blog to me, and i will take you out to lunch in the village--seriously.) anyways, this blog about blogging has actually been excellent for me to just say practically everything i wanted to say about this course and my frustrations and my excitements.

to start summing up:

i Y stream-of-consciousness writing!!!! and the subtle yet exhiar(<--eee!) lating feel of not capitalizing things and not worrying about strucutre and if this sentence says exactly what i want it to to fit into this paragraph to fit into this argument to prove this one point. i cannot believe that it took me this long to realize that i could do this for this class!

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW X YZ

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

my g r a d u a l transition b P from formal F reading response to this J , my first post NOT r written in word first, my first post WITH grammatical errors (at least on purpose)--this progression has been really interesting. i think i have been able to appreciate the readings whichever way i write, but i lament the fact that i did not interact more with the rest of teh class. i was too busy doing the student thing--the i'm-gonna-write-the-best-paper-ever thing. !fp!! (stressful) that's sooooooo restricting.
I Y blogging at PO! now that i'm finally reading other people's blogs, i love it! i mean, it's like i'm getting letters written to me, like i'm having a "fireside chat" as they advertised in the digester the other day (it was in harwood, did anyone go?). it's like the intellectual student-student exchange you come to college for, but on your own time, and actually FOR class!! i have sorta looked into a couple of chat rooms/blogs, and they seem so pointless--writing stuff you don't have time to write, about stuff you probably don't care that much about, to pple who probably (and understandably) don't care about you or have very much in common with you other than boredom. but *THIS* is somehow better. even though i don't think anybody's gonna read this, i just feeeel like i saying something in a community that feels like home, in a place that, if pple do read this, they might actually think it means something, they might actually care and some sort of interaction might actually come about because of it. or maybe not, cuz of the whole anonymity thing. but you never know. you're gonna have to tell me where to meet you, if you want that free lunch in the village-haha! but, yeah, so i'm thinking of the movie you've got mail (which is awesome by the way, as far as msuhy- ["msuhy" looks so much mushy-er than "mushy"] romantic-comedies-that-can-potentially-say-something-moving-about-society go). in that movie, meg ryan and tom hanks have these meaningful exchanges with an anonymous person. although i have no tom hanks/meg ryan, i feel listened to. (i wonder what social networking deal they used??)

IN CONCLUSION i just want to say a silent thank you to you all. i guess why i'm feeling this blog, and can't feel common public blogs is that whole thing about "imagined community"; it's something intangible that makes communication worthwhile, not so much the F2F (face-to-face). i have really enjoyed being in class with all of you and talking to you and making lots of new friends who regrettably are mostly soon-to-be-departing seniors. i luved the final projects; being a recent media studies fan, i can sorta see what i want to learn now, to be able to do some of what y'all did. it's funny. just writing this blog--my first one not originally on Word--makes such a difference. the internet interface, the feeling of writing to friends and not just a teacher (no offense, if you're reading this KF), the ability to mess with all the the webdings fonts...it's pretty awesome. and different. i'm looking around and there's some cool html-tab things that i wish i had looked into a little earlier this semester. maybe i could've made the webdings sing and dance for y'all--lol! =) maybe if we take digital art together next semester... ok-enough is enough! i'm going to bed! peace out! much luv, and hopefully i'll see you all around. say hi!

wild c 15

as pple say ] :

onward 48 and upward 5!!

fun game if you have time (and are bored and playfully creative)now or during winter break.

Make a story/poem from these random webdings. mine's underneath. it's a very freudian thing to do, and it's funny what you end up saying. merry christmas/happy hannukkah/go kwanza--ok, just have a nice break, you pluralistic society, you! con carino and mahal

~@&BUH:CXTR#$9853whinfsd

like thunder we work with tools and win medals and blah blah and then go home. fast forward, and we're climbing a pyramid that is life and it's like a megaphone is shouting at us and blah blah-danger! railroad tracks! where did that come from? oh well, such is life. what? does that say no alcohol? not sure, i'll just ignore it, lookin cool in my sunglasses. oops! i need to rewind--should've paid attention to the no alcohol sign. ok, fast forward again. there are ups and downs in life and we aim for a certain sweet spot, the hole-in-one feel. sometimes there are troubles (siren!) it's all about figuring out the "i"--where do i fit in this big dark circle-thing (i mean earth). there's a train call. should i stop writing? yeah, it's the po-po; better go to sleep before i get into (more) trouble.

Destroying Hierarchy?

2005-11-28T20:04:00.000-08:00

Tags can be seen as a democratizing aspect of the web, because, as Mathes reveals, they require no training in the way that professionally-generated metadata does. Nor do they follow logic in the way that a semantic web built on syllogisms would effect (as described by Shirky.) Tags are clearly more simplified methods of categorizing, utilizing keywords to sort by association, not hierarchy. But the question must be asked: What are we losing in this simplification?

Ong discusses a related comparison between two versions of the Genesis story. One version is from 1610, when there was oral culture still lingered; it had nine introductory “ands” (37). The second version from 1970 has two introductory “ands,” as well as other words, like “when,” “then,” “thus,” and “while.” Ong says that this shows the additive nature of oral culture, as opposed to the subordinative (or hierarchical) structure of chirographic culture. Because chirographic culture seems to be progress, it seems that hierarchical thinking should also be considered progress. Yet, tags seem to be destroying that type of thinking by emphasizing keywords. Are we reverting back to a simpler thought process? Are we making ourselves stupid?

The answer is not so simple. It must be mentioned that there is order in tags. For example, the PageRank algorithm employed by Google follows an intellectually sophisticated mathematical formula. The user enters a keyword (the tag), and results pop up. However, it is not the user who does the tagging; it is the algorithm. This form of tagging requires the increased intelligence of a few programmers, for the increased ease (i.e., allowed/encouraged laziness) of many. Additionally, the elaborate associative webs and visualizations created by Manovich and certain websites to display associate relationships show the detail behind associative thinking; yet, like with Google’s algorithm, just because there is detail in association, it does not mean that users of associative searching have to do that thinking; the machine, the machine’s programmers, and the inquisitive media theorists who create visualizations do it for them. Tagging (such as that employed by Google) does allow for less thought-intensive information searches, which some may argue breeds laziness, while others may argue that it gives more time for people to pursue new thoughts.

That last point is consistent with the idea that technological determinism is not true. However, technology does influence. McLuhan’s famous adage—“the medium is the message”—eludes to this. The medium of search engines like Google that tag information, as well as tags that users explicitly create, do deter one from hierarchical, or structured thinking. This must be acknowledged to guard against it.

(For more thoughts on associative thinking, refer to my 10/9/05 post entitled “Hypertext: Digression or Progession?”. Hypertext is what enables tags.)

Amazon, E-mail Contacts, and CTRL + F: Tagging Predecessors

2005-11-28T17:35:00.000-08:00

While reading about del.icio.us on Mathes’s “Folksonomies,” I kept thinking about similar programs. The main one was the “favorites” function on Internet Explorer (as well as many other browsers.) This function allows the user to add web pages and categorize them. It wasn’t until the sharing function of del.icio.us was described that I understood the full implication of this application. As a piece of social software, it connects users, in this case with the benefits of viewing websites that other users who connected to the site you are currently visiting, also visit. It is a sort of recommendation system based on actual viewing patterns, as opposed to advertising.

A useful comparison is with another predecessor, Amazon.com’s customer reviews; according to Mathes, these customer reviews are an “integral aspect of online commerce [that leverage] consumer created metadata to create sites that are far more informative than comparable commercial sites.” Honest, uncensored, consumer input is a significant alternative to advertisements; it oftentimes gives both good and bad outlooks, so potential buyers will really know what to expect. Del.icio.us is similarly beneficial, offering an option other than Google, with its limitations, for finding information that others found helpful.

Going back to even further predecessors of tags in general, I thought of e-mail contact functions, such as those found on Microsoft Outlook Web Access, Pomona’s e-mail center. To make this comparison, I find it necessary to first present a definition of what a tag is; Mathes describes tags as “keywords…[that] allow users to describe and organize content with any vocabulary they choose.” Essentially it is a label for grouping. Similarly, Outlook enables one to create contact groups, whereby independently existing contacts can be included in a list; when that list is entered under “to,” everyone in the group is sent the e-mail. The label is a tag that organizes content (e-mails), and it can be anything the user wants it to be, from the standard “PDAC mailing list” to the random “people who like junk mail.” Outlook’s contact features clearly fit the “tag” description.

One final predecessor is the “find” function (control + F) of a typical computer. It utilizes the user-specified keyword to organize all relevant sections of the document in which that word or phrase is found. (Actually, it just hilights the word where it appears in the text, which still serves the purpose of organizing. A similar function can also be found on Amazon.com where the customer can search inside the given book to find all sections which include a given keyword.) The find function makes the actual content the label, the tag. Its limitations are that it is limited to the document it is in, and the keywords are not completely at the user’s discretion; only keywords that are found in the text will yield any relevant sections.

Quit Playing Around!

2005-11-09T02:14:00.000-08:00

Wow! There is so much talk, especially at Pomona, about institutional inequality, yet I never really thought that applied to the Internet. Like so many other users, I saw the Internet as a very open and democratic forum, perhaps with the exception to those who do not have access to a computer. Nakamura explains the demographics of the Internet, that most users are “white, male, highly educated, and middle class” (2). For this reason, many sites are ethnocentrically structured, and “in the absence of racial description, all [users] are assumed to be white” (Nakamura 2). All three of the authors discuss this whitewashing, pointing out that it is the result of an ironically PC attempt to create harmony through avoiding divisive issues, supposedly granting equal freedom to every user. This inevitably strengthens the idea of a norm, which supports the dominance of the majority: white middle class males.

Other clues of the ethnocentric nature of the Internet exist. The designation of English as the prime language of the Internet (Gómez-Peña 5) clearly gives easier access to those who speak English. Additionally, “the theoretical vocabulary utilized by critics was hyper-specialized…and de-politicized (post colonial theory and the border paradigm were conveniently overlooked)” (Gómez-Peña 5). Favoritism is shown toward the technologically adept (which typically means those who are highly educated, usually meaning financially stable and most likely white and male), and progressive theory about diversity is notably absent, just as is the discussion of race.

I think it is a common problem to not see the realities of injustice because we are so enmeshed in that reality; it is difficult to view it as an outsider would. But this outside perspective is crucial if we are to make the Internet the democratic forum that it has the potential to be. Gómez-Peña calls for increased political discussion in Internet discourse and a social justice application, bringing Internet technology to expand the world of disadvantaged children. Nakamura seconds the idea for continued race discourse in the face of opposition. McPherson ponders the ramifications of viewing the Internet as a form of political expression and development, as opposed to a playground, countering the American tendency to place more value (at least monetarily) on entertainment than as intellectual progress and societal equity. The Internet (including artistic forums, Dixie-Net, and LambdaMoo) is a tool. How do we want to use it?

** side note: I found this instructional on how to start up with LambdaMOO. It also gives a brief summary of what MUD’s and MOO’s are, which I found helpful. However, I don’t know if it would be worth it to join this demonsratedly racist/sexist group. Maybe just for exploration and experimentation.
http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2001/cs6470_fall/lambda.html

Quick Thought: Media Redefining Success

2005-11-08T06:09:00.000-08:00

I was struck by Bell’s discussion of how we are defined by the medium through which we are viewed. This at first shocked me, because I do not feel I have the technical prowess to express myself and who I feel I am on-line. I then thought about where I can adeptly express myself, such as in writing and talking. This relates back to Ong and the parallels between the changes computers are effecting with the changes that the introduction of other technologies have effected. I realize that maybe some people do not feel as comfortable as I do with speaking and writing, and they are better with computers or art, photography, etc. This is a decentralizing thought for me, because I have always thought that I was mastering the skills of life because I was succeeding in school. When you realize that what you learned in school isn’t all that you need for life, that’s confusing. The introduction of “new” media as integral to success in today’s world may give more power to those who are not naturally talented in traditional forms of expression. In this way, media is democratizing, because it allows for the increased value of various abilities, incorporating more types of people into the categorization of successful. Whose talents are valued? Whose esteem is affected? Media changes these fundamental perceptions of individuals in society.

Internet: The Realm of the Mind

2005-11-08T05:56:00.000-08:00

Anderson suggests that nations are “imagined communities.” Weeks proposes the need ton see identities as “necessary fictions.” And Bell argues that current modes of thinking cause “a progressive eroding of this stable, unified, essential view of the self.” All of these seem to suggest that identity is a social construction, which was created by humans and thus can be destroyed and refigured by humans. Though this is destabilizing, it is also empowering. I think it permits for broader interpretations of community and personal identity, which should theoretically lead to a greater milieu of tolerance in society. However, the majority of people do not wholly espouse (or even know about) these new postmodern, constructionist views.

Scholar bell hooks says that just because something is a lie does not mean it isn’t real, and I think that is true for all social constructions. We make them real and define our own reality. These constructions in RL are influenced by the physical context in which they exist. For example, the constructions of oppressive stereotypes are both less likely and more likely to result in offensive action. In RL, aggressors can physically harm a counter-normative person, although they cannot do so in many places due to policing and criminal law. On-line structural abuse, portrayal, and discrimination through such procedures as flaming are much easier to effect than RL discrimination, because of the paucity of Internet rules, as well as because of the anonymity that disinhibits users from the respect they are taught to show (or at least feign) toward others in public; however, it is significant that physical violence is not possible. Regardless of the type of discrimination, prejudice is still a part of the Internet culture.

Another problematic aspect of culture is the excessive stereotyping of women and queers. Disembodiment does not erase stereotypes, but instead leaves the mind free to envision stereotypes as an actuality for lack of a real picture. This stereotype becomes sort of real to the person holding it.

What I am driving at in this response is simply to say that the Internet is the realm of the mind. There aren’t the physical limitations of the body. Stereotypes can run rampant if the user lets them. Thoughts are often rude due to anonymity. The Internet is the uncensored mind, with all its potential for good and bad.

(** Side reference: In the movie/book Sphere, by Michael Crichton, I believe, this issue is addressed. If people had the power to make anything they thought a reality, is it worth it? It gives one so much power, but as humans, we may not be able to responsibly handle that power, making it deadly. On a lesser level, the Internet gives more weight to the mind to create the kind of world with the kind of social codes and forms of identity that it wants, regardless of what the social reality or their personal identity is. This increased power requires increased responsibility, and unfortunately, there will always be people in society ready to exploit any opportunity given to them. The mind can be dark, and in giving it a freer forum, we do run the risk of more abusive action, as opposed to less harmless prejudiced thoughts.)

Cyberculture: For best results, use as directed.

2005-11-08T04:11:00.000-08:00

Bell’s chapter, “Community and Cyberculture” seems to perpetuate the dichotomous thinking that cyberculture either fosters or harms RL community. He identifies Wellman and Gulia’s concern with the “Manichean” nature of this debate, but then he discusses it in terms of the two opposing camps. He seemed to reason that he would be going deeper to the fundamental question of what is a community, and he finds that the inclusive concept of Bund (which is basically community) describes cyberculture. This seems to be avoiding the question of establishing a middle ground on the bigger question of whether or not cyberspace is good for RL society. I think certain time-tested principles are relevant here. The first is “All things in moderation.” This shows that cyberculture does have its importance in what it can contribute to society, but too much of it will lead to problems, including withdrawal from RL society. Not having cyberspace limits our society’s ability to expand our types of relations with each other. The second principle, or aphorism, is “Wherever you go, there you are.” This alludes to the organic and natural condition of cyberculture, as suggested by Rheingold. Again returning to McLuhan’s description as media as “extensions of man,” we can see that cyberculture is an extension of RL culture. As in natural evolution, it is the result of environmental conditions—here the importance of and reliance upon technology in society, as well as the need for efficiency. This is the culture that is the most appropriate for the life we as a society have come to value. I think that people who are against cyberculture should focus their energies on improving RL culture to have it have a higher appreciation for the community values they see lacking in on-line communities. For example, why do we have HMO’s who are so driven by efficiency and profit interest that they do not allow for a doctor to spend much time with a patient? That is impersonal, and face-to-face interaction means nothing (or something bad). Or why don’t we emphasize the importance of music, art, and sports programs as integral to education? These are interactive forms of RL communities, but they are being devalued for information, which is easily obtainable from the “information super highway.” Cyberculture is just a reflection of the societal need for efficiency over the development of relationships and personal well-being. To blame technology for these problems is technological determinism.

To unite these two aphorisms, “Wherever you go, there you are” seems to suggest that yes, cyberculture is as valid a culture as any other because we go there and we are still ourselves. “Everything in moderation” validates the designation of cyberculture as a community, while adding the caveat that, although it is a part of us, it shouldn’t be all that we are as people. It is not inherently bad, but it is how it is used. Yes, it fosters certain values, but those values are important to us. By creating programs that foster other values, we are balancing the overimportance the Internet places on information.

Comments on Tracing the Decay of Fiction

2005-11-03T12:19:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to put out a few thoughts on this database narrative. I did enjoy it, because it was like I was exploring—going through an old hotel and seeing bits of its history, as if from various people I met. The thing is, though, it is not literature to me. It does not seem to have a plot. It is just a simulation of real life when you do not have access to a real old hotel to explore or real people or videos to reveal what the hotel life was like in the past. I feel like, in some ways, this type of simulation simply encourages the sedentary lifestyle that is characteristic of the U.S. Perhaps I am too critical. Perhaps I am condemning this media for doing what all media do, which is replacing the real. I suppose I am just confused at how different this is from traditional homework and how there is no real goal. It is so lifelike. To me, this might mean that this type of homework is meant to give one a new perspective on the multidimensionality of real life, enhancing real experience, opening up one to think sociologically (or in a historical context). This could translate into understanding changing structures of society, which might lead to social justice. Interesting. With Soft Cinema, we might be encouraged to pay more attention to our senses and to really question how the format of what we are shown or told really does affect our overall conception of that story. This might make us more critical of politics and even the psychology behind human interactions. This could lead to our ability to see a situation for what it is, and not just how it is presented, which can be useful in establishing a grounded sense of reality. Not to mention it develops our sense of aesthetics. I guess there are some useful applications of this type of homework. It is almost like philosophy.

Remodeling the Old

2005-11-03T12:13:00.000-08:00

We have discussed how new media tends to recreate the old media from which it came. This holds true in the case of database narrative. Kinder and Anderson have helped us to see how recent movies, including Kill Bill, Memento, and Pulp Fiction, have adopted some aspects of the database narrative by rejecting linear plots. Other movies incorporate split screens to show various images, whose juxtaposition creates a new feeling within the viewer (such as is done in Manovich’s Soft Cinema).

I would like to show that this remodeling of the old also holds true for a more distant ancestor of the database narrative: print. Newspapers, in particular, very much embody many aspects of new media’s organization, including the hyperlink-like connections to each of the story’s on the front page. Its layout can also be influenced by database narratives. The random generation of new formats (such as in Manovich’s Soft Cinema) can offer new ideas for the aesthetic and emotion-provoking abilities of layouts.

Additionally, traditional forms of summarizing information (mind maps, concept trees, outlines) have also taken on new meaning and new form. I am here thinking about the visualization aspect of Soft Cinema, where there are constantly circling images from three different countries that intersect at various points to show what is on the screen. This is the closest thing to an outline that we get, and its ever-changing quality seems necessary to describe ever-changing literature. It is almost surreal how literature can be so alive.

In addition to movies, print’s aesthetic presentation and organizational structures have also been influenced by database narratives, perpetuating the constant interaction between old and new. You can teach an old dog (past media) new tricks.

Nothing New? From Dreams to Artificial Intelligence

2005-11-03T12:11:00.000-08:00

We have dreams where various elements of our lives and thoughts are selected subconsciously and recombined, sometimes with an overall meaning, sometimes not, and sometimes just because we create one based on what we are thinking at the time. A TV editor looks at multiple screens, all showing the same event from different angles. He picks ones that work well together as a whole to capture the spirit of an event. Finally, there is a writer who has been thinking up certain characters that she would love to write about, characters based on a combination of traits from people she has known. She has a similar collection of pieced-together places and plots she would also like to portray, and she will combine all of these elements to make a cohesive story.

Each of these situations—the dream (Anderson 5), the TV editing, the story writing—all involve selection and combination, which is exactly what a database narrative is: “Database narrative refers to narratives whose structure exposes or thematizes the dual processes of selection and combination that lie at the heart of all stories” (Anderson 2, quoting Kinder). New media is taking over this concept to generate programs that do this same work of selection and combination, traditionally done by humans, whether consciously or subconsciously. This relates to Marshall McLuhan’s description of technology as “extensions of man.” It seems that the ultimate goal of the database narrative would be to create valid stories without an author. It is true that the author sets the parameters of selection for the database narrative, and it is true that no story has passed the Turnin test for being undistinguishable from a human story. However, it seems that with enough parameters programmed into a database, it might one day be able to pass that test. These parameters might be based on human instinct or even on cultural values. Artificial intelligence is not unconceivable.

To summarize, although database narrative seems to be accomplishing nothing new, it is a new approach. It seems a step back in some ways, because the computer-generated material is currently not up to par with human-written material. However, when completely developed and even now, it offers new possibilities, including artificial intelligence. Every form of machine man has ever created really does nothing a human could not once do; it is just a new, usually more efficient or helpful approach. Database narrative is similar. However, I would ask about the end result: “What do we plan on doing when we have essentially recreated ourselves?”

Lexia to Perplexia: Metaphor for Humanity?

2005-10-25T00:55:00.000-07:00

Like others, I am trying to understand the method behind the madness in this creation. There were the four sections to the work, and I focused on the first, “The Process of Attachment.” This section frequently showed diagrams about the I-terminal, and I believe there was a human story behind all of the punctuation and technical vocabulary. One phrase said, “At the termin.all of hum.andity—possessed by a remotional attachment to terminals elsewhere” (Memmott). Does this mean we (humanity=hum.andity) are connected in a way determined by or similar to the technology that we use? The program froze on another screen (intentionally or not, I do not know), which said, among other things, “Cyborganic protocol is interimacy” (Memmott). This, also, seems to imply the merging of the cyber and organic worlds and the unique state of intimacy that arises from the combination. Also, grids showed up at various points, seeming to allude to the constructed underpinnings of the game/presentation going on. Another important symbol was an eye, which often led to new scenes, once clicked; does this say how it is actually human will that can still at least, in part, direct the processes of technology? If so, it would be commenting on the role of Manovich’s automation trait of new media and asserting that “human intentionality” (32) is at least partially involved in the technological process; symbolized through the eye, it had some power to direct the series of events, but not all power. Positive and negative signs surrounding the eye on one screen could have been about emotion or quantity. Really, the symbolism was tricky, although still interesting. A further comment: there were moving lines as well, which I am not sure if we were supposed to interact with, but they definitely added to the overwhelming hypermediacy and to the general “perplexia” of the situation.

Throughout all of these reflections, I am still curious to know what the point is. If it is trying to show the relation between human thought and computer commands or how they influence each other, I think that is very valid, but I could appreciate this piece a lot more if I knew more of what it was trying to prove or display.

The Non-Automatic Aspect of Automation

2005-10-24T21:04:00.000-07:00

Automation, one of Manovich’s characteristics of new media, is very controversial nature. As he explains, “…human intentionality can be removed from the creative process, at least in part” (32). The very idea of having a machine do a human’s work is both liberating (freeing man from unnecessary work) and enslaving (forcing man’s dependence on machines). In either situation, the “thought processes” of man and machine become similar enough to the point that they can perform at least some functions in the same way, all of this leading to the thoughts that man is becoming mechanized and machines are approaching artificial intelligence. Is this increasingly blurred distinction problematic or a sign of commendable scientific progress? Manovich does not really delve into these implications, but we can look back to Vannevar Bush and Marshall McLuhan for such insights.

Vannevar Bush would argue favorably for media’s role in human development. He states, “[Man] has built a civilization so complex that he needs to mechanize his records more fully if he is to push his experiment to its logical conclusion and not just merely become bogged down part way there by overtaxing his limited memory” (Bush 47). Bush is very much about using technology to help society utilize its resources to meet its potential, as evidenced in his conceptual development on the memex, the predecessor to computerized information retrieval (now done through the Internet). This goes along with Marshall McLuhan’s idea of media as “extensions of man,” which seems to posit media as just another tool.

On the reverse side, the same idea of McLuhan’s can be seen as a contamination of the natural state of human existence. Bush expresses, “Our present languages are not especially adapted to this sort of mechanization… . It is strange that the inventors of universal languages have not seized upon the idea of producing one which better fitted the technique for transmitting and recording speech” (Bush 40). Bush is oblivious to the disturbing concept behind his statement. He is wondering why mechanized communication is not more prominent than natural communication. With automation, we definitely establish a connection between ourselves and machines. The danger lies in the depth of this connection; do we use machines as discreet tools or do we graft them to ourselves?

Whatever the result, there is no questioning the progress being made in automation all of the time. We are moving from “ ‘low-level’ automation…in which the computer user modifies or creates from scratch a media object using templates or single algorithms” (such as with blogger.com), to “ ‘high-level’ automation…which requires a computer to understand, to a certain degree, the meanings embedded in the objects being generated” (i.e. artificial intelligence) (Manovich 32). The latter is being manifested primarily in video games, a seemingly harmless application, but it is the very innocuous nature of this application that may blind us to the insidious infiltration of artificial intelligence into the way we play and think and then perhaps live. The one non-automatic aspect of automation should be our acceptance of it. We always need to question how technology is forming us; we need to be aware (or beware) of the dangers as well as the perhaps more apparent benefits.

“She died a famous woman denying/ her wounds / denying / her wounds came from the same source as her power.” –Adrienne Rich, “Power”

Who's Your Daddy? Authority Relations in Wikipedia

2005-10-21T04:21:00.000-07:00

My focus here is on the relationship between the reader and the writer in works of cybertext and hypertext, with Wikipedia as my example.

As I mentioned in my first post on Wikipedia, this free on-line encyclopedia contains efficiency-conscious innovations in organizational and mechanical arenas, which makes it revolutionary among “great books” of compiled knowledge (i.e., libraries and encyclopedias) and for information retrieval in general. That explains the hypertextual aspect and advantages of its character, which is primarily about nodes and links (see Nelson, Bolter, and Landow).

However, Wikipedia is also a cybertext, meaning it “centers attention on the consumer, or user, of the text, as a more integrated figure” (Aarseth 1). It accomplishes this through its use of wiki software, which allows for a very interactive forum, through which almost anybody can add or edit articles, with only minimum intervention by a staff of volunteers.
The consequent merging of the reader-writer roles leads to the central controversy over the validity and worth of Wikipedia as a reference source; at the same time, these ambiguous roles are a defining aspect of what it is to be a cybertext, which is by definition ergodic, or reader-interactive, in form.

This ergodic nature is important in that it is seen to foster democracy through invoking the participation of the reader, in addition to the writer; in other words, cybertexts like Wikipedia are said to empower traditionally passive readers with a voice. At a basic level, a reader can, with hypertext, create new readings by selecting different links, thus giving them some power over the outcome (Bolter 6). The levels of participation increase as the author (or developer) loses more and more control over how the reader (or user) recreates the text (Aarseth 164). Wikipedia lies somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. The content of what users can add is not preset or just a matter of establishing links to preexisting material. There is real room for significant contributions to furthering the Wikipedia community’s knowledge on the given issue.

However, we must consider that “if the difference between author and reader has vanished or diminished…then the real author must be hiding somewhere else” (Aaresth 165). This hidden author is not so much an author, who creates information, but rather the hidden controls of censorship, which quiet information. In Wikipedia’s case, a large group of administrators is “privileged with the ability to prevent articles from being edited, delete articles, or block users from editing in accordance with community policy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Authors). Although I am not entirely aware of Wikipedia’s expulsion and rejection processes, scholar Espen Aarseth explains that, without digital civil right on networks, there is “only the judgment of the local network owners” (166). Even if there are now more regulations, they are more than likely not as stringent as those normally followed in American legal proceedings, and are therefore less bound to respect freedom of speech. In its own autobiographical article, Wikipedia admits that it has been criticized for “systematic bias [and] preference of consensus to credentials” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia). This is an inherent problem because almost any system operator is going to have an agenda, whether it is good or bad. An additional obstacle to the “democracy” that applications like Wikipedia are supposed to secure are issues of societal inequality (such as economic disadvantage) that restrict some users from Internet access completely or from being anything more than “silent surfers,” unable to engage in web production (Aarseth 172). Although new technology applications have the potential to be forums for the free exchange of unrestricted information with equal access for all people, this is clearly not the reality.

So Wikipedia, “Who’s your daddy?” The question is not so simple anymore; it includes writers (website developers as well as reader contributors, or “editors,” as they are flatteringly called); it includes individual readers (which inevitably includes many if not all writers); and finally it includes the “hidden authors” or controls—the administrators, staff, and even those societal power structures that give some better access than others. All of these sources may be considered Wikipedia’s creators, because, as argued, even each reader will also create his or her own reading; readers are always writers, and writers are almost always readers.

[Optional dorky added ending, cuz I’m just that weird-LOL!:
…readers are always writers, and writers are almost always readers. Yet the system can go further. Aarseth describes, “[J]ust as the game becomes a text for the user at the time of playing, so, it can be argued, does the user become a text for the game, since they exchange and react to each other’s messages” (162). This concept of mutual relations between technology and man where both are senders and receivers (writers and readers) can be extrapolated to a world where artificial intelligence coexists seamlessly with humans. In that not so distant future you may re-ask the question to Wikipedia’s descendent: “Who’s your daddy?” And in that age of ambiguous authority among anatomically authentic and anthropomorphically assembled automation, that Wikipedia-related machine might just answer, “(Insert your name), I am your father.”]

Wikipedia: The Greatest “Great Book”

2005-10-21T04:19:00.000-07:00

“Most of the electronic encyclopedias currently available do not reflect the power…of the new medium…. They only begin to suggest the flexibility that the computer can bring to the organization of a great book” (Bolter 95-97). Bolter wrote these words in 1991, and much has changed since then. The example he gives for the most advanced electronic encyclopedia is Hyperties, which simply has linking windows pop up from highlighted words with elaborations. Today, we have much more complex versions of “great books” (88), as Bolter calls them, referring to either libraries or encyclopedias, both attempts to compile all knowledge in one place. One such example is the Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (www.wikipedia.org), established in 2001.

According to its definition of itself, it is a “multilingual, Web-based, free-content encyclopedia written collaboratively by volunteers and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation” (wikipedia.org). The definition is pasted directly from the website, with all highlighted words being links (which actually work in this document as well). This shows just how connected the articles are to each other; practically every other word can lead to another article. This is hypertext to the extreme, where hypertext is defined as “a body of written or pictorial material interconnected in such a complex way that it could not conveniently be presented or represented on paper” (Nelson 144).

How does hypertext make Wikipedia such a superior encyclopedia? Two main aspects are improved, the organizational aspect (influencing the possible depth and breadth of the work) and the mechanical aspect.

A persistent conundrum faced by authors of encyclopedias throughout history has been the problem of organization—should the encyclopedia be organized topically (showing the “philosophical vision” of connections between concepts) or alphabetically (facilitating access) (Bolter 91)? Wikipedia, like other electronic encyclopedias, incorporates both of these systems of organization and more. Its search function allows the reader to find any article containing the specified word, granting easy access, while various topical outlines also exist, with such categories as related links to any one article, current events, and the general set of all hypertextual links within the articles (including those to other articles as well as those to different spots in the outline of the article itself). Wikipedia fulfills Bolter’s vision concerning the practicality of an ideal electronic encyclopedia: “[T]he reader would not be permanently constrained by any one view: he or she could shift back and forth among outlines” (94). Organizational innovation, as a key means to facilitating various forms of access, is the foundation for fundamentally improving an encyclopedia.

The mechanical element is rather simple; it just takes away the physical work a reader would have to go through to find articles and those articles related to them.

In these abilities, Wikipedia approaches closer to the ideals originally set forth by Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson for the information retrieval system of the future. Bush describes “[w]holly new forms of encyclopedias…ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them….The chemist, struggling with the synthesis of an organic compound, has all the chemical literature before him in his laboratory, with trails following the analogies of compounds, and side trails to their physical and chemical behavior” (46). Granted, Wikipedia is not as specialized as a doctor would need, but the technology involved is exactly what Bush is describing, with hypertext establishing numerous associative connections for efficient investigation in whatever degree of depth or breadth required. Nelson comments on another aspect for the development of information retrieval, that “[i]nformation systems must have built in the capacity to accept the new categorization systems as they evolve from, or outside, the framework of the old” (144). Knowledge is constantly changing, and more information is always amassing; the best retrieval systems will be able to adapt to this change. Wikipedia, with its option to be viewed in various outlines, through word searches, or through numerous associative links establish innumerable categories. Clearly, Wikipedia is one of the leading developments in new media application, providing better organization and faster access. It is truly the greatest “great book.”

**Stay tuned for a further discussion of another aspect of Wikipedia—the almost indecipherable distinction between author and reader—in my next reading response.

Independence and Incorporation (sounds like politics!)

2005-10-21T04:06:00.000-07:00

In an effort to highlight this uniqueness and independence from new media, McCloud clearly emphasizes the need for distinction between on-line comics and animation, which has been becoming fuzzy as of late. He conversely supports the blurring of media forms in promoting the application of comics to re-present such traditionally recognized media forms as poetry (as done with Browning’s “Porphyria’s Lover” on page 226). This seems to deny the inevitable blurring of media forms, that all new media are composed of old media. (For example, Kittler claims that, “Around 1800 the book became both film and record” (108, my emphasis).) However, in asserting the distinction of the two forms, McCloud is actually not denying the need of new media to incorporate older media, but is rather urging that the older media not lose their identity once combined; just because these “ingredients” cooked up something new and distinct from their component parts, they should not lose their identity as ingredients, or whole and useful entities in and of themselves.

McCloud's Symbol: A Visual Summation

2005-10-21T04:03:00.000-07:00

The symbol for comics that McCloud uses throughout the book of the closed and opened eyes embodies his assertion that, “Through their still images using only one sense—comics represents all the senses” (2). The one eye (symbolizing one sense) is part of an infinity sign surrounding the eye and the blank eye (perhaps the other “unused,” or covertly active senses). The comics-like separation of two boxes behind the symbol, separating the open and closed eye, emphasize that it is that space that brings the other senses into play and that makes for infinite potential of the comics form. In this clever image of abstract art, McCloud conveys the essence of his entire argument in favor of comics as a uniquely important art form, and, furthermore, he displays what he does best, which is showing through example; he proves that there is power to the images accompanying text and ideas, and he therefore legitimizes the vary notion of combining the two elemental media as done in comics.

Comics-v-Virtual Reality

2005-10-21T04:02:00.000-07:00

“As the goal of ‘coming alive’ is fulfilled more and more by sound and motion which represents time through time—comics’ multi-image structure—the portrayal of time through space—become superfluous, if not a nuisance, and isn’t likely to endure” (210). Scott McCloud confronts a touchy issue, posing the argument that perhaps “old” media forms, like comics, are simply good as stepping stones to newer media, like movies, video games, and ultimately virtual reality. The question seems to be about the competing human interests of progress and familiarity, in which case familiarity is simply a matter of emotion getting in the way of progress, making the case for comics a weak argument.

McCloud would argue on the side of comics as a persistingly important art form, claiming it has “root strengths” (213) that will become apparent when the long-awaited virtual reality finally arrives, thus relieving the pressure of comics to become VR-esque. To me, this implies that, however great VR is, it will not fulfill all needs, leaving voids that can be uniquely filled by comics. This uniqueness is perceptible even now. What is unique about comics? McCloud’s explains, “The heart of comics lies in the space between the panels—where the reader’s imagination makes still pictures come alive!” (1). Perhaps, the “simplicity” of such still pictures is essential simply because it stimulates the reader to compensate for the unidimensionality of the comic; as McCloud explains, comics requires only one sense (the visual), but it utilizes all senses through evoking lifelike emotional response from readers through the singular ability of comics’ lines to implicitly carry emotion (2). This seems to suggest that comics are ergodic in their own way, a way that cannot be replaced by new technology.

Organizing Resources (Yeah, It's Probably Not What You Want to Read)

2005-10-13T03:18:00.000-07:00

I really like the possibilities for organization that hypertext offers. I know this is a little too much, but I reorganized the readings from the syllabus that we have done so far this semester:

RECONFIGURED SYLLABUS
I. Computer-Based, Ergodic Reading
1) Natalie Bookchin’s “The Intruder”
2) Michael Joyce’s “Afternoon: A Story”
3) Deena Larsen’s “Disappearing Rain”
II. History
1) Ong
2) Ong
3) Kittler
4) Gitelman

III. Media Theory
1) Bolter &Grusin
2) Bolter &Grusin
3) McLuhan
4) Bush
5) Nelson
6) Bolter
7) Aarseth
8) Aarseth
IV. Literature
1) Swift
2) Borges

This is just one outline variation that is the type of change made possible in a hypertext information retrieval system with the possibility of various outlines, as suggested by Bolter (94). (This is not in any way spoken to denigrate the existing syllabus.) I made this particular one to help me to categorize the readings and understand them as they relate to each other within the categories, but just as importantly, to see how the categories work together to form a broad-based approach to understanding Media Studies in general. People constantly ask me to prove that Media Studies is a valid major, which usually involves me detailing the various “legitimate” component subjects within Media Studies, including the history, literature, and computer-based categories mentioned above.

As I was writing this, I decided to explore our existing hypertextual syllabus on http://moodle.pomona.edu. That was very eye-opening for me. Moodle is a new thing, and I have not really looked it over too much, except to get information or post something for a class. But looking around, it is very interesting just to see how much is so accessible in so many different representations: the calendar for monthly events, the forums (very ergodic and cypertextual), and just the general setup that allows for such easy connections to readings, social events, etc. Various authors (including Aarseth 170) talk about the use of computer technology and particularly hypertext and cybertext for the benefit of education, and it is just interesting to really stop, look around, and see that in action.

This has actually given me several ideas that I would like to continue to work with and mull over, maybe for the final project, maybe just for life, all concerned with organizing resources.

First, I have been attending Pomona’s Community Building Training with other members of various groups on campus, and a central problem is networking: when various planned events will coincide, when groups are planning similar events or addressing similar problems and could work together, etc. For both of the organizations I am involved with (PDAC and Multicultural Hall), I am looking into addressing this organizational, networking, coalition-building problem, because it seems like it is one of those things that would make a noticeable difference in our quality of life, without being that hard to do. Multiple calendars exist, multiple group membership lists exist (some outdated, some not), etc., and all in different places. I was just looking at the Blue Pages organization directory http://www.aspc.pomona.edu/organizations/index.aspx on the Pomona website, and again, realizing how much is already there. If this could be updated with a Moodle-esque calendar with colored blocks on the calendar for the group events a student wants to see, and maybe with some member lists, and updated information and then linked from students’ Moodle account—THAT would be awesome.

Second, I think it might be cool to set up some sort of website for myself resembling Moodle, with links to all my favorite websites, a schedule, calendar of events that can update itself with certain group events I want, assignments, journals/thoughts/reminders about career/internship stuff (all with links for my very tangential thoughts), updates for the latest concerts in LA for my favorite bands….THAT would be really helpful.

Also, I really like this idea of exploring different websites for these responses (if only just for the second, non-reading response weekly blog), websites I wanted to check out anyway and just never made time to. This helps me get my stuff done, makes Media Studies assignments more interesting and relevant, and better acquaints me with what is out there with new media (stylistically, technically, etc.). Honestly, it makes me want to learn to make websites (mere exposure effect.)

Oh yeah! Randomly, I also think that teachers (at least those who have freshmen) should explain to students how they should use Moodle (just like with a 5-minute demonstration,) because, like I said, I did not realize all about it until just now. Additionally, with some classes, things aren’t quite as clear as with the Media Studies site.

Also, I think it would be really cool to learn to make websites by redesigning copies of the school ones that we might have access to. We could play with Moodle to make it do more, etc. I don’t know. I’m just rambling at this point.

Wow! This blog has been very therapeutic. I didn’t think assignments were supposed to be like that, but these are thoughts for a final project. So I guess it is OK. Good night!

Hypertext: Digression or Progression?

2005-10-09T19:40:00.000-07:00

I am slightly disconcerted by the idea that hypertext, and particularly the associative thinking it fosters, creates the increased possibility for unnecessary connections, which take away from the focus of the reading of a piece, whether it be a paper, or a website, an encyclopedia, etc. In math proofs, you strive towards answering a question efficiently with the least amount of steps possible to find the simplest answer. Although math is not and should not be equated with writing, I feel that some general principles do carry over. Again, focus is being lost. Furthermore, in his writings, Vannevar Bush compares systems of information retrieval (now comparable to a search engine) to the human brain, which “operates by association…in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells” (44). The comparison is valid, but it should be said that by replicating our biological boons, we also run the risk of transmitting its corresponding problems. If while thinking, a person goes on a tangent, that goes on a tangent about the tangent, and so on and so for, the focus will be lost, and it is association that allows for this digression. In the standard linear style of writing, the opportunity for digression is not really possible within the structure of the book. Although “selection by association,” as Bush refers to it, is more organic, it is, by the same token, more unstructured and more prone to ultimate confusion.

What I do like is the way that Bush and later Nelson apply the freedom implicit with associative thinking in order to achieve a specific goal. They make progress, instead of going in circles or off on tangents. Bush describes, “The summation of human experience is being expanded at a prodigious rate, and the means we use for threading through the consequent maze to the momentarily important item is the same as was used in the days of square-rigged ships” (38). Instead of creating a maze, he seeks to stop the confusion caused by an already-existing labyrinth. He talks of doing this so that “man [may profit] by his inheritance of acquired knowledge” (42). He allows greater, quicker access to insights that already exist, maximizing their value. I appreciate the efficiency this promotes.

A further example of how hypertext can add clarity instead of creating confusion can be seen in the application of outline processors on websites. Basic outlines, full outlines, and full prose can be included, showing different levels of depth. This process makes plain the connections the author intends to make and which points are more important than others: “[T]he figurative process [of creating verbal structures] becomes a literal act” (Bolter 19). In addition to making the reader more aware of the writer’s argument, it also offers a writer a clearer understanding of their own progression of thought, helping them to maintain focus.

Hypertext has the potential to both destroy clarity and to add to it.

(Counter thought: I could reword the last sentence to read: Hypertext is thinking outside the box, but it can be used to reinforce the box. The box is clarity. But worded this way, clarity seems boring. People want to break out of the metaphorical box. So the question becomes “How important is clarity?” Is it a social construction holding us back in our comfort zones, afraid to experience something whose power we do not understand? How bad do we want the security of the box? Is hypertext a link—no pun intended—to an altogether new experience of reality?)

Machine-v-Man: It All Comes Down to Desire

2005-10-08T18:36:00.000-07:00

“[N]umbers and figures become (in spite of romanticism) the key to all creatures” (Kittler 118). This implies that man is no more than a machine, which is a common comment among media analysts. But is there a flaw in this bold assertion? It is true that people do tend to think in more logical, algorithmic ways than before new media, but is that the extent of their being? Some relevant pieces of fiction help us to contemplate the validity of the aforementioned statement.

The first is an Andrew Niccol film entitled Simone. The premise is about a struggling director who realizes his need for a good, yet docile leading actress who will bring him fame without completely stealing the spotlight from him or making his life miserable with outrageous demands in the process. Unable to find this ideal, he, in the true Pygmalion fashion, decides to create the perfect woman on his computer, naming her Simulation One, abbreviated Simone. She stars in his films, and the public quickly comes to love Simone. Although the director is at first delighted with the fame it brings him, he becomes overwhelmed by the increasingly intense pressure to show this nonexistent star of his. Simone symbolizes how the “total connection of all media…erases the notion of the medium itself” (Kittler 102); but as the movie shows, we sense the artificiality upon closer inspection. Though outwardly perfect, Simone lacked the realism to maintain the admiration of her audience. One cannot identify with a lifeless machine in the same way one can with a person. There is an innate quality missing.

The second example is the selection we read of Jonathon Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. In this reading, humans are not equated with numbers per se, but they are treated as machines in various ways. Upon entering the school of languages, Gulliver is presented with a professor’s latest project: “shorten[ing] discourse by cutting polysyllables into one, and leaving out verbs and participles; because, in reality, all things imaginable are but nouns” (169), and there is a more dramatic project underway, which suggested the total abolishment of words for the betterment of health, whereby people would communicate by carrying around with them every object they might need to convey a message to others (169). Such development, although the former may be potentially more efficient than current communication, are both highly unlikely. Bolter writes, “It is not possible or desirable that the prose writer should become a mathematician or that human language should be reduced to a system of logical symbols” (19). The key word here is “desirable.” It is a covert, but nonetheless very real aspect of capitalism that there should always be a lower working class, who is in some way suppressed by the upper class, so that the upper class can enjoy the benefits of their labor without ever having to participate in it. In the world of new technology, the machine (symbolized in the above quote by “mathematician”) may replace the working class, doing the laborious work of dry calculation, permitting humans to explore the richness of their language and curiosity. Although it may be practical to limit language, it is not necessary or “desirable,” especially for those upper echelons of society who have never really had to be concerned about practicality. To combat the idea that new media is making man into a machine, we can argue that one distinguishing characteristic will always be man’s desire.*

I have discussed the idea that man is made of numbers, in other words, that he is a machine. The movie Simone portrays a dystopian projection of such an idea, while Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, suggests the “pragmatic” simplification of human language, sarcastically presenting the real message that everything is more than “but nouns,” far more than facts and objects. The machine is an object, not a person, and thus a person cannot become a machine; they possess the defining human characteristic of desire.

*A side note is that the working class is most susceptible to the mechanization because they are subject to the demands of the market out of financial necessity, as evidenced with the introduction of the assembly line. However, it is unlikely that even their desire could be completely eradicated.

Institutionalized, Invisible: Comparing Technology & Modern Racism-Part 2

2005-09-27T21:17:00.000-07:00

This is a continuation of my last blog. It will address the question:
Acknowledging that racism and modern media-related societal problems are caused by various factors, how can we find a perspective that simultaneously acknowledges the power of the institutionalized mindset, while also taking into account the efficacy of each individual and society as a whole?

I will first discuss this causal complexity in regards to the media, utilizing the words of McLuhan, Gitelman, and Bush. Then I will relate this to the question of establishing the cause of racial inequality.

McLuhan, although he condemns Sarnoff’s laissez faire position, does not take the complete opposite view (that of technological determinism,) but instead approaches the balanced outlook for which we are searching. He refers to media as “the extensions of man.” This in itself suggests that, although media may be a means enabling humans to do more, it is still the human mind that is in control. This hints at efficacy. But McLuhan also holds technology accountable for its impact, directly addressing Sarnoff’s point that our uses of media is what matters: “In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and to ourselves, it mattered not in the least whether it turned out cornflakes or Cadillacs. The restructuring of human work and association was shaped by the technique of fragmentation that is the essence of machine technology” (7-8). McLuhan notices the shift in the types of work available to people, as well as the changing ways in which humans relate. Certainly, once machines were introduced into the workplace, employees who performed certain “mechanical” tasks were no longer needed. Furthermore, people in some ways seem like act like machines, for example, by employing “divide and conquer” techniques (mirroring the fragmentation of machines).

There are even more balanced ideas. Lisa Gitelman explains, “[I]nventing new ways to write or new kinds of writing presupposes a model of what writing and reading are and can be” (4). Extending the concept of writing to all technology, Gitelman’s argument is that an invention does not just arise; instead, it is the result of a preexisting idea, which has to be generated within the socio-cultural context of the times in which the invention is formed. To echo McLuhan, the technology is merely an extension of who we as a society already are. The idea for invention, furthermore, cannot be beyond the capabilities of the time. Vannevar Bush’s example is very pertinent: “Had a Pharaoh been given detailed and explicit designs of an automobile…it would have taxed the resources of his kingdom to have fashioned the thousands of parts” (38). Society not only has to generate an idea, it has to be able to execute it. By the time an invention actually does come about, the time is ripe for it, the scene set, and it is only inevitable. To sum up these more moderate ideas, we turn to Gitelman: “Culture insinuates itself within technology at the same time that technology infiltrates culture” (7). There is a give-and-take between society and technology; it is a mutual process.

Where does the race analogy figure into all of this? Like with technology, there is a balance to how much historical oppression influences the current racial hierarchy. One cannot deny that proactivity and self-motivated action are definitely capable of bettering most bad situations. People who say that minorities are being “victims” have likely heard about some situation where some people of color did mooch off the welfare system; they do not have a view of the full picture, but their version of reality is based on something and cannot be completely discounted. On the other hand, historical oppression has caused a “restructuring of human work and association,” just as media has. The factors that led to the development of slavery still exist: the imperialist Western mindset of superiority, the capitalist greed for profit, and the constitutional tendency to justify immoral actions through technicalities. Stereotypes have been created: people of color are inferior, blacks are entertainers (good dancers) and workhorses (good at physical activities), Mexicans are good cooks and housecleaners, etc. Human interactions and impressions of others are based on these ideas. The distribution of people of color in the workplace reflects this mentality; it is not rare to see minority janitors or entry-level jobs, but seeing a minority CEO is definitely out of the ordinary. There is a “glass ceiling,” invisibly yet firmly denying opportunities to people of color. There are many other examples of institutionalized racism, but suffice to say, racial oppression did not end with slavery or with the Condoleeza Rice becoming Secretary of State. The continuing problems of racial inequality are, like media-based societal issues, based on various factors, both by oppression’s institutional residue, as well as by the attitudes of the society the oppression impacts.

Looking at media and historical racial oppression as two influences for modern social problems has shed light on the necessity to avoid extremes and has revealed that complex problems have multiple intersecting causes.

Note: This analogy can be helpful in understanding the dynamics of complex social issues, but at the same time, I feel it is necessary to point out that there are many differences between these two situations. I am not at all asserting that both social problems are caused in equal measure by the creation (media/historical oppression) and the affected (society/minorities). I personally feel that society (the affected) is more responsible than media for media-related societal problems, while I think that historical oppression (the creation) is a more influential determinant than lack of personal initiative in the current racial situation. I have several case studies on the racial aspect in case anyone is interested. I hope this blog does not offend anybody. It is meant to be theoretical. If it does offend you, please write me, because I’d love to hear reactions.

Institutionalized, Invisible: Comparing Technology & Modern Racism-Part I

2005-09-27T21:13:00.000-07:00

“ ‘We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value’” (11). Marshall McLuhan quotes General David Sarnoff here only to mock him, believing Sarnoff “ignores the nature of the medium, of any and all media” (11). But the argument here is far from simple; it is the struggle between technological determinism and a more laissez faire, nonjudgmental approach (the latter embodied in Sarnoff). In other words, we are wondering if a subtle societal feature (its choice of media) assiduously contributes to collective problems. Sound familiar? This dynamic of media influence, although not identical by any stretch of the imagination, is reminiscent of modern, institutionalized racism in its invisibility, its ingrained nature into the fabric of society, and most importantly, its subsequent power to be a silent killer. This reading response will use this unlikely connection to explore the murky polemics surrounding media’s influence on society, focusing on how the racial history (particularly that of oppression) is like new media in that both are seen to either completely determine or, conversely, have no effect on the current social situation.
Technological determinism is one extreme. It suggests that, as we said in class, that “the invention of new technology determines the uses to which it will be put, and thus the social structures that might result from it.” In this view, technology is a scapegoat for societal problems, lifting culpability from the true perpetrators. It is not considered that human imagination and desire created technology to achieve their own ends, only in a more efficient manner. This, in some ways, is what Friedrich Kittler was trying to express in saying that “numbers and figures become (in spite of romanticism) the key to all creatures” (118). Technological determinism is very strictly defined, and its rigidity does not allow for the variety of perspectives and experiences that shape the human experience.
We can roughly equate this to the equally deterministic statement that past historical oppression of minorities has condemned these same minorities to forever experience deficiencies in their rights and ability to reach the “American dream.” Like technological determinism, this is a restricted view that, while not entirely wrong, cannot look beyond its premise to view the opportunities and progress of the present age.
At the other end of the spectrum, is Sarnoff’s dismissive laissez faire attitude that claims impunity for all technology, attributing societal problems to the uses people have created for that technology. The appropriate correlation within the question of racism is the similarly dismissive position that racial history, like technology in the past example, has no bearing on racial inequality, that it is rather the ways that people have used, or taken advantage, of that history as a “victim race” seeking to mooch off the government that leads to the current race-based stratification in the modern United States.
Clearly both technological/historical determinism and the equally ludicrous disregard for institutional influences in assessing problems, are narrow-minded and lacking in extensive consideration; through the comparison of technology and racial history, we see that the folly of absolutist thinking is a human tendency, natural yet ineffective in accurately representing a problematic situation.

The interesting (and challenging) part comes in finding a perspective that simultaneously acknowledges the power of the institutionalized mindset resulting from both new media and from historical discrimination, while also taking into account the efficacy of each individual and society as a whole. (I will discuss this at length in my next blog.)

Orality, Literacy, and Various Implications

2005-09-13T02:40:00.000-07:00

This blog entry (like my second blog entry every week) is just an expression of various thoughts and connections that our readings have brought to my mind. I have a lot of various points this time.

First, I am curious to know if orality is the natural condition under which humans are meant to live. This is the type of society that came first, and sound is supposed to be more harmonious than vision. Additionally, when babies start out in the world, they definitely practice orality, as opposed to literacy. It is usually only through parents’ and schools’ oral reading that children experience the transition into literacy. Children’s orality is stifled in school, where reading is definitely promoted. Would it be better if we allowed ourselves to remain a talking society? Would we be more communal, more inquisitive?

On the subject of education, it is interesting to consider if the ability to write things down leads to student laziness, preventing them from remembering useful information. I find it annoying, for example, when math students use calculators for simple arithmetic; it takes away from the development of one’s own abilities and encourages dependence. On the other hand, oral culture can also be detrimental. Without written words, it is possible for children to experience “giant word” syndrome (Bereiter & Englemann 34), where sentences and phrases are said as a word and cannot be recombined to form questions from sentences and the like. It is a double-edged sword, but I tend to think a literate culture can lead to further developed minds, as long as short-cuts are minimized.

Fairy tales have always intrigued me, perhaps for how powerfully simple they are and how they really highlight various aspects of human nature. It is, therefore, interesting to consider that such traditions are the result, not of our exalted literate society, but of something more fundamentally (or primitively) human. Again, it is worth noting that this is how children start out learning. There definitely does seem to be a progression from orality to literacy, but both are necessary; we should remember our oral roots and deepest fears, desires, etc. of the human psyche as presented through fairy tales.

I now realize why listing geneology is so important in the Bible. I have sat through many a Christmas mass wondering why it was significant to hear Jesus’ whole lineage about thirteen generations back. It means his family is significant enough to be remembered, and, thus, he is an important personage.

The idea of homeostasis scares me, because it reminds me of dystopias, such as those presented in 1984, Brave New World, and Equilibrium, where (at least in one of those) past events and people are erased from history when they deviate from strict social rules. The idea of throwing out ideas that do not have to do with present society may have worked in a simpler time, but it would be extremely dangerous in the hands of powerful people now.

Along the lines of orality being a simpler form of human development and thus a reflection of degree of education, I think traces of a stronger oral culture are visible in poorer, less educated communities. Spoken word and poetry are both cheap and accessible forms of communication, as well as powerful. More people speak up in churches. When sociologists talk with children from such communities, the children are practical and use situational explanations. Like Ong’s discussion of a peasant’s bafflement when asked to describe a tree, sociologist William Labov found that one lower-class child fumbled for words when an interviewer asked him to describe a jet (Labov 1971); those types of questions are not practical nor relevant in everyday for these people. Furthermore, some children were at first very quiet, because talking, as Ong described, is often seen as confrontational to some degree in an oral community.

The differences in people’s ways of expressing themselves in oral versus literate societies exemplifies the relativity of measuring knowledge and, thus, may inspire test creators (such as those for the SAT’s) to reconsider how they quantify knowledge and, thus, determine futures.

I think it is sad how the literate world, in its very existence, isolates the individual from society. Do we realize that communal happiness is sacrificed for knowledge? I think every college student does realize this when deciding between homework and parties. I also think that such deprivation leads to more psychological problems, such as depression.

Finally, I am curious as to the implications of Ong’s work on forms of entertainment. He contends that sound is more harmonious than the visual and that “[w]ithout harmony, an interior condition, the psyche is in bad health” (72). Is it, therefore, better to listen to music than read a book? Ong states, “Knowledge is…a unifying phenomenon, a striving for harmony” (71-72). Does this mean that, with music (or forms of auditory learning), we are more likely to learn or to better relax and let our experiences combine so as to make us feel whole?

That is all for now.

Troy: Immortality in an Oral Culture

2005-09-13T02:38:00.000-07:00

There are many differences of thinking caused by oral versus literate cultures, and one that especially struck me is the difference in views of death, longevity, and immortality. I was particularly troubled by the an oral culture’s tendency to forget: “…oral societies live very much in a present which keeps itself in equilibrium or homeostasis by sloughing off memories which no longer have present relevance” (Ong 46). By contrast, in today’s society, people seem to want to prolong every memory as long as possible—digitally remastering old movies, keeping art safe in museums, writing memoirs to keep their legacies alive, etc. Most of these forms of immortality would not be possible in an oral, technologically undeveloped society, where only stories could preserve the past.

This leads me to the movie Troy, which presents the Trojan War, largely through the eyes of Achilles (Brad Pitt). Taking place in 1193 B.C., writing, although it exists, is not very popular, and the culture is still largely oral. After Paris abducts Helen, Greece prepares for war, and Achilles’ participation is sought, as he is a highly respected, if not the most highly respected, warrior of that time. He must decide if he will go to war, effectively condemning himself to death but leaving a legacy, or lead a peaceful life that will soon be forgotten. Thetis, his mother, discusses the implications of this decision with him: “If you stay here, with me, with your family, you’ll have a long, peaceful life. You’ll marry, you’ll have children, and your children will have children. They’ll love you, and when you’re gone they’ll remember you. But when your children are dead, and their children after them, your name will be lost….If you go to Troy, no one will earn more glory than you. Men will tell stories of your victories for thousands of years. The world will remember your name” ( http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/troy_by_david_benioff.pdf, 34). This quote highlights the importance of doing something significant enough to be kept alive in the collective memory. This quest for immortality is much more costly than that of people of the present age; for Achilles, it is a life-and-death decision.

Both during the time of the Trojan War and today, immortality in terms of leaving a legacy is a large concern, and it is interesting to note just how much more difficult it was to create that legacy in the past. In either age it t is unsettling to think that one’s name will be completely forgotten. As we approach the digital age, this will take on even more meaning, because our names and images last almost too long on Internet sources.

**Because we are discussing the importance of orality and also hypermediacy, I have included a link (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Remember-lyrics-Josh-Groban/B8267ADECA7E588C48256E9D000848DC ) to the lyrics of a song featured in Troy, entitled Remember by Josh Groban. This song discusses the importance of continuing to tell a story in order to keep a person alive. Because this song discusses stories, it is a form of hypermediacy, if you consider story-telling as a form of media, which I think is a necessary consideration when dealing with an oral society, which has no other medium. Also, (if you can manage to get a hold of this song) hearing the yearning for immortality in spoken from may be helpful because “sound incorporates” and creates “harmony, a putting together” (Ong 71) that might better convey the feeling of the idea of existing only through memory. The song recreates the orality of the period, as well as the sentiments.

Education, Culture, and Remediation

2005-09-05T14:27:00.000-07:00

I have several thoughts I would like to jot down.
First, I am interested in how remediation applies to education. Many textbooks are now accompanied by CDs or DVDs. Many have websites. It is not uncommon to find textbooks completely on-line. Pictures in books and on overheads, class projects of dioramas and collages, movies watched in class, video projects—hypermediacy is and has been everywhere in education to some degree for some time. Students also sometimes watch the news on TV in class, a form of immediacy, directly connecting them to the world about which they are learning. In all these ways, we see that remediation has direct application to more than just entertainment.
At first I tended to see remediation as the direct result of an impatient, hurried, multi-tasking, low attention span society. Yes, there is intelligence behind the creation of the necessary technology, but the application seems largely shallow. But thinking about it in terms of education, I can appreciate its importance. As we are discovering more and more about how kids learn and about how there are different learning styles, we must find appropriate teaching styles. Hypermediacy provides these various stimuli.
Second, I would like to comment on the cultural implications of remediation. As I mentioned above, remediation is, at least to some degree, driven by a society that is largely entertainment-based. Because of this, many third-world countries cannot participate as actively in this “global” revolution; they have many more pressing needs, such as providing food, housing, and healthcare to their people.
Furthermore, I think it is important to acknowledge not only historical Western European instances of remediation, but also those of other cultures, such as the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Persians. I cannot say that I am extremely aware of their individual contributions to the development of remediation, but I feel that it is definitely something into which one could look.
A final point on culture is that Buddhist cultures, who are very in tune with nature, seem to have a much more natural sense of immediacy and hypermediacy. In meditating, in understanding nature, one’s senses are their own medium, and experience is immediate. It is virtual reality, but actual. I suppose this undermines the whole concept of media studies, but if you get back to basics, the bodily capacities for perception and cognition are mediated through sense organs to give practically immediate awareness of situations. Our bodies are the media through which we experience the world, and I cannot help wondering that if our society was more nature/fulfillment-based, instead of technology/entertainment-based, perhaps media studies would be more about coming to terms with the physicality of the world in which we live and of which we are a part.
In conclusion, different forms of remediation reveal how the human mind works—both on the level of child mental development and in the context of various cultures.

Vanilla Sky and Simulated Reality

2005-09-05T13:26:00.000-07:00

“I want to live a real life... I don't want to dream any longer.” So says David Aames (played by Tom Cruise) when he realizes that he has been “living” in a simulated reality, in Cameron Crowe’s science fiction/fantasy film, Vanilla Sky. In this purposefully confusing movie, the audience sees various parts of David’s life, not knowing where reality ends and the dream turned nightmare begins, only to find out in the end that he has killed himself and is living in a “lucid dream” in a cryonically suspended state of animation, which he purchased from the Life Extention Corporation.
The corporation advertises the “lucid dream” as the “cryonic union of science and entertainment.” Through this fictional futuristic technological development, viewers can see the possible far-reaching implications of the technology currently being developed in the area of virtual reality, with its “goal of unmediated visual experience” (Bolter & Grusin 4). Extending this to all senses, people would have the ability to experience simulated reality, which, as opposed to virtual reality, “would be impossible to tell apart from ‘real’ reality” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality ). Tom Cruise’s character experiences this simulated reality, which is the culmination of remediation, a process that current technology is now undergoing at a rapid rate. Remediation consists of a “double logic,” expressing how “[o]ur culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation” (Bolter & Grusin 5). These two facets of remediation—hypermediacy and immediacy—are “contradictory” yet “mutually dependent” (Bolter & Grusin 6). Immediacy is seen in the fictional Life Extension Corporation’s “lucid dream” creation in that David (Cruise) “feel[s] as if [he] were ‘really’ there” (Bolter & Grusin 5), not knowing for a long period of time (years?) that he is not actually physically living; the medium is invisible, the experience immediate. Ironically, it takes an innumerable amount of media to create this invisibility of media; every sense is mediated. This is hypermediacy to the utmost.
The movie ends with Edmund Ventura, a Life Extension scientist, entering David’s dream, explaining the situation to him, and giving him the option to stay in this dream or return to an uncertain reality. After musing over David’s situation, Ventura asks him a pivotal question: “It's been a brilliant journey of self-awakening. And now you've simply got to ask yourself this: What is happiness to you, David?” This is a question that society likewise has to ask of itself in an age where more and more versions of “reality” become possible. For example, Alcor Life Extension is an existing company, formed in 1972, and “[a]s of July 2005, Alcor had 765 members, and 68 patients in cryopreservation” (http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/index.html). Although lucid dreams are not yet possible, life extension is. With mediated technology on the rise, Vanilla Sky does not seem like such a far-fetched fantasy anymore.
We are playing God, but without the wisdom and foresight. Do we want to create a man-made world, where death is defied but the rules are unknown? Do we want to return to a simpler time when newspapers, photographs, and music were separate entities? Or do we want something inbetween? We have to ask ourselves, “What is happiness to us?”