With the growing Internet, it is getting easier and easier to find and share information and it is getting easier and easier to become connected with more and more people. Most people would find this to be a positive. A perfect example of this is yesterday's world changing news of Osama Bin Laden's death. I found out through a tweet by my friend here at Marist. My first thought was of course that he was kidding and that it was a joke, but soon there after, I saw the NY Times tweet that said "Breaking News: Osama Bin Laden Has Been Killed." I would almost guarantee that a large amount of people found out through some sort of social networking site that Osama Bin Laden died.
In this aspect, it can easily be argued that sites like these are a commodity in today's society. However, there are draw backs to not only social networking sites, but all of the online world. This is the main concept in the documentary Catfish. Who would have thought that something as simple as an eight-year-old girl painting a photographer's photos could cause this much drama?
The extent to which this woman, Angela, went to in order to keep this story plausible was astounding and almost admirable. Her creativity was amazing and the depth that she went into to keep up the story was so intricate. Even after she was caught, she kept up a different story, telling Nev that all the people she had made up were really just Megan's friends and young adults in the neighborhood.
So the story starts out with a photographer finding a fan who likes to paint his pictures. With the accessibility of the Internet, he is able to keep in touch with this little girl through email. As their relationship develops, the photographer (Nev) becomes more and more involved in not only the life of Abbey (the little girl and Angela's daughter), but her whole family's. Through email, Facebook, and phone calls, Nev becomes closer and closer to the family. This is what originally brings him in contact with Megan, Abbey's 19-year-old sister; all this connectivity.
Megan and Nev grow closer and closer, but then things turn awry when holes start appearing in the stories Megan and Angela and Abbey are telling Nev. Completely dumbfounded, Nev finds out slowly this family is a complete sham. In an effort to find out the truth, Nev goes to see Angela and her family. He definitely finds out a lot (true and false) about the life of Angela and Abbey and even Megan. As it turns out, Abbey is not the painter, but Angela and as for Megan, she exists, but has not at all been the one Nev has been talking to.
It begs the question as to why Nev would so easily be tricked into believing this family. While watching and finding out little by little that there is something fishy going on, audiences are the harshest critics. There is this feeling among audiences that you should never trust people you meet online or people you don't know because people aren't who you think they are. Even Nev gets mad at himself because he was so "naive." However, when you look at the situation, he really had no reason to believe these people were lying to them. They weren't asking for money or trying to take advantage of Nev, but instead it just seemed like they were looking for a connection and a relationship with him.
Ultimately though, this film was not made to exploit this family for their wrong-doings or Nev's naivety, but instead to warn audiences and others using social networking sites that the people you get to know and the relationships you develop through strictly online communication may not be what you think they are. People wear a mask when they are online. This is shown quite well by seeing Angela's Facebook profile picture in comparison with her real-life image. You can be whom ever you choose to be online and, unless someone shows up at your "horse farm" and house, you would never have to reveal your true self.
Social networking sites bring a lot of connectivity into our lives, but the growing usage of these sites can cause a lot of problems. Not only the situation with Nev, but cyber bullying has also picked up in the past few years. How great is a medium that brings so much social instability?
Monday, May 02, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Exit Through the Gift Shop
The documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop follows the story of a French immigrant Thierry and his adventure as he follows different street artists and learns the craft himself. Directed by Banksy, a notorious street artist, this film gives light into the art of street art.
After Thierry follows his cousin, the street artist Invader, he becomes highly interested in the culture and ideas behind street art. What makes Thierry interesting however, is his constant need to film everything. He has a camera permanently glued to his hand all throughout the film. Audiences are shown that filming is Thierry's obsession. He has boxes and boxes full of tapes because he just always has a camera in his hand. So as Thierry follows these artists, he gets everything they do on camera.
The film focuses around Thierry's adventures with Shepard Fairey and his pursuit of the elusive Banksy. Thierry is not afraid to scale large buildings or climb up scaffolds to get the shot he wants, as audiences see early on. But soon, Thierry is not only there to film, he is there to help. He starts assisting with making the art and gets even more entrenched in the whole process. This is where Thierry seems to turn from film-maker to street artist. Soon, not only has Thierry hunted down and made friends with Banksy (a feat no one thought possible), but he himself started to make art for the streets.
At this point in the documentary, the focus shifts from Thierry's journey through the street art world and becomes about his journey as part of it. Taking ideas and themes from the artists he had observed, Thierry puts together a whole gallery full of work to open his own show. Calling himself "Mister Brain Wash," Thierry hopes to use his name and art to show people exactly what street art represents; a subliminal message against the system.
However, as Banksy and Fairey comment, it seems Thierry has basically become a sell-out because of them. Banksy is quoted in saying, "we've created a monster." And the new question becomes, who's this joke on now? It does not seem like Thierry is in the street art world for the reasons most are. He has taken this art and made it into more of a science than an art. Step one. Take a popular picture. Step two. Make it about 20 times bigger. Step three. Add something that wasn't there before. Step four. Convince people it's art. The last step seems to be the trickiest, but Thierry found his way around that with the help of a small verbal endorsement from his dear old Banksy. Thierry made the street art world into a business for his own gain. He may have been talented at it, but he wasn't doing it for a way to portray a message. He seemed very focused on getting his name out there and getting fans, which one could argue that this isn't the way of street artists.
If you look at Banksy and Shepard Fairey, anonymity was part of their game. It was part of the street art world. Yes, people know they are the ones who put up the art, but they don't know exactly who they are. This type of mystery could be said to be a whole part of the street art movement. It almost adds another layer to the art. Take Banksy for example. Even throughout the whole documentary he was kept blurred and darkened and distorted so he could stay hidden. This is part of his art. Even when Thierry says he wants to find him, everyone told him it was impossible because no one knew who he was. Think about what that says when matched with his art. It gives a whole other level and gives him more authority in the field.
When someone sees a Banksy work, they're immediately drawn to it (especially those in museums) because it has a level of mystery behind it and it's human nature to be curious. So then take Thierry's way of throwing himself into the public eye. While yes people seem to love his work, just imagine the amount of hype this would have gotten had it been Banksy's show.
After Thierry follows his cousin, the street artist Invader, he becomes highly interested in the culture and ideas behind street art. What makes Thierry interesting however, is his constant need to film everything. He has a camera permanently glued to his hand all throughout the film. Audiences are shown that filming is Thierry's obsession. He has boxes and boxes full of tapes because he just always has a camera in his hand. So as Thierry follows these artists, he gets everything they do on camera.
The film focuses around Thierry's adventures with Shepard Fairey and his pursuit of the elusive Banksy. Thierry is not afraid to scale large buildings or climb up scaffolds to get the shot he wants, as audiences see early on. But soon, Thierry is not only there to film, he is there to help. He starts assisting with making the art and gets even more entrenched in the whole process. This is where Thierry seems to turn from film-maker to street artist. Soon, not only has Thierry hunted down and made friends with Banksy (a feat no one thought possible), but he himself started to make art for the streets.
At this point in the documentary, the focus shifts from Thierry's journey through the street art world and becomes about his journey as part of it. Taking ideas and themes from the artists he had observed, Thierry puts together a whole gallery full of work to open his own show. Calling himself "Mister Brain Wash," Thierry hopes to use his name and art to show people exactly what street art represents; a subliminal message against the system.
However, as Banksy and Fairey comment, it seems Thierry has basically become a sell-out because of them. Banksy is quoted in saying, "we've created a monster." And the new question becomes, who's this joke on now? It does not seem like Thierry is in the street art world for the reasons most are. He has taken this art and made it into more of a science than an art. Step one. Take a popular picture. Step two. Make it about 20 times bigger. Step three. Add something that wasn't there before. Step four. Convince people it's art. The last step seems to be the trickiest, but Thierry found his way around that with the help of a small verbal endorsement from his dear old Banksy. Thierry made the street art world into a business for his own gain. He may have been talented at it, but he wasn't doing it for a way to portray a message. He seemed very focused on getting his name out there and getting fans, which one could argue that this isn't the way of street artists.
If you look at Banksy and Shepard Fairey, anonymity was part of their game. It was part of the street art world. Yes, people know they are the ones who put up the art, but they don't know exactly who they are. This type of mystery could be said to be a whole part of the street art movement. It almost adds another layer to the art. Take Banksy for example. Even throughout the whole documentary he was kept blurred and darkened and distorted so he could stay hidden. This is part of his art. Even when Thierry says he wants to find him, everyone told him it was impossible because no one knew who he was. Think about what that says when matched with his art. It gives a whole other level and gives him more authority in the field.
When someone sees a Banksy work, they're immediately drawn to it (especially those in museums) because it has a level of mystery behind it and it's human nature to be curious. So then take Thierry's way of throwing himself into the public eye. While yes people seem to love his work, just imagine the amount of hype this would have gotten had it been Banksy's show.
Tuesday, April 05, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Keen Questions
1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links. Include this idea of "disintermediation".
Keen defines Democratized media as this new media that brings more content and opinion to the web, but also "blurs the lines between the audience and the author." He says that this new innovation brings question to fact and fiction on the web. He questions how much of the content put out there is actually fact based or not. With the idea that there no longer are paid editors screening what goes onto the web to make sure it is valid, there is a sense that anything could be posted by anyone; and more times than not, anything is. This is what Keen states as "disintermediation". Wikipedia is his main example of this new term. He speaks of when certain public figures died and how the cause of death was changed by anonymous users multiple times clearly showing that the sources could not be trusted (by the varied and unrelated causes of death).
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys!?)
Douglas Rushkoff takes a more personal approach to the idea of Web 2.0, whereas Keen dissects it's validity. In Rushkoff's documentary, he explores the effects Web 2.0 has had on students, gamers, and even adults. He shows the different marketing strategies that have come out of it, yet also how much it is negatively influencing those who have grown up with it. Keen however, takes the issue of Web 2.0 being an "editor-free world" and how this negatively affects everyone who is using the web. He stresses that the bombardment of amateur content is messing with the whole idea of fact and fiction. He talks over and over about there being no true distinction between what is fact-based opinion and what is just a hot-headed, ignorant blogger opinion. Keen talks not only about the opinions, but the sources those opinions are coming from. Although a lot of it would seem to be coming from an amateur teenager trying to amuse him and his friends, some of the content is actually being produced by companies with political agendas attempting to look like a third party. While both views seem very important in our society today, I would say that Rushkoff's hits closer to home for me. I don't produce much content and I don't read much content that isn't from a credible source, so the effects on my life are more important to me than the idea that some sources aren't credible. Also, as a teenager, Facebook has taken over my life. Rushkoff's film speaks to me more than Keen's book.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Thursday, March 03, 2011
Whither the Individual?
So where is the individual is the question I'll try to answer for you in the next few paragraphs. But it's not a question of where like "Where in the world is Carmen San Diego," but instead a more "Where's Waldo" kind of question. We have a sneaking suspicion that the individual is out there, but there are no clues that would help us track them, we just need to use our naked, cunning eye to seek out the individual in the web of conformity. On our quest, we will look at three different social networking sites and the user-generated content on each to decide if there is in fact an individual out there, or if everyone is trying their best to mimic everyone else.
First, let's look at Facebook. Oh, the infamous Facebook. While browsing the web, I stumbled across a blog "Digital Buzz Blog" and found some quite interesting facts. While reading through them, I started realizing how much of an addiction Facebook has become. The "veil" that is placed in front of users' faces when they are on the internet is expected, but the degree to which this veil actually gives them courage is astounding. According to the blog, "57% of people talk to people more online than in person." It's fun, yet somehow scary to see how much people rely on Facebook for that important social aspect of the human life. We're going to conduct an experiment throughout the length of this blog post. We're going to count how many times I check my Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. I'm not going to fight the urge. That would disrupt the experiment. So I will keep a count and at the end, I will disclose how many times for each social networking site. Clearly each time I check one of these, it is disrupting my learning and thought process. What is the big need to constantly be seeing what is happening in the lives of others? And what is the big need to incorporate their lives into yours. How much of "checking Facebook" is really "checking what is cool"? It would be quite an upset to find out that what you've been doing or thinking is uncool. Is this why we feel the constant need to see what other people are doing? To see how it compares to what we're doing?
According to "Digital Buzz Blog", 48% of college age kids check Facebook right when they get out of bed. The even scarier statistic, 28% check it even before they get out of bed on their smart phones. I look at this statistic and think to myself, "wow, that's an addiction" however, I think about it and I checked my Facebook before getting out of bed this morning and pretty much every morning now that I think about it. And then as soon as I get out of bed, I turn on my computer and go on the internet. My set homepages on my Google Chrome browser are Facebook and Foxmail. So the first thing I'm greeted with is my Top News Feed and then how can I help but to read through some of that and see what everyone has been up to lately. Could it be that our social networking sites are leading us to the same destructive behavior as the kids in Korea that need to go to rehab for their excessive use of the internet? It makes me wonder if I could go a day without checking my Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr. All day I would probably be jittery and wondering what is going on around me and what I'm missing.
So as we move away from Facebook, we can look at Twitter. Here you can follow basically anyone. Some you need to have them approve of you following them, but bigger Tweeters such as Oprah, Charlie Sheen, and Chelsea Lately have open Twitters and you can follow them no matter who you are. Does the connection with famous people make us feel more powerful? Does it make us feel more well liked? Is constantly reading Ellen DeGeneres' tweets going to make me more famous? I'm a huge fan and when I clicked "Follow" is it possible that in the back of my mind I'm following her because I want to be more like her? Like Facebook, Twitter is a social networking site, however, it is a lot less personal than Facebook. All Twitter is, is a collection of Facebook statuses one after another. There is really no communication. And if there is, it is limited to @mentions. There is no guarantee that the person you @mention will @mention you back (especially if they are famous). So why follow them? Because being famous is cool. If you read their tweets and they give you insight or knowledge that will give you a head start on the other uncool people, then why not put yourself in that opportunity?
But where is the individual there? Nowhere. With the massive amount of postings clogging your Twitter Timeline, to be heard as an individual, there is no hope. Unless you are famous or you have a lot of your friends following you, no one really cares what you post on there. It is more a way of finding and listening to those more important to you to find a way to be more important like them. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, right?
So this brings us to our final contender, YouTube. This site is a bit different. It is based solely around user-based content. With a medium like this, there is little room for conformity. Yet we still do see a little. However limited it is, there is still some mock-umentaries that emulate most famous film styles. Yet the writing has to be all original unless the user wants to be charged with copyright infringement. Here viewers can clearly see the individual. However, there are countless users that focus their content on media that has already been produced. There are countless videos made that are taken right from TV shows or news stations. Many republish these videos as funny pranks or to inform their viewers, however, there is no true originality in that. It gives insight to the individual's interest, but there is no real extension of one's self when re-posting. For those who are using YouTube as a way to get out their productions, it is clear that they are using the site for its original purpose; to give users a space to publish and produce original works. Yet, for those who just use it as a way to post funny videos that everyone can see elsewhere, it can be said that they are losing themselves to the whole.
When we look at the social media sites we are all a part of, it's interesting to note why we are there. Is it to share our experiences through a post, blog, or video? Or it to show the world how similar we are to a certain type of people? You must ask yourself the question, why are you Facebook friends with your mom, your dad, your best friend that you see every day? Could it be that you want other people to see that you are just as well-connected as they are? Or is it because you see them as someone to "virtually" look up to and therefore you find yourself creeping on them and trying to copy their way of thinking/posting? The reason we have Facebook and Twitter and YouTube accounts is because everyone else has them. The truth is that on these sites we are no longer an individual. We are just another post complaining about the weather, another teenager uploading a photo of a drunken night's party, or another producing hopeful wishing that someone will enjoy yet another video about cats. Online we wear a veil that gives us strength, but also makes us faceless.
Experiment Results:
Twitter: 15
Tweets posted: 4
Facebook: 8
Activity: 1 Comment
Tumblr: 8
Posts: 1
Sources Mentioned and Used:
This is your brain on Facebook
Digital Nation
First, let's look at Facebook. Oh, the infamous Facebook. While browsing the web, I stumbled across a blog "Digital Buzz Blog" and found some quite interesting facts. While reading through them, I started realizing how much of an addiction Facebook has become. The "veil" that is placed in front of users' faces when they are on the internet is expected, but the degree to which this veil actually gives them courage is astounding. According to the blog, "57% of people talk to people more online than in person." It's fun, yet somehow scary to see how much people rely on Facebook for that important social aspect of the human life. We're going to conduct an experiment throughout the length of this blog post. We're going to count how many times I check my Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. I'm not going to fight the urge. That would disrupt the experiment. So I will keep a count and at the end, I will disclose how many times for each social networking site. Clearly each time I check one of these, it is disrupting my learning and thought process. What is the big need to constantly be seeing what is happening in the lives of others? And what is the big need to incorporate their lives into yours. How much of "checking Facebook" is really "checking what is cool"? It would be quite an upset to find out that what you've been doing or thinking is uncool. Is this why we feel the constant need to see what other people are doing? To see how it compares to what we're doing?
According to "Digital Buzz Blog", 48% of college age kids check Facebook right when they get out of bed. The even scarier statistic, 28% check it even before they get out of bed on their smart phones. I look at this statistic and think to myself, "wow, that's an addiction" however, I think about it and I checked my Facebook before getting out of bed this morning and pretty much every morning now that I think about it. And then as soon as I get out of bed, I turn on my computer and go on the internet. My set homepages on my Google Chrome browser are Facebook and Foxmail. So the first thing I'm greeted with is my Top News Feed and then how can I help but to read through some of that and see what everyone has been up to lately. Could it be that our social networking sites are leading us to the same destructive behavior as the kids in Korea that need to go to rehab for their excessive use of the internet? It makes me wonder if I could go a day without checking my Facebook or Twitter or Tumblr. All day I would probably be jittery and wondering what is going on around me and what I'm missing.
So as we move away from Facebook, we can look at Twitter. Here you can follow basically anyone. Some you need to have them approve of you following them, but bigger Tweeters such as Oprah, Charlie Sheen, and Chelsea Lately have open Twitters and you can follow them no matter who you are. Does the connection with famous people make us feel more powerful? Does it make us feel more well liked? Is constantly reading Ellen DeGeneres' tweets going to make me more famous? I'm a huge fan and when I clicked "Follow" is it possible that in the back of my mind I'm following her because I want to be more like her? Like Facebook, Twitter is a social networking site, however, it is a lot less personal than Facebook. All Twitter is, is a collection of Facebook statuses one after another. There is really no communication. And if there is, it is limited to @mentions. There is no guarantee that the person you @mention will @mention you back (especially if they are famous). So why follow them? Because being famous is cool. If you read their tweets and they give you insight or knowledge that will give you a head start on the other uncool people, then why not put yourself in that opportunity?
But where is the individual there? Nowhere. With the massive amount of postings clogging your Twitter Timeline, to be heard as an individual, there is no hope. Unless you are famous or you have a lot of your friends following you, no one really cares what you post on there. It is more a way of finding and listening to those more important to you to find a way to be more important like them. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, right?
So this brings us to our final contender, YouTube. This site is a bit different. It is based solely around user-based content. With a medium like this, there is little room for conformity. Yet we still do see a little. However limited it is, there is still some mock-umentaries that emulate most famous film styles. Yet the writing has to be all original unless the user wants to be charged with copyright infringement. Here viewers can clearly see the individual. However, there are countless users that focus their content on media that has already been produced. There are countless videos made that are taken right from TV shows or news stations. Many republish these videos as funny pranks or to inform their viewers, however, there is no true originality in that. It gives insight to the individual's interest, but there is no real extension of one's self when re-posting. For those who are using YouTube as a way to get out their productions, it is clear that they are using the site for its original purpose; to give users a space to publish and produce original works. Yet, for those who just use it as a way to post funny videos that everyone can see elsewhere, it can be said that they are losing themselves to the whole.
When we look at the social media sites we are all a part of, it's interesting to note why we are there. Is it to share our experiences through a post, blog, or video? Or it to show the world how similar we are to a certain type of people? You must ask yourself the question, why are you Facebook friends with your mom, your dad, your best friend that you see every day? Could it be that you want other people to see that you are just as well-connected as they are? Or is it because you see them as someone to "virtually" look up to and therefore you find yourself creeping on them and trying to copy their way of thinking/posting? The reason we have Facebook and Twitter and YouTube accounts is because everyone else has them. The truth is that on these sites we are no longer an individual. We are just another post complaining about the weather, another teenager uploading a photo of a drunken night's party, or another producing hopeful wishing that someone will enjoy yet another video about cats. Online we wear a veil that gives us strength, but also makes us faceless.
Experiment Results:
Twitter: 15
Tweets posted: 4
Facebook: 8
Activity: 1 Comment
Tumblr: 8
Posts: 1
Sources Mentioned and Used:
This is your brain on Facebook
Digital Nation
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Discussion Questions
1) Today many TV shows and advertisements try to look amateurish or "homegrown" to emulate what is often seen on the Web. Do you think professional production values will continue to drop, or do you think amateur user-generated content will get better over time? WHY??
I believe that the quality of amateur user-generated content will improve over time. It seems already that the amateur user-generated content is trying to emulate certain types of "homegrown" TV shows. For example, if you look at the link posted, you can see a very similar camera style and even plot similarity between the video and the TV show The Office. It just makes sense that the quality of content the amateurs put out would try to be as well developed as possible so as to attract a wider audience. As for the shows that are looking at producing "homegrown" shots, it is only a matter of time before they die out. There is only so much you can do with that type of filming. This shooting style is only truly effective for comedy. There is still going to be a huge call for the professional looking content.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ny4hh-OW8
2) What social media sites do you find yourself using the most, and why? In your opinion why is Facebook so much more successful than MySpace, and do you think Facebook is "here to stay" for the long term.
3) Why is transparency such an important concept in the Social Media world? Is it MORE or LESS important in the offline world? Why?
I believe that the quality of amateur user-generated content will improve over time. It seems already that the amateur user-generated content is trying to emulate certain types of "homegrown" TV shows. For example, if you look at the link posted, you can see a very similar camera style and even plot similarity between the video and the TV show The Office. It just makes sense that the quality of content the amateurs put out would try to be as well developed as possible so as to attract a wider audience. As for the shows that are looking at producing "homegrown" shots, it is only a matter of time before they die out. There is only so much you can do with that type of filming. This shooting style is only truly effective for comedy. There is still going to be a huge call for the professional looking content.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0Ny4hh-OW8
2) What social media sites do you find yourself using the most, and why? In your opinion why is Facebook so much more successful than MySpace, and do you think Facebook is "here to stay" for the long term.
I use Facebook more than anything. I may not look at it all the time, but it is always open in a tab on my Internet. I feel like Facebook is seen as better than MySpace because of the whole scandals with MySpace and everyone worrying about online predators. As for Facebook, there is a lot more privacy options and is just seen as safer to be on. The main reason I have a Facebook instead of MySpace is that when I had a MySpace, I went to log in and next thing I know, there is a Trojan virus on my computer. That was the last time I used MySpace. As far as Facebook's continued success goes, I believe it is here to stay. Every few months, Facebook updates, changes, and gets more advanced. Because of this, there is more offered to the users of Facebook.
3) Why is transparency such an important concept in the Social Media world? Is it MORE or LESS important in the offline world? Why?
Transparency reveals motives. Although everyone likes to believe that they do things for others, there is still a small part of them that does it out of selfish desires. This is just human nature. I believe it is just as important in the online world as it is off-line. If someone is paid to say something on or off-line people tend to pass judgement on those who provided whatever information to an audience. Being paid off to show someone else in a better light (whether they whole-heartedly believe it or not) still looks bad. Everywhere you go though, you are going to find bias and this is just the result of education. Their motives may be monetary or something to that nature and in the eyes of the audience, that is skewing their opinion, or at least the opinion they are portraying.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
In-Class Bonus Assignment
In this picture, again I am emphasizing the negative effects of technology on our natural lives. With each of the new advances, come many new drawbacks. In the image above, I am depicting the idea of isolationism from society as a result of abuse of technology. In today's society, all you need is a computer and an internet connection and you have the ability to know whatever, whenever. No longer is there a pressing need to go outside, to be active. From Peapod by Stop & Shop to web-chatting with Skype and Oovoo, going out and socializing is becoming less and less necessary. In the image above, you see a woman walking a seemingly endless road where at the end is society (a group of people symbolizing society), but in order to get to that society and begin her journey back to natural human communication, she must put down her laptop and focus on the journey ahead, not her Facebook page.
McLuhan Photoshop Final Post
Through the internet, people have been becoming more isolated and less inter-personal. My photoshop project uses this message and depicts a picture in which a woman is so consumed by the internet and all its expansion, and is slowly losing the face-to-face interaction that is vital to human communication and connection. In the upper right, there is a dream-like scene where the main woman is seen in a causal coffee shop setting, yet as you can clearly see, the woman on the right is fading quickly and her face is gone. The essentials to life (food) are not on her side of the table, signifying her ensured death. Through this picture, I have clearly portrayed that the birth and growth of the internet is bringing the death and decay to interpersonal communication.
Photoshop Assignment (Medium is the Message)
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
McLuhan's Modern "Mediums" of Communication
Medium: Social Networks
Content: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace
McLuhan's Message: By interacting with peers through this type of medium, there is a disconnect between you and the other person. Not only is it encouraging laziness by convenience, but it is promoting a newly accepted isolation. People are taking refuge in their Facebook and MySpace accounts and taking the initiative to start a conversation while safely behind a computer screen rather than face-to-face with someone.
Medium: Advanced Mobile Devices
Content: iPhone, iPad, iTouch
McLuhan's Message: These new media mediums add a new level of technology to our lives, yet it eliminates some other important factors. I could spend all day playing Angry Birds or Tap Tap Dance, yet should I? It is not the development and precision put into these devices that is worrisome, but instead the time devoted to playing around on these new "toys." Promoting lazy habits, drawing more and more people away from activity, and safe isolation in each device are all effects of prolonged usage of each of these mediums. Where is the iRun?
Medium: Video Chat
Content: Oovoo, Skype, iChat
McLuhan's Message: Yet another attack on our social abilities. Being able to keep in touch over long distances is great, but when it gets to be the only way of communicating with people, it has stopped being helpful and turned harmful. No one should be saying "I find that if I go a day without using Skype, I wake up in the morning confused as to where I am. My life is so different without a night of Skyping." (Direct quote from one of my floor-mates.) All that is needed to join is an account, computer, and a webcam. These three necessities are becoming more and more common at a younger and younger age. Again, it leads us to ask where the face-to-face communication has gone.
Content: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace
McLuhan's Message: By interacting with peers through this type of medium, there is a disconnect between you and the other person. Not only is it encouraging laziness by convenience, but it is promoting a newly accepted isolation. People are taking refuge in their Facebook and MySpace accounts and taking the initiative to start a conversation while safely behind a computer screen rather than face-to-face with someone.
Medium: Advanced Mobile Devices
Content: iPhone, iPad, iTouch
McLuhan's Message: These new media mediums add a new level of technology to our lives, yet it eliminates some other important factors. I could spend all day playing Angry Birds or Tap Tap Dance, yet should I? It is not the development and precision put into these devices that is worrisome, but instead the time devoted to playing around on these new "toys." Promoting lazy habits, drawing more and more people away from activity, and safe isolation in each device are all effects of prolonged usage of each of these mediums. Where is the iRun?
Medium: Video Chat
Content: Oovoo, Skype, iChat
McLuhan's Message: Yet another attack on our social abilities. Being able to keep in touch over long distances is great, but when it gets to be the only way of communicating with people, it has stopped being helpful and turned harmful. No one should be saying "I find that if I go a day without using Skype, I wake up in the morning confused as to where I am. My life is so different without a night of Skyping." (Direct quote from one of my floor-mates.) All that is needed to join is an account, computer, and a webcam. These three necessities are becoming more and more common at a younger and younger age. Again, it leads us to ask where the face-to-face communication has gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)