Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Digital Nation's "The Dumbest Generation?"


Summary:

In PBS’s Digital Nation segment “The Dumbest Generation?” the main topic is because of technological advancements and media multitasking are we as academically capable as a generation as we once were? The segment completed research at MIT, backing up profession claims with actual student interactions and interviews. Media multitasking results in the current generation losing sufficiency of reading and more specifically writing. In terms of MIT essays, students admitted that they wrote in a more paragraph form because of media multitasking: they couldn’t remain on one essay without becoming distracted. Other students stated that they “never read anymore” especially with such inventions as Sparknotes.com where you can read a book in “5 minutes”. Mark Bauerlein wrote a book titled The Dumbest Generation, which argues that the current generation is just that. As more media exposure is increased, academic success in comparison to past generations decreases. Other professionals argue however, the distraction is the “price of gain” and question whether books are the best method to use today? For example, Mark Prensky a founder and CEO of Games2Train (a site based on corporate training with a game-based learning approach) believes that the verbs such as communicate read and write remain the same, but the nouns must change in order to adapt to our surroundings, and that learning ultimately stays the same. The segment ends with none other than Professor Henry Jenkins (Convergence Culture) who states that this issue has been an existing problem that we’ve already began to survive, and we need to go into the future open-minded and ready to adapt.

Inquiry:

This segment connects well with the Generation M Kaiser Family Foundation-it’s a more current analysis supporting Kaiser’s research that as media exposure increases, academic progress decreases. I felt that the segment documented many different opinions in an overall unbiased way, which added to the importance of the topic. I know that personally, I do write in paragraphs most of the time when writing essays, and that is influenced mainly by the numerous distractions on my computer via Internet. I also think that the critique on books can be related back to Robert Coover’s analysis on the end of the print medium. I found Jenkins’ comment interesting-why should we have to adapt to a movement that we are initiating? And if the population is too incapable to address the initiation of the media exposure, it should not be sitting on the sidelines upset with our childrens’ academic capabilities. Yet, I do realize that at this point in time our generation has become largely reliable on technology and this would be difficult to change, therefore adaption is necessary. Did you watch “The Dumbest Generation” and if so do you agree with the claims made by the numerous professionals? Do you feel that you are less academically capable because of your media influences? And what is your proposed idea of how to approach the future?

Generation M: Media in the lives of 8-18 year olds



The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation published a 2004 research study surrounding media usage in youth ages 8-18 years old that they compare to their past publication in 1999 on the same subject. The first few pages of the report is the introduction, in which raw statistics of media usage within the youth in various decades of the 20th century are highlighted in order to display their opinion that the increasing saturation of media within society is affecting younger generations and should be acknowledged as important. The introduction is broken down into two subsections: the past and current study. The “past study” reveals that the 1999 study was the first “comprehensive examination” of youth’s media exposure. It highlights multiple statistics surrounding media exposure: more than half of youth have personal televisions, average daily media use exceeded 6 hours, heavy hours of one medium influenced that of others, and over 40% of all media use was in regards to TV (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 3). These results confirmed past smaller studies, and posed new questions for the future. The current study analysis was address in the concluding notes section of the report. The Kaiser Family Foundation conducted the research on 2,032 young people, 8-18 years old who completed questionnaires, and 694 who completed a 7day diary of their media use. There were multiple statistics results that can be referenced in the report. The analysis, however, made multiple claims: as children grow older, their exposure to media also increases; males are usually more involved with video games, females with Internet social sites such as email and instant messaging; heavy media use results from over use of one medium, as well as media multitasking; academics lower with increase of media involvement; as more of their lives are spent with media personal “contentedness” lowers (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 58-60). The report also made interesting observations: although parents seem the most concerned with increasing media technology, most family homes have multiple televisions and computers with little to no restrictions. Ultimately, this research supports the initial claim that “the potential for media to influence significant aspects of their lives should not be ignored…” (Roberts, Foehr, and Rideout 60).

Inquiry:

The first thing I did was look up the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation online (find it here). It’s non-profit and a private organization that emphasizes INFORMATION, but no stance on issues. I found the amount of information presented to be quite daunting, and dense. However, I feel that even though the research was conducted 6 years ago, the information was already outdated. Advancements in computer technology and Internet services have largely surpassed those in 2004. Also not evaluated was social networking sites. Although they fall under the category of computers and Internet, sites such as Facebook are almost larger than instant messaging today. Their grouping of print as a media also interested me: I remember having this discussion at the beginning of the semester within our class. My final stance on the reports overall claim is that it is true, media exposure can affect youth on a large level and this should not be ignored. Do you agree with the overall claim? Do you think that there is any bias in Kaiser’s analysis? How do you think that a study completed today would differ? Do you think media exposure has affected your social life and how?

Monday, April 5, 2010

Ulmer's Electronic Monuments

In Ulmer's reading, "Electronic Monuments", an examination of MEmorials is made. Ulmer analyzes the hypothesis of electronic monumentality is that the context for the proposal is the need for compositional practice and the capability of supporting learning with digital technology. The idea of electronic monuments is one that does not need to be created for the purpose of commemorating events such as 9/11, but also smaller and more personal events. The commemoration of the electronic monumentality is a fundamental experience that joins the individual and collective identity; which must be adapted in any case to the emerging apparatus of electracy, (Electracy is most obviously emerging as a technology with the continuing evolution of digital media). The apparatus analogy that Ulmer explains includes the matrix of orality-which includes the technology of natural language, literacy-which includes the technology of alphabetic writing, culminating in print, the institution of school and others, as well as electracy- the evolution of digital media. The proposal of this article is that the internet makes it possible for monumentality to become a primary site of self knowledge, for both the individual and the community. The idea of electronic monuments provides a sit supporting new politics and ethics as well as a new dimension of education.

Analysis:

The concept of electronic monuments is one that we have discusses as a class previously. Commemorating events through the web is one that has not been present long, but it is quickly becoming one of the most common and effective ways to commemorate an event or a person. MEmorials have existed to develop a familiarity with the website and the internet as a media of an emergent language apparatus. The premise of the EmerAgency is the exceptional state, and the extremity of PTSD, and while I can't claim to understand the workings of the ideas that are proposed in this reading, I do understand the hypothesis of electronic monumentality and the commemoration that it strives to achieve. The proposal of electronic monumentality is to join the collective and the individual in a way that would not have been possible before the internet. The questions we must consider after reading Ulum's article are "What implications come from forming a MEmorial?", "To what extent do we rely on the communities that are formed from online communities to commemorate our losses or sacrifices?" and "What did you make of this reading? Did it answer your questions about online communities deeper than the previous readings we have done?"

Wikipedia Epistemology

In Don Fallis' article titled "Toward an Epistemology of Wikipedia", he argues that Wikipedia's epistemic consequences are likely to be good for our society. Fallis makes a statement that to make Wikipedia a good and more reliable source, we must clarify the epistemic values that we expect it to follow (Fallis 1662). Fallis argues that people are likely to acquire knowledge through Wikipedia as a result of having access to this information source. Collaboration has always been a successful tool that allows for people to share information and ideas and Wikipedia became a manner of doing just that. Anyone with internet access has the ability to access Wikipedia and the information that is on it. Wikipedia has been successful in building a good and general encyclopedia and has also become an online community (1663). Fallis makes epistemic concerns about Wikipedia clear such as the fact that Wikipedia is not a comprehensible and complete website, while we seek information from it as if it was. The concerns that he lists are the three ways that Wikipedia is not reliable as a credible and scholarly source. The three ways are that many do not have the expertise in the sources they are writing about, the idea that some aim to deceive rather than to educate, and that some strive to construct their own reality through the freedom of Wikipedia. While these concerns are prevalent and clear when looking at the sources that Wikipedia cites, or doesn't cite. Fallis questions whether Wikipedia is a reliable source for what information we are seeking. Wikipedia has the potential to be useful and helpful, but it is important to question what type of information we are trying to get out of it.

Analysis:

In reading Don Fallis's article on Wikipedia, I find it difficult to fully agree or disagree with the claims that are made in the article. I have used Wikipedia myself, but I do not agree with the idea that it can be reliable in an academic setting. Wikipedia can be used for certain things such as surface level investigations as well as minor bits of trivia or information. WIkipedia has provided us with a wealth of information on countless different topics and genres but it does not provide enough scholarly information to give us credible sources to cite in our research reports and scholarly articles. Fallis makes important arguments such as the idea that the masses as a whole are smarter than one individual with "The Wisdom of Crowds" (1670). The concept of a million people being able to form a more complete encyclopedia than one person is an idea that is in theory is definitely true, but with the amount of people that are uneducated in the fields that they choose to talk about on Wikipedia, and the amount of false information that is put on the internet, it makes it so that the information is deemed less reliable. When debating the issue of whether Wikipedia is a source that can be considered credible, scholarly, or even helpful, we must determine what we are looking for as well as what we expect to gain from the website. The website can provide us with different levels of information, some of which is more reliable than others.

Questions to consider:

1) Is Wikipedia providing us with the tools to become more knowledgeable? Or are we simply temporarily gaining the information?
2) Have you ever used Wikipedia for a school related paper or report? Why? Did you cite Wikipedia?
3) To what extent do you think that we can rely on Wikipedia as a reliable source?

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Random! But just thought I would share :)


In relevance to the reading we read for last Thursday on Google, this video is pretty much a visual representation of the discussion-I thought it was very interesting!

Find it here.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Introduction to A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guittari propose the idea of the rhizome in the "Introduction" from A Thousand Plateaus. The rhizome is related to the botanical idea of a plant that grows in multiple directions from a bulb as oppose to taking root from a seed. The authors posit that this structure can be related to the structure of thought (or lack thereof) in literature, though they seem to also suggest that the idea of a rhizome is a generalized structure that can be applied to a large number of other concepts (NMR 408-9). The authors break books down into three types of structures: the "root-book," the "radicle-system, or fascicular root," and the "rhizome" (408-9). The "root-book" refers to a book whose structure reflects that of a rooted tree, having a very well-defined structure (408). The "radicle-system" is defined to be more disjointed than the "root-book"; however, this model can still be considered to be a whole work (408). The rhizome is not supposed to reflect the world, and, "connects any point to any other point..." in the work (409). The authors are previously-published, stating at the beginning of the work that they published a previous work, Anti-Oedipus. As with the exact argument and the general writing style, the intended audience of the book is not made particularly clear. The introduction given in the New Media Reader suggests that the authors are very influential cultural writers.

The authors seemed to leave the actual definition of the "rhizome" very much open to interpretation, while setting some standards for what it is not. As the Introduction in the New Media Reader suggests, there definitions would likely be much clearer after reading the entirety of A Thousand Plateaus, or Anit-Oedipus (405). I have to disagree with the idea that such an unstructured style could exist and serve to transmit any useful or coherent information, though I also acknowledge that the authors never state a purpose for rhizomatic writing. The authors suggest that the movement through "Binary logic" in the "root-book" is limiting; however, I fail to see why another "root-book" could not expand on the first root-book in a different dimension to connect to a more complex analysis, as in the rhizome. The ability to use rhizomatic writing to describe hypertext escapes me, and I cannot think of a use or purpose; to me this article seems like the authors are being contrary purely for the purpose of being contrary. With that in mind, I propose the following discussion questions:

  1. What other areas of knowledge could rhizomatic writing be used as a "better" method than the other writing methods defined in this work ("root-book" and "radicle-system")?
  2. Is this work an example of rhizomatic writing?
  3. Are the "root-book" and "radicle-system" methods of writing limited?

"Autistic Culture Online" by Joyce Davidson

In her article, "Autistic Culture Online: Virtual Communication and Cultural Expression on the Spectrum," Joyce Davidson gives a call for awareness of the social movement of those on the Autistic Spectrum (AS). She cites evidence that the autistic community has a related 'form of life,' a "cultural grouping" of "... members who are 'related' in terms of the flexible notion of 'family resemblance'" (794). She then proceeds to discuss how those on the AS have difficulty communicating in 'neurotypical' (NT) social settings are finding the ability to form online communities centered around their AS 'form of life' (793-6). Davidson concludes by discussing different views on autism, including those who wish to 'cure' autism and those who would prefer to be identified as a minority group, and calls for an awareness of the latter.


Davidson appears to be appealing to those "neurotypical" people who are unaware of the movement for autism to be identified as a minority group. Though little is directly stated about Davidson in the article, it is shown to be published from the Department of Geography in Queen's University in a journal entitled Social & Cultural Geography. The title of the department would suggest that Davidson is a geographer, and not necessarily an expert in the subject of autism. Davidson does, however, have great respect for minority groups given her writing style; she uses the pronoun 'her' as a gender-neutral pronoun (793) and refers to the deaf community as "D/deaf," (798) possibly in consideration of those who do, and those who do not consider it a community. It is unclear if Davidson has anything to gain through the argument.


After reading the article, I felt embarrassed that I had only thought of people with autism as having a disorder, not as being associated with a larger community that was simply different. I would have to agree that with the author's argument that people on the AS should be treated as a minority community rather than as having a curable disorder. Davidson's wording became somewhat confusing in the discussion of a 'language game.' The description of autistic 'language games,' moving from Wittgenstein's definition of the link between, "a particular use of language with the 'actions into which it is woven'" to Davidson's definition of 'autistic language games' as something that, “might be seen as emerging from partially shared experiential background and 'identity'-that is, self-identification with a place on the spectrum" (794) seems like a very confusing way to identify a shared background among those on the AS; nonetheless, her argument stands. I would like to propose the following questions for discussion:

  1. Should the argument for autistic individuals to be identified as a minority group rather than a group with a disorder apply to low-functioning autistic individuals? Seeing as there are distinctions in other groups, such as deaf versus hard of hearing, should there be other distinctions in the autistic community?

  2. Several major online games, including World of Warcraft and Everquest involve other social interactions outside of text-based communication, such as forming guilds and groups, and allowing character gestures (such as waving, bowing, etc.). Do autistic communities have a harder time forming on these major online games?

  3. How is Wittgenstein's idea of a 'language game' used in other contexts?

Autistic Culture Online by Joyce Davidson


Again, sorry about not doing the primary blog during 3/11... I'll be primary blogging with Kyle.


Summary:
Joyce Davidson’s paper Autistic Culture Online: Virtual Communication and Cultural Expression on the Spectrum provided an interesting analysis of how people on the Autistic Spectrum (AS) have their own way of communicating. This form of communication through virtual interaction is even being expressed as comparable to the spread of sign language amongst the deaf (Singer 1999; 67). Davidson explains that the emerging AS culture online is attributed to differences between neurotypical patterns of expression, which may cause confusion with expressions and interruptions, and saying what you have to say in its entirety and then waiting for the other to respond (Davidson 795-796). AS do the latter, and virtual communication is the medium, or “accessible meeting place”, that allows them to communicate in a clear, straightforward manner and to alleviate the anxieties that are coupled with physical social interaction (Davidson 796). Furthermore, the computer enables people on the AS to communicate better because of non-typical delays in a response, something that wouldn’t never allowed in real life. The virtual reality, such as online chat rooms, forums, and video games, have allowed for them to share a ‘form of life’, a term of Wittgenstein’s that implies certain groups are understanding, communicating, and relating with each other. The paper is intended for anyone, but could be specifically directed to those interested in online communities, specifically the Autistic culture. Davidson claims that the Internet is a medium for distinctive autistic styles of communication and that their form of communication is often misunderstood. The autism culture online is what many on the AS identify with and now isolated members of the autism community can join an participate (Davidson 800). Questions of self-definition and self-advocacy have risen from challenges in social interactions, but Davidson claims that has now changed. Davidson’s paper disputes that AS cannot effectively communicate because now their identifiable online autistic community is effectively showing how they do so and how their collective voice and community are growing stronger.

Inquiry:
I found Joyce Davidson’s paper to be extremely interesting and to be the most surprising of the articles that we’ve read thus far. The online autistic culture that was explained has definitely opened my eyes to how enabling the computer and Internet can be to people on the Autistic Spectrum. Through her claims that people on the AS are misunderstood with how they communicate, I have to fully agree because I never knew that these types of online communities were developing and that so many could relate themselves to them and effectively communicate in them. The most interesting to me was the Autism Island in Second Life. Seeing how people already identify with groups with online video games (like the guy that came in and talked about Guild Wars), I find it even more amazing that the autistic community even do this as well. Online gaming really has shown me that it can bring people together of all kinds of backgrounds and that maybe it is the most important of all new media. I also find it very interesting that they even wanted official recognition by the UN that they are indeed a minority group (Nelson 2004: n.p.). With Davidson’s explanation, however, it makes sense because they have their own way of using language and have a form of communication that is different than the general population (Davidson 799). I find that their different ‘language game’ is often misunderstood and support Davidson’s arguments that it may not be a disability, especially with new media enabling them to effectively communicate and identify with each other. The paper did bring a few questions to mind as well:

1. Do you believe that the autistic community should be recognized as a legitimate minority group by the United Nations?
2. Do you belong to a ‘form of life’ online? If so, how do you identify, understand, and communicate with that community?
3. Do you agree or disagree that new media can enable different things such as communication, organization, relationships, etc.? Why or why not?
4. Do you know anyone with autism, and do they participate in the forms of online communities that Davidson discussed? If they don’t, do you think it would be beneficial for them to?


This is pretty off-topic but the paper reminded me of J-Mac. If you haven't seen it, you won't be disappointed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmaIsE2nLZk

A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guatarri




Hey guys, I was actually supposed to do a primary blog on 3/11 but I messed up on the dates so ended up not doing that. Sorry about that, so I'll be doing a primary blog alongside Kyle for this week.

Summary:
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guatarri provide an abstract and extended metaphor to help explain the structure of thought in their introduction to A Thousand Plateaus. Their metaphor is the rhizome, which they explain as a something very different from roots and radicles. Roots and radicles “have beginnings and endings”, whereas a rhizome at any location has no beginning or ending and it “connects any point to any other point” (NMR 409). They argue that a book is “the image of the world”, but it is difficult to decipher what exactly they mean by this in the introduction (NMR 409). Through their explanations, a book has two figures: the root-book and the radicle-system (NMR 408). With the root-book, there must be a strong principle unity that creates a system of ramification and with the radicle-system, the “principle root is aborted and an indefinite multiplicity of secondary roots grafts into it” (NMR 408). These explanations help Deleuze and Guatarri’s point of the distinction between object and subject, or the signified and signifier, and that “a book has neither object nor subject” (NMR 407). Finally, the authors mention that the rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, and offshoots that is defined solely by a circulation of states. This dense piece is full of plant terminology but is directed towards a computer-oriented audience because the multiplicity and linkages they discuss are similar to that of the Hypertext. Regardless, the authors make use of the rhizome metaphor to explain the importance of multiplicity, like that of a potato, rather than linkages with roots and radicles, like that of a tree.

Inquiry:
I found it very difficult to get through this short piece because of the dense language, but I did understand, to some extent, the rhizome metaphor that Deleuze and Guatarri used. The rhizome connects any point to any other point and is consisted of dimensions (NMR 409) and it seems the argument is that the rhizome is far superior to roots and radicles. I would agree with this because the points, with beginnings and endings, in roots and radicles may limit us, but a rhizome is made of lines of segmentarity and stratification that undergo metamorphosis and changes in nature. To me, this basically means that a rhizome is limitless because it is always and forever changing, adapting, and expanding, which seemed very similar to what we’ve discussed in class regarding Hypertext. Hypertext similarly has no limits and is continuously adapting because of the ability to edit, re-edit, link, and further link to other texts. The rhizome system seems far superior to a limited system of roots and radicles. While reading, Deleuze and Guatarri did prompt a few questions:

1. What is your take on the rhizome metaphor? How is this different, if at all, to the root and radicle systems?
2. Do you agree or disagree that a “book has neither object nor subject, but that it is made of variously formed matters, and very different dates and speeds” (NMR 407)?
3. What kind of challenges to Deleuze and Guattari’s writings offer to “Western thought” (NMR 406)?
4. What do you think Deleuze and Guatarri meant by these statements:
a. “A book exists only through the outside and on the outside” (407)
b. “The world has become chaos, but the book remains the image of the world” (409)

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The Hacker Manifesto



The Hacker Manifesto, +++The Mentor+++

Written by an pen named source in 1986, the Hacker Manifesto is an interesting and creative look into the mind of someone the outside world sees as a product of the computer generation boom, a Hacker.  The writer writes to two very different audiences, the voice in which he or she mocks, the outside authority figure who calls these hackers “criminals,” and the hacker community at large who can associate themselves to the author’s voice.  The author styles the short piece by using two voices, the writer’s own, as the hacker, and individual interjections such as, “Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.”  This text gives voice to a community of people who are misjudged—each time “hacker” appears, it links to another page that defines what a hacker is.  The manifesto ends with the collective idea that this hacker community is too large, and will never be stopped.

I enjoyed reading this manifesto, it was creative and different than other texts we have been assigned in class.  I liked that the hackers do not defined themselves as criminals, but “One who enjoys the intellectual challenge of creatively overcoming or circumventing limitations.”  Also, it made it feel as though any one around me could be the writer because of pen name.  I loved the quote “We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.”  The stigma of what they do is misguided and misnamed, and makes the reader question who the real hero is—those that create for destruction, or someone who manages to bypass a system thought unknown.  The idea that “curiosity is the crime,” is interesting, because how can wanting to learn be a negative application.

  1. As I assume most of you are users of facebook or once of myspace, what did the term “hacked” mean in those context?  Does the writer of The Hacker Manifesto agree with the term applied in that manner?
  2. Does this manifesto at all alter your idea of the “hacker” community?  Can you relate to the author?
Although this was written in 1986, is it still relevant to today?

Monday, March 8, 2010

GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman



The GNU Project Logo

Beforehand, I need to make clear I used an online pdf version of the manifesto, therefore I will not be citing pages from the NMR.  I apologize if this inconveniences anything for anyone.  The link I used is here.  (I apologize, the link is now down, but you can access it online at manybooks.net)

The GNU Manifesto was first written in 1985 by Richard Stallman and published in Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools as an attempt to gain participation and support by others in the computer programming community to develop the project and call more attention for the free software movement.  

GNU, standing for Gnu’s Not Unix, was a Unix compatible software system that Stallman worked on to provide software for free for every user.  The Manifesto describes what technology was being used to create the system and what was still needed to further development—including tools and technology, monetary funding outside sources, and programmers willing to contribute time and skills (2).  Throughout the Manifesto, Stallman heads topics and questions and answers how GNU is a viable answer to social, ethical and political problems with the capitalist structured software systems of the time.  Stallman was concerned with the restricted access users of software were enforced with—the numerous license agreements and inability to manipulate codes or share the software with others name a few of his concerns.  Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the law” (2-3).  Throughout the article, Stallman addresses common concerns with GNU such as “programmers need to make a living somehow.”  Stallman offers reasoning how GNU will advance software and programmers-users relationship (though he does note that the system is not perfect). 

I found the GNU Manifesto a very interesting read, particularly the portion that covered copyright laws and how programmers will continue the work because they love it, not just for monetary purposes.  I related it to my own life and digital artwork, which was a world I used to be greatly immersed in.  Artists would share Photoshop brushes and textures online for others to use, and the community itself is huge—note also the work a majority of the time by those who create for fun was not money based.  I associate Stallman’s programmers to that personal reference.  I also find the idea of a free software system a good idea (after doing some Googling, I discovered Linux is an extension of the GNU project), because how often have you bought a game or program and had to click through the “terms of agreement,” or input a serial number to prove you are the only holder?  A lot, and really why are program such as the Adobe studio so expensive?  It is no wonder many people torrent software illegally.  The computer business is a cash cow for big companies, but I found Stallman’s reasoning for a “free” system a better liberal view.

1. Do you think a free software system would ever be the norm or majority, or are the Big Name Corporations always going to have the upper hand? 
2. Have you ever been tempted to download or borrow software before?  What were your reasons?
3. Where in the Manifesto can you see Stallman’s philosophical ideals?  Do you agree or disagree with them, and why?

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Responsive Environments by Myron Krueger

Myron Krueger, better known as “the father of virtual reality,” argues within his work Responsive Environments that the response is the medium. Thinking back to the beginning of man-machine interaction, the abilities of expansion were restricted, the ability of full throttle fun was restricted, and the overall concept was limited. Krueger states, “a responsive environment, is on which a computer perceives the actions of those who enter and responds intelligently through complex and auditory displays (379).” The creator, or the “artist” develops a cyber context relationship with the participant or player that builds and feeds off responses and change. Krueger mentions past projects such as GLOWFLOW, METAPLAY and PSYIC SPACE as having contributed to his ideas. For example, from GLOWFLOW he discovered that the experience could be heightened if the computer actively perceives as much as possible from the player. From METAPLAY he observed that both the viewer and the artist could respond to resulting images that in turn facilitated a unique real-time relationship between the artist and participant. PSYCHIC space implemented a musical means of expression with tones based upon the movement of their foot upon the tiles. VIDEOPLACE is the current project in progress. It is defined as “a conceptual environment with no physical existence. It unites people in separate locations in a common visual experience, allowing them to interact in unexpected ways through the video medium (384).” He argues that the video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways than reality itself. Which brings us to the idea of response is the medium. The medium must know as much as possible about what the participant is doing. The environment must be able to respond to the participants at all times. The final part of Krueger’s work argues that this idea of a responsive environment can have potentially real world application in the form of education, psychology, and therapy. He argues that in the realm of education, the responsive environment offers “a learning situation in which physical activity is encouraged. And may revolutionize what we teach as well as how we teach (388).” In terms of psychology we could use these types of environments as ways of monitoring. “Perceptions could be studied and data recorded without interfering with the interactions. And finally in the use of therapy the therapist can manipulate the subjects surrounding based on its simulation responses.

After trying to get through this idea of having a responsive environment and that being the message I find that yes, experimented virtual realities could progressively become real-life applications. Of the three areas mentioned I think the strongest would be in education. Thinking back to my learning experience versus say my mother’s, technology is much more widely accepted to where it is almost becoming expected. Now upon the arithmetic, English and basic subjects, computers and the Internet should be known and practiced skills. The idea of including a responsive environment in a learning setting could be beneficial in that it is more interactive and rather than a single head or teacher spewing facts for students to memorize, a virtual learning would allow students to be engaged physically and mentally and learn through cyber trial and error.

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the virtual reality lab so I do not have an experience to include but please feel free to share yours with me or compare each others!

  1. Do you agree with Myron Krueger that the “response is the medium, or are you more in agreement with McLuhan that “the message is the medium”?
  2. Do responsive environments have a chance of real world application? If so, can you think of another manner it can be applied other than those mentioned in the reading?
  3. Thinking back to the virtual reality lab, what contributed or heightened your experience the most? Do you agree with this idea that “the video medium has the potential of being more rich and variable in some ways than reality itself?”

Thursday, February 25, 2010

"Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings" by Maya Socolovsky

Summary:

In “Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings,” Maya Socolvsky discusses the psychological and sociopolitical roles of online memorials. Socolvsky states that, “Death is narrated fully, and although the departed are mourned and missed, death itself is understood and mastered [on an Internet memorial]” (476). The author goes on to explain that web memorials actually cause a different type of loss because, “the elusiveness of death that usually resides in absences has been articulated” (476). The article uses virtualmemorials.com as an example to show how web memorials replace loss with an overload of content and an “excess of presence” (473). The latter half of the article discusses other purposes for web memorials, showing examples from three Columbine memorial websites, and concluding that memorial websites can also have an agenda; they bring the living and the deceased together in a space by using this agenda. Though the article gives little indication of whom the author is, the article was published in the journal jac, volume 24, issue 2. The UNC Charlotte website lists this work associated with a “Scolovsky, Maya, Ph.D.,” an assistant professor of English at the University, with several other publications. The author makes a claim that cyber memorials are inherently different from physical memorials and can fill very different roles.


Inquiry:

I disagree with the author that web memorials lack a “haunted space”; web memorials often have the capability of being transparent through use of multimedia, and could provide such a space through videos and images relating to the memorialized event. One example cited by the author is the “Field of Empty Chairs” memorial in Oklahoma City. This memorial could be well documented in image and video to help create the same void as being at the memorial. A site could go as far as getting video and pictures from places and angles normally inaccessible to the public to create an even richer “void” than is available by visiting the memorial. Based on the reading, I propose the following:

  1. Are memorial websites (or memorials in general) justified in including a sociopolitical message? A religious message?

  2. If the congenital nature of virtually unlimited space was removed from a website (ie the website could only have so many pages or so much content), similar to the space allowed on a physical memorials, would memorial websites and physical memorials still be different?

  3. Though there is generally more content on memorial websites, is the added content really more valuable in preserving the memory of a single person?

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

"Web-Based Memorializing After September 11: Toward a Conceptual Framework" by Foot, Warnick, and Schneider

Summary:

Foot, Warnick, and Schneider study the characteristics of online memorials, specifically those of the September 11 terrorist attacks, in the work, “Web-Based Memorializing After September 11: Toward a Conceptual Framework.” The authors attempt to both show the differences between “online” and “offline” memorials and create a set of characteristics with which online memorials can be compared. The authors cite works of Martini and Geser, saying, “Like Geser (1998), he [Martini] emphasizes the flexibility of expression in a web environment where authors can use multimedia [...] to provide virtual displays of remembrance and where expression is unconstrained by the limitations of traditional media” (78). The authors also derive through the analysis of eight memorial websites, four of which are by institutional authorship, and four of which are individuals’ websites, that the characterizing traits of web memorials include the following: object or focus of commemoration, individual or coproduction, univocal or multivocal, time of posting in relation to the event, dynamic qualities of the site, the intended audience, and the site’s relation to the victims (89-90). Toward the end of the paper, the authors attempt to generalize a differentiation between institutional sites and individuals sites; they claim that, “[...] differences [...] are not clear-cut” (92). This publication was printed in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, which, according to the journal’s website, is a scholarly journal documenting communication mediated by computer-based network technologies. The authors, all being members of educational institutes, stake their professional reputation on the article. Though the authors do make a call to continue research in the area of classifying web memorials, the paper acts more as a thesis of characteristics by which memorial site classification can be conducted.


Inquiry:

Seeing as the authors cite so many sources and include so much concrete evidence in this work, it is very difficult to qualify the claim. I agree that the seven characteristics listed in the paper (“1) object/focus of commemoration; 2) coproduction; 3) voice; 4) immediacy; 5) fixity; 6) intended audience; and 7) relational positioning of victims,”) could constitute a comprehensive set of characteristics in comparing online memorials. Many of the traits listed can be applied to other forms of media; object/focus on commemoration is synonymous to topic and coproduction to authorship, voice is inherent in writing style, immediacy and fixity are applicable to other web publications, audience is applicable to many forms of writing, and relational position of victims closely relates to topic (79). I propose the following questions:


  1. Is the above list of traits comprehensive enough to characterize memorial websites? Could different events be compared using these traits?

  2. What other websites or types of media can be analyzed using these characteristics?

  3. Is there a “clear-cut” distinction between memorial websites made by institutions and those mode by individuals?

Monday, February 22, 2010

Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a Waste of Time? by James Gee


Game Experience Summary:

I don’t usually play online games computer games so I tried “William and Sly” (http://www.kongregate.com/games/Kajenx/william-and-sly). The game was fun for a bit, but the task that Sly, the fox you play as, was asked to do by his friend William was just too easy. Sly had to collect some “fairyflies” to fix the teleport system around the map. The rainy forest is fun to explore and jump around for a bit, but then it became tiresome. It really couldn’t compare to more complex games on the computer or other gaming console.

Summary:

In Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a Waste of Time?, James Gee makes the compelling argument that video games are not a waste of time through the argument of “semiotic domains”. Gee initially points out how there are many types of literacy’s, and states that once one realizes the “multiplicity of literacy… we must think beyond print” and look at it being symbolic and representational (19). With the example of a six-year-old boy playing a game called Pikmin, Gee points out that there can be alternative ways to think about learning then just attaining content related to intellectual domains or academic disciplines. Content can be learned, however cannot necessarily be applied… when one learns a new semiotic domain in an active way, rather than passive, they experience the world in new ways, form new affiliations, and gain preparation for future learning (24). This active learning, however, needs the learner “to think about the domain at a ‘meta’ level as a complex system of interrelated parts”, which is critical learning (25).

Gee’s arguments seem intended to persuade those that think video games really are just a waste of time because his points state the contrary. With the Pikmin example, the six-year-old boy actively learns as he reads situations and produces movements to act accordingly to that situation. However, when he recognized changes in the environment and music and adjusted his strategy, he was thinking of the game as a system as a system in which he could use strategies that were unanticipated even by the game’s creators, which is critically learning. This type of active and critical learning allows those playing video games to acquire the benefits of experiencing the world in new ways, gaining the potential to collaborate with a new affinity group, develop resources for future learning and problem solving, and learn how semiotic domains engage and create certain relationships of society (38). Gee sums up his argument that in doing so, one realizes that there really is more to video games than just the content. The internal design of the game and the interactions with other players encourage and facilitate both active and critical learning, therefore video games cannot be looked at as merely a “waste of time”. Finally, Gee’s arguments can be summed up with his five learning principles: active/critical learning, design, semiotic, semiotic domains, and metalevel thinking about semiotic domains.

Inquiry:

Although I didn’t realize the “complexities” of my behaviors as I play video games, I have to agree with Gee’s points about how video games cannot be treated as a “waste of time”. While playing Call of Duty, I know many people strongly feel the violence and game play are unwarranted and any time spent playing is just unproductive. However, by applying Gee’s learning principles, one should realize that there really is more to it. The environment encourages one to not just know basic controls, but to understand the landscape; to understand the design of the game; to recognize the importance of working with others and finding ways to outsmart opponents; and allows for people to critically think of strategies either with other teammates or by themselves. I’m not arguing that this will necessarily help me in the real world, however I want to stress that there really is more to a game than just its content. Gee’s points did argue this and prompted a few questions:

1. In your experience with video games, even if from just today’s assignment, would you agree or disagree that video games are just “meaningless play”? (22)

2. Do you think that video games could ever “lead to critique, innovation, and good or valued thinking and acting in society? (38) How could it and why or why not?

3. What do you think of James Paul Gee’s five learning principles? Which do you most agree with?

4. What do you think of Gee’s thoughts on the word “literacy”? How do you think it could connect with other concepts of “new media” we’ve talked about in class?

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The Lessons of Lucasfilm's Habitat by Chip Morningstar and Randall Farmer

Chip Morningstar and Randall Farmer highlight the idea of naïve natural planning when it comes to the design of multi-faceted computer programs in their composition entitled The Lessons of Lucasfilm’s Habitat. The Habitat project was “the first attempt to create a many player online virtual environment (664).” In its beginning stages computer programming and software reflected a single user interface. With this idea of multi-player the system would allow for a population of users in a single cyberspace. With such a large scale development there are bound to be mistakes and failures which is what Morningstar and Farmer attempt to explain, “our hope is that the next generation of builder of virtual worlds can benefit from our experiences and our mistakes.” They argue that for the success of a virtual world development there is a need to learn from the lessons of Habitat. Their main argument is that “a cyberspace is defined more by interactions among the actors within it than by the technology with which it is implemented (664).” It is not the technology itself that creates the virtual game but it is the connection of a many-participant environmental interaction and the communication channels between the medium. In doing this the authors ask future designers to consider Habitats faults like the carrying capacity, or bandwidth’s limitations, to focus upon interactions with objects or artifacts instead of how the screen is changing. Other noted potential keys of success would be avoiding at all costs a “central planning” where they do not focus on the large simultaneous reactions of those engaged. There is also a moral code that must be debated and sorted, including violence and gun usage. Moreover keeping reality consistent, “results will flourish when operations are smoother and there should be a greater harmony among the user community (674).” The future of such software is achievable through “coming to grips with the problems of world creation and management (676).”

From the parts I could comprehend I agree with the fact that for large populations of people to partake in a virtual reality like Habitat, there needs to be a series of regulated management. If the focus is to make the human interactions among gamers more life-like within the graphical environment, then there needs to be smooth transitions of artifacts and speedy graphic connections. I understand the object-oriented world model is what will make implementing cyberspace a realistic system. I think of the expansion of new media such as online poker games or the SIMS when listening to the construction of Habitat. Thousands of actors play simultaneously, with infinite amounts of games. The thought process is almost mind boggling to think about. With online poker, the screen background is set up to look like you are sitting at the poker table; its use is being object-oriented to create a real life gaming experience with an anonymous opponent. With this idea of creating computer-mediated, virtual environments I ask you to ponder these questions:

  1. Do you agree with the authors statement that the “idea of cyberspace is necessarily a many-participant environment?”
  2. If you were designing your own virtual reality world what do you think would make it most successful? What could potentially make it fail?
  3. “Conflict is the essence of drama.” In the debate of including guns, violence, murder and repercussion in virtual gamming, do you believe these elements add or detract from the virtual environment? Would the game be more successful with or without them?
  4. What is your definition/explanation of what it means to have an “object-oriented world”?

Video Games and Computer Holding Power by Sherry Turkle

Sherry Turkle’s original publication of her book The Second Self was an influence to the new media scene. The excerpt entitled Video Games and Computer Holding Power went beyond the consequence and influence video games have on children and adults. She explores the nature of the game and the immersed connection a person has when heavily involved in the matrix of a particular playing field and beyond that its computer software. Generations are physically seeing the expansion of design and detail within the games. Those who were at the prime age when Space Invaders came out share the same conceptual simulation as children do now with Halo, however since technology has advanced to such a degree “it seems to threaten a new kind of generation gap that feels deeps and difficult to bridge (500).” As we examine the conceptual idea of a video game we must consider its computer-programmed basis. “The video games reflect the computer within-in their animated graphics, in the rhythm they impose, in the kind of strategic thinking that they require (502).” If we compare the Pinball machine to Pacman we see that the pinball game doesn’t act as a transparent medium by any means, “it rusts, its slanted on the floor, etc.” With the Pacman video game, the “real world” allows more of a freedom for imagination. “It is a space where the physical machine and the physical player do not exist. You become the player within the game, you are the mouth (502).” She argues, “At the heart of the culture is the idea of constructed “rule-governed worlds (507).” Within a game, for example Turkle uses Dungeons and Dragons to draw upon this idea that as a culture we strive for a basis of rules that invokes us into a neverending challenge to conform and attempt to beat them. Her audience is not to children, though the consumer age most associated with video games is the youth we see her use collective insight from David, the lawyer in his midthirties and Marty the 29-year-old economist (508). I feel that her audience is to users of this medium for whatever purpose of use whether it is used as a confidence booster in temporarily changing persona, a way of Zen from daily trifles, or a general way of relaxation or hobby.

I would have to agree with Turkle's insight into video games. Though I must admit I have not grown up playing them everyday nor do I really care for them, I have plenty of indirect experience in their usage. I would like to share a story with everyone that I feel pertains to this. I had a friend from Ohio, who waited aimlessly for the release of the original Halo video game. Upon receiving it he began to devote all his time into the game so much so that he quit attending school for a period of time, broke up with his girlfriend, and cut off contact to the outside world. This may seem a little extreme but I want to relate it back to this idea of “losing oneself in a simulated world.” Turkle's even states, “Involvement with simulated worlds affects relationships with the real one (508).” Video games are becoming full on activities. If you read a friends facebook, you might find them list video games under “hobbies/interests.” After all video games are an official part of our culture and especially our generation, who will go on to create more difficult abstract game tactics. With this idea of video game playing I ask you to consider the following questions:

1. In the future do you think game players will be the designers of their own games? Or will there continue to be this idea of the creator and the player?

2. Do you think the new transparent, graphically designed games place a positive or negative effect on youth today?

3. Turkle mentions the concept of a “perfect mirror.” What is your interpretation of this? Is it helpful or destructive to gamers?

4. Why are video games important to our culture and what will they provide or hinder in the future?

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Ideology and the Map: Barton & Barton

Summary:
In the article, "Ideology and the Map", by Barton and Barton, a statement is posed at the very beginning of the article that presents the idea of the map being "quintessentially ideological" (NMR 50). Barton and Barton explain this idea throughout the essay and discuss the ways that the inclusive ways of the map are to be taken away and replaced with the ideas of the repressed so that their point of views are heard (NMR 76). Barton and Barton begin the argument with the rules of inclusion which "...determine whether something is mapped, what aspects of a thing are mapped and what representational strategies and devices are used to map those aspects," (NMR 54). The authors continue to describe the ways by which a place can be objectified and the hierarchization that occurs when using legitimating strategies. But while ideology expresses things, it also can also repress things such a countries, cultures and people. This is seen specifically with the "repression of the others of the Other" which is when the "Other" is situated in a ethnographically homogenous area, and where a change in the "norms" would result in a change or shift in power. Barton and Barton investigate the idea that the map as a product as well as a process throughout this reading. When they write about the thought of the map as a product, it is with examples such as the subway system in London. The changes that were made to the maps in the subway station allowed for the public to view the map as a multidimensional way to seeing the map of the city. This made the map more user friendly, showing how the map can be seen as a product and the people as users of the product. Barton and Barton then examine how it is possible to "denaturalize the map" (NMR 72). The authors bring up the idea of the map as a collage, something that combines images along with words to for a cohesive idea or thought. This brings about a juxtaposition of an element (the map) that now has significant elements (text and visual) that when combined allow the person using the map to grasp a better and wider understanding of the idea that is presented. Barton and Barton conclude tat to denaturalize the map would be "...adopting the perspective of the traditionally disempowered. Advocating not simply their inclusion but their point of view as well," (76).

Inquiry:
While I had never thought as a map being something that could be analyzed ideologically, after reading the arguments and ideas posed by Barton and Barton, the ideology of maps is clearly mapped out, no pun intended. What Barton and Barton show throughout this reading is that through the years, those who have made the maps have constructed them in a way so that the hierarchy of the society is reflected upon the way the maps are read and interpreted. I agree with the argument made that the maps should reflect more than the things that people only wan to see as the authors quoted another source in saying that the maps do not convey things such as slums, or parts of the city that are unpleasing to see. This is such an important concept because maps should convey and present everything that exists, and like the authors stated, when a country, or a state or a city is not included on a map, it is like the place never existed. This concept is demoralizing and is damaging to the cultures and ideas of a place and their people. Barton and Barton make several references to the map being either a product or a process and I came to the conclusion after reading this article that the map can be both depending on how we decide to interpret it, or how we were taught to interpret it. There are many different types of maps and they all vary on levels of interaction, making it difficult to classify the entirety of maps as one specific thing, a process or a product. While I understand the claims that the authors are making about maps being something that is presented to people as an "object of desire and not an object of use"(NMR 70), this poses an interesting question, to what extent are we consumers rather than users? When do we start using the map as if it is an extension of ourselves and not just a material tool? When looking at the argument about the collage being a way to express the "viewpoint of the oppressed,"(NMR 70) at what point does the collage become limiting? How are we involved in the construction of these maps? How do we contribute to the "oppression of the traditionally oppressed", are we playing into these ideas? And to ask the question posed at the end of the reading... "Will Unity be achieved? (NMR 76). Can we actually expect to be able to combine the views of the oppressed with those who are traditionally shown on maps?

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Panopticism, by Foucault

 

Summary
Foucault’s Panopticism begins with a story describing how lepers and plague victims were dealt with in the 17th Century—leper’s exclusion, and plague victims intense surveillance and punishment.  He then goes on to describe Bentham’s architectural Panopticon, which combines methods of discipline previously established, but to a more effective degree, “The panoptic mechanism arranges spatial unities that make it possible to see constantly and to recognize immediately. In short, it reverses the principle of the dungeon; or rather of its three functions - to enclose, to deprive of light and to hide - it preserves only the first and eliminates the other two (6).”  The panoptic layout sets an authoritative figure in the middle with a full view of the people or things it governs, but restricts the “prisoners” knowledge of the surveillance.  This setup allows for democratic control because anyone outside of central control can enter and survey the situation, with the central authority of the panoptic holding responsibility over the institution (9).  The base objective of the article talks about reigns of power coming directly from an architectural and democratic figurehead, that could be instituted in ways other than just prisons, but schools and hospitals, to create a central means of discipline and order. 

Inquiry
I can understand the idea of the panopticon working in a prison and hospital—central control keeping tabs, allowing those around to be aware of surveillance, but not have to acknowledge authority, simply continue doing what they’re supposed to be doing and no one will be punished or do wrong.  However, I read the text with the Internet in mind; those in the cells as every person with access to the World Wide Web, and the central authority as the government keeping tabs on browser history and illegal activity.  In context with the hyper world, I support that idea of panopticism—surveillance is sometimes necessary, and has shown to save lives and find predators.  Like the layout of the panopticon, while using the Internet, us users are aware our actions are traceable, but if we follow rules laid down by our country, we need not worry; when we break rules (download illegal movies, that sort of thing) we do so the knowledge it is wrong, and should not be surprised if we’re caught.  It makes sense.  At the same time, as a democratic society, we can change how the system works—just as the central figurehead must allow others to survey them, we have the capability to do the same with our system (of course, this is arguable, to a degree and through lots of work it is possible.)

Questions
  1. How do you see panopticism working—simply as an architectural layout, social structure, hypertext theory?  Or none at all?
  2. Do you think the central authority in the panoptic theory is a precursor to the Big Brother “Watching Over You” figurehead?  Is tyranny in such a system inevitable?
  3. Do you think the hypertext world will ever be fully democratically regulated?  Or will a higher, more       influential authority always govern it?

America, by Jean Baudrillard

"Hyperreality: The simulation of something which never really existed," --Baudrillard



Summary

Jean Baudrillard, a French philosopher whose works run parallel to the postmodernism movement, writes in "America" describing, by either city or location, his observations of the hyperreal society Americans live in and live as.  His writing voice takes a diversion from his other work assigned, Precession of Simulacra, in that he writes more informally and more poetic, with a less scientific approach; however, his still uses his philosophy of hyperreality and simulation throughout his observations, “Disney is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation (12).”  Baudrillard writes to his audience of Europeans, particulary the French, noted by pronoun use and multiple observations of one relaying new information to the uninformed (8).  Baudrillard does not make a specific claim or argument; instead, he makes notes that relate to his personal philosophy, comparing American to French/European society and undermining the ways the United States is a particularly lesser and more primitive society, in that rather than focusing on creating a deeply rich culture, they have formed a (layman’s terms) fake and superficial society ignorant of true human interactions. 

"No charm, no seduction in all this.  Seduction is elsewhere, in Italy […] it is exactly the reverse [in America]: there is no seduction, but there is an absolute fascination—the fascination of the very disappearance of all aesthetic and critical forms of life in the irradiation of an objectless neutrality….The end of aesthetics (13)."



Because of America's distance nature and reliance on new media, they have created a fake reality, unconsciously, but willingly.


Inquiry
Firstly, I would like to point out I read the first essay, Simulacra, before America, and was utterly confused.  I had no idea what he was talking about by the terms, nor what he had at all in mind by "hyperreality,"--my initial thoughts were virtual reality and simulated worlds.  I had to do some wikipedia search (and yes, it as very helpful by spelling out in non-philosophical terms what hyperreality was.  Find it here.)  Once I had a better grasp on Baudrillard's views, reading America was so much easier--both in thought and understanding where he was going as a writer, and also because the audience of the piece was clearly a more general scape.  


That being said, I have to disagree with Baudrillard's opinions to a degree.  I found the section "New York" rather positive and defending of the country, "They say the streets are alive in Europe, and dead in America.  They are wrong (9)", and goes into interest of praising the hustle and bustle of the city.  However, the following sections are more negative to the people and the cities, basically calling out in judgement that the facade (he loves that word) put up is fake, not at all transparent, a shield to communication.  Did he only like New York's activeness, then find the rest of the country a disappointment?  


Also, his disdain for these objects that create our supposed "hyperreality,"--and it seems like anything fits here, television, movies, music, magazines, any form of new media--feels a bit unfair.  Entertainment is meant to be an escape.  He describes Disneyland negatively--personally, that entire portion on Disney irritated me, I can't deny that.  He makes it sound that in the end, America is ignorant of their perceived world, and has no real passion for life because we're caught up in creating and living some fantasy.  


Questions
1. Do you agree with Baudrillard's theory of "hyperreality?"  Do you believe that new media today invites us to live in a fictional world we can't get out of?  For discussion, see quote (off the wikipedia page, I found it interesting):
"When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed ... gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning," Hill wrote on the forum. "It just seems so ... meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep ... doing things at all. I live in a dying world."  --viewer

2. Do you think Baudrillard, as a European, could have influenced other country's views of the US through observations such as in America?  That is to say, do you think what he observed is a collective assumption by foreign countries (America living in it's own culture-less bubble), or could what he observed relate to other countries also?


3. Has imagination and creativity grown with the development of new media?  or do you think it has become a greater stifler? 

Monday, February 1, 2010

"The End of Books" by Robert Coover


SUMMARY:

If you were to define the “real world” today, what major aspects would be included? For Robert Coover, he believes the real world is comprised of “video transmissions, cellular phones, fax machines…” (NMR 706). In “The End of Books” Coover highlights the possible future outcome of the end of books in relation to technological reliance and development, specifically in relation to hypertext. First published in a New York Times Book Review, this simple read that defines hypertext and the possible degeneration of print, was intended for mainly the public audience. It can be assumed, that this review in a major newspaper was also in response to an overall large reaction to the possibility of a hypertext invention. Coover states “…the print medium is a doomed and outdated technology…” (NMR 706). He, along with society in 1992, seems to be following the hypertext hype. First he defines hypertext as a system that provides multiple “lexias” or links (paths) between text segments. This idea proposes a medium in which the users could interact, change, alter, and supposedly learn on a much larger scale than normal print has provided. Coover, as a professor at the Brown University Hypertext Fiction Workshop, personally was able to work with simulators of this degree. His observations were as follows: hypertext is indeed exciting, and has potential in changing common fiction (NMR 707). Hypertext provides a means of texts to which authors, which would become everyone, could alter at their own desire. However, Coover comes to the conclusion that very much like its predecessors of print, hypertext “hardware and software seem to be fragile and short-lived” which is in response to the fast pace of technological development (NMR 708). He also questions on how navigation is possible through infinity and disagrees with the movement of hypertext, which neglects coherence and closure of text. In conclusion, Hoover believes that the change will occur, but questions its function ability.

INQUIRY:

I believe that Coover’s article in the NYTBR is a good example of supportive evidence of hypertext analysis pieces. After reading excerpts from the New Media Reader that are targeted at a more educated audience, the informality and simplicity of Coover’s text was initially shocking. However, I believe that this view is important: he provides the social outlook of the public in response to hypertext at that time. As seen by Coover’s conversational tone and definition of hypertext in laymen’s terms, the audience is defined. His personal experience with hypertext is also shocking: although he is a member of the public which is assumed to be interested in hypertext by his publication of this article, Coover concludes that hypertext is illogical. He believes that it’s hardware and framework will pass with time, and the constant “improvements” of technology will prohibit actual use of the hypertext. The idea of infinity also puzzles Coover, and he believes it ultimately leads to the downfall of literary merit in hypertext. Personally, such prediction seems to be illogical today. Do you believe that print will become “a medium that is a doomed and outdated technology, a mere curiosity of bygone days destined to soon be consigned forever to those dusty unattended museums we now call libraries” (NMR 706)? Do you think that hypertext is a reasonable solution to this possible problem? How does the idea of infinite “cyberspace” appeal to you and how do you think this will effect literary merit? How much of current print today is based off of it’s medium? Can this tie to McLuhan’s “Medium is the Message”?