LAST POST

To summarize….

The last 2 weeks have seen me workign on my research essay, with my question being..

The use of Facebook in the recent KONY 2012 campaign, with a focus on the acceleration of opinion in either accepting or rejecting the campaign’s aims of making Joseph Kony ‘famous’

Some of the questions I will be asking include:

– How did Facebook contribute to people’s opinions on the video? Why was this the case?

– How did functions such as ‘Like’ and comments allow for the particular division in the KONY 2012 campaign that ensued soon after its release? 

– Why was the message accepted so easily by some but rejected by others, specifically looking at how Facebook influenced this?

– How did the medium of the video interrelate on the Facebook platform?

– How did people’s individual Facebook persona contribute their interaction with the video?

– How did Facebook contribute to the viral nature of the video?

The course has been a joy, and i intend to insorporate aspects of the course into my reasearch essay. Many of the media issues discussed have had a direct correlation to events occuring today, as well as looking towards the future and how media will be a prat of it, including thinking about possibilites.

Nina

Open Science

Science was always going to be the industry that benefited most from media developments. Of course everyday society has benefited, with social media, multiplatform information sources and new technologies, however science is at the core of this. New media has enabled drastic improvements and leaps forward in the science front. This week’s readings have been an insightful way to view the way in which new media is contributing to society in a greater way other than Facebook.

Based on the readings, there seems to be a division going on in the world in regard to scientific publication. Open science, is the concept that has been discussed throughout this blog (more so that of the concept of an ‘open network’), however in the industry of science there are different implications of an open network, from sharing research to wandering away from the traditional form if print publication:

“Even worse, the paper-based status quo relies on strictly enforced barriers to public access that prevent the rapid dissemination of vital knowledge” (Wilbanks 2011).

“This system’s strength lies partly in its convenience and familiarity: everyone knows how this works, and knows where to go to try to publish or find things or see how many papers a research has produced. Major downsides include inefficiency and  the fact that paywalls prevent more thorough distribution and availability to future scholars” (Dobbs 2012).

Although print publication is facing one of the most challenging times in its history, the argument between digital and print publication remains a strong point in the science industry; “This requires a new form of scientific inquiry, a turning of science’s lens of systematic inquiry back upon itself to achieve self-awareness, to chart its dynamic intricacies, and to anticipate its future” (Seed 2011).

Although not all new media is causing waves in the industry, in fact advancements never possible before have been happening because of this new technology/media. For eg Craig Venter and his creation of a synthetic life form, where the organism is “built” rather than evolved, creating a massive landmark not only in science but possible our future (Sample 2010).

Mammoth Cloning, enabled by expansions in science via new media and technology. Courtesy of YouTube.

References:

• Dobbs, D, February 3^rd 2012, ‘Is the Open Science revolution for real?’, Neuron Culture, Wired, accessed 5/05/2012 <http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wired.com%2Fwiredscience%2F2012%2F02%2Fis-the-open-science-revolution-for-real?tab=people&uname=andersand>
• Sample, I 2010, ‘Craig Venter Creates Synthetic Life Form’, The Guardian May 2, accessed 4/05/2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form>
• Seed 2011, ‘On Science Transfer’, Seed, Seed Media Group, accessed 4/05/2012 <http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/on_science_transfer>
• TheCosmosNews, 14^th March 2012, ‘S.Korean- Russian scientists bid to clone Wooly Mammoth’, YouTube, accessed 4/05/2012 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPwEdaWGaLs>
• Wilbanks, J 2011, ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, Seed Media Group, accessed 5/05/2012 <http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing>

Collaboration

Collaboration

“The war on global warming is a war on consumerism”. ‘The Coalition of the Willing’ video summarized the idea and essence of this week’s readings. Collaboration. With Web 2.0, social networking and the culture shift of the 21^st century, we have been given opportunities greater than we can imagine. The video argues just this. That it is through collaboration and the privileges of today which allow us to invoke a revolution greater than that of the 60’s to help save our world from consumerism (Knife Party, Rayner and Robson 2010).

“Micropolitics, or the creation of techniques for collaboration, involve experimentation and an openness to be experimental. Micropolitics then, offers a point of departure for a new kind of politics” (Jellis, T 2009). The definition of collaboration itself and its components opens new avenues for the operation of today’s society, via networks that have previously never existed thanks to the internet.

“The nations formerly known as the third world have become a rising, roaring middle. Nascent technologies like cleantech and nanotech hint at hitherto unimagined possibilities. The “corporation” is mitotically dividing into many different kinds of commercial entities, whether social businesses, hedge funds, or “for benefit” corporations. Today, as then, the world is shedding yesterday’s skin.”  (Anon 2010)

What then happens to our world? An open source world rallies and builds up against the long known capitalist regime. Do we adapt? How do we adapt? Are we living the future now, are we in it?

Although many agree such a system of micropolitics and collaboration is ever escalating and a way of the future, not everyone agrees that it is beneficial:

“Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in. But there’s a problem with this view. Research strongly suggests that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption.” (Cain 2012)

There is no simple answer, but a collaborative network much like what the short film by Knife Party presents to us, gives us a simple structure, and most importantly emphasizes that we all have the tools. The first step is creating an online wiki, the second a collaborative research front and the third a catalyst (like social networking) (Knife Party, Rayner and Robson 2010). The blueprint is there, so is the knowledge, ecologies are becoming larger and easily accessible to just about anyone, anything is possible.

The ironic counterpart of the ‘Coalition of the Willings’’ video (courtesy of YouTube)

References:

• Anon. (2010) ‘Elinor Ostrom’, p2p foundation, accessed 30/04/2012 <http://p2pfoundation.net/Elinor_Ostrom>
• Axelbigfish (2008), ‘fahrenheit 9/11 coalition of the willing’, YouTube, accessed 29/04/2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WNwXFE9yBs&feature=related>
• Cain, S (2012) ‘The Rise of the New Groupthink’, The New York Times, January 13, accessed 30/04/2012 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html>
• Jellis, T (2009) ‘Disorientation and micropolitics: a response’, spacesof[aesthetic]experimentation, accessed 30/04/2012 <http://www.spacesofexperimentation.net/montreal/disorientation-and-micropolitics-a-response/>
• Knife Party and Rayner, T and Robson, S (2010) Coalition of the Willing, COTW, accessed 29/04/2012 <http://coalitionofthewilling.org.uk/>

Organise

Transparency. A word that has been repeated throughout the readings’ for this week. What is iy, and how does it apply to this course? Well simply put it is a sense of openness, of communication and empowerment brought upon by today’s society and the collaborative nature of social media and the online world blurring boundaries.

Of course then such an aspect of transparency has accounted to a never before seen ability in government and politics, almost a Government 2.0, where ordinary citizens have been able to contribute immensely to Government discussion and policy, for eg the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement. The media event would not have been possible without social media, and its sharability aspect to a worldwide platform. The ‘UsNow’ video explains that such an ability being provided to the general public had opened up many new opportunities like making public protect events, making your own business and having your say and in fact being heard (Jaggeree).

“Imagine if, having found a function of interest, you could see which level of government performs that function, and which agency, and how to get in touch with that agency. For me, a browsable visualisation of Australian governments has greater potential value as a directory than any ‘enhanced’ australia.gov.au search service.” Catherine here in her blog, discuses the idea, or concept of Government 2.0 and the benefits of the voting system and knowledge many would game by embracing a visual and viral idea of government and what they do, their policies and breakdown of authority etc.” (Styles 2009)

Transparency in the education world, seems to be the way to go also based on the Rsa’s ‘changing education paradigms’ video, where Robinson focuses the idea that the education system, which was modeled in times of industrialization, (examples of this evident include the categorizing of kids based on ages, bells, lines etc) has not caught up with today’s times. He says that collaboration has been shown to be more effective than the standardization evident in the education system and that the idea of the ‘one correct answer’ is not the way to go. He then presents the idea if diverse thinking, that he explains to mean an ability to furrow different and many possible answers as a way of thinking. The video I think captures the clash in today’s society. The education model based on this, (let’s call it the) ‘old’ structure, is partially embracing the collaborative and transparent methods of the digital age, and not fully utilizing what many students are surrounded by as soon as they leave the classroom (games, advertisements, different TV programs, social media etc) (Robinson 2010).

Transparency…can it be really good? (tvo channel 2010)

Of course transparency is not necessarily a good thing. Going back to the concept of the Government 2.0:

“I have increasingly come to worry that there is an error at the core of this unquestioned goodness. We are not thinking critically enough about where and when transparency works, and where and when it may lead to confusion, or to worse. And I fear that the inevitable success of this movement–if pursued alone, without any sensitivity to the full complexity of the idea of perfect openness–will inspire not reform, but disgust.” (Lessig 2010)

Bob Ellis also accounts for this constant 24 hour connection with world, this transparency that is enabled though the internet and social media as making our Politian’s “sleepless” (Ellis 2010).

Indeed both sides put up an argument, however what’s next? Should we fully accept the transparent nature of the online, or do we still need to account for traditional models of thinking? Furthermore what kind of repercussions will this have on the future of Government and education?

References:

• Ellis, B 2010, Sleepless in Canberra, The ABC, Drum Unleashed, accessed 22/04/2012 <http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35116.html>
• Jaggeree, unknown, watch.Usnow, UsNow, Banyak Films, accessed 22/04/2012 <http://watch.usnowfilm.com/>
• Lessig, L 2010, Against Transparency: The perils of openness in government, The New Republic, accessed 22/04/2012 <http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0>
• Robinson, K October 14th 2010, ‘Changing Education Paradigms’, RSA: 12st Century Enlightenment, RSA, WordPress, accessed 22/04/2012 <http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/10/14/rsa-animate-changing-education-paradigms/>
• Styles, C 28th June 2009, A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible in Making Manifest, WordPress, accessed 22/04/2012 <http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/>
• Tvo channel 22nd January 2010, SOCIAL MEDIA: Transparency- tell no lies, Digital U, YouTube, accessed 22/04/2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD28DBGQJsg

 

 

The word of the week….Transversally!

In Simon Rogers’ ‘10 point Guide to Journalism and how it’s changing’ data blog, data journalism and its uses and repercussions are explained clearly and concisely. Rogers’ clearly deciphers data journalism and its use over the years, stating that it is not a new concept “Data was published in books, very expensive books where graphics are referred to as ‘figures’. Now we have spreadsheets and files formatted for computers. Which means we can make the computers ask the questions” (Rogers 2011)

The Telegraph’s ‘10 ways data is changing how we live’ online article, displays data journalism in its simplest form. The article itself is separated into easy to read categories, and the data is used to fuel the stories (or create the story), by speculating ‘what if’s’ as a result of this data “With more data becoming available about how our Government operates, it’ll inevitably be pressured to change” (Quilty-Harper 2010)

‘The Life Logging Project’ by Ben Lipkowitz is an interesting example of data extrapolation. Ben was first interested in logging a diary of past events (of the day) to initially see how much time he spent doing his housemates dishes. Eventually this notion extended and soon he was able to track how much money he spent, how much he ate, how sociable he was etc (Wolf 2010). Although the concept is very simple, most people would find this method as unusable and petty, however Lipkowitz here tapped into an important aspect of data journalism. The facts that result from everyday information can have considerable effect once given an opportunity to be entertained.

The idea links into the ‘Self tracking’ article by Jonah Lehrer which Lipkowitz countered with his experiment as he tracked his life looking into what has been done, whereas most of self tracking experimentations often involve relying on tasks with an intention to extrapolate facts or data (after a certain event) eg “The very act of speculating about a causal relationship – say, for instance, the link between a pill and the ability to concentrate – warps the data, biasing our mind in a million little ways” (Lehrer 2010)

Data journalism can be misused and interpreted, although the data itself is accurate. Documents such as Wiki Leaks have opened up avenues never before seen in journalism; it also has the potential of misuse in other environments. Data is in today’s media ever prominent as a source of news reporting, and when done the right way has the ability to expose, educate and entertain the newsreader.

References:

Lehrer, Jonah (2010) ‘Self-Tracking’, May 3, The Frontal Cortex, <http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/05/self-tracking.php>

Quilty-Harper, Conrad (2010) ’10 ways data is changing how we live’, The Telegraph, August 25, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7963311/10-ways-data-is-changing-how-we-live.html>

Rogers, Simon (2011) ‘Data journalism at the Guardian: what is it and how do we do it?’, The Guardian, Datablog, July 28, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/28/data-journalism>

Wolf, Gary (February 27th, 2010) ‘A Remarkable Life Logging Project by Ben Lipkowitz, Quantified Self, <http://quantifiedself.com/2010/02/a-remarkable-life-logging-proj/>

Vimeo uploaded by Kevin Kelly <http://vimeo.com/9209182>

How we know what is real?!

With this week’s readings being all about virtual and augmented realities, how could I not be excited for the week to come?!

However I must admit some of this excitement is partially due to the fact that I assume that the following week of class will somehow involve some sort of opportunity in playing a virtual reality game…which after the readings, I know is probably not going to happen, considering the pieces of equipment discussed are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So anyway back to the readings. Over the past 2 years previous courses have touched on this aspect of virtual realities, with games utilizing real time and people as well as real time society combined with electronic information specific to the game, as well as virtual realities created online, acting a as alternate online worlds. The readings this week have however explored a more technical and further progressive stance in technology and an augmented reality.

Picture Courtesy of Flickr of William Cromar 2010
If only virtual realities were all fun and games...

In Chris Grayson’s blog he uses a number of contemporary examples in companies utilizing methods in which products or services a virtually shown/placed/ positioned for the viewer/customers approval and inspection. Although many of the examples he refers to are quiet impressive for eg the motor industry and its use of augmented reality in showing consumers the car appearing to be 3D and positioned on top of the magazine/paper (Grayson 2009).

Despite how impressive these methods may seem, there has been little evidence of mass adoption of such methods, which indeed is understandable considering companies are still trying to transfer themselves smoothly to the social networking platform. I think the problem with such tactics as a marketing tool, is first of all the costs, and second of all the consumers’ willingness to adopt such a stance, as it is not simply not an advertisement anymore but a step forward into a whole new complex social system; overstepping the social networking/web 2.0 world.

Upon watching the videos prescribed for the week…particularly the IDEO labs- Amazing 3D immersion (YouTube 2010) I was entertained by the idea that the internet combined with social networking, is only the tip of the iceberg. Virtual worlds, education, advancements in sciences and so much more can be achieved by such a notion.

In another interesting article I read in regards to the notion of ‘soft-controlling’, where players of a virtual/augmented game are directed by a 3^rd party to a place or location they desire; in the case of the game Ghost Hunter, this means photographing places (or zapping ‘ghosts’) less visited by people or Flickr users (Science Daily 2012). See more here.

References:

–          Grayson, Chris 2009, ‘Augmented Reality Overview’, GigantiCo <http://gigantico.squarespace.com/336554365346/2009/6/23/augmented-reality-overview.html>

 

–          Science Daily, March 16^th 2012, Using Virtual Worlds to ‘Soft Control’ People’s Movements in the Real One, Science Daily, accessed 22/03/2012, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120316153840.htm>

 

–          YouTube, 5 July 2010, IDEO Labs – Amazing 3D Immersion Technology, YouTube.com, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ7QJwcdJmM>

 

– Picture (virtual_reality) from Flickr courtesy William Cromar 2010

and yet another- EMBODIED

HELLO!

I found this week’s readings to be quiet interesting. Firstly not only was I reminded of my own lack of memory retention, but also because it did educate me in this topic.

In the ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis’ reading by Stiegler (Stiegler n.d) I did find this quite ironic, yet plausible:

“A spontaneous memory support, the lithic tool is not however made to store memory : not until the late paleolithic period domnemotechniques as such appear. “

Stiegler goes on too, to further explain the history of mnemotechnology, and how the brain is not our only form of memory retention:

“Ideogrammatic writing springing up after the neolithic period leads to the alphabet – which yet today organizes the agenda of the manager, but this calendary object is henceforth an apparatus: the personal data planner; and it is no longer a mnemotechnic, but a mnemotechnology.”

He goes on to mention the TV, computer, GPS etc to be cognitive technologies where we are able to store a greater part or our memory, which he says goes on in fact to allow us to lose “an ever-greater part of our knowledge”.

The reading does indeed address the external environment as a possible memory form, not just giving our brain the exclusive rights.  In ‘Does thinking Happen in the Brain?’ by Noe (Noe 2010), the notion of the brain being a single unity in memory and emotions is again continued. I especially like the car/engine analogy that is used in comparison to how the brain conveys emotions and that the brain is not doing the work itself:

“How my car drives depends on what goes on inside its engine. Modifying the engine affects the driving behavior. Speeding up, slowing down, and such like, in turn, affect the engine. But it would be bizarre to say that the driving really happens in the engine. If my car has no wheels on it, or is up on the lift, it won’t drive, whatever happens inside the engine.”

When it comes to the brain nothing can be simple...

The other readings showed noteworthy instances and even loopholes so to say with the brain, and memory.

In Alan Kay’s video discussion on ‘Learning’ (Kay, unknown) he explores the concept of user interface design, by using an example of an elderly woman who has never played tennis (or sport for that manner) who learns in 20 minutes. He states that “Learning happens when attention is focused” and in this case interface was removed, and the focus of mentality was sustained, by merely copying actions and what came  naturally; excluding our need to think or the need to talk or comment.

‘The Mind Games – Science’s Attempts at Thought Control’ By Pamoukaghlian (Pamoukaghlian 2011) reading showed the extent that our minds can be controlled through techniques such as Electromagnetic Control (EMR), which scarily enough features to be a strong military interest over the years.

All in all the mind and the power of memory never ceases to amaze me, and this week has showed me its limitations, and its capabilities, and perhaps how to stretch my own.

Referencing:

–          Stiegler, Bernard (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’ accessed 16/3/2012 <http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis>

–          Noë, Alva (2010) ‘Does thinking happen in the brain?’, 13:7 Cosmos and Culture, accessed 16/3/2012 <http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/10/131945848/does-thinking-happen-in-the-brain>

–          Kay, Alan, Learning, YouTube, accessed 17/3/2012 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50L44hEtVos>

–           Pamoukaghlian, Veronica (2011) ‘Mind Games: Science’s Attempts at Thought Control’, Brainblogger.com, December 28, accessed 16/3/2012<http://brainblogger.com/2011/12/28/mind-games-sciences-attempts-at-thought-control/>

– Picture Courtesy of Jonathan 2007 Flickr

drum roll for the word….ECOLOGIES

First off after reading this week’s readings I was confused. SO bear with me whilst I break it all down…

Media Ecologies. My understanding of this theory, quiet simply put, is technology involvement and effect over society and human life. I did come across technological determinism again, a concept I discussed in last week’s blog, across both the Fuller (Fuller 2005) and Media-ecology website. Essentially this allowed me to make some connection based on my understanding from last week. Media ecologies however seem to expand on this notion and not only focus on technologies as an impinge on human life, but also media in general; techniques that surround this, as well as communication (Strate, 1999, media-ecology.com)

Dietz provides an interesting example of the said theory, which helped me greatly understand media ecologies in real time. She refers to WikiLeaks and the associations and layers of media and other concepts involved:

“…in order to make digestible the overwhelming amount of material released by his leaked information organisation, founder Julian Assange harnessed mainstream media outlets. Other organisations added to the public conversation quickly unfolding on blogs, Facebook and alternative outlets such as Crikey.” (Dietz, 2010, thenationalforum.com)

She goes on to say..(or type)

“The concepts of transparency, participation and collaboration are all producing profound culture change – information that was once protected by insiders and vested interests is now potentially available to all. Big Brother is us.” (Dietz, 2010, thenationalforum.com)

Which Levinson too brings up in his reading ‘The First Digital Medium’ in relation to discussing vested interests and how it affects knowledge, which dates back to ancient Egypt, where those with power/time previously had exclusive access (Levison 1997).

–       A quick side note though (in regards to Fuller’s reading). I couldn’t help but to tie Fuller’s discussion of a meme, to one of the site’s that I visit most regularly: http://memebase.com/

It did help me understand the concept of a meme is a slightly more entertaining way I must admit…

So very briefly the complexities of today’s intertwining of technology, today’s media and communication (considered with techniques) presents us human’s than with a challenging and selective opportunity in how we consume this, or more so how it consumes us? However more importantly an array, a vast choice of what was previously never available to us.

References:

Dietz, M (23 December 2010) The new media ecology, The National Forum, accessed 3/10/2012, <http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11410&page=1>

Fuller, M (2005) ‘Introduction: Media Ecologies’ in Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture Cambridge, MA; MIT Press: 1-12

Levinson, P (1997) ‘The First Digital Medium’ in Soft Edge; a natural history and future of the information revolution London: Routledge:11-20

Strate, L (1999) An Overview of Media Ecology, Media Ecology Association, accessed 3/10/2010, <http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/#An Overview of Media Ecology (Lance Strate)>

Ahhhh transformation- HINT

Firstly to my future tutor…WELCOME!

Now lets get on to business and dissecting this week’s reading and what I think. The two central frameworks from the Murphie and Potts reading include ‘technological determinism’ and ‘cultural materialism’.

My understanding of ‘technological determinism’, can quiet simply be put as, technology being the vehicle or agent for social change. As the reading continues to describe this framework, where technology is seen as an independent factor, I can begin to understand how there are counter arguments in seeing how technology interacts with culture/society.

Marshall McLuhan goes on to further develop this line of ‘technological determinism’, by claiming that the “basic premise is that technologies are extensions of human capacities” (Murphie and Potts, pp13, 2003) and that the “medium is the message” (Murphie and Potts, pp 13 and http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/media/topics/342/). I agree that his definition of technology is essentially viable, in terms of technology being an extension of human capacities, however the ‘medium rather than the message’ aspect can be argued either way.

Although different mediums can seem to bombard and side track the consumer, perhaps drawing attention away from the message itself, with blogs, you tube, TV, radio etc essentially, this ‘total perceptual field’ (Murphie and Potts, pp 14, 2003) created as a result of choice and widened horizons for the consumer, can go either way. The consumer can either take advantage of this and broaden their horizons, or the consumer can be bombarded with so many mediums and sources that they become overwhelmed. The consumer in themselves has great effect in this sense, which ironically contradicts the ‘technological determinism’ theory.

A total perception field is supposed to increase our information exposure,

but can it really hinder it?

The other spectrum of ‘cultural materialism’ takes most of these other factors that are disregarded by ‘technological determinism’, and puts them into play. Here political and social interests are considered as well as historical accounts.Where the “social shaping of technology” (Murphie and Potts, pp 20, 2003) explains and counters how society “plays a major part in deciding wich technologies are adopted, and how they are implemented and controlled’ (Murphie and Potts, pp 20, 2003).

Between these two frameworks I am able to understand technology’s place in not only society but culture too. By understanding the ‘cultural materialism’ framework and seeing it within today’s society, I think that it is indeed the way that technology is used that determines their cultural impact.

References:

– Murphie, Andrew and Potts, John (2003) ‘Theoretical Frameworks’ in Culture and Technology London: Palgrave Macmillan: 11-38

– Various videos and radio recordings listened to: <http://archives.cbc.ca/arts_entertainment/media/topics/342/>

– Image supplied by <http://www.flickr.com/>