Topics in Media Theory: The Blog

Thoughts on Blogging

2005-12-07T13:49:00.000-08:00

Well the semester is over, and so possibly is this blog. When this class first began, I was excited about starting a blog because I had heard so much of blogging by that point that I figured it was a good time to start figuring out what it was all about. Well, 15 weeks later, i've come to the realization that blogging doesn't interest me. It's not because of the content that we've been writing about, far from it, it's the format. The internet is great because it enables users to create a medium filled with multiple formats, movies, pictures, music, sounds and of course text. For me, moving only the written word from a personal diary format to a multiuser platform is just screaming for extra content. I know these things are already possible to incorporate into your blog, but the majority of blogs that I have read fail to capitalize on this notion. Why can't blogs be more flashy, more exciting? Use something other than text to express your experiences as the same margins, indenting and style of the blog gets old really fast. Otherwise, I would have been just as happy turning in response sheets every week. Its cool to do what Scott McCloud did with his book and realize what we are learning by doing it is what we are talking about, but I almost wish that we had blogs as a special assignment for a limited time to see if we liked it over writing response sheets. I guess I just feel like blog space is really informal, but I feel weird writing in a sometimes formal manner in my blogs.

The one thing that really is nice about blogs is the use of hypertext. However, when reading others blogs (especially penny arcade, they do this a lot) people sometimes link a key word without describing what it is they are referencing it too, so the user is forced to open a new window to understand the rest of what follows in the blog. To some this is new and exciting, but to me it is a hassle. If im going to read a 250 word snippet, I want to read it quick, not spend time zipping around gathering information to put together, its 250 words for god sakes, let me understand what you're talking about and then link it so I can visit the site after I finish your blog. Sorry but this is just something that really annoys me sometimes.

Also, this project has made me understand that the internet is a great place for the individual to speak his mind. Blogging has proved this to me. But from the studies done through the readings, it seems that the same problems arise as with other popular mediums, where the most popular blogs get all the hits while the majority are left in the dust. Who is actually reading this blog outside of our class? Do I really want anybody else to read this? Maybe if I was writing these responses to a public audience, it would be more exciting, but since nobody outside of our class is following these readings, that option alienates a major facet of blogging. I guess this is what I found most disappointing, but also releaving at the same time.

Anyway, Im glad I had the experience, don't get me wrong. But I don't think I have the drive to begin a new blog about my own personal interests or anything like that, at least for the time being.

Smartly Stoopid

2005-11-21T13:20:00.000-08:00

"World of Ends" was a nice read, but ultimately I felt it fell short due to lack of content. I liked and agreed with Searls and Weinberger's 10 bullet pointed list, but I wanted more to fill in their argument. For example, the point about adding value to the internet lowers its overall value; I see what they are trying to get at, but I wonder where these kinds of actions are taking place. Paying for webspace? Charging subscription fees for exclusive accounts? AIM? I'm not sure where they believe these power dynamics of bits are occurring. But overall, the notion that the internet is stupid and should stay that way is wonderful, as I couldn't agree more. However, I don't think it is going to stay that way. The Dot-Com boom was a huge successful failure, and since, many companies are a bit wary when it comes to digital commerce. But don't believe for a second that it won't be back in full force, because it will be. Imagine just ten years from now, as the pipes expand and make way for faster bit rate speeds, larger and more complex systems will no doubt arrive on your monitor. Either in the form of television, censorship or advertisements, the internet is not safe from the Network (as in the companies) invasion. And who ever said it would be? We're living in what I would say is the golden age of information. It's relatively cheap (or free), easy to find, easy to share and painless to digest because of the small doses in which you can receive it. I just cannot imagine things to stay this good forever, as someone wants to be making more money and will find a way to do so, no doubt information will be the key to this endeavor.

I also imagine the internet to get smart. Tracking IPs and essential connectivity information is already relatively easy to do. I don't see why not the government won't try to take measures (if they already haven't, I've heard about the new Dell PC's shipping with a "Chip" pre-installed that records everything typed on the keyboard and sends "keywords" to people monitoring terrorist activity...) to track us all, or even slap us with internet passports to keep us in line. You know they're just salivating at the thought of more censorship. The internet is right now more "real" than any other medium because of its complete lack of censorship (for now). You can find images, storys and thoughts here that you could NEVER find on any television station, newspaper or film. Its freedom at its finest. But as our government loves to promote, "freedom isn't free" (god I hate that quote) and expect to be PAYING for FALSE information in the not too distant future...

Microsoft likes Micropayments

2005-11-15T13:05:00.000-08:00

Well this is something that goes back to a few weeks ago when we read Scott McCloud's Reinventing Comics, but I wanted to comment on it now since some new information was brought to my attention. The guys over at Penny Arcade have recently noted their opinions on the release of the upcoming Xbox 360 (the next generation of the Xbox videogame platform) and in one of their notes they mention a conversation with Scott McCloud over micro vs. macro payments. What was brought to my attention is that Microsoft (the creator of Xbox) has created a fully functional micropayment system for the Xbox online software where subscribers can pay small sums of money through their systems to receive extra content for the games they have already bought (or actual games themselves). To my knowledge, this is the first time micropayments have been used in conjunction with such a large, already installed user base. This then could be the beginning of the future of micropayment systems, as I am positive if Microsoft pulls this off well, many other companies are going to take notice.

As we have recently discussed, Pirating is a sticky situation in the new world of information based commerce, as it is easy to do and because it is indirect, not as morally objectionable as say, shoplifting or robbery. Thus, many large companies who try to protect their IPs are at a loss, as tracking each and every pirate and handing them a punishment that fits their exact crime is pretty much impossible. So how does one combat this issue? I believe micropayment systems could be very beneficial to finding the solution. The problem really lies within the fact that many people find paying chunklets (haha) of cash for bytes sent to your computer is not worth it. Not having a tangible object to hold creates a sense of unimportance that makes the product seem not worth the sum paid. But what about paying, oh lets say less than 50 cents, for pieces of an overall product. For the sake of this argument, let’s use games. The next generation of games are going to cost $60 a pop, $10 more than current gen games. There are also a lot of games coming out and many people don't have the time or money to shell out for every experience. But what if they were able to pay a small sum of money to experience a small piece of the game, maybe a single level with a single character to play as. If they like the experience, they can throw out another small sum of money to purchase the next level and continue the game bit by bit (no pun intended) or if they really like it, just pay the full amount and experience the whole product. I feel this could combat some of the piracy issues that currently plague the media entertainment world. I just hope Microsoft has a good plan to push their micropayment system into the mainstream market.

The Full Prince Charles

2005-11-15T12:51:00.000-08:00

So capitalist society is nothing but a bunch of Zombies and Vampires slowly eating away at humanity only because of the fact that technology has enabled this horde of monsters to enter our world and tear it apart while building it up at the same time and the only way to escape this is to seclude yourself in a technology laiden city and detonate a massive EMP bomb that will destory all remenants of connectivity, but not all of technology as your glasses won't be effected and if you really want to escape it all, killing yourself won't do a damn thing because our lives are run by being in debt to society and working off to be accepted but that can never happen, so you need to get skinned alive and gutted and attached to a living woman's uterus where you feed off of her like the parasite you always were, but in the end that doesn't matter at all anyway because you're right back at the beginning, a shambling zombie, going to the mall to eat some brains and grab a non-fat peppermint mocha latte with an extra shot to keep you going to pay off more debt and get your ass handed to you thanks to connectivity? Sweet!

But seriously, while Shaviro's claims are quite interesting and relavent, I never thought I would get tired of being referred to as either a zombie or a vampire. Kinda Matrixy, huh? I get his metaphors for the ways in which everyone is fucked through the current system and because of connectivity, but I wonder if separating everything into two catagories (Zombies or Vampires) is a little harsh. Shaviro also should just team up with Jeter to write a Noir Deux, because I feel like i'm pretty much reading Noir through this book. Though some excellent satire comes from Noir and I am most definately going to give it a read after we finish Connected. As much as I enjoy being "connected" I can't help but also enjoy taking the other side as Shaviro seems to love to do. He's convincing, witty and creative with his commentary and I like being able to see things from the otherside when the otherside isn't some lame anti-tech person who knows absolutly nothing about technology whatsoever but can't stop bashing it...Stepmothers...sigh...

Coldly Connected

2005-11-13T13:12:00.000-08:00

Whoa, this book is pretty crazy. I was pleasantly surprised to find each slice of the overall book to be quite short, but packed with worthwhile thoughts and insights. Shaviro has taken a book that could easily be put together as any normal codex would and flipped it, maybe even mirroring hypertext or at least non-linear reading, as you can pretty much flip to any segment and are presented with a quick intro, body and conclusion. In fact, his writing style constantly reminds me of the act of blogging. Forming thoughts into mini-essays that can be quick to read but supply enough information (if you're good) to keep the reader engaged. Thumbs up to this style of writing for those of us with no attention span.

Reading through the early chapters of the book, Shaviro clears up the definition of hot and cold media in a way that McCluhan could not. Back to the whole hot Film vs. cold TV, it now is applicable to my daily encounters with both mediums, as the theatre setting requires you to lose yourself in the film and keep some sort of movie theatre etiquette, while at home the causal style of choosing your entertainment on TV creates a sense of informality where the user is free to interact on some level with the medium, but on a more conscious level.

Now Shaviro really sold me with his short passage on the internet being an even cooler medium than television, and his almost poetic description of this made my countless hours of browsing websites seem somewhat more significant, not that they actually were, but it brought to my attention the actual amount of work it takes to engage with the internet. I mean, its no sport, but the multiple actions one must take on to fully take advantage of the internet when laid out the way Shaviro has, makes it seem much more daunting to the technologically-deficient. However, I feel as though the internet is moving away from being such a freezing medium and is headed for the chilly zone that television currently occupies. New technologies that are being integrated into browsers only make it simpler to access your desired content, with histories being automatically brought up while typing in text entry space and tabbed browsing thanks to Mozilla, it is becoming a more simple and passive experience. Plus the future of television and the internet seems to be heading toward a marriage (they're engaged right now), which is going to melt the ice off of the WWW.

Identity

2005-11-09T13:32:00.000-08:00

The internet has paved the way for many new and interesting subjects. Above all the commercial, entertaining and downright silly topics the web has brought to many people's attention, the notion of identity has completely been altered through the medium. In McPherson's study about cyber-confederates, the notion of identity is gained, lost and multiplied through a number of factors. Through the many neo-confederate sites, the notion of a virtual-Dixie is realized and contributors and visitors alike are immediately imbued with the identity of neo-confederate, even if they themselves might not use that term. McPherson labels them with that moniker and for all reading her essay and then viewing the sites (or even just viewing the sites alone) and immediately the reader latches onto either McPherson's term of the term given by the site owners themselves. Here we see identity is gained by the contributors and members of the site, as they have chosen to publicly announce their community and all they stand for.

We see an immediate loss of identity for the viewer, or outsider who happens upon a site such as the ones in question. McPherson notes that a headline on one of the sites reads, "Preserving OUR heritage is preserving YOUR heritage." As soon as this statement is read by an outside viewer, they are presented with a choice; to accept this identity temporarily and read on, hoping to find some reasoning from the creators and better understand their position by becoming one of them (either to agree or create a rebuttal), or reject this identity which excludes them from connecting with any of the rest of the argument as according to the creators, it was meant for people of similar background or ideology.

Where as in real life, your identity can slightly change over the course of your life, through physical and racial traits you are constantly regarded as a type of person which YOU can chose to accept or reject, but through which you cannot necessarily convince everyone, the internet enables people not normally able to directly connect with certain communities (and not in a racial sense, but through personality traits, etc. i.e. People would probably think it strange for me to go to a Britney Spears concert, but I could watch a direct feed of her show online) to have the opportunity to discover new thoughts and either become invested in them or fight them. The internet is now a place for anyone to become someone else, either directly through their own persona or through exterior cyber-communal assumptions. Obviously the internet is open to all forms of morality as it isn't regulated, but it is up to the creators and the viewers to discern their own identities, real or not.

Tracing the Decay of documentary

2005-11-02T16:14:00.000-08:00

So I just had a few quick thought I wanted to jot down before I forget.
One of the aspects of DBN that could really be used to separate itself from cinema is the simple fact that they can be added to either changing or adding meaning to the entire piece. Scenes can be added to a film, but rarely are because it isn't always in the interest of the director. A piece like Tracing could have new rooms and scene added all the time, growing and expanding the database infinately. This is a liberty that mediums like videogames have tried (like expansion packs and user created mods) but never really gotten the best of.

An idea I had while in class could take serious advantage of the above as well as the documentary format itself. Here goes: So the history channel is best known for its documentary content of WWII. So much so that there are countless shows that all connect on some level through the various theatres of the war, but never really come together. Now imagine a large scale documentary project akin to Tracing except that it brings together all of the documentaries that the History channel has produced on WWII into a retelling of every aspect of the war. I imagine you begin on a large map of the world where you can click on Continents and move into smaller countries and view pieces of footage, stills, sound bytes and hyperlinks that pull the entire war into one cohesive documentary. Want to follow the European theatre? Well do you want to see it from the American side? The British? The Germans? While following that theatre you could click on specific cities and towns and even people involved with battles and planning in every aspect of the war. Find out the origins of the P51 Mustang and from there see what battles it was fought in. Want to know more about a specific General or Lt.? If they were involved with that conflict, they're there to click on and learn more about. This could create endless possibilites and one could finally see the whole picture from all sides. No bias except for user bias. The best part is as new information is found or new documentaries created, they could be added as plug-ins to the overall piece until one day it would be complete. A virtual encyclopedia documentary. Maybe its just me, but I think that would be one of the most interesting ways to learn about a global conflict (hell they could do one about the past twenty years!)

My computer tells me bedtime stories

2005-11-02T13:28:00.000-08:00

So database narratives are the new thing, eh? Since when? First i've heard of 'em.
Anderson's article clearly defines database narratives as being interactive. This is where I draw the line. Manovich's Soft Cinema had no traces of interactivitiy to the viewer (notice the use of the word viewer as there is no user because all you do is WATCH). I do like how Anderson has defined DBNs using Randomness, Metadata and Dynamism. I assume he throws dynamism in there to support his use of the term interactive, but to truly be an interactive form of media; I feel there has to be some user input, not just creator. Because Manovich's project was shipped to the public in DVD format, this also severely limits how an average viewer can observe the project because the complete essence of the DBN is lost due to the DVD format. Had this been released as a program, my view of it would be quite different.

Now imagine the same project, but instead of Manovich deciding how to label and organize the database, anyone could have access to it and alter whatever they wished. Now that right there is interactivity. Thus, as Anderson smartly points out, the place where DBN really shine is of course, the world of videogames (once again!). Take for example the infamous Grand Theft Auto. A recreation of a real life working city, complete with taxi services, street cleaning, police chases and violence. Now the narrative of the GTA series really stems from the story that the designers create. That is, a linear narrative that you interact with, but never changes from person to person. While that is all good and fun, if you've ever played a GTA, there is a list of statistics of your overall progress and the linear story narrative usually leaves you at only 40% complete. So the other 60% is left up to you to explore this database of algorithms set to create random interactions. Nobodies GTA experience is ever the same. If you just stop your character on the street corner and watch what goes on around you, you'll witness a plethora of smaller random narratives that you can draw from to create your own stories within this sandbox world. For example, I was playing, stopped to watch a cop chase down a perp on foot, only to have the perp's homies run up and beat the cop down. Then the runner proceeded to get in a cab and drive away from the scene of the crime. An ambulance arrived to resuscitate the cop and life resumed as normal (although a small crowd of pedestrians came over to see what the commotion was all about). To me, the fact that these random DBN can occur right in front of your eyes and that you can in turn interpret them and actually create your own narrative from them in which you can then participate (i.e. you could chase down the perp in the cab and get revenge for beating down officer Bob) is nothing short of astounding. To me, that is the perfect direction for DBNs to go (and not necessarily in a violent manner) and it seems that Anderson would agree.

I hate new media

2005-10-31T14:01:00.000-08:00

Well, at least for now. New Media is so great for so many different uses as it is so easy to manipulate and create new meaning from many sources. However, as of last night i've decided I hate new media. Here's the story: So i'm taking an Advanced Editing course up at Pitzer (Feels more like beginning) and our current assignment is to find a scene from an American film and re-edit that scene to give it new meaning. Simple enough? Sure, actually not such a bad project (you should check THIS out to see how you can really change the meaning of a film through editing). Well the scene we decided to use was from the 1979 cult classic The Warriors (check it out, cool movie) and considering this film isn't so well known, we were lucky to find that the new director's cut was recently released on DVD to coincide with the release of The Warriors videogame. Now, maybe I wouldn't hate new media so much if Pitzer would just step up their media labs, but the rediculous amount of trouble me and my group went through just to transcode this ten minute scene from DVD to a format manageable by Final Cut Pro was unbelievable. AVIs, MPEGs, DVs, we tried 'em all to no avail. For over four hours we tried every imagineable way to get this scene on the computer. Editing the piece wouldn't have taken more than two hours, but all our time and energy was spent trying to transcode a bunch of binary code...sweet.

The first film I made I had to edit on a Steenbeck which is this really old editing machine where you actually physically cut and paste the celluloid together. While it was cool at first, it quickly became tedious and even painful as the razors to cut the film were really sharp. Now, looking back at that experience, I realized that in four hours, had I had the scene we needed on film and a steenbeck we could have finished the project easily. New Media has kicked our asses and now we're handing this project in a week late...thanks new media.

I guess it makes sense, I mean, with all the pirateing going on these days. But we bought the DVD, why can't we do what we want with it? We're not going to sell it or anything...well I know its not worth arguing about, but if anyone knows how to successfully get a copywrited DVD onto Final Cut please let me know because I can't for the life of me get this to work. Sometimes I feel so on top of current media and in cases like now I feel completely alienated.

So is cinema still old media?

2005-10-24T13:35:00.000-07:00

Reading through Manovich's "What is new media?" I was constantly drawn to his referrals to Cinema when debating what in fact new media really is. I was completely fine with his six bullet pointed list of what new media is not, because I have been asking that exact question to myself since this class began. As six bullet points, I can see where these misconceptions might come from, but after reading his rebuttal to each was I was less and less enthusiastic about his reasoning. For one thing, he continuously refers to cinema as not fitting the role of new media, but he almost seems to be arguing for the other side. Even if film does not require a computer to be created, he originally states that to view new media in light of the computer is "too limiting". He then uses cinema to combat a number of false identifiers of new media, but all this did was lead me to believe that cinema was in fact the precursor to the earliest of new media. Three of his five points seem to at least point somewhat in the direction of film.

Numerical Representation: he states himself, 24 frames represent a moment in time, not to mention the content of the piece itself.
Modularity: Again he uses film as an example as it utilizes still pictures, color, sound, etc.
Automation: This one is tricky, as a camera on its own cannot create a interpretable work. But if you look at this from the other side, I believe automation (at least currently) is not worthy of mention. AI programs have not yet become "smart" enough to create anything beyond what the programmer has told it to do. Thus, just as the Lumiere brothers created the film camera that as a machine, only could do what it was made to do, the same (I think) can be said for the computer. The computer can do nothing outside of what human programmers have built it to do.

The last two Variability and Transcoding do not fit well enough to consider Cinema a new media. But one cannot help but see the extreme similarities to film and new media. One cannot say that film is not at least a part of new media, as more forms of new media have derived from the need for special effects and other digital arts within film. Film then seems to sit in a strange place between both new and old media. It fits into both to some degree and can continue to be as both (think a short black and white 16mm student film vs. the next James Cameron film).

Digital Comix

2005-10-19T13:12:00.000-07:00

The 2nd part of McCloud's book details the beginnings of the internet and digital art and his own vision of comics taking part in this digital movement. He gets quite excited at the thought of completely re-arranging the layout of comics to invoke a unique and interactive sense of involvement (i.e. a 500 panel comic you scroll in different directions or comics within comics). While I was reading his ideas on how to innovate on comics themselves, I couldn't help but think that he was losing focus on what his original plan was for re-inventing comics, which was to get more intellectual and widespread creators coming up with ideas that weren't adolescent power trips. Personally, while his interactive ideas are interesting, I see no way that this adds anything to the content of the comics created. I’m no comic writer, but to me this seems to devalue the essence of comics by putting innovative but shallow aesthetic enhancements instead of focusing on how to develop stories that could be experienced on the same level as film or novels.

I did find his analysis of digital commerce interesting and actually very logical. However, again I foresee problems with his vision of a publisher-free comic environment. As it is with books, the digital novel has yet to even given wheels. It's there, but who wants to sit at their stationary computer and read 400 pages? Not I, reading 30 pages is enough. So why would it be any different to buy and read a comic online? The visual aspect? I say no. I fail to see any mention of portability in his argument, but I strongly feel (as I do about almost all digital entertainment) that portability is key. Would the iTunes music store have taken off without the iPod for people to slap their songs into and take wherever they want? A strong link between digital comics and being able to hold a hardcopy in your hands is something that I feel needs to be created. Now a portable player solely for comics would definitely alienate those uninterested or uneducated about comics. Yet a player that could encompass all data bought from the internet and be taken in the palm of ones hand, that medium could surely have potential to entice online buyers to purchase and collect digital comics that they could read anywhere as much as they want, without having to worry about the books degrading in physical quality. This will happen; it already has started with the Sony PSP and other similar hand-held players. But as McCloud states, ease of payment and connectivity are essential to making this successful.

Reinventing Commerical Media

2005-10-19T00:02:00.000-07:00

The first half of Scott McCloud's "Reinventing Comics" reveals to the reader the current issues that comics and its creators are facing. McCloud's take basically boils down to the expansion of everything in the medium of comics, which is valid as he points out multiple times that the industry is driven by Superheroes and more Superheroes. However, as the book itself is a comic book, my initial thought before opening the book was that it would pertain exclusively to the medium of comics. I was then surprised to discover that pretty much every one of McCloud's 9 issues are prevalent in all forms of commercial media that hasn’t established itself as a socially accepted "Art" form. Videogames in particular but also toys, hand drawn and computer animations as well as the clothing industry are all related in what basically comes down to McCloud's topic on how the medium is viewed from large, societal standpoint. This actually discouraged me, as I was hoping to see a unique view on contemporary media, yet McCloud's complaints and issues on equality, publishing and world view can easily equate to any of the other mediums that I laid out.

The fact is comics, videogames and toys are all linked by their content which is usually distributed through the three as well as movies and books. Look at Spiderman, the comic created by Stan Lee becomes an action figure line which is further expanded into a playable videogame, then a television show, which then spawns another videogame which creates more action figures which then becomes a film which then creates a novel of the film which then creates yet another line of videogames, action figures and then even more comic books. The processes are all different to create each version of the original idea (which did not necessarily have to begin as a comic) but each process further removes the author from the reader because of the massive amount of publishing and distributing and advertising that is seemingly required to get the product to the people.

Thus, McCloud's ideas, while personally I feel are good, can be utilized within a number of contemporary mediums that are all struggling to become what film and television has become. Videogames are currently compared to pre-Citizen Kane era of film. People still regard it as a cultural novelty yet dismiss its potential to become art. Comics have been around much longer and it still seems to be stuck in the same state of limbo. There are many attempts to bring it out of the entertainment ghetto, but not enough people are aware. And when they do become aware the publisher's recycle the material until the original message fades away. I know that comics have the potential to be what McCloud wishes, but it’s not just the job of the artists and publishers, it’s the job of the reader to continue to want to experience more than senseless violence and smut.

I threw in the comment about clothing styles in my first paragraph to plug this really cool company that sells user-created t-shirts. Check out www.threadless.com to experience a brandless style that has something for everyone.

Literature Ergodic

2005-10-10T13:31:00.000-07:00

Aarseth's overall point seems to be that the study of cybertext has lead people to discriminate or compare it to literature instead of realizing that it is instead, an extension of literature. While I agree with him somewhat on this topic, I do think that cybertexts should always be questioned on their relevance to literature, at least to discover in what way literature is evolving. It is no doubt that the codex and the cybertext are completely different mediums, yet similar enough to be considered by many, the same thing. However, Aarseth's argument can be complemented on the simple idea that whatever can be done in the codex form can be replicated in cybertext, yet the reverse is indeed impossible. Take his example of the Multi User Dungeon (MUD). Essentially a simplified form of D&D (which I have never played, but know of), creating this content in codex form would simply be impossible, as what defines its uniqueness is the fact that the content exists because of a multi-user base. Again, as Ong states, the codex turns the user inward, unable to create a social universe outside of his own mind while stuck in a book. Yet, whatever could be created within a structured codex could easily be thrown into a MUD, maybe not in a sensible way, but none the less, it could be posted along with whatever else occurs within the medium. Thus, the now old form of literature must be studied separately from the new form of cybertext, as they are not synonymous, yet their similarities force them to be linked always.

In his list of examples of cybertext, Aarseth mentions programming as a non-linear cybertext. As the digital age is still so young compared to the codex, creating the language of programming is quite non-linear on its own right. I was taking a class this summer on basic programming, where the instructor explained how every programmer has his own way of writing code, and that if he does not order the code in a way that enables the program to work, and is legible by other programmer's, when coming back at a later period to the program, other engineers most likely will not be able to decipher the structure. This isn't something that only occurs sometimes in programming, it seems to happen everywhere, with no homogeneous structure to unite digital text. This seems to be the only example of a text that cannot be universally understood because of its chaotic nature. As the technology expands over time, the language of computer code could become standardized, as many programs (especially films and games) utilize digital counterparts to mathematical algorithms that exist in the real world.

Book Version 1.0.2

2005-10-05T13:32:00.000-07:00

Landow hit upon a subject that I had always been thinking of but never been able to fully realize. All my life it seems that my elders, most notably my mother, completely shunned the notion of digitized reading. Growing up without computers, the electronic text was foreign to her and up until recently, using the computer for anything other than e-mail would be considered worthless to her (now she's an expert at cropping and sending me digital photos of stuff). Reading a newspaper was "cultured", while reading an online news story somehow removed a layer of intellectuality. Why? Because it wasn't a tangible object you could hold in your hand? No, because it was new technology that she couldn't relate to, thus, in her mind it was dismissed and considered unworthy of attention. This arises especially with the novel. I remember I had an old PDA, I think it was a Palm, and for one of my high school English classes we had to read Bram Stoker's Dracula. This particular edition of the book was massive and I really wasn't interested in reading that tome during my one hour subway ride home from school. So, being the up to date technical guy that I am, I downloaded the e-book version and stuffed all three-hundred some odd pages into my Palm for convenience sake. Mind you the e-book was quite new at the time, but, none the less, I figured my mom would get a kick out of it because god knows how much she cherishes reading and to introduce a new form to her seemed reasonable. Well, she just didn't get it. "Why aren’t you just reading the book?" "I am reading the book." "No you're reading your Palm." "But the book is on the Palm." "But it isn't a book" etc...(By the way, I'm probably making her sound like some tech-repulsed woman, but I can assure you that she is much more technologically savvy today than before.)

The point is, I wish I had read Landow's essay back then so I could shove in her face the fact that the book is also a technology, a product of our society and in no way related to nature, thus my PDA version is better/as good as yours, nah, nah, nah...or something similar to that. However, since the e-book practically died a month later, I guess I owned myself...

Text Lies and Videotape

2005-10-03T13:47:00.000-07:00

Bolter raises a point that I have been thinking about for awhile on the issue of control and media. Until recently, all media and forms of text were controlled by a number of sources, mainly the author or creator and the editors that see that the book is fit for the public. What this means is that the communicative flow is directed one-way at the reader/user who cannot immediately reply and is forced to inscribe his/her rebuttal in a published source or do nothing at all. Obviously the latter response is the simplest and least time consuming so only those dedicated to improving or disproving the thoughts of the original author would step up and do so.

As Bolter describes the remediation of text through the computer in chapter two, he concludes with a brief outline of the ARPANET system which was basically version 1.0 of the internet as we know it today. He finishes his thoughts with this; "...any message can refer to any other or ignore all previous messages and strike out in a new direction. A communications network is therefore a hypertext in which no one writer or reader has substantial control, and because no one has control, no one has substantial responsibility." Yes, this is our 1st amendment at its finest. This "4th great technique of writing", as Bolter puts it, adds not one but two profound layers of interactivity not previously available through any other textual medium. One: The ability to connect other's thoughts and ideas through hypertextual transportation. (Bolter actually gives credit to those piecing together others thoughts as the reader transforming into the neo-author.) And Two: The ability to directly communicate back to the text and directly reach others to create new trails of thought without the need to write and publish a book about it.

Contrary to Ong's theory that text has push society inward, Hypertext is the opposite; pushing people outward to expose their thoughts and ideas by adding them to and creating new hypertextual electronic documents daily.

A hypertextual revolution

2005-09-26T13:33:00.000-07:00

I was recently browsing through an internet message board, when I came upon a post that made me laugh. After posting a wall of text (i.e. no paragraphs or indenting), the user, delldude3000 is mocked by another poster only ten minutes after he posts his statement. LittleManShan responds: “Say it with me now, 'paragraph'” to which delldude3000 replies: “Paragraph means nothing to me buddy its the internet”. After reading Gitelman’s “Coda”, I was particularly struck by this post because I find it to be quite true in new age of online communications. Gitelman argues that explaining the rise of new technologies solely as a necessary remediation of older technologies cannot be so because of the many other social and historical constructs that have shaped media into what it is today. The idea that inscription devices are reinvented and remediated through social necessities is only a piece of her argument, but one that I would like to touch upon. It seems that the available “gated community” that is the internet alters not just the way in which we experience media, but in the way we recreate even the most basic form of text. The internet has paved the way for a hypertextual revolution, dismissing the intellectual and academic style of writing (not to say it doesn’t exist on the internet) for a new found language that cannot be controlled by anyone. To publish a novel with such a style would be considered preposterous and dumb, yet, the social implications that have led technology to the World Wide Web have allowed a new textual seed to be planted. Given that currently many intellectuals would easily dismiss such primitive expression, I feel that the dependencies that have led to this revision in literate society are not something to simply throw away. The individual is now more powerful than ever before, as they must not adhere to standardized hypertext to express themselves. Watch this…I’m not going to indent…

Technology and Society

2005-09-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

After reading Gitelman's introduction, I was interested in the way she discusses the study of technology from an externalist's point of view. That is, that technology that succeeds does so because of social constructs. This notion applies to both today and the past, as today's consumer culture grasps at the newest and most functional designs, despite their overarching meaning, as opposed to the past where invention was based more on necessity. However, as necessity is the mother of all invention, one only needs to look toward the societal constructs of the day. The machines that were re-iterated on constantly have basically taken on the shape on a single unit (i.e. something like the computer), yet every year, hundreds of multi-purpose inscription devices and players are released. Judging by numbers, like evolution, only the fittest survive to be iterated on in the next fiscal year; however that doesn't stop innovative machines from cluttering up the market place. Logically, the melding of all machines into one source, as Kittler theorizes the fiber-optic cable (or the internet) will eventually do, should work. However, this does not cease the overflow of technologies that seem to consistently add, remove and add more pointless features annually. So does the technological overflow define our contemporary culture? Yet, something seems to have changed. The technologies of the past (including speech and textural writing if you believe them to be technologies) were mainly designed for the user to create content to display on the medium. However, many of today’s consumer electronics focus on a relay of media as opposed to an inscription. This further defines contemporary culture as media hungry, the need to be fed instead of feed. Yes, inscription devices still exist in full force, but are becoming less so directed at the public for widespread use and are now separating into small niche groupings. An example of this would be a program like Adobe Photoshop. Books, internet guides and classes must be obtained to truly grasp the medium. One can no longer simply purchase the program and expect to create exactly what they want without taking extra steps to familiarize themselves with the technology. Contrary to that, the most simple of inscription devices, the word processor, hasn't seen a true innovative iteration in years. Does this mean word processing has been refined to the point where there is nowhere left to go? That depends how one looks at the technology of writing. Most importantly, our social structure has found a need to push public interaction with the medium farther away so that they can be fed studio founded intellectual properties.

The Medium is the Message?

2005-09-19T12:50:00.000-07:00

I don't know if I just totally missed McLuhan's point that "the medium is the message" or if he is in fact out of his mind, but whatever the case may be, from my point of view his argument fails to persuade me. General Sarnoff's quote, "We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value", was the one quote to which I agreed with. However, McLuhan wastes no time dismissing the argument, equating it to the current somnambulism in our society. Well, McLuhan, I may not be awake as you are, but I'm pretty sure that a disconnected television cannot be referenced as "good" or "bad". It is as it is, an inanimate object. Now if Nazi propaganda was flashed across that television screen, I might make a point to announce that the programming is "bad". Yet, Nazi propaganda is "content" and while a disconnected television cannot display content, it still is a medium. But where is the message? McLuhan continues to reference scenarios that support his point, yet these examples are totally moot as they already contain a bias moral contradiction. "Apple pie is not good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value." Well I happen to like apple pie, but if it was thrown in my face, I would say that was using apple pie in a "bad" way. The firearm is a negative object, as its main use is as an instrument of killing. Therefore, it is always initially perceived as a negative object (killing equals erasing life which mathematically is a negative). However, a radio cannot initially display positive or negative content without the use of content itself. Thus, I may have missed McLuhan's point or maybe he's just pulling this stuff out of his ass.

Also, I just wanted to point out (and McLuhan talks about this more in his section on comics) that using current technology as a scapegoat for an individuals mistake really drives me nuts. Most recently there has been a scandal involving Rockstar Games the makers of the infamous Grand Theft Auto videogames. The company included hidden content in their last game, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, which can only be accessed through a method involving altering the source code itself (thus not directly accessible to anyone who doesn't understand modding computer games.) This has been discussed in the news as the "Hot Coffee Mod" in which the player can interact in a mini-game involving lewd sexual acts. Florida attorney Jack Thompson is a notorious avenger against the evils of mainstream media and has been a major spearhead in attempting to ban certain games, movies and music. His claims include that these games are "Murder simulators", teaching kids how to kill. Some of his attacks on the industry include representing parents of Columbine victims, claiming that it was the influence of the computer game Doom that drove the Columbine killers to do what they did. While I do agree that the videogame rating system should restrict minors from purchasing games rated Mature (17+), I strongly disagree with Thompson's claims that videogames are to blame for violent acts. There are so many factors that can drive a person to commit a crime, and exposure to media I cannot say is one of them. Yes, studies show that prolonged exposure to video game violence does increase aggression levels in children, yet studies also show that kids who play football in high-school are can become three times more aggressive than those who play videogames. So do we blame football? Should be ban football? Hell no, this is America, right? So why must we always shove the blame onto our media. Is it that ridiculous that Timmy's parents don't pay enough attention to him? Don't see or maybe don't want to see the progression of psychosis that is dwelling within him? Or wait, why the hell is Timmy playing a game that is rated 17+ when he is only 15 years old? Maybe his parents should monitor what he is exposed to? Oh right, that would require a little something called parenting which is sooooo 1990's. People need to stop blaming inanimate objects and start taking some responsibility.

O n' L

2005-09-12T16:11:00.000-07:00

I found Ong's statement that there is no "linguistic ‘sign’ after writing if the oral reference of the written text is adverted to (74)” very intriguing because of the way in which we regard written text today. As a very literate culture, our ability to survive almost rests on the literature that we have created throughout time, as one would assume if he/she were alone and needed to learn to make fire quickly, a written text of some sort would probably help their cause. However, our general nature is to take the written word for granted and to relate that word or line of text to the idea in reality, and to the point of the line of text representing the object/idea itself. Ong’s statement that written text is coded symbols that can only be deciphered by sentient beings such as ourselves made me resort back to a previous paragraph about orality and the life-world. Our cultural literature introduces such a vast array of concepts and theories that could never be represented by a simple visual object. Oral cultures must relate the spoken word to much more primitive concepts because each word is based on an actual existent. Literary cultures are able to open a door to an alien world of idealizations and theories that don’t exist except for the fact that the words are printed on the page. These words only reference simpler concepts that when put together create an idea. I always enjoy the visual representations in cartoons of such a void where these ideas exist as the statue of David floats in space next to a big red, E=MC2.

I guess the point of this is to say that there are so many ideas that we can’t grasp without the use of literature because of their dense and otherworldly nature. Literature, as an organizer, brings us closer to experiencing what we think is or is not reality, as the true meaning of a phrase on a page does not have to have a tangible counterpart for us to understand its existence. Just as Ong points out that the concept of time only exists for us because we designate symbols and spatial relation to mold this concept for us to see what we want to see.

One more small thing I thought was cool is how literature transcends time itself and enables us to interact with those who have been gone from our world for ages. Obviously oral traditions need a constant living being to retain information, yet chances are that person was not the origin of the idea. Through literature we can learn from books written hundreds of years before we were born and translate those older concepts into more contemporary ones. Also the information we receive is directly mediated to us from the original author. So I guess as long as you have text floating around you will never cease to exist? Sorry if this doesn't make any sense as I am quite tired...

Remediation is reality?

2005-09-07T13:11:00.000-07:00

Bolter and Grusin dislike the approach of innovating media to raise above all current forms of media because all mediation is influenced by a former and sometimes outdated mediacy. I.e. Language is a medium which writing is based from; television utilizes writing as well as graphics which are all mediations that have been around since the beginning of human civilization, etc. According to this theory, the perfection of virtual reality would have to be the final step in creating a tangible form of remediation. This I agree with. However, couldn't one state that the ultimate form of remediation is not virtual reality but reality itself? Yes, virtual reality erases all media as it compiles it all into a seemingly realistic space, but still one must either wear a contraption or be fed the information directly into the brain, thus on some level the user would still understand the media being fed to them. So could the ultimate form of remediation be taking the place of another's life? If one was able to so faithfully copy the lifestyle of another human being, from the clothes they wear, to the food they enjoy, to the house they live in, that for a moment they themselves became that other person, could that not be the same thing as living the life of another through virtual reality?

I guess a hyperreality could somewhat explain my theory, and we see forms of it in many of today's media. The reality television craze places people in situations that they may not normally experience, but they adapt and others can watch how they transform themselves to fit the scenario. A good example of this is the MTV show The 70's House. In this reality program, a group of 12 young adults are forced to live in a home designed to resemble the exact style of a home in the 1970's. The kids are forced to only speak in terms used in the 70's and wear clothing from that time period as they compete to avoid elimination from the show. The ultimate goal? To be the most 70's. Now this can mean different things to different people, but by the last few episodes the kids who stayed on had perfected their 70's culture identities. Now I don't see how this is any different than someone putting on a virtual reality head-set and going to a virtual 70's space and acting out the lifestyle of a person living in that era, except for the fact that this is reality and there is no form of media that the person is acknowledging at any given time. They all are conforming to mediations and experiencing immediacy, but without the help of any one medium. K, that's all I got for now...

Remediation

2005-09-04T17:41:00.000-07:00

So I did the reading on remediation first and then took a look at the website "The Intruder". It was probably a good thing I did it in that order, otherwise the site wouldn't make too much sense.

This concept of remediation is very interesting because those of us who stay current with television and especially the internet are affected by remediation and hypermediation on a daily basis. "The Intruder" uses hypermediation in a very similar way to that in which studios display advertisements or television shows except that instead of all the material fitting together like a well designed puzzle, this site utilizes two conflicting actions that make it very confusing to mentally pay attention to the project as a whole. Be this the point or not, when browsing internet sites, one might be trying to find a simple photograph but when clicking on a webpage they might be bombarded with one to three advertisements all utilizing either a game, sound or a flash video that add many new layers to the single form of media that person might have been trying to initially access. Bolter and Grusin give a good example of this when they discuss the CNN television broadcast versus the CNN website. Currently both use a single media source (TV and the internet, respectively) to display CNN content. However, within those mediums we are experiencing scrolling text, colored graphics, video, sound, etc.

After experiencing "The Intruder" one could point out that the name of the piece describes the act the hypermediation as the viewer's intake of whatever media form he thinks he's getting is intruded on by other mediations, thus making the original mediation almost impossible to fully understand. In the case of "The Intruder" one must pay attention to the mini-games at hand to further progress in the spoken word of the story. However, by devoting all the attention to the games much of the story is lost.

Remediation is a media theory that I feel is closer to becoming a reality. The example of the flight simulator is applicable to this theory, yet as a game, flight simulators are a very passive form of active media. For example, may flight simulators have the player actively changing coordinates and adjusting dials to compensate for weather conditions, etc. These acts administer the immediacy that a pilot who must fly a 747 full of passengers through a storm could feel, yet without the urgency of completing a tangible objective with actual stakes on the line I feel that a flight simulator does not really remove the player's ability to dismiss the fact that he is experiencing mediation.

The act of escapism is the closest term I can equate to remediation. Videogames are a great example of this, especially those of a more aggressive nature. Take of example a fast paced racing game. Many people who play will actually thrust their body in the direction in which their on-screen car is turning. This shows a level of mental investment that this person has chosen to give to the medium. The ability leave reality on a mental level and experience new worlds while your physical body stays posted on the couch is pretty amazing and is the closest step our technology has made to entering a virtual world where your body becomes a part of the mediation. Current video game technology encompasses immediacy and I feel almost reaches the level of remediation, as the player is fed media through so many levels the world he controls an avatar in can almost become a reality...(especially for those who are addicted to the internet crack known as World of Warcraft...I’m not one of those...I swear)

2005-08-31T16:38:00.000-07:00

Well I've gone and done the one thing I told myself I would never do: I've created a blog...

I guess the thing that turned me off most from internet posting is the amount of morons there are out there in cyber-space. See, I play a lot of video games (As I am an aspiring game designer), and throughout my travels through polygonal worlds I have met and conversed with many a gamer whose moniker is something like Pwnzj00z!!!!1111 or HitlerFan12 and whose favorite opening line of dialogue might be something like: "Whut up fhaeg, u iz teh noOBzoorZ!" or something just as intellectually stimulating. Now these same friendly fellows have access to their own personal blogs and internet message boards where they can spread their imaginative minds and insult just about every living molecule in existance...great. This is what the all powerful internet is for? Calling people names and throwing around racist comments like they were snowballs on christmas? Well, I mean, I know there are tons of actually interesting comments that people make daily on their blogs and message boards but for every BachAmadeus14 there seems to be a AzzBazzterd69 waiting to totally disprove whatever opinion they just had, be it rational or not. So, in this respect the act of blogging has not really attracted my attention. But since 20% of my grade now rests within this wall of text I am about to post over the next 15 weeks, I guess I could make myself love it.

Anyway, post on readings to come next.