My remix.
The theme was "remorse." As I was looking through my mp3 files (of which I have many), I picked up Jenny by Cross Canadian Ragweed, American Dream by Better than Ezra, Sixteen Tons by Johnny Cash (because I don't have the Tennessee Ernie Ford version, which is better). While I was doing a search to find Amy Winehouse, I saw Frank McCourt's Teacher Man, so I pulled in the first two tracks of that. (I never did find that Amy Winehouse, and did not feel like ripping it). Oh, and Arlo Guthrie's City of New Orleans.
I pulled some of the Irish music from the intro to Teacher man-- but it was only a few seconds, so I looped it, varying the volume and the fade. I cut up the McCourt file and picked out some bits. I juxtaposed that with American Dream to begin. To me, it seems that American Dream, about failed dreams, seemed to go with McCourt's "miserable childhood." I added Sixteen Tons, which is about working class failure to achieve. I liked the "Good morning, America" from City of New Orleans, because it provided a contrast to the other music. I ended up dropping Jenny, though.
Maybe I was naive, when I was younger, but I did buy into the idea that hard work and talent would get a person places. So for me, my remix represents my disappointment and remorse about a world that probably never existed.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Slashdotted (Tech entry)
Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 25, @05:26PM
from the need-a-new-revenue-strategy dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A federal judge in Connecticut has rejected the RIAA's 'making available' theory, which is the basis of all of the RIAA's peer to peer file sharing cases. In Atlantic v. Brennan, in a 9-page opinion [PDF], Judge Janet Bond Arterton held that the RIAA needs to prove 'actual distribution of copies', and cannot rely — as it was permitted to do in Capitol v. Thomas — upon the mere fact that there are song files on the defendant's computer and that they were 'available'. This is the same issue that has been the subject of extensive briefing in two contested cases in New York, Elektra v. Barker and Warner v. Cassin. Judge Arterton also held that the defendant had other possible defenses, such as the unconstitutionality of the RIAA's damages theory and possible copyright misuse flowing from the record companies' anticompetitive behavior."
What does music "piracy" mean, anyway? I am not sure. I like music, personally, and I don't mind buying music. However (and there is always a however here), I don't want to buy music music that I have already bought. I don't want to pay import prices for an album that downloads for 79p per song, if I happened to live in the UK. Here, the CD with that song sells for $26-- about double what I am willing to spend on a CD. I am not sure that in the situations I am describing that file sharing is a bad thing. I am just not sure. I think that to the point that I am taking revenue out of the hands of artists (and production staff), that sharing to avoid payment is bad, evil, despicable, etc. How much money do these people see per sale, anyway though? And how much money goes to the supply chain? And why if a single cost me a $1 when I physically bought a vinyl single, that had shelf space in WalMart, that was transported, do I still have to pay $1 for a lesser quality electronic download, that has no transport costs, no floor/shelf space, no nothing, except production costs. How much did the artist get paid then and how much does the artist get paid now?
The RIAA makes it hard for amateurs to use music. More barriers.
The RIAA makes it hard for amateurs to use music. More barriers.
DJ Spooky
Miller, Paul. Rhythm Science.
Miller's work is very unusual. It plays with the expectations of "text" and "book" to create a fascinating account of DJ Spooky's remix capabilities sampled with Miller's autobiography. The layout of the text is unconventional, playing with layered images and text. On every other set of facing pages, is a pull quote fused with an image. Despite this making me sound a bit too much like a soccer mom, this word collage style is one I am familiar with though scrapbooking. This kind of layered text and illustrated quotes often appears on scrappers pages.
Sound as mix and remix is important to Miller. He sees himself as drawing on the past and on voices that he hears around him to create a new message. The medium is, of course, part of the message, but the message is the message. It is, as he says, (and I paraphrase) hard to play the same piece twice for the same audience. Thus, the remix.
To make myself sound a bit less like a dweeb, I'll confess to geek. I was feeling the William Gibson before I saw the quote on page100: "The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed."
Even as Miller speaks of mix and sound, Comstock & Hocks discuss voice.
Back in the 70s, when Rich Little was on the variety show circuit, people were fascinated with the way that he could imitate voices or do impressions. Someone took "voiceprints" (and no, I do not know how that works) of Little and the celebrities that he was imitating. The "prints" were not at all similar, even though they sounded similar to an average listener. Of course, when I saw Little on The Muppet Show (season 2), I didn't think that he sounded much like anyone other than Rich Little. So it seems that voice is less quantifiable.
What makes me sound like me? My daughter sounds like me-- even close friends and relatives cannot always tell us apart on the phone. She has the ability, as I think I have talked about before, to speak without an regional accent. She chooses, though, usually, to adopt the "educated southern" that many people I know have. She and I are both influenced by Ozarks dialect (which is Appalachian dialect, transmitted west to the Ozarks). Our written "voices" are different, though. Voice is a complicated idea. And it is more complicated in terms of writing. I don't sound in writing at all like I do in person. Of course, we don't "sound" like anything in writing. Because there is no speech, no accent. No dialect unless I put it there on purpose (which, depending on my audience, I do occasionally).
Miller's work is very unusual. It plays with the expectations of "text" and "book" to create a fascinating account of DJ Spooky's remix capabilities sampled with Miller's autobiography. The layout of the text is unconventional, playing with layered images and text. On every other set of facing pages, is a pull quote fused with an image. Despite this making me sound a bit too much like a soccer mom, this word collage style is one I am familiar with though scrapbooking. This kind of layered text and illustrated quotes often appears on scrappers pages.
Sound as mix and remix is important to Miller. He sees himself as drawing on the past and on voices that he hears around him to create a new message. The medium is, of course, part of the message, but the message is the message. It is, as he says, (and I paraphrase) hard to play the same piece twice for the same audience. Thus, the remix.
To make myself sound a bit less like a dweeb, I'll confess to geek. I was feeling the William Gibson before I saw the quote on page100: "The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed."
Even as Miller speaks of mix and sound, Comstock & Hocks discuss voice.
Also, like a fingerprint, each voice carries its own inflection, its own texture and grain. In writing, voice acts as a metaphor for how a persona created in the text "sounds," with elements of diction, tone, and style informing this written voice (Comstock & Hocks).
Back in the 70s, when Rich Little was on the variety show circuit, people were fascinated with the way that he could imitate voices or do impressions. Someone took "voiceprints" (and no, I do not know how that works) of Little and the celebrities that he was imitating. The "prints" were not at all similar, even though they sounded similar to an average listener. Of course, when I saw Little on The Muppet Show (season 2), I didn't think that he sounded much like anyone other than Rich Little. So it seems that voice is less quantifiable.
What makes me sound like me? My daughter sounds like me-- even close friends and relatives cannot always tell us apart on the phone. She has the ability, as I think I have talked about before, to speak without an regional accent. She chooses, though, usually, to adopt the "educated southern" that many people I know have. She and I are both influenced by Ozarks dialect (which is Appalachian dialect, transmitted west to the Ozarks). Our written "voices" are different, though. Voice is a complicated idea. And it is more complicated in terms of writing. I don't sound in writing at all like I do in person. Of course, we don't "sound" like anything in writing. Because there is no speech, no accent. No dialect unless I put it there on purpose (which, depending on my audience, I do occasionally).
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Sound Remix
So here is my sound remix. It is way too techno for my tastes, but with what I had to work with, I think it sounds less than horrible.
I repeated all of the files more than once, and for some of them, I repeated parts of the files. I also inverted the short wave sound, and changed the pitch on some of the German speech. Oh, and I used the generate function to insert silence and white noise. My daughter loves Audacity-- she used it for her history day project.
I repeated all of the files more than once, and for some of them, I repeated parts of the files. I also inverted the short wave sound, and changed the pitch on some of the German speech. Oh, and I used the generate function to insert silence and white noise. My daughter loves Audacity-- she used it for her history day project.
Reading about bands I have never heard of...
Rickert, T & Salvo, M. "The distributed Gesamptkunstwerk: Sound, worlding, and new media culture"
McKee, H. "Sound matters: Notes toward the analysis and design of sound in multimodal webtexts"
Rickert, T. & Salvo, M. "And they had Pro Tools"
Technology is great, except when it isn't. The latest version of Firefox keeps becoming non-responsive on my mac (and of course it is the mac's own fault, I am sure. And my fault by extension for owning a mac). And some of the formatting functionality on blogger does not seem to work with Safari. (Edited to add: Different computer, now I can add formatting)
So,
Where to begin?
Let me start by saying that I am not culturally literate enough (or in the right literacy) to fully appreciate these articles. I have heard of Wagner, mostly from the lovely Bugs Bunny short. And Sonic Youth had a cover of a Carpenter's song on the Juno soundtrack. Flaming Lips, however, is far from my understanding.
I thought that Rickert and Salvo's discussion of Garage Band was interesting. In the past, no one expected mixing tools to be intuitive or easy. No one but a real geek could love a mixing board. Garage Band, though, by positioning itself as an instrument is now competing with a guitar rather than competing with the sound equipment.
One definition that Rickert and Salvo used that I have heard used differently is prosumer. They say that "Prosumer refers to the erosion of the difference between a consumer and a producer" (And They Had). I have heard that term, probably in terms of photography, meaning products that blur the line between consumer models and professional models (like a Canon Rebel or a low-end EOS). And Photoshop-- always Photoshop.
McKee's article about sound had a section on authority conveyed by voice. My 14 year old daughter participates in National History Day. Her area is group documentary. She always records the narration. The girls really cannot articulate why they have chosen Mea, though. I can. She sounds the most grown-up. Rather than soprano and breathy, she is alto and sustained. And, perhaps most importantly, she only has an accent when she wants to. She spent from the ages of six and ten in central Missouri, which is the American "non-accent." (Sounds almost just like Nebraska and Tom Brokaw).
To me, it is funny that people can "sound" more or less intelligent based not on the words they use, but on linguistic features over which they have little or no control.
Which is not at all what the author is getting at.
McKee, H. "Sound matters: Notes toward the analysis and design of sound in multimodal webtexts"
Rickert, T. & Salvo, M. "And they had Pro Tools"
Technology is great, except when it isn't. The latest version of Firefox keeps becoming non-responsive on my mac (and of course it is the mac's own fault, I am sure. And my fault by extension for owning a mac). And some of the formatting functionality on blogger does not seem to work with Safari. (Edited to add: Different computer, now I can add formatting)
So,
Where to begin?
Let me start by saying that I am not culturally literate enough (or in the right literacy) to fully appreciate these articles. I have heard of Wagner, mostly from the lovely Bugs Bunny short. And Sonic Youth had a cover of a Carpenter's song on the Juno soundtrack. Flaming Lips, however, is far from my understanding.
I thought that Rickert and Salvo's discussion of Garage Band was interesting. In the past, no one expected mixing tools to be intuitive or easy. No one but a real geek could love a mixing board. Garage Band, though, by positioning itself as an instrument is now competing with a guitar rather than competing with the sound equipment.
One definition that Rickert and Salvo used that I have heard used differently is prosumer. They say that "Prosumer refers to the erosion of the difference between a consumer and a producer" (And They Had). I have heard that term, probably in terms of photography, meaning products that blur the line between consumer models and professional models (like a Canon Rebel or a low-end EOS). And Photoshop-- always Photoshop.
McKee's article about sound had a section on authority conveyed by voice. My 14 year old daughter participates in National History Day. Her area is group documentary. She always records the narration. The girls really cannot articulate why they have chosen Mea, though. I can. She sounds the most grown-up. Rather than soprano and breathy, she is alto and sustained. And, perhaps most importantly, she only has an accent when she wants to. She spent from the ages of six and ten in central Missouri, which is the American "non-accent." (Sounds almost just like Nebraska and Tom Brokaw).
To me, it is funny that people can "sound" more or less intelligent based not on the words they use, but on linguistic features over which they have little or no control.
Which is not at all what the author is getting at.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Creative Commons
Creative Commons, as a licensing program, has been around a while. Woody Gutherie used a version of it back in the 1930s (and he used the word "ourn" in a sentence, in print, which makes him one of my top favorite people, ever.)
Newer, though, is LiveContent 2.0 . According to the website: "the Creative Commons tech team has been working on an interesting content “autocuration” process for LiveContent 2.0, which automatically pulls down CC-licensed media for inclusion on the LiveDVD."
Licenses that allow people to reuse and remix digital content are vital for the expansion of new media (however one defines it). I am not, unfortunately, an artist. I wish I were. I have some small skill with PhotoShop, but not enough to get all excited about. Without open source materials available, I am limited in what I can produce. I cannot physically go and get pictures of everything I might want to use, and even if I could, I don't have the photographic equipment (or, to be honest, the skill) to create the same quality photos.
And I am less a musician than an artist.
So the creative commons project, pulling together material offered freely by people and pulling together older material that is is in public domain is one that I believe in. (So now to figure out how to make a LiveContent DVD...)
Newer, though, is LiveContent 2.0 . According to the website: "the Creative Commons tech team has been working on an interesting content “autocuration” process for LiveContent 2.0, which automatically pulls down CC-licensed media for inclusion on the LiveDVD."
Licenses that allow people to reuse and remix digital content are vital for the expansion of new media (however one defines it). I am not, unfortunately, an artist. I wish I were. I have some small skill with PhotoShop, but not enough to get all excited about. Without open source materials available, I am limited in what I can produce. I cannot physically go and get pictures of everything I might want to use, and even if I could, I don't have the photographic equipment (or, to be honest, the skill) to create the same quality photos.
And I am less a musician than an artist.
So the creative commons project, pulling together material offered freely by people and pulling together older material that is is in public domain is one that I believe in. (So now to figure out how to make a LiveContent DVD...)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
More on "spriting"
While I see potential in "spriting" for people of a dominant discourse community, I am not sure that it can do anything but further marginalize those of us who are not. I talk funny. There are sounds that I will never make "correctly" and I am comfortable with that. I generally have taught myself to mitigate my accent, at least when I am rested and calm. I love writing as a means of communication because it provides a screen, like a blind audition. I can be judged on the strength of my ideas and the way that I have communicated those rather than my accent.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Spriting
Shankar, T.R. Speaking on the Record: A theory of composition.
---. "Two Talkuments: Examples from 'Speaking on the Record'"
Shipka, J. Sound Engineering: Toward a theory of multimodal soundness.
Favorite quote:
"voices are constructions of self and meaning" Tara R. Shankar (381).
Coming from a background with more than a trace of primary orality, I find Shankar's theories appealing. As someone who deeply appreciates the writing process, though I find this problematic. I talk about ideas to think, just as I write about ideas to think. I suggest, in fact, that verbal students talk through ideas and even record those ideas (on a recorder) so they can develop an essay from that.
The children who were "spriting" in "Two Talkuments" appear to be cute and verbal. And they like to talk. But I am not sure how valuable that is? Or maybe this is really just renaming Ong's secondary orality?
Shipka's piece focuses on the value of fun and play in an assignment. This is a technique often used in K-12 education. William Glasser has written a great deal about meeting students' needs for social interaction and for fun. She has great projects, though, that her students have produced. For me, though, it belongs more in a communications class than in an English class...
---. "Two Talkuments: Examples from 'Speaking on the Record'"
Shipka, J. Sound Engineering: Toward a theory of multimodal soundness.
Favorite quote:
"voices are constructions of self and meaning" Tara R. Shankar (381).
Coming from a background with more than a trace of primary orality, I find Shankar's theories appealing. As someone who deeply appreciates the writing process, though I find this problematic. I talk about ideas to think, just as I write about ideas to think. I suggest, in fact, that verbal students talk through ideas and even record those ideas (on a recorder) so they can develop an essay from that.
The children who were "spriting" in "Two Talkuments" appear to be cute and verbal. And they like to talk. But I am not sure how valuable that is? Or maybe this is really just renaming Ong's secondary orality?
Shipka's piece focuses on the value of fun and play in an assignment. This is a technique often used in K-12 education. William Glasser has written a great deal about meeting students' needs for social interaction and for fun. She has great projects, though, that her students have produced. For me, though, it belongs more in a communications class than in an English class...
My Write Up
"TV is chewing gum for the eyes." ~ Frank Lloyd Wright
Meanings
For my Photoshop Remix assignment I chose the Frank Lloyd Wright quote. The idea of chewing gum is something that is slightly annoying to bystanders, enjoyable to the user, and generally innocuous. My collage, I believe supports this interpretation by showing television as being innocuous and fun, like bubble gum. By placing the figure of the boy inside a television, though, I am showing the unreality of it, which brings in some ambiguity, I suppose. By showing the unreality of the figure and reinforcing the idea of television being unreal, I may be showing that the quote is fictional as well, and the idea of television as innocuous pastime is equally fictitious.
Processes
The first thing I did was choose a quote. The Frank Lloyd Write quote appealed to me because of the lighthearted and irreverent nature of it. Chewing gum is, after all, flavorful, fun, and non-nutritive. So to begin, I started to sketch out a few ideas for the quote. The sketch I settled on featured the television as chewing gum, literally, by making the television a bubble being blown. So I stated looking for an image of a gum bubble on Google Images. I found one being blown by a young man, and used that. I also found a picture of an old-fashioned television on Google Images. I wanted an old-fashioned television because it is nostalgic and brings to mind more “innocent” times. These ideals seem to fit with a young man blowing a bubble as an iconic image of youth.
I extracted the young man from the image, and then I added the television to the image of the boy and warped it so that it covered over the original bubble. By now, I felt that the image was there, but needed some kind of context. I found images of living rooms and media rooms and put the figure into those to see if one had the right tone, but was not feeling that any of these were right. The television that became the background began as an element of a room. When I was trying to place it in the room, I imagined what the picture would look like if the television were the only context, and that seemed to work for me. After I had the boy blowing the television bubble, I felt I need a reference to the eye, so I used the CBS trademark eye. To place it on the screen, I erased the image that had been on the screen, and replace it with the stylized eye looking out. I warped the eye image slightly so that it would take up most of the screen. The image seemed complete, so I stopped.
This is completely different from my writing process. Nothing ever feels complete when I write. It is just due, so I have to let go. In fact, the whole process is different for me. When I write, I rarely plan ahead before I begin writing. Most of my planning takes place as I brainstorm. I write to explore, then I go through what I have done and pick out the parts that seem useful. Then I list the ideas that I think I should pursue. And then I write and revise and write some more.
Choices
I chose the images that I did because they fit into the idea that I had sketched. The exception was the background, which changed as I progressed. First, I had intended to put the youth in a contemporary home media room so that it would have a context. I ended up with the youth inside a television, which emphasizes the unreality of it, rather than in a living room that would have grounded as being more within the realm of normalcy.
I made several modifications to the images. I resized some of the images. I cut the boy out of the background that was in the original image. The vintage television was cropped slightly, and the image that was on the screen was erased and replaced with the eye logo.
I am not sure that I really considered that many alternatives. I was pleased with the concept that I had sketched. I did, however, tinker with the background to get something that I thought fit with the concept that I was trying to convey.
Connections
Bush, in his 1945 descriptions of all the many inventions that we can expect to see in the future, noted that "it would be advantageous to be able to snap the camera and look at the picture immediately" (39). By 1963, Sutherland’s description of Sketchapad seems to more closely anticipate Photoshop. The magnification of the image that I am working on is always vital when I do any image work. I cannot imagine trying to do this kind of collage work without digital equipment, although, people certainly made collages before Photoshop.
Wysocki's definition of “new media” from "Opening New Media to Writing" is one that immediately comes to mind as I work on this piece. Not because it was done in Photoshop, which is kind of the popular definition of new media, but because I believe that I am showing an awareness that the image does not “function independently of how it is made” (15). One way that I show how it is made is by the surreal-ness of the television set as a bubble being blown. Also surreal is the boy silhouetted against the clouds in the sky, which makes him look as though he is suspended in the air. Other than those elements, the collage could be realistic, and might not be considered new media under Wysocki’s definition.
Works Cited:
Photo credits:
Meanings
For my Photoshop Remix assignment I chose the Frank Lloyd Wright quote. The idea of chewing gum is something that is slightly annoying to bystanders, enjoyable to the user, and generally innocuous. My collage, I believe supports this interpretation by showing television as being innocuous and fun, like bubble gum. By placing the figure of the boy inside a television, though, I am showing the unreality of it, which brings in some ambiguity, I suppose. By showing the unreality of the figure and reinforcing the idea of television being unreal, I may be showing that the quote is fictional as well, and the idea of television as innocuous pastime is equally fictitious.
Processes
The first thing I did was choose a quote. The Frank Lloyd Write quote appealed to me because of the lighthearted and irreverent nature of it. Chewing gum is, after all, flavorful, fun, and non-nutritive. So to begin, I started to sketch out a few ideas for the quote. The sketch I settled on featured the television as chewing gum, literally, by making the television a bubble being blown. So I stated looking for an image of a gum bubble on Google Images. I found one being blown by a young man, and used that. I also found a picture of an old-fashioned television on Google Images. I wanted an old-fashioned television because it is nostalgic and brings to mind more “innocent” times. These ideals seem to fit with a young man blowing a bubble as an iconic image of youth.
I extracted the young man from the image, and then I added the television to the image of the boy and warped it so that it covered over the original bubble. By now, I felt that the image was there, but needed some kind of context. I found images of living rooms and media rooms and put the figure into those to see if one had the right tone, but was not feeling that any of these were right. The television that became the background began as an element of a room. When I was trying to place it in the room, I imagined what the picture would look like if the television were the only context, and that seemed to work for me. After I had the boy blowing the television bubble, I felt I need a reference to the eye, so I used the CBS trademark eye. To place it on the screen, I erased the image that had been on the screen, and replace it with the stylized eye looking out. I warped the eye image slightly so that it would take up most of the screen. The image seemed complete, so I stopped.
This is completely different from my writing process. Nothing ever feels complete when I write. It is just due, so I have to let go. In fact, the whole process is different for me. When I write, I rarely plan ahead before I begin writing. Most of my planning takes place as I brainstorm. I write to explore, then I go through what I have done and pick out the parts that seem useful. Then I list the ideas that I think I should pursue. And then I write and revise and write some more.
Choices
I chose the images that I did because they fit into the idea that I had sketched. The exception was the background, which changed as I progressed. First, I had intended to put the youth in a contemporary home media room so that it would have a context. I ended up with the youth inside a television, which emphasizes the unreality of it, rather than in a living room that would have grounded as being more within the realm of normalcy.
I made several modifications to the images. I resized some of the images. I cut the boy out of the background that was in the original image. The vintage television was cropped slightly, and the image that was on the screen was erased and replaced with the eye logo.
I am not sure that I really considered that many alternatives. I was pleased with the concept that I had sketched. I did, however, tinker with the background to get something that I thought fit with the concept that I was trying to convey.
Connections
Bush, in his 1945 descriptions of all the many inventions that we can expect to see in the future, noted that "it would be advantageous to be able to snap the camera and look at the picture immediately" (39). By 1963, Sutherland’s description of Sketchapad seems to more closely anticipate Photoshop. The magnification of the image that I am working on is always vital when I do any image work. I cannot imagine trying to do this kind of collage work without digital equipment, although, people certainly made collages before Photoshop.
Wysocki's definition of “new media” from "Opening New Media to Writing" is one that immediately comes to mind as I work on this piece. Not because it was done in Photoshop, which is kind of the popular definition of new media, but because I believe that I am showing an awareness that the image does not “function independently of how it is made” (15). One way that I show how it is made is by the surreal-ness of the television set as a bubble being blown. Also surreal is the boy silhouetted against the clouds in the sky, which makes him look as though he is suspended in the air. Other than those elements, the collage could be realistic, and might not be considered new media under Wysocki’s definition.
Works Cited:
- Bush, Vannevar. “As We May Think” (1945). The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin & Nick Montfort. MIT UP: Cambridge, MA, 2003. 35-48.
- Sutherland, Ivan. “Sketchpad: A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System” (1963). The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin & Nick Montfort. MIT UP: Cambridge, MA, 2003. 35-48.
- Wysocki, Anne. “Opening New Media to Writing." Writing New Media. Ed. Anne Francis Wysocki, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, & Geoffrey Sirc. Utah State UP: Logan, UT, 2004. 1-42.
Photo credits:
- Boy Chewing Gum from http://www.ecok.edu/centers_programs/tgu/students.htm
- Vintage Television from http://www.qualityinformationpublishers.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=137
- Sony Television from http://securitytags.biz/detachers/image/Sony-Plasma-television.jpg
- CBS Logo from http://www.basketballcity.com/images/medialeague/cbs_eye.jpg
Images that I began with
These images come from:
boy with gum www.ecok.edu/centers_programs/tgu/students.htm
vintage tv http://www.qualityinformationpublishers.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=137
new tv http://securitytags.biz/detachers/image/Sony-Plasma-television.jpg
cbs logo http://www.basketballcity.com/images/medialeague/cbs_eye.jpg
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
New Media Issue: Week Four
Danish courts are causing problems for The Pirate Bay. Not that I use The Pirate Bay. Because that would be wrong. But still.
This is a new wrinkle in the intellectual property game. This is not a program, but a website that has a search engine, if I understand correctly (which I might not-- some of the file issues confuse me). How is this illegal?
Again, I believe in intellectual property. When I create something, I don't want it stolen (although it has happened). But it seems like if a person can be arrested for creating a search engine, then we will all have problems. The Anarchist's Cookbook can be used to make a bomb, which then can be used for illegal activities. Guns can be used to kill people, which is illegal. It seems like arresting someone because they created a search engine that allows a person to do something illegal is over the line.
This is a new wrinkle in the intellectual property game. This is not a program, but a website that has a search engine, if I understand correctly (which I might not-- some of the file issues confuse me). How is this illegal?
Again, I believe in intellectual property. When I create something, I don't want it stolen (although it has happened). But it seems like if a person can be arrested for creating a search engine, then we will all have problems. The Anarchist's Cookbook can be used to make a bomb, which then can be used for illegal activities. Guns can be used to kill people, which is illegal. It seems like arresting someone because they created a search engine that allows a person to do something illegal is over the line.
New Media Issue: Week Three
I completely forgot about the new media issue. I should never be allowed a week off in an assignment game, because I get totally distracted.
My new media issue this week is touch-screen voting. Don't get me wrong, I love computers. We have more computers in my house than people, in fact. And if you add in gaming systems, computers outnumber us 2:1.
But one dark day last fall (on a weekend, of course), my university-issued laptop had a complete nervous breakdown. Refused to boot. I spent the better part of the weekend getting that darling (with my research paper) running again. Why do I have a certainty in the pit of my stomach that my vote could end up in a similar "blue screed" disaster?
To me, this is just one more example of technology companies promising more than they can deliver and consumers not being informed enough to say, "Disagreeing with you does not make me a Luddite; do not make your alpha test my future."
My new media issue this week is touch-screen voting. Don't get me wrong, I love computers. We have more computers in my house than people, in fact. And if you add in gaming systems, computers outnumber us 2:1.
But one dark day last fall (on a weekend, of course), my university-issued laptop had a complete nervous breakdown. Refused to boot. I spent the better part of the weekend getting that darling (with my research paper) running again. Why do I have a certainty in the pit of my stomach that my vote could end up in a similar "blue screed" disaster?
To me, this is just one more example of technology companies promising more than they can deliver and consumers not being informed enough to say, "Disagreeing with you does not make me a Luddite; do not make your alpha test my future."
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Happenings
Reading this week:
"'Happenings' in the New York scene"by Allan Kaprow
From Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework by Douglas Engelbart
"Sketchpad: A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System" by Ivan Sutherland
"The Construction of Change" by Roy Ascott
"A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate" by Theodor Nelson
Happenings, according to Kaprow, have "no structured beginning, middle, or end. Their form is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won... They exist for a single performance or only a few, and are gone forever as new ones take their place" (85). This, to me, is the essence of the Internet. I often sit down with my computer simply to do so. I go through the blogs I normally read, and check out a few message boards. These events are not really reconstructible, and even if they were, there is a good change that the conversation has moved on-- that the place where I was cannot be the place you will be.
I received, at work today, a huge, 10in thick file, that I had to find room for in my desk. As I sifted through my paper files, to make room, I through out papers that I knew that I had electronic copies of in my "memex" or rather in my aging iBook. Of all the electronic gadgets that I have, the one that I would have the hardest time functioning without is my laptop with my word processor. Almost everything that I need is stuffed in there somewhere. I can sort and files according to words in the title, or even words within the text. I don't need notecards, except as a transition to my laptop. In this way, my mind is "augmented." Without this, my productivity would be diminished due to the amount of time that I would need to spend filing.
I am struck by the idea of a drawing program being new (as Sketchpad was in 1963). I don't know what that strikes me as being odd. Of course the TRS-80 that I first used had nothing but ASCII text forming pictures (there was a missile shooting game, as I recall). But I was only 10 or 11 when TRON was released (1982), and I recall knowing that some of it was "done on computers," although I am sure that I had no real concept what that meant. I am, however, certain that the Bamboo Fun (with Photoshop Elements) that my father got for Christmas eclipses the capabilities of those early graphics packages.
As I look at what I have I have written today, about how I use my iBook/memex, about how the movies I have watched have been "done" on a computer, I am more and more afraid that Ascott is dead on. Where does this leave me when my "friendly" little computer turns on me? When it eats the data that I should have backed up? I am sure that I will scrambling through my haphazardly labeled paper files, hoping against hope that the paper I need did not subcomb to my frenzied space-making.
Nelson proposes an interesting idea about writing with computers, when he says, "Surely half the time spent in writing is spent physically rearranging words and paper and trying to find things already written; if 95% of this time could be saved, it would only take half as long to write something" (135). I am afraid this has not been my experience. At all. While I can freely admit that editing has become easier with computers, and I am less resistant to proofreading since recopying and retyping are not involved, I do not believe that my actual writing has been made more efficient. If anything, continued editing beguiles me into spending more and more time trying to achieved (impossible) perfection.
"'Happenings' in the New York scene"by Allan Kaprow
From Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework by Douglas Engelbart
"Sketchpad: A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System" by Ivan Sutherland
"The Construction of Change" by Roy Ascott
"A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate" by Theodor Nelson
Happenings, according to Kaprow, have "no structured beginning, middle, or end. Their form is open-ended and fluid; nothing obvious is sought and therefore nothing is won... They exist for a single performance or only a few, and are gone forever as new ones take their place" (85). This, to me, is the essence of the Internet. I often sit down with my computer simply to do so. I go through the blogs I normally read, and check out a few message boards. These events are not really reconstructible, and even if they were, there is a good change that the conversation has moved on-- that the place where I was cannot be the place you will be.
I received, at work today, a huge, 10in thick file, that I had to find room for in my desk. As I sifted through my paper files, to make room, I through out papers that I knew that I had electronic copies of in my "memex" or rather in my aging iBook. Of all the electronic gadgets that I have, the one that I would have the hardest time functioning without is my laptop with my word processor. Almost everything that I need is stuffed in there somewhere. I can sort and files according to words in the title, or even words within the text. I don't need notecards, except as a transition to my laptop. In this way, my mind is "augmented." Without this, my productivity would be diminished due to the amount of time that I would need to spend filing.
I am struck by the idea of a drawing program being new (as Sketchpad was in 1963). I don't know what that strikes me as being odd. Of course the TRS-80 that I first used had nothing but ASCII text forming pictures (there was a missile shooting game, as I recall). But I was only 10 or 11 when TRON was released (1982), and I recall knowing that some of it was "done on computers," although I am sure that I had no real concept what that meant. I am, however, certain that the Bamboo Fun (with Photoshop Elements) that my father got for Christmas eclipses the capabilities of those early graphics packages.
As a result of cybernetic efficiency, he [man] finds himself becoming more and more predominantly a Controller and less an Effecter. The machine largely self-regulating and highly adaptive, stands between man and his world. (Roy Ascott, 1964)
As I look at what I have I have written today, about how I use my iBook/memex, about how the movies I have watched have been "done" on a computer, I am more and more afraid that Ascott is dead on. Where does this leave me when my "friendly" little computer turns on me? When it eats the data that I should have backed up? I am sure that I will scrambling through my haphazardly labeled paper files, hoping against hope that the paper I need did not subcomb to my frenzied space-making.
Nelson proposes an interesting idea about writing with computers, when he says, "Surely half the time spent in writing is spent physically rearranging words and paper and trying to find things already written; if 95% of this time could be saved, it would only take half as long to write something" (135). I am afraid this has not been my experience. At all. While I can freely admit that editing has become easier with computers, and I am less resistant to proofreading since recopying and retyping are not involved, I do not believe that my actual writing has been made more efficient. If anything, continued editing beguiles me into spending more and more time trying to achieved (impossible) perfection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)