The prospect of web 2.0 culture fully integrating into society is undoubtedly a risk. The freedom that digital culture proposes is a threat to industry and the availability of information a risk to privacy. However there are also some benefits to digital culture such as the ability for communication and the concept of mass user uploaded content (explained in De Certau’s piece on the conversation). To unleash the full potential of web 2.0 we need to re-evaluate some outdated laws and re-consider such topics as authorship and ownership. Also due to the availability of free entertainment and software we need to consider new ways of making money (as covered in my blog- through advertising and the increase of live events). I believe that the risk of entering the realm of web culture is a technological progression that promises to revolutionise the way we live from convenience in everyday life in technology we take for granted (such as satellite navigation or mp3) to technology that gives us capabilities that have never before been possible (look at www.chatroulette.com or www.facebook.com) . The future of web2.0 is in our hands, specifically in more developed countries, and we have to make somewhat of a trade off. It’s difficult to plan what the right action to take is because it is all moving very fast, users need to be careful that free sharing doesn’t provoke big business (that is losing money) to try to restrict the freedom of information. The fear however is that once we make this innovative utopia a reality, how do we make money? We are working towards this goal without actually knowing what’s going to happen once it is complete. The question that needs to be asked once we have assessed the risk would appear to be- is it worth it? The gamble is this-
The pot:
Ultimate freedom to share knowledge/information (from news to anything)/creativity/problem solving
The chance of a better, more convenient lifestyle
The possibility of technology far greater than we can currently imagine
The advancement/ evolution of the human race
The stake:
Privacy
Authorship
Industry
Commerce
Advertising
Government
Society?
The odds:
Unknown
Personally I have reached my own conclusion during my weeks of study of the digital environment in which we live. My conclusion begins with a question:
How would you feel about going backwards? Continuing on a route to eventual extinction in the same fashion in which we have done for thousands of years except knowing that we could have achieved so much more?
Such a question is ridiculous, and further more obsolete as I believe that the future of web2.0 has already been determined. It is determined by the human need for information and our capacity for enlightenment. And it is determined by the emphasis in schools on becoming tech savvy leading us into the next generation of a computer literate society. So ironically it is the human aspect of web2.0/our endeavours with it that secure its future and no one can stop the progress, not even Rupert Murdoch.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
rupert murdoch
Progress through the ages has always faced opposition columbus faced the waves, the wright brothers faced gravity and web 2.0 now faces Rupert Murdoch (or in his mind, web 2.0 stands in the way of his progress). For anyone who does'nt know this man heres a brief insight-
- Inherrits newspaper
- buys magazines, a record label, tv channels, publishing houses, airline, power
- sells media to the globe
- uses the media for propaganda
- Blurs the line between news and commentary
- becomes mortified by the world of free information that web 2.0 promises
- Decides that access to information should be restricted for the sake of his bank account
Friday, 20 November 2009
Digital is...
Currently we are living in an age where everything is being revolutionised by technology, from Google maps and street view to the digital cameras, MP3 players, satellite navigation programs and other convenient tools available right on your mobile phone. The internet has made it possible to converse with people on the other side of the globe as though they were in the same room with programs like Skype. It has formed new cultures in the way that we receive information from entertainment to current affairs, Take Youtube, hotmail, 4od etc. The availability of software, whether illegal or legitimate has enabled a large percent of this generation to have themselves heard in the sphere of pretty much anything and this has injected some interesting changes to modern culture in a way that has never before been possible. For example I could compose a piece of music on a bootleg copy of Fruity Loop’s or Logic and have it available on sites around the world in a day, the same goes for art. In theory this kind of publicity has enabled people to establish themselves around the globe and receive recognition for their talents but that depends on their audience if they even have one. Of course all of this is only the tip of the iceberg (as I right click to rectify an error using spell checker) this digital environment has changed life for many. I don’t leave home without my ipod packed with podcasts, a USB stick and until recently a pocket digital camera but that was made obsolete by the fact that my phone now has one. My phone like many others can also record sound, access the internet, record video, store contacts, play music, inform me about events and navigate its way around London; did I mention I can also call my mum with it? I have accounts with Google, Hotmail, Face book, Myspace and iTunes, I have numerous blog’s, with Blogspot, Blogger and Flickr and I am currently involved in a comment war on youtube about a difference of opinion on an amusing video. Meanwhile NASA has a robot on mars that at this very moment is taking ‘street view photographs available for viewing on Google Earths latest development; Google Mars. Honda are shelling out for the perfection of Asimo, the worlds eeriest robot and somewhere in a science lab someone is trying to figure out how to store hydrogen in metal- the step that will make fossil fuel as relevant to the future of automotive engineering as the horse drawn cart, although they will probably not succeed if Shell have anything to do with it.
So how do we define what digital is? Well you might be interested to know that the Mac dictionary has been so good as to provide us with this definition-
Digital |ˈdijitl|
Adjective
1 relating to or using signals or information represented by discrete values (digits) of a physical quantity, such as voltage or magnetic polarization, to represent arithmetic numbers or approximations to numbers from a continuum or logical expressions and variables : digital TV. Often contrasted with analogue.
• (of a clock or watch) showing the time by means of displayed digits rather than hands or a pointer.
This is a simplification of digital, perhaps how it was known, binary codes and pixels, an equation for the new technological world. This description fails to summarise the meaning of digital today, which to me is a largely un-mapped, ever changing universe of possibilities and the continued evolution of human kind.
I made a short animation that I had intended to show in class I don't think a lot of it but here it is (apologies in advance).
So how do we define what digital is? Well you might be interested to know that the Mac dictionary has been so good as to provide us with this definition-
Digital |ˈdijitl|
Adjective
1 relating to or using signals or information represented by discrete values (digits) of a physical quantity, such as voltage or magnetic polarization, to represent arithmetic numbers or approximations to numbers from a continuum or logical expressions and variables : digital TV. Often contrasted with analogue.
• (of a clock or watch) showing the time by means of displayed digits rather than hands or a pointer.
This is a simplification of digital, perhaps how it was known, binary codes and pixels, an equation for the new technological world. This description fails to summarise the meaning of digital today, which to me is a largely un-mapped, ever changing universe of possibilities and the continued evolution of human kind.
I made a short animation that I had intended to show in class I don't think a lot of it but here it is (apologies in advance).
Questions about the mannovich essay
The first part of the essay has lots of statistics about media use, can you add any personal experiences to support or contradict these facts?
Here are some of the statistics from manovich’s essay:
“According to 2007 statistics only between 0.5% - 1.5% users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, Youtube, Wikipedia) contributed their own content. Others remained users of the content produced by this 0.5 -1.5%. Does this mean that professionally produced content continues to dominate in terms of where people get their news and media?”
“In the middle of 2000’s, every track of a million or so available through itunes sold at least once a quarter. In other words every track, no matter how obscure found at least one listener.”
“In January 2008 Wikipedia was ranked as number 9 most visited web site, myspace was at number 6, facebook was at 5 and myspace was at 3.”
On the subject of users- “myspace: 300,000,000 users, cyworld, a Korean site similar to myspace: 90% of Koreans in their 20’s or 25% of the total population of South Korea. Hi4 a leading social media site in Central America: 100,000,000 users. Facebook : 14,00,000 photo uploads daily, The number of new video’s uploaded to youtube every 24 hours (as of July 06): 65,000.”
“In early 2007, 2.2 billion people have mobile phones, by the end of this year the number is expected to be 3 billion.”
“In the middle of 2007 Flickr contained approximately 600 million images. By early 2008 this number has already doubled.”
I believe these figures to be appropriate for this generation and I expect them to rise further in years to come as even more members of society become computer literate. By this I mean that these forums are as of yet a relatively new idea and the majority of users are in their 20’s where as when that same twenty something generation become older there is no doubt that they will still partake in usage of such forums as facebook/myspace/ Flickr or something similar. Because new members of this culture are constantly emerging; Personal relation to these statistics now seems trivial however with regards to the future of this medium it remains relative. Trivial because as I mentioned before in terms of age; the technology I am referring to is new and most of the territory we are entering, digitally, in terms of the future is unknown so deciding which of my own personal experiences with the web are relevant to these statistics is difficult. Furthermore I’m not sure that any one person’s experiences with these companies would be enough to derive a correlation between these statistics and support/contradict them. That being said, ironically, I feel as though my own experiences with these sites could theoretically support the figures.
So I answer the question like this- mannovich’s essay is written about a form of culture that is ever changing and it is because of this that these statistics are now out-dated (the scale of the statistics being greater with the passing of time).I don’t have the latest statistics for these sites but there are a few clues as to how well the companies are doing. For example now there is a notification on facebook that informs “friends” that a particular person has not recently had much activity on their page. This notification states “help make facebook better for...” and, if you have a friend in need, can be seen in the top right hand corner of the facebook dashboard where one can usually see updates such as friend requests or event organisations. This to me is a sign of facebook’s ever growing popularity, features such as this are designed to improve the service the site provides to its users and it is features like this that will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the number of members yet to join. My generation has seen a drastic change to digital culture- from primary school we were taught to use MS DOS mathematical games for Windows 95, at high school I.C.T. became compulsory where merit was given on one’s ability to use spreadsheets or databases and today that same generation is using augmented reality and spotify as tools of convenience. Not a day goes by where someone doesn’t mention facebook and although I don’t have much else to back up my support of these statistics, surely the fact that the companies mentioned (iTunes, Flikr, Facebook, Wikipedia, myspace) are now social phenomena is evidence. Surely the fact that this course, digital environments, is posing a question like this reflects enough of a transformation to the public to conclude that these statistics are more than a drop in the ocean.
Augmented reality is now available on iphone- If you haven’t seen augmented reality yet it’s worth a look
Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democratising of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big businesses?
This is the question that should be on the minds of every young creative at the moment, I say this because of the mass democratisation of media that I believe web 2.0 has definitely caused but I don’t think there has been a reversal between the strategies of business and the tactics of an individual. At this point there is no question that “interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centred design and collaboration on the World Wide Web” (Wikipedia’s definition of web 2.0) is all the rage. Take “It’s nice that” or one of my particular favourites “fecal face” both started as small time blogs that user generated interest and uploads made into decent businesses which seem to be generating quite a lot of interest. Mannovich also mentions something called AMV’s (anime music videos)- this manner of user editing is not uncommon in other realms, youtube is packed full of videos that have been spliced with audio and presented in a way that was not originally intended- take cassette boy or baptazia. I also think that the availability of software has aided users to perfect a project and then share with others through web 2.0 such as imovie and logic. This has effectively changed the way we consume media and inflicted some changes to fashions at this time. For example I would say that this new trend of experimental electronic music at this time is far from coincidence- here’s one I made earlier:
Not bad for a novice eh?
Does this then mean that media, from a commercial aspect is finished due to the tactics of individuals?
Do not fear- ‘Big business’ has always had its finger on the pulse of the ‘chic’ and is ready to snap up any young web designers that can help the users feel just like that. Don’t believe me? Well if you have ever been urged to “broadcast yourself” or been told that you’re in "a place for friends" then I’m afraid you have already been duped as these are not thoughtful new age gestures they are merely clever marketing slogans designed to make someone a lot of money. Although web 2.0 cultures could shake the media industry to its foundations it’s probably not going to because user generated content simply cannot compete with big business- illustrated here in mannovch's essay:
“According to 2007 statistics only between 0.5% - 1.5% users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, Youtube, and Wikipedia) contributed their own content. Others remained users of the content produced by this 0.5 -1.5%. Does this mean that professionally produced content continues to dominate in terms of where people get their news and media?”
Does the mappability of web 2.0 structures mean that De Certeau’s categories are now irrelevant however you answer the question above?
I don’t think that the categories have been superseded on the grounds that the main principles of "The practice of everyday life" are still true, particularly in the chapter "Walking in the city". In this chapter, I feel, De Certeau illustrates the way that big organisations change the world we live in and we as individuals must find our own personal way through it. He does this with an analogy that draws comparison between the strategy of government and a map of a city, the tactics of an individual and the route of a pedestrian. Web 2.0 structures are the map and the way they are utilized by the user (edited/customized/personalized) reflects the routes of the pedestrian. In a way web 2.0 mappability provides the canvas, it's up to the user what they do with it.
What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s life becomes as common as email’?
I believe that broadcasting will become more common as additional people become familiar with the idea of sharing information. In the case of an artist that is trying to get into the public eye it would be almost unheard of for them to do this today without at least making a blog or an online portfolio, it would be ungainly to not take advantage of such possible publicity. This is simply an essential part of culture now and broadcasting is a large proportion of this, especially in terms of communication. Video conferencing is now more efficient than ever before, Skype has taken us to the realm of science fiction (reminiscent of Kubrick’s- 2001 Space Odyssey) and produced science fact. Therefore there is no doubt that broadcasting at least in this manner will become as common as email.
science fact- Kubrick's videophones from 2001 a space oddessy
Manovich makes a lot of the ‘conversation’, although he also says that further analysis is required to understand if web 2.0 inspired conversations are ‘a genuinely new phenomenon’, do you have any anecdotal evidence of the interactive, ongoing nature of the ‘conversation’?
The 'conversation' is a great way to evaluate what users produce, criticism and discussion are essential to constrain the potential garbage that could be put out there (we have all seen some pointless YouTube video's- you know the one's). I’m not sure I have sufficient anecdotal evidence aside from afore mentioned dis-agreements on the content of certain YouTube videos but I feel I have found good evidence of the nature of the conversation here:
These are some of the comments for the cassette boy vs. Griffin video that I have linked on here
Text Comments (6,672) Options
hazydaze112 (49 minutes ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Daily fix of laughter, Brilliant. Nicks now reaching people through this than ever was possible before through the dirge of politics. Well done Cassetteboy, couldnt have done it better
Go for it Nick
Flowtight (1 hour ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Yeh the last part makes me laugh .. wicked & vicious, repulsive, misguilded twit!!! lol .. funy funny funny
pivotgodxd (1 hour ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
lol i remember that. What year r u in? I also liked the monty python 1. LOL I hope there is another assembly like that.
Clyde123Frog (1 hour ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
MUSLIM! We are English not Persian :D
ledus123 (2 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
He wants Uk to be out of Europe
and then Uk would lose a lot money
UKfightback (4 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Even if there are 280,000 Muslim nutters, there are still nearly a million pro-BNP nutters (as that's how many idiots voted for them) - so far as I'm concerned they can all spin
goateedswinger (6 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
*precautions......sorry, couldn't resist :)
Mounhas (7 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
The last 10 seconds get me laughing every time. Brilliant.
ujustgotpwned2008 (10 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Finally... Adolf Hitler.
Here we see varied opinions, some not even really related to the video which has provided a forum for discussion for users who felt the need to add comment. Later in the comments you see dialogue and responses to other posts- this leads onto video responses and so on. I think this is as good of a portrayal of the ongoing nature of the 'conversation' as any.
So, is art still possible after web 2.0? Manovich’s belief is that most content is being produced by ‘prosumers’, young professionals or professionals in training. Do you think this will expand?
Before I answer this question I would like to show you this:
This is an extract from john Berger’s Ways of Seeing, in this series Berger talks about the way that cameras and reproduction have changed the way we view art- either by manipulation through narrative or the way that the environment that the work is viewed in can no longer be controlled by its maker. This point is even more significant today with the arrival of the internet and web 2.0.
It seems to me that there are equal factors for and against the possibility of art surviving web 2.0 for example a great benefit of web 2.0 is that it has made all art transmittable and in turn more accessible for everyone, this has removed all of the mystification from works of art that was previously attached by critics and artists. It has enabled the user to make judgement on or be seduced by the work in their own environment, the problem with that is the environment could detract from the initial meaning of the work. So even though the work is more available we need to understand that it may not be as originally intended. Another factor is the demand for more objects. Museums and galleries all over are filling to the brim with artefacts and they aren’t getting rid of old stuff either- as a matter of fact 90% of objects submitted to galleries are in storage and last year the Tate stated that 70% of its collection has never been displayed. It is simply not possible to store every object produced by society and physically display it. The only thing that even matters about these objects is the paperwork that accompanies them as without the proper documentation and evaluations the items have no meaning and they would be nothing more than random objects in juxtaposition. In this respect broadcasting and web 2.0 could actually help art survive.
The problem is who will create art and the question of what is art will again be up for debate. Are we heading closer to Barthes’s theory on death of the author? (Roland Barthes- The death of the author). The reason for this is that now anyone can produce and broadcast art regardless of their background, degree or not and in the same way this has impacted current social culture it will probably have a similar effect on the art world. I don’t think the art world will be happy about that but I believe that it will survive even if only financially. The truth is that some fashions always come back around and even though web 2.0 will have a large consequence on art, for all we know that could be short lived and we could all go back to romanticism or Byzantine art or something. Personally I believe that art will live on but not as we know it.
Does the development of ‘mash-up’ software tools have implications for creativity, copyright and/or authorship?
I found this diagram explaining mash-up sofware
I think mash-up software is an interesting development, the idea of taking on/off line information and combining it with information from other sources can result in some rather useful applications. Also this is an example of software that can be used by both the producer and the consumer. As for creativity, copyright and authorship are concerned I’m not currently aware of any cases of problems but I’m sure there have been. However to improve on something it often needs to change and evolve this is the perfect method to make that happen. These hybrid programs may face professional difficultly at first but I believe that will change when mash-up software is seen for its full potential.
How do you respond to Manovich’s final statement, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’?
I entirely agree- constant innovation of this culture is the only way to unlock its true potential.
This is cassette boy, for me he really illustrates the way that editing clips and sharing through broadcasting is an art form into itself. Below is Baptazia, a video by Airloaf- another example of the way editing is used in online broadcasting.
Here are some of the statistics from manovich’s essay:
“According to 2007 statistics only between 0.5% - 1.5% users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, Youtube, Wikipedia) contributed their own content. Others remained users of the content produced by this 0.5 -1.5%. Does this mean that professionally produced content continues to dominate in terms of where people get their news and media?”
“In the middle of 2000’s, every track of a million or so available through itunes sold at least once a quarter. In other words every track, no matter how obscure found at least one listener.”
“In January 2008 Wikipedia was ranked as number 9 most visited web site, myspace was at number 6, facebook was at 5 and myspace was at 3.”
On the subject of users- “myspace: 300,000,000 users, cyworld, a Korean site similar to myspace: 90% of Koreans in their 20’s or 25% of the total population of South Korea. Hi4 a leading social media site in Central America: 100,000,000 users. Facebook : 14,00,000 photo uploads daily, The number of new video’s uploaded to youtube every 24 hours (as of July 06): 65,000.”
“In early 2007, 2.2 billion people have mobile phones, by the end of this year the number is expected to be 3 billion.”
“In the middle of 2007 Flickr contained approximately 600 million images. By early 2008 this number has already doubled.”
I believe these figures to be appropriate for this generation and I expect them to rise further in years to come as even more members of society become computer literate. By this I mean that these forums are as of yet a relatively new idea and the majority of users are in their 20’s where as when that same twenty something generation become older there is no doubt that they will still partake in usage of such forums as facebook/myspace/ Flickr or something similar. Because new members of this culture are constantly emerging; Personal relation to these statistics now seems trivial however with regards to the future of this medium it remains relative. Trivial because as I mentioned before in terms of age; the technology I am referring to is new and most of the territory we are entering, digitally, in terms of the future is unknown so deciding which of my own personal experiences with the web are relevant to these statistics is difficult. Furthermore I’m not sure that any one person’s experiences with these companies would be enough to derive a correlation between these statistics and support/contradict them. That being said, ironically, I feel as though my own experiences with these sites could theoretically support the figures.
So I answer the question like this- mannovich’s essay is written about a form of culture that is ever changing and it is because of this that these statistics are now out-dated (the scale of the statistics being greater with the passing of time).I don’t have the latest statistics for these sites but there are a few clues as to how well the companies are doing. For example now there is a notification on facebook that informs “friends” that a particular person has not recently had much activity on their page. This notification states “help make facebook better for...” and, if you have a friend in need, can be seen in the top right hand corner of the facebook dashboard where one can usually see updates such as friend requests or event organisations. This to me is a sign of facebook’s ever growing popularity, features such as this are designed to improve the service the site provides to its users and it is features like this that will undoubtedly have a positive impact on the number of members yet to join. My generation has seen a drastic change to digital culture- from primary school we were taught to use MS DOS mathematical games for Windows 95, at high school I.C.T. became compulsory where merit was given on one’s ability to use spreadsheets or databases and today that same generation is using augmented reality and spotify as tools of convenience. Not a day goes by where someone doesn’t mention facebook and although I don’t have much else to back up my support of these statistics, surely the fact that the companies mentioned (iTunes, Flikr, Facebook, Wikipedia, myspace) are now social phenomena is evidence. Surely the fact that this course, digital environments, is posing a question like this reflects enough of a transformation to the public to conclude that these statistics are more than a drop in the ocean.
Augmented reality is now available on iphone- If you haven’t seen augmented reality yet it’s worth a look
Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democratising of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big businesses?
This is the question that should be on the minds of every young creative at the moment, I say this because of the mass democratisation of media that I believe web 2.0 has definitely caused but I don’t think there has been a reversal between the strategies of business and the tactics of an individual. At this point there is no question that “interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centred design and collaboration on the World Wide Web” (Wikipedia’s definition of web 2.0) is all the rage. Take “It’s nice that” or one of my particular favourites “fecal face” both started as small time blogs that user generated interest and uploads made into decent businesses which seem to be generating quite a lot of interest. Mannovich also mentions something called AMV’s (anime music videos)- this manner of user editing is not uncommon in other realms, youtube is packed full of videos that have been spliced with audio and presented in a way that was not originally intended- take cassette boy or baptazia. I also think that the availability of software has aided users to perfect a project and then share with others through web 2.0 such as imovie and logic. This has effectively changed the way we consume media and inflicted some changes to fashions at this time. For example I would say that this new trend of experimental electronic music at this time is far from coincidence- here’s one I made earlier:
Not bad for a novice eh?
Does this then mean that media, from a commercial aspect is finished due to the tactics of individuals?
Do not fear- ‘Big business’ has always had its finger on the pulse of the ‘chic’ and is ready to snap up any young web designers that can help the users feel just like that. Don’t believe me? Well if you have ever been urged to “broadcast yourself” or been told that you’re in "a place for friends" then I’m afraid you have already been duped as these are not thoughtful new age gestures they are merely clever marketing slogans designed to make someone a lot of money. Although web 2.0 cultures could shake the media industry to its foundations it’s probably not going to because user generated content simply cannot compete with big business- illustrated here in mannovch's essay:
“According to 2007 statistics only between 0.5% - 1.5% users of most popular social media sites (Flickr, Youtube, and Wikipedia) contributed their own content. Others remained users of the content produced by this 0.5 -1.5%. Does this mean that professionally produced content continues to dominate in terms of where people get their news and media?”
Does the mappability of web 2.0 structures mean that De Certeau’s categories are now irrelevant however you answer the question above?
I don’t think that the categories have been superseded on the grounds that the main principles of "The practice of everyday life" are still true, particularly in the chapter "Walking in the city". In this chapter, I feel, De Certeau illustrates the way that big organisations change the world we live in and we as individuals must find our own personal way through it. He does this with an analogy that draws comparison between the strategy of government and a map of a city, the tactics of an individual and the route of a pedestrian. Web 2.0 structures are the map and the way they are utilized by the user (edited/customized/personalized) reflects the routes of the pedestrian. In a way web 2.0 mappability provides the canvas, it's up to the user what they do with it.
What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s life becomes as common as email’?
I believe that broadcasting will become more common as additional people become familiar with the idea of sharing information. In the case of an artist that is trying to get into the public eye it would be almost unheard of for them to do this today without at least making a blog or an online portfolio, it would be ungainly to not take advantage of such possible publicity. This is simply an essential part of culture now and broadcasting is a large proportion of this, especially in terms of communication. Video conferencing is now more efficient than ever before, Skype has taken us to the realm of science fiction (reminiscent of Kubrick’s- 2001 Space Odyssey) and produced science fact. Therefore there is no doubt that broadcasting at least in this manner will become as common as email.
science fact- Kubrick's videophones from 2001 a space oddessy
Manovich makes a lot of the ‘conversation’, although he also says that further analysis is required to understand if web 2.0 inspired conversations are ‘a genuinely new phenomenon’, do you have any anecdotal evidence of the interactive, ongoing nature of the ‘conversation’?
The 'conversation' is a great way to evaluate what users produce, criticism and discussion are essential to constrain the potential garbage that could be put out there (we have all seen some pointless YouTube video's- you know the one's). I’m not sure I have sufficient anecdotal evidence aside from afore mentioned dis-agreements on the content of certain YouTube videos but I feel I have found good evidence of the nature of the conversation here:
These are some of the comments for the cassette boy vs. Griffin video that I have linked on here
Text Comments (6,672) Options
hazydaze112 (49 minutes ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Daily fix of laughter, Brilliant. Nicks now reaching people through this than ever was possible before through the dirge of politics. Well done Cassetteboy, couldnt have done it better
Go for it Nick
Flowtight (1 hour ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Yeh the last part makes me laugh .. wicked & vicious, repulsive, misguilded twit!!! lol .. funy funny funny
pivotgodxd (1 hour ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
lol i remember that. What year r u in? I also liked the monty python 1. LOL I hope there is another assembly like that.
Clyde123Frog (1 hour ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
MUSLIM! We are English not Persian :D
ledus123 (2 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
He wants Uk to be out of Europe
and then Uk would lose a lot money
UKfightback (4 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Even if there are 280,000 Muslim nutters, there are still nearly a million pro-BNP nutters (as that's how many idiots voted for them) - so far as I'm concerned they can all spin
goateedswinger (6 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
*precautions......sorry, couldn't resist :)
Mounhas (7 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
The last 10 seconds get me laughing every time. Brilliant.
ujustgotpwned2008 (10 hours ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam
Finally... Adolf Hitler.
Here we see varied opinions, some not even really related to the video which has provided a forum for discussion for users who felt the need to add comment. Later in the comments you see dialogue and responses to other posts- this leads onto video responses and so on. I think this is as good of a portrayal of the ongoing nature of the 'conversation' as any.
So, is art still possible after web 2.0? Manovich’s belief is that most content is being produced by ‘prosumers’, young professionals or professionals in training. Do you think this will expand?
Before I answer this question I would like to show you this:
This is an extract from john Berger’s Ways of Seeing, in this series Berger talks about the way that cameras and reproduction have changed the way we view art- either by manipulation through narrative or the way that the environment that the work is viewed in can no longer be controlled by its maker. This point is even more significant today with the arrival of the internet and web 2.0.
It seems to me that there are equal factors for and against the possibility of art surviving web 2.0 for example a great benefit of web 2.0 is that it has made all art transmittable and in turn more accessible for everyone, this has removed all of the mystification from works of art that was previously attached by critics and artists. It has enabled the user to make judgement on or be seduced by the work in their own environment, the problem with that is the environment could detract from the initial meaning of the work. So even though the work is more available we need to understand that it may not be as originally intended. Another factor is the demand for more objects. Museums and galleries all over are filling to the brim with artefacts and they aren’t getting rid of old stuff either- as a matter of fact 90% of objects submitted to galleries are in storage and last year the Tate stated that 70% of its collection has never been displayed. It is simply not possible to store every object produced by society and physically display it. The only thing that even matters about these objects is the paperwork that accompanies them as without the proper documentation and evaluations the items have no meaning and they would be nothing more than random objects in juxtaposition. In this respect broadcasting and web 2.0 could actually help art survive.
The problem is who will create art and the question of what is art will again be up for debate. Are we heading closer to Barthes’s theory on death of the author? (Roland Barthes- The death of the author). The reason for this is that now anyone can produce and broadcast art regardless of their background, degree or not and in the same way this has impacted current social culture it will probably have a similar effect on the art world. I don’t think the art world will be happy about that but I believe that it will survive even if only financially. The truth is that some fashions always come back around and even though web 2.0 will have a large consequence on art, for all we know that could be short lived and we could all go back to romanticism or Byzantine art or something. Personally I believe that art will live on but not as we know it.
Does the development of ‘mash-up’ software tools have implications for creativity, copyright and/or authorship?
I found this diagram explaining mash-up sofware
I think mash-up software is an interesting development, the idea of taking on/off line information and combining it with information from other sources can result in some rather useful applications. Also this is an example of software that can be used by both the producer and the consumer. As for creativity, copyright and authorship are concerned I’m not currently aware of any cases of problems but I’m sure there have been. However to improve on something it often needs to change and evolve this is the perfect method to make that happen. These hybrid programs may face professional difficultly at first but I believe that will change when mash-up software is seen for its full potential.
How do you respond to Manovich’s final statement, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’?
I entirely agree- constant innovation of this culture is the only way to unlock its true potential.
This is cassette boy, for me he really illustrates the way that editing clips and sharing through broadcasting is an art form into itself. Below is Baptazia, a video by Airloaf- another example of the way editing is used in online broadcasting.
we think therefore we are
This video explains the various issues that are fundamental to web 2.0. Especially in the part where it says "we'll need to rethink a few things/copyright/authorship/identity/ethics/aesthetics/rhetorics/governance/privicy/comerse/love/family/ourselves." That just about covers every aspect of the way we are going to have to approach the new and scary world of web2.0. I enjoyed the fact that the maker had used web 2.0 programs to illustrate his message further that made his point quite clear. This is the sort of media that you would expect to see from someone who is pro web 2.0.
This represents the stage that we are at now, it’s difficult to plan what to do because it is all moving very fast, users need to be careful that free sharing doesn’t provoke big business (that is losing money) to try to restrict the freedom of information. The fear however is that once we make this innovative utopia a reality, how do we make money? We are working towards this goal without actually knowing whets going to happen once it is complete. The question that needs to be asked once we have assessed the risk would appear to be- is it worth it? The gamble is this-
The pot:
Ultimate freedom to share knowledge/information (from news to anything)/creativity/problem solving
The chance of a better, more convenient lifestyle
The possibility of technology far greater than we can currently imagine
The advancement/ evolution of the human race
The stake:
Privacy
Authorship
Industry
Commerce
Advertising
Government
Society?
The odds:
Unknown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
