Wk 10 Lecture

This Lecture was in the reflection of the Long tail notion: 80% of anything is created by 20% of the creators. In the Lecture we used iTunes as a case study: the rule stating that 80% of songs downloaded from iTunes comes from 20% of the artists that can be found on iTunes. When we put the rule in regards of something solid like a supermarket then the other 80% of products don’t sell as much as the 20% which could be considered a loss, considering that food might go off and shelf space is limited. When we bring this to our online iTunes model shelf space is potentially unlimited, which gets rid of the previous concern and shelf space is therefore relatively cheaper than anything concrete, although not completely free, we are living in a capitalistic world after all. So what are the benefits of this and why is the rule important; even though the rule states that 80% of songs downloaded are from 20% of the artist the other 80% of the artists are still selling and making money for iTunes, the shelf space not costing them much at all they are actually making millions of dollars from this “long tail” of artists thanks to the limitlessness of the internet. . . interesting . . . very interesting

Wk 9 Lecture

The main idea that I picked up from this lecture was the importance of audience in a network and a key defining point of what a network is. There was a big connection to ecology at the beginning of the talk; which makes sense because if you think about it an ecosystem is a network. All that grade 4 science is finally paying off!

I love that definition because I now have something that I know about and understand to juxtapose with something like the internet. It is interesting because now I see things from a different angle and I now have a deeper understanding about what it is I should be understanding in this course . . . I think.

This point is specifically about humans, and it is to do with the defining point I mentioned earlier. There is no important point in a network. This is made easier to understand in the example of our ecosystem, it is all a balancing act and if one thing is gone then it changes the whole system completely, even to the stage that it might collapse if we’re not too careful. This is contrary to many human beliefs though because, as humans we believe we are the centre of our own universe, which in fact we’re not. Therefor as humans it is hard to understand and therefor create something that is in fact a network because we are so wrapped up about the centre of things that generally we can’t comprehend the thought that there doesn’t have to be a centre. This is where the difficulty lies. . . I think.

Wk 8 Lecture

Can something ever be neutral?

This discussion in this weeks lecture came up with examples of how nothing is neutral. Anything that people came up with always had a connection to one thing in way way or another. Well I guess it depends on what your definition of neutral is and what it is that is neutral from it. This discussion got me thinking . . .

I think that it is pointless for someone to find something neutral because if that someone can reference it in some way, it is not neutral. Does this mean that nothing is neutral though? No, as Socrates states – man knows nothing, a smart man knows he knows nothing. If something is completely neutral then we will never know of it because it is completely neutral, but just because we can’t or will never know at it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist . . .

once again though it depends on what context you are putting onto the word neutral. . . if it is in the context of existence then it can’t be neutral because it exists, but in other contexts it might be neutral. Lets take Switzerland in the war for example, they were neutral. Words mean what humans make them mean and by saying that Switzerland is neutral in terms of war efforts that is what neutral means in terms of war efforts. A party that doesn’t take either side and stays to themselves.

So, can specifically technologies be neutral? Can technology be an independent party that doesn’t take to anyone else’s side? Well no, not yet anyway, we could go into the whole artificial intelligence and everything but I digress. . . Technology is created by someone for someone, technology is a tool, to make a tool that doesn’t help anyone/anything is pointless and therefor not a tool.

Fairly philosophical post this week ^

Week 7 Lecture

We started off the lecture with the talk of semiotics and the connotations of context; and by ‘started off” I mean we spent half of the lecture talking about it. It all seems pretty straight forward – whenever we say something it has a context. This is pretty simple to understand in speech terms because we can sense a tone quite easily in a conversation, tones such as sarcasm when saying “I’m fine” – which changes the dictionary definition of the word. I suppose that it only makes sense then that there are contexts on other forms of communication. The author was a hot topic. The mainstream author normally has a specific story that he wants to tell and will put specific connotations that he understands, this however might be changed once the reader reads it with a different set of values and history etc., therefore the original context can’t survive, which is a very valid point.

Art has a personality of its own distant from the artist.

Wk 6 Lecture

In the hype of looking forward to the mid-semester break and handing in all the assignments my notes on the week 6 lecture aren’t as extensive as I hoped they would be now that i’m righting this, nevertheless I shall push on with a few key ideas that I was interested enough in to note down.

I believe the history of technology, or more why it came into being, was a topic up for discussion. The simple answer to why it came to being is that technology comes out of our(humans) desires which can derive from culture. So for instance the reason that we needed a telephone is because we needed a fast and easy way to communicate with connections that were too far to speak to normally – a very broad topic I know but you het the gist. Maybe a better idea is the toaster. We wanted to toast our bread but whenever we put it over the caveman fire it would always taste like whatever we were using to fuel the fire, wood, coal, kerosine etc, so in order to fix this problem we cam up with a technological solution: the toaster. Please don’t quote me on any historical facts as these are all hypothetical and almost definitely too simple.

One question that I can now recall from the lecture: is there art without technology. I forget which teacher said it but one said that they can’t think of an art that isn’t derived from technology, or something like that. An interesting point, but wrong. Art can exist without technology, at least in its most primitive form. And think thats the idea that we’re meant to be getting at. I don’t think technology has created who we are today, it has just increased our ability to do so. Lets use an example: history lesson! The Iliad and the Odyssey are epic poems that were created by homer (none knows if homer is a person or many people, not a lot is known about him personally but I digress). These epic poems, which if you have read them you realise how big they actually are were not recorded in stone or paper as you might think, but memorised by story tellers. I would argue that no technology is used in this instance to produce a form of art. These storytellers would go from town to town reciting these poems as art and lessons, using nothing but their memory and their voice. As these stories grew more popular and more people wanted to learn them then it became necessary to introduce technology in order to meet that cultural need. I believe that Technologies are the stepping stones for art, something that art can use to grow greater, I think that it would be naive to say that technology creates art.

A little off topic but I feel strongly for that sort of thing.

One last idea to finish off. There was a lot of talk about Ted Nelson, the man who coined the term hypertext. The main point is that the internet as we see it today is not his ideal hypertext situation. It seems that his notions were more communistic in the sense that we all know how to create hypertext and we all have our own servers and what not. An interesting theory but in a world dominated by capitalist societies it was always going to be hard to realise such a dream.

Wk 5 Lecture

As I mentioned last week I wasn’t too happy that the last of the questions didn’t get answered but we were able to pick that question back up in the beginning of this weeks lecture. Should Network Literacy be focused on in early education? There were a few differing on this. Yes, it can be taught formally, but we’d have to change the whole structure of primary school learning and the way teachers teach. There are some schools that have looked into this already and are doing well in this changed method. The idea that primary school are scared of the mass that is the internet was also bounced around. The last point i wish to mention is the idea that Network teaches its own literacy, so does it need to be taught or is it one of those social laws that will inevitably be learnt, one way or the other.

The questions this week were about the internet, hypertext and consequences of not being network literate. To answer the first question: how is hypertext relevant to us as media practitioners? The immediate response was ‘how is it not’. Less then helpful but also putting forward a strong point. After more discussion it is relevant because it is the way most things, if not all things work within.

What predictions about network should we be aware of in the future? Well, that your weight scales will soon be able to talk to your phone and your fridge will count calories in it through the internet and tell you about it in your microwave. A little extravagant for the next step but it could be happening, you never know.

What are the consequences of being network illiterate? We get used. That is short answer, the example of Facebook came up. The general public use this to put up information about yourself and talk and find new things and we get paid nothing, yet the owners of Facebook are getting money through advertising because we are doing the ground work. Interesting. but really, what would we do without Facebook? . . . well we’d probably find some other way to share what we are eating and what we think of that person in front of you on the train.

Wk 4 Lecture

This weeks lecture were answering a few questions about the internet. The one that was explored into most detail was: how can we trust the validity of the internet.  In the weeks readings it was suggested that the internet is a lot easier to put up information and a lot easier for a lot more people to get things published. The point was raised that because it is easy for so many people to publish things to the public on the internet how can we trust it as we’ve come to trust books as a source of credible information, books having to go through various critical stages before it is released to the public.

The answer that came from a rather lengthy discussions and anecdotes in the lecture is it all comes down to common sense (much like the discussion in last weeks lecture about ideas surrounding copyright laws and defamation on the internet).

It has become a social norm to be on the internet for us and as such there are certain signs that you look out for, just as you would in real life, in order to judge a situation. Just as you would be sceptical of a man in an unmarked van handing out lollies you would also be sceptical of the odds that you really are the 999,999,999th visitor to that website . . . for the third time, or that you won the Tattslotto . . . in Nigeria. Obviously some things are harder to spot then others but as you live you learn and this is no different.

Common sense people!

 

Wk 3 Lecture

What are the legal restraints of the internet. This is a very blurred line as far I can tell, or more, the lines are clear cut but the engagement of them are blurred.

One of the things mentioned in the lecture was whether you can use things for your own material such as songs and what not, also the mention of ‘covering’ a song on youtube; is this a breach in copyright ? The short answer is YES! Anything that you use in a public space that was not directly created by you is a breach of copyright. Here is where it gets tricky: even though it is technically a breach in copyright you will not get prosecuted for it until the original creator decides to act upon it.

So why haven’t all the covers of songs been taken down from youtube, there are a few reasons. First being it is free advertisement for the artist, their song has gotten another thousand or so views on youtube without them having to do anything. The next was mentioned; it gives the artist a bad name, and this is also counterproductive in that sort of industry being known as a ‘sour grape’ for taking down the 13 yr olds cover of your song because she doesn’t have the right pitch in the second verse, hypothetically. The last of which being that it is not worth going through all the lawyers and everything to sue the person who did the cover because of the sheer amount of money that you would need to pursue that course of action.

One last thing I’ll mention about the lecture was the idea of defamation. If you are saying something mean about someone without conclusive evidence and go about it in the correct way you should’t be saying it. The internet is just another society and as such there are certain societal laws that you you need to stick by.

In Summary: Anything you use that isn’t yours is copyright but is not incriminating until the holder of the copyright decides to act upon it and play nice on the playground of the internet kids!

Wk 2 Lecture

This weeks lecture had a interesting philosophical deconstruction of stories and uses of media. The main idea is that a story only has a beginning, middle and end because the technology of the particular media is confining it.

The Book was the main example: a book has pages in it with writing on these pages that tells a story, because of the technology (ink on paper) the book must have a first page and a last page, this means that the story written on the pages must have a beginning and an end.

This, however, is not the case for the internet as a technology. In this weeks lecture we were encouraged to disregard our preconcieved ideas of what something is and understand that those boundaries are not to do with the media, but the technologies used to convey that media.

Quote of the day: “Materiality of the technology we use does matter” –  Adrian Miles