Enter Title Here.

“Network literacy is not merely knowing about this, it is doing it. It is in this doing that we can understand that literacy is an applied knowing, or if you prefer a knowing through doing.… networked literacies are marked by your participation as a peer in these flows and networks — you contribute to them and in turn can share what others provide.”

“When people ask me if I went to film school I tell them, ‘no, I went to films.’”.
Quentin Tarrantino said this about his abilities as a filmmaker, and I feel it fits within the ideas given to us with our prompt. Let me elaborate.
Network literacy, and at its roots information literacy is described as an ever evolving force, with no single catalyst; a monster of its creation that is built upon by the millions of participants. You cannot simply learn about it, and become a historian of network literacy, you must be involved in it, be a part of it. To know, one must do (Miles, 2007).
Secondly, the second concept I took from the prompt, was that  network literacy is marked by your participation as a peer in these flows…”, and in conjunction with the first snippet of the prompt, I feel conveys to us that the knowledge we learn through doing, that was originally shared by others in the first place, is not something we can keep to ourselves. What is learnt by one must be shared with another in order to keep the ever evolving force evolving (Pegrum, 2010).
You contribute to what one person says, and then you share. Then another contributes, and similarly shares. It is in this that Network literacy is something that is not static, or canonical, as there are no rules binding those involved to a linear path. As you learn, you create other information to be learned. I take from this that there can never be one over-bearing fore-running of network literacy, because however much you know about something, there will be another who knows more about certain aspects.
Now I relate this back to Quentin Tarrantino because he was an active participant with the films in which he wished to learn from. He did not read up on others’ opinions and ideas on the films in which he saw, he went to see them, and by being involved in these films (by way of audience) he learnt from them. His knowledge was garnered by being involved, and then taking those facets of film that he loved so much. He contributed to them, in sharing the literacy of others and of himself (Bordwell, 2007). And from what he shared, would stem filmmakers paying homage to his works, (which in themselves were homage’s) but also building on them to create something new (Miles 2007).
In relation to Network Literacy and films, the two are the same in that something that was state-of-the-art 20 years ago is so less evolved than today’s standards, both on a technical and creative level, that people cannot believe that they had once lived in such a world. But without those times of growth in which everything was more simplistic (although during that time, anyone involved would have seen it as state of the art) we would not have the more advanced literature of today.
This statement refers more to Network literacy than film, as film had gone through its adolescents decades before, and had undertaken it’s ‘awkward’ stage and has now not evolved extensively, but more so been tweaked upon by the likes of Quentin Tarrantino. Network literacy on the other hand, as it refers to the abilities of those in relation to the knowledge and skills of a digital age, with the internet and the likes. The internet has only recently grown from adolescence and in to early adulthood (within the last 10 to 15 years) and we are currently in the age of great change and massive learning curves in terms of Network literacy. This means that while film has slowed down in terms of contributions making rapid change within that media, the opposite can be said for digital media; each contribution leads toward a wider breadth of change.

Classic media’s however do not remain unaffected by the rapidly expanding digital world. The prompt asked what the implications of the ideas brought about by Adrian Miles’ excerpt were, and how they would affect us. I always tend to drift toward film in some way whenever possible in an essay; it is what I want to do and what I find most interesting about the media world as a whole.
Now I say this, and refer it back to the opening statement of this paragraph, due to the fact that the digital world will inevitably affect the film landscape I one day hope to be a part of. We are now reaching a time where online marketing and advertising is by leaps and bounds taking precedence over other forms of marketing.
I cannot sit idly by, hoping to be involved with film, without understanding how being network literate, and having an understanding of digital mediums and their powers over traditional mediums.
Any film that shows massive returns at the box office, or garners critical acclaim is always prevalent in digital media. Viral campaigns, massive online marketing, or simple forums discussing possible directions a film could take are a vital part to marketing a movie nowadays. To be relevant within the world of cinema, one must be relevant online (Yong, 2006) .
Furthermore, to be within such a close degree to your audience, and be subjected to their approvals or disapproval’s of current films can assist film makers greatly, as long as they are network literate!
I take the example of Kevin Smith and his recently released ‘Tusk’.
Kevin Smith can be without a doubt considered network literate, his podcast and online identity creates closeness between himself and his audience (by doing this, it can increase a filmmakers status among his peers and audience). The idea of the film came about when he was discussing on his weekly podcast a listing on a rental property website offering free room and board, however the tenant, would have to on occasion, dress up as a walrus; the owner of the house having previously lived on an island with an actual walrus, and wanted to relive the companionship. Apparently.
Smith and his long-time friend and producer Scott Mosier discussed the article for a majority of the podcast, thinking up hypothetical story ideas, based upon on the listing. Smith noting early it sounds like something straight out of a Hammer Horror film.
The podcast gathered a lot of attention from listeners, with Smith putting it to his twitter followers whether or not the film shout actually be made; asking followers to tweet #WalrusYes if yes, and #WalrusNo, if no, with the majority of his followers agreeing that the film should be made (Smith 2013).

This is a perfect example of a filmmaker putting his online personality, and his network literacy to action, and gathering directly from his audience what they wanted.

The prompt asks, what do we mean when we currently say ‘media’? The ever increasing nature of the digital means that all medias are not singular, they are connected, or networked and intertwined with each other. You cannot be involved in only one medium without being involved in another. If you are making a movie, you’d better have a following on twitter to get the word out.
To be successful in the media, one must be a student of it. There will never be an end to what can be learnt.
One must know their audience and be connected to them, if you become disjointed from the digital world, you will become irrelevant, and as the digital age continues, and network literacy becomes more and more important, if one wants to be a future media maker, one must make sure to stay relevant, and remain network literate. It may not directly affect what media is made, but how it is marketed, or shown to an audience (Yong, 2006). Although there must always be allowances, you can’t seem to make a film these days without a hashtag for it in the previews so that people can tweet how #awesome it will be. Moreover, many tv shows now are released directly online, bypassing traditional mediums such as television and making them available immediately to those who are more network literate. It seems now that being network literate is not a skill that it once was, but something that should be expected of those living in 1^st world countries. If you aren’t online you are being left behind.

Being network literate is not something that is taught or learned. There is no ‘Network Literacy 101’ classes to be taken (although I’m sure there are people who have tried), to be truly up to date and in the loop in terms of being digitally literate, one must be actively involved and adjust to the changes that are made.
You don’t go to a school to learn about how the online world works, you go online.

Smith, Kevin (November 4, 2013). “Tusk starts shooting today!”. silentbobspeaks.com. Retrieved July 9, 2014.

Miles, Adrian. “Network Literacy: The New Path to Knowledge.” Screen Education Autumn.45 (2007): 24–30.