Ununlecture

I’m not gonna lie, I wasn’t there, but that doesn’t mean I can’t talk about what was discussed.

That said, I’m considering going back because I actually feel like I missed out. Well, I feel this way after missing any lecture – I try to go to every single one – so don’t get big-headed or anything.

Anyway, apparently the death of books was brought up, as is natural when talking about the development of technology and the rise of the internet. Print is already obsolete, and yeah, that’s sad. Everyone likes books. But we have to accept this.

Admittedly, evidence shows that reading words off paper is easier than reading them off screens. Why is this? I don’t know. I don’t care. I don’t read much. All I know is that, as long as the option to have words on paper over screens is given to us, I’m happy. Lately I’ve been printing all my readings for all my subjects so that I can turn pages and highlight and stuff, but I don’t have any kind of deep, philosophical reason for doing this. I don’t care about the smell, for example, but I just find it easier. Perhaps this goes back to the apparent ease of reading off paper instead.

On a ever-so-slightly related note, I’ve heard stories of Adrian Miles tearing a book in half in a lecture once upon a time. If you’re going to do that can you give me a heads up? I’d attend that lecture. Might have to wait until Integrated Media though.

If I do it.

Now what was this about the ‘novel’? From what I could gather from Adrian’s blog post, a ‘novel’ is a pretentious ‘book’. It’s a narrative, is a better way of describing it. In book form. Pound print with a definitive story. Which is pretty much any book that isn’t for reference. ‘Novel’. He describes the novel as an assemblage of its parts and all the contexts and histories of these parts’ developments and inventions. Wow, that was a horrid sentence but I’m not fixing it. It’s bizarre how much this subject matches up with Communication Histories and Technologies, since last week we focused on the development of the printing press and how that was, itself, a conglomeration of other technologies. Weird. Still, I have to wonder how commenting on the slow social evolution of the novel is relevant to the ‘Network’. We could look at the evolution of the desk chair in a similar fashion. Yes, the network is more likely to threaten the prevalence of a novel than that of a desk chair, but we aren’t talking so much about the relationship between the novel and the network, rather how society is slowly leaving the novel behind as more and more efficient forms of narrative and information-keeping are developed. What if we develop more efficient forms of office furniture? Yeah, ok, not the best example.

But a book will become obsolete, there’s little doubt about that, but whether it will vanish is doubtful. It might, in a few decades, but for now it’s still going somewhat strong. People love books, and there will be a market for them for a long time, even if, like records, only hipsters and rich collectors get them. That said, records are being produced. Dance music and Hip Hop often comes out in CD, digital and vinyl forms, since DJs are likely to use the records when they perform. As time goes on this will likely be replaced by computer programs and synthesisers, but for the time people the record has found a market and is holding onto it, and it’s a market that CDs can’t take from it. CDs, on the other hand, are more likely to see their doom. What practical use is a CD, really, when we have all the data we need flying at lightning speeds through optical cables and ethernet ports? You can’t make that cool vinyl scratching sound on a CD. You can use it as a coaster, I guess, but you could also use a coaster. There is nothing that a CD brings to the table that a vinyl record and a digital file can’t provide, other than being a physical form that we can call our own – and really that’s a record too. So, by the logical of practicality, perhaps we as a society should abandon the CD and go back to LPs. Also, that would just be amazing.

Back to the book, since that idea of practicality does add something to this debate. There are definitely things that an ebook provides that a book doesn’t, and yes you can highlight them (kinda), you can save your spot, you can translate it, you can even get some programs to read them to you, but a book is – simply put and proven by research – to be easier to read. And, isn’t that what really matters? If this is a device for reading, then surely we should choose the one that makes that task the easiest?

Ok, ok, it’s more complicated than that. Books are more expensive than their digital counterparts. Why should we pay more for a slightly more convenient experience? I mean, books are heavy. Books are fragile. With a kindle or an iPad one can carry a library of books on trains and bikes and up stairs and all that stuff. In normal situations, a real, book-filled library is difficult to carry anywhere. Books are expensive. With eBooks you pay for the data, the graphic designers, editors, authors, marketing, incidental fees, but with normal books you pay for that PLUS (instead of data) paper, ink, binding and delivery. And all that stuff would come to cost more than anything that goes into the production of an eBook, and money is always a good reason to change our ways.

But we aren’t all going over to the digital written narrative. Everyone loves a book, probably more so than they appreciate an eBook. A book is our own, it’s there. If we need it, we can hold it. It’s like a pet, I mean, I doubt Neopets are gonna replace our cats and dogs anytime soon. I don’t think Farmville is gonna make people want to stop gardening, in fact it would probably make them want to garden more. I can’t speak for everyone, but if I read something great on a device, I go out and buy a physical copy so I can read it again proper. Likewise, when I (COUGH COUGH) digitally acquire a film or TV show, if I like it I will buy the DVDs or Blu-rays. There is something about watching or reading a malleable, touchable, physical copy that makes it more real. A book or a DVD isn’t erased by clicking ‘delete’. It’s there, it’s in a book shelf. It can be hidden, it can be destroyed, and destroying it is a fun process. Hell, simply watching/reading it is really just a slow path to destruction for books and DVDs, but that’s part of the fun as well. And I like destroying.

Move to Think

So, maybe I should have done dance? Well, I did other sports so that probably doesn’t matter. Regardless, the story of the ballet dancer in our YouTube-videos-slash-lecture fascinated me. I wonder if there is some context in which I’m higher functioning, hopefully that doesn’t involve mushrooms (but I’m open to try anything).

As with the lectures themselves, these videos were mostly about how normal pedagogy fails to engage with its students, and I’m getting pretty tired of this topic. At least the Web 2.0 video talked about something different; hypertext. Um… Well, ok. ‘Revolutionary’ educational techniques and hypertext. Is there nothing else to this subject?

I’m deathly serious here.

Ok, one aspect – or rather, word – in video three interested me; anthropology. Anthropology was actually my first real hobby, not even joking. I’m no expert – I was more of a biological anthropologist – but the cultural side really intrigued me. I hadn’t really considered looking at the Internet age in terms of social evolution on an offline level. Of course, the readings have all gone on about how the Internet changed the world and will further change it, but rarely, if ever, do they mention how it will affect humanity.

People are becoming simultaneously interpersonal and interpersonal. The middle video raised the point of how media has mass-reaching potential, which, you know… Duh. But anyway, it means that we no longer have to leave our homes or even our beds to seek out new knowledge and experiences. ‘It takes a village’, yes, but now that village can be cyber. It doesn’t even have to be people anymore. Self-help sites, robotic GPs, YouTube, children today are raised by their parents and the Internet. My three-year old nephew can use an iPhone.

That’s scary. I’m frightened by this.

But, it does get people – kids – to learn formative lessons in their own way. At that age we don’t surf the web unless we are enjoying it, and unless we are on Facebook chatting with our friends (side note, my SIX MONTH old nephew has a Facebook account) we are learning things. Doesn’t matter if we’re learning something academic like maths or grammar, or whether we are studying something cultural like our favourite TV show or the history of Czechoslovakia, we are engaging in self-motivated education. For children, this makes the Internet a surrogate parent/teacher. All it lacks is love, though really, if you search hard enough you can find love on the Internet.

But what the Internet allows us to do is learn in ways WE want to. These days, as – what I have decided I am within the last few hours – a kinesthetic learner, I can pace around my room, with my iPad, learning. Hell, I could do a cartwheel while listening to a podcast. Extreme learning! It’s possible today!

SYMPOSIUM

So, I’m bored.

This is because the symposium format is flawed. Our four lecturers are too formal, too pleasant, too awkward. They need to hate each other. Disagree on something, anything.

For now, I don’t want to come anymore. I’m still bitter about all this stuff, I still have issues with the format and the delivery, and I don’t want to come anymore. I don’t want to come anymore.

I get bored, and I learn nothing. They teach nothing. We discuss airy-fairy crap about the word ‘network’ and Adrian tells us the way it’s going to be, before yelling at us for assuming things about the future. It’s my mid-subject crisis, and it’s only week four. I can’t sit here and get more and more irritated for an hour each week for the next few months, unless you give me some fantastic argument as to why I should.

I thought I’d give a ‘symposium’ a try, but it’s one guy. The lecture was that one guy, and so was this. Unfortunately, I have issues – petty ones, mind you, but issues nonetheless – with that one guy, and I find him detrimental to my educational experience.

So, if you want me there – and it’s cool if you don’t – convince me to come. Please, try.

Thank You For Preserving

Unlecture numero tres. How do I feel? Anxious, again. Thanks, Adrian, I really wanted to have my question addressed personally in the lecture, separately from everyone else. I’m glad you didn’t point me out because I was pretty freaked.

That said, did you answer it? I kinda zoned out a little, but I have this feeling that y0u just insulted my inference rather than actually tackling the problem. The content is irrelevant, you didn’t argue with that. You just implied that I assumed university was a ‘merchantile’ transaction, which I kind of do, considering I’m paying for it. And yes, I do plan to give back to you and the university for their time and effort that they spend on me. It’s called money, you see.

I am a stubborn git, so no matter how well you argued your case I am gonna stand by my complaint.

‘University is a privilege.’ I concur. Doesn’t mean I should attend pointless lectures. Get to the ‘symposium’, people, because at the moment these are just normal lectures where we don’t learn anything. Where there is nothing to teach. Everything is a privilege which can be taken away from us at any moment. Our lives are privileges, so why should I waste mine in a lecture theatre, in this subject or any other? As you can probably tell I’m fairly irritated right now. It’s better than how I was yesterday.

We have a ‘reciprocal obligation’ to the university, meaning we get what we give. As I said, I pay. Or, I will pay, once I get a successful-enough job (if that ever occurs). How else should I give back to the university?

I’m gonna just stop right now.

Unlectures

This week (30/7/13) we attended the second unlecture of 2013. It was… fun?

I am a horribly negative person.

It was a nifty idea to spend the time answering questions we had rather than ones that the lecturer assumed we had, but I couldn’t help but notice that my question wasn’t answered.

I am a self-centred person.

My question – and I admit it wasn’t phrased well – was ‘Why should we attend the unlecture if the content is completely irrelevant’ or something to that effect. You see, I had been trying to put my thoughts into words when the lady-tutor came around looking for our questions, so I had to quickly write down a brief version of my thoughts and hope that it was close to my original intent.

I am an unorganised person.

Mr. Miles seems to imply that the way that the lectures are run is completely malleable in that it will change according to what we, as students, desire, and what he believes will best benefit us. This is intriguing as it doesn’t really represent a curriculum very well. They clearly don’t have anything particularly concrete to teach us, because they’ve basically said ‘let’s have a lecture where we do jack-all and mess with conventional teaching by not actually teaching things’. No offence. Ok, so we are learning about other methods of pedagogy – or rather, andragogy – but how is that going to help media kids? Or prof comm kids? Why do we have to come to these lectures, what is their purpose? I get that you are demonstrating the nature of the subject matter – the ever-evolving online world – but it’s a little bit meta-referential and I don’t like taking one concept of the subject and using it to dictate the way it is taught.

I am a confused person.

My plan is to attend every ‘unlecture’. Admittedly, they are the least boring lectures I have, which is perhaps the goal, but I don’t overly enjoy them. I’m not great at change, so when someone chucks something old and normal at me in a weird, original way I am liable to have a full on anxiety attack. I fled the first lecture the second Mr. Miles said it wasn’t rude anymore.

I am an antsy person.

So, do they have anything to tell us in the ‘unlectures’? Is it relevant to anything we are likely to do outside of university? Is it really that different from a normal lecture, except that computers aren’t allowed, they don’t try to actually teach us anything concrete and that we keep being told it isn’t a normal lecture? I said I’ll always be there, and I made an oath not to give up with warning, but… why?

I am a tired person.