Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Class Today...

...was thoroughly depressing for me. As I mentioned in class, I am a media and society student. I have always found mass media interesting, and I thought that a career in mass advertising or marketing might be something that I could see myself doing for a career. However, lately (after taking several classes on the subject) I've become a bit more tentative and suspicious of marketing tactics. Today's class was just the icing on the cake.

As I mentioned in class today, corporations in America can be broken down into 6 major players. Here's a link that you can look at as a resources.

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main

Anyone who has taken a course on mass media is familiar with what I am talking about: basically ownership of virtually every well-known media corporation (barring Google and Facebook, who are rapidly becoming their own entities) can be traced back to 6 major players in media. In turn, these corporations have partnerships with other, smaller corporations via advertising deals and the like.

The movement.org study and today's class shows that the US government is actively using youth movements and a genuine interest in activism in order to garner involvement in maintaining the status quo. These corporations attract the use and divert their attention towards issues that are proving problematic to both the state department and US companies. For example, anti-American sentiments in the Middle-East, and a lack of product saturation in those countries. As Frank said in class today, a facebook group in Palestine was shut down by facebook after a request from an Israeli official (aka American puppet).

It's just sickening, absolutely sickening. Another thing that I mentioned in class was corporate tax evasion and the hypocrisy that it represents. By evading taxes last year, US corporations cost the government 100 Billion dollars. Here are some examples of the biggest criminals

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/economy/the-top-7-corporate-tax-evaders.html

This vast amount of money could be used to fund public services that are being cut in the United States, but it seems that the government would rather maintain a partnership with corporations and push it's cultural hegemony abroad that help out it's own citizens. The whole system is corrupt and it really depresses me that we are allowing all of it to go unnoticed. Had I not taken this class, I doubt I would have even become aware of the problems inherent in these sort of corporate activism schemes.


Thursday, March 24, 2011

We've Been Had.

We are confused.

Anyway, it's 12:06 and we're discussing Chapter 6. Commercial enterprise is convincing people that they need to be prepared for the imminence of a terrorist attack. Blogging in real time is really hard.

Pretty much, in my own words, I think that chapter 6 is about how people are being fed fear in order to promote a capitalist agenda. People are being "protected" by the goods sold by the perpetrators of this culture of fear. People are afraid of the world, and as such they gate themselves in and adhere to ridiculous rules because they think it protects them. There is voluntary gentrification of spaces in order to protect ourselves. Tim is a pretty smart dude.

Members of fringe society are pushed out by the desires of whitebread, scared, wealthy people. (Times Square)

In Chapter 7,

Politicians use a culture of fear in order to better control the masses. In the 1970s, there was almost equal unrest, yet it seems that people did not rely on the state to implement technology among the population in order to protect them. Less rights=more protection? Apparently! If politicians have access to the databases that marketing firms collect, they have almost limitless knowledge of the population, allowing for easier control. Elections are tailored to the individual desires of voters, creating little bonds to the actual beliefs of the politicians.

A lot of this chapter touches on what we were talking about last class: people don't actually know what they want.

Politics is like a game of chess in which the politician (and the advisors) make calculated moves based on their opponents (the voters) predispositions.

How does the data we transmit onto facebook have application to other people? (Beyond our direct network of friends)

12:20...discussion is winding down...what else should we talk about?

There are more members of Al Quadea now then there are following 9-11!

Do terrorists use modern technology better than terrorists?
Brian seems to think so, argues that they use it for more flexible uses. Technology can be used for a variety of different uses, we use it in one way, they use it for a different reason.

12:23....we're out of here.

iSpy Chapter 6

The theory presented by Andrejevic in this chapter is really intriguing. To me, it hearkens back to the Red Scare of the 1950s. When presented with an outside, intangible thread (like both communism and terrorism), it seems that Americans tend to pull out their knives in order to guard themselves from their own neighbors. In the 1950s, this manifested itself through MacCarthyism, but now, perhaps because of technology, the focus has shifted. Now, we are asked to "report any suspicious looking luggage" and to "not leave our bags unattended" as if there was a cell of terrorists in the Albany "International" airport that were tasked with planting bombs in our backpacks. We have been trained to be suspicious of everyone, because since our 'enemy' is faceless, it could be anyone.

"Individualized Warfare" seems like a problematic phenomenon. As we have seen both in Vietnam and Afganistan, guns and explosives are surprisingly ineffective against ideologies. The mass use of force tends to inflict more harm against the superpower than it does against the ideology. Our enemy is not a person, it is a thought.

Monday, March 21, 2011

iSpy Chapter 1 and 2: More Alarmist ranting.

Now that I have your attention,

Andrejevic raises some good points in his introduction and first "real" chapter. Namely, that the information we input on the information about ourselves generates valuable data for marketing firms. We, however, cannot access this information, because it "belongs" to the websites on which it was inputed. He calls this the "Digital enclosure".

Adrejevic states that people seem to perceive interactivity of purchasing and online activity as some sort of Duex ex Machina, a solution to all sort of miscommunication between consumer and producer. However, this belief is flawed, and the false gods that we have come to worship are not looking out for our own well being.

Many of Andrejevic's initial points have been touched on by the other readings in class. Thus his arguments are a little predictable, albeit interesting. However, I had a problem with one of his arguments concerning "iCulture". On page 30, he states that with the advent of mashups, "music fans are no longer limited to being passive audiences that merely listen to the music created by their favorite artists". Um...what? Adrejevic acts as if there was some impenetrable iron curtain that surrounded music prior to the mashup phenomenon. Music has always been accessible, it just required leaving your computer seat and messing around on the guitar/piano/sitar or whatever you played. Now I know this is a minor point in the over all context of his book, but that small quote pissed me off, and I'm pretty sure that's what blogging is about: taking little things out of context, making a big deal out of them and being pissed off.

Saturday, March 12, 2011

What Lanier Would Say About Glee


So after gaining a greater understanding of Lanier's mantra, I have done my own theorizing about the direction that art is going in modern culture. A main concern that Lanier has is the recycling and decontextualization of artwork, in particular music. He asserts that the trend towards the reuse of old styles and the direct reprocessing of old songs is halting artistic innovation.

First off, Glee is bullshit. (Now that I got that out of the way I can conduct a logical and intelligent argument...)

I feel as if Lanier's criticisms could be directly applied to the show Glee. The whole concept of the show is the reuse of popular songs. Unlike American Bandstand, Soul Train or any similar show, Glee does not feature artists playing their own work. Rather, it highlights a group of a cappella singers who pirate the art of other people. Like Lanier said, the original pieces of work are taken out of context and rendered meaningless. However, Glee takes the process one step further: after erasing the context from the original song, the show creates it's own context. By doing this, it not only pirates the art, but uses it for it's own, shallow meaning. There is no creation of work in Glee, only the hijacking of established artwork, with a superficial plot line to related the songs.

Like Across the Universe, the shows success is based on the reuse of recognized artwork.

Glee is bullshit.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Just about done with the midterm

and this is what I have, take a look.


1-Cybernetic totalism is, in short, the belief that computers will one day surpass human beings in intelligence. This dogma comes with it an array of other conceptual beliefs, namely that all human intricacies can be replicated and carried out by a string of equations. This belief holds true the certainty that like humans, computers will become the dominant force on the face of the planet. Another facet of cybernetic totalism is the belief that one day, the “cloud” of information (the sum of all information on the internet) will eventually be able to replicate and surpass human thought. Lainer is against this belief, and although his argument can be hard to decipher, it is strong. One of his points is that with all of the society all and idolatry of technology, we seem to forget that humans are the guiding hand behind the growth of computers. Without us, computers, the internet and all other sorts of interactional media formats are useless. Human beings are the driving force behind the advancement of computers. Another one of Lainer's criticism is that a machine has no sense of “self”, and lacks the intrinsically human idea of “creativity”.


2- The idea of a “lock in” is pretty simple to understand. It is originally a programming term, but it can be applied to subjects outside of that field as well. In programming, a lock-in is when a specific algorithm or file type is used for the creation of a bigger program. The specific algorithm, although fulfilling it's duty, eventually becomes outdated, and more efficient algorithms are discovered. However, by this point in time, the initial algorithm is used so many times, across many different programs and uses, that replacing it is nearly impossible. Thus, the initial, now inefficient algorithm is “locked in”. When applying this term to society, a “lock-in” can be any sort of fundamental belief that is expanded upon, and eventually becomes engrained in the national psyche. Although this ethos may not be the most efficient, it had a use at some point in time.


3- Lainer is firm in his belief that flat information networks are eroding creativity. First off, he defines flat information networks as the medium (or lack thereof) that allows people to share data and files over the internet. Such data can include music, movies and sometimes books. Lainer does not believe that sharing music is stealing per say. In order to steal, one would need to remove the original piece and deny it to others. However, this is not the case in the current file-sharing problem. In file sharing, copies are made of the original and distributed to others. Lainer says that the act of flooding the market with art devalues the original to the point of worthlessness. For example, if the original Mona Lisa was copied hundreds of times in a way that you could not tell the original from the copy, the original would lose it's value. If you apply the same principle to the art that is being copied today, it is easy to see how artwork is losing value. Because of this, artists are less willing to put creative effort into producing new works. Why work on art if you cannot even make a living off of it? Also, Lainer asserts that the current atmosphere in the music world idolizes big acts but pays little attention to amateurs. This, combined with the devaluation of art, provides for an environment not exactly hospitable to creativity.


4- Free choice absolutely results in the rise of “stars”. In the case of the internet and digital networks, this phenomenon can best be described using power laws. When applying it to digital networks, a power law states that the more frequently something appears on the internet, the more hits it will get. Popularity of a website exponentially grows. Because of this, “popularity” on the internet is focused to a few, large sites. It is extremely difficult for smaller websites to get noticed and become popular. We find that on the internet, as well as in music and with books, there are a few big hits, and a large number of websites/songs/books that never even get recognized. We see that “free-choice” isn't really all that free, and that due to power laws, we are herded towards specific big players on the internet.


5- The lifestyle of the late 80s “Californian” mindset is an oft-referenced and criticized state of mind. The story has been heard before: socially awkward math geniuses utilize their skills to create a highly useful and popular website/computer/useless trinket. These inventors are lauded and become immensely wealthy. However, the success they have found came with an ideological price. While they were once on the wrong side of society, they now find themselves smack dab in the middle of it, often playing the role of “the man”. The criticisms of this mindset are many. For one, the people who made all of these technological innovations often did it to escape the inequality of the “real world”. The internet was dreamed as a value-free area where data and knowledge could be exchanged for free, increasing and bettering it's users. However, what we see today is a perversion of that original ideal. The internet is used as a place to escape reality, procrastinate and live out our taboo sexual fetishes. However, instead of renouncing this use of the internet, it's creators and caretakers have embraced it, profiting from this “misuse”. The inequalities that the pioneers of the 80s sought to escape have become a part of the production of technology. Take for example the recent unearthing of the Apple factory worker suicides in China.


6- Terranova envisions “the mass” as a group of consumers being dictated by a group of oligarchical business lords. This mass is mindless and can be easily persuaded by the powers at be. The mass can situate themselves around any sort of symbol, be it a holiday, consumer good or any other sort of spectacle. This definition of the mass is integral to modern network culture. Social media relies on the mass to work; without a “mass”, social media is useless. It is the users of these sites that provide them with content. Terranova uses the mass as a basis on which to re-examine the basis of political discourse and political arenas. Because of the mass' obsession with symbols and phenomenon, it has become increasingly apparent that voters will be swept up in the hysteria that is national elections. Voters are more likely to be swayed by what they perceive to be the most popular candidate, rather than the sum of their political beliefs.


7- Terranova makes a point to highlight the difference between “noise” and “information”. According to Terranova, noise is all of the information that gets in the way of what we really want to know, where as information is the core of knowledge that we seek to obtain. One way of thinking of noise is as static on a radio station and information as the actual radio program being transmitted. A modern example that I thought of is the recent Julian Assange scandal.


8- The architecture of the internet is set up in a way that it promotes differentiation and divergence. The internet is set up in networks, with each network occupying a specific interest-zone. As the internet increases, more data is being added, and people interests become more specific. A person who is only interested in humor can find a site on the internet that is catered exactly to his or her interests. This happens across all lines of interest on the internet, with websites tailoring their pages to appeal to a specific group of people. The end result are thousands of websites that are specific to a certain group of people. To combat this, the internet has adopted an open architecture. The open architecture of the internet allows for the communication of messages across separate networks. However, these networks can still appear to be separate from one another. As stated in Network Culture, open architecture results in “...bridges between what is separated to start and brings together again what has diverged to far from a common line”.


9- Symbolic Efficiency is the ability of a “symbol” to be communicated across different formats, mediums, and in different situations. A symbol can be just about anything, as long as it has relevance to a number of different people. I believe that humor provides a good example of symbolic efficiency. Why did the chicken cross the road?” is a pretty much universally understood lead-in to a joke in the United States. Because of this, it has a great amount of symbolic efficiency. However, with the advent of the internet, and the small, closed communities it has resulted in, symbolic efficiency is declining. There are hundreds of “memes” on the internet, or mini-tropes that specific groups of people find funny. To outsiders, these memes have no relevance whatsoever. The idea of declining symbolic efficiency can be applied to areas outside of humor as well. For example, any sort of technical vocation can have an online community. Within this community, the members can be so entrenched in their own jargon and community-specific events that it becomes difficult for someone outside of the community to both gain entrance and understand what is going on within the group. This is a problem because it promotes the idea that only knowledge relevant to the user-community is important. There is little effort made to communicate ideas to other communities, or even worse, the greater “community” of society.


10- Blogs are internet webpages catered to the transition of one's thoughts to others. There are several characteristics of blogs that differentiate them from other kinds of web pages. First off, blogs are updated using “posts”. Posts are inputs of data that are user-generated. The user types down whatever they want to, be it a link to a funny video, the latest fashion craze, or discourse about a book being read in a college classroom. The post is then published and available to be read by outsiders. All posts are organized in reverse chronological order, with the most recent entry being placed at the top of the page. Posts are also archived and stored on the blog. Blogs have many things in common with search engines. Firstly, they're origins are the same. Blogs, like search engines, attempted to make “surfing” the net easier by compiling information in one place. There are a log of websites on the internet, and both blogs and search engines made finding data that was useful to the individual user easier.


11- Cinema and networked media produce subjects in a much different way. The venue for the reception of data is the most noticeable divergence between the two. Networked media is accessible through our own individual devices. Using your computer and smartphone is an explicitly individual experience. All “interaction” that occurs between people on networked media occurs on a medium that is separate from reality. In this sense, although networked media is meant to unite users of the internet, it is assumed that all discourse concerning the network occurs through a virtual medium, and not through reality. Cinema, on the other hand, does the exact opposite. The venue for cinema is most often public, be it a movie theater or a living room. These arenas of reception are not meant to be interactive and individual, like networked media. Rather, cinema is an output of data that requires the users to bond. Cinema is a shared experience that occurs within a realistic sphere. Discourse concerning the experience occurs in real life, and sometimes over the internet. However even if the experience is discussed online, the original experience occurred outside of virtual reality. In this sense, networked media and cinema produce subjects in markedly different ways.


12- According to Dean, an intrinsic property of affective networks is their ability to “capture” users. They do this simply by being active. Affective networks rely on user input in order to remain operating. User-generated content is used to stock the network with information. The more information that the user group contributes, the more information is available for the individual users to browse. Facebook, Twitter and Blogspot are all examples of networks that rely on the input of users in order to function. On these websites, the content generated by the “hive” captures users in a net of user-submitted information. There is such a massive amount of data on the networks that users spend their time sorting through the data in order to find something pertinent to their own interests.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

The "Whatever" Generation

Although our class discussion today was very interesting and noteworthy, it did not bring up any of the points that I thought of while reading chapters 3 and 4 of Blog Theory. I guess it is kind of my fault for not bringing them up, but it was a little hard to be heard today.

The word "Whatever" was used a lot in chapter 3, in a variety of different ways. It was defined as a word, used as a description of blogging, and analyzed as a non-communicative way of expression. Throughout all of this, I could not help but think of us as the "Whatever" generation. As Professor Dean mentioned in chapter 3, the word "whatever" is means of disrespecting someone who has made an effort to communicate with you. By responding with "whatever", the speaker is stating that they heard the communication, but is not important or valid enough to demand a thought out response. Often used in arguments, it is a primitive way of insulting someone. With this definition in mind, when I saw that the chapter was entitled "Whatever Blogging", I immediately drew my own conclusions about the content of the chapter. I thought that "Whatever Blogging" was similar to the word, communication without communicating: that is, insubstantial communication that appeals to emotion and not to the greater psyche. To me, this has been the status quo for bloggers of my generation. Although I cannot speak for all, many of the extremely popular blogs that I have read (written by my peers) have been either humor, fashion or celebrity-news oriented. The content of these blogs doesn't really scream WELL THOUGHT OUT DISCOURSE ABOUT THE FAILINGS OF HUMANITY to me. It is largely insubstantial, not contributing to the "greater good" of society, it doesn't make anyone think about anything in particular. It's just face-value entertainment. And that, to me, is what "Whatever blogging" is.