Grace's Weblog

Final Blog Post Due December 1st

Grace — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:56:55 +0000

This was an extremely interesting class to take. I feel as though I have learned about many different perspectives involving different aspects of and types of communication and technology. As with communication and technology, there is not always something concrete to grab on to. I feel as though the same goes when discussing them. Every opinion is just a little right and wrong. For every answer there are about a dozen other questions. This is a subject that one could talk about for the rest of his or her life.

I would like to use this posting to discuss some of the final topics discussed in class. I would especially like to discuss the topics of copyright, remixing, mashing, etc. As a producer, the idea of someone using my work for something that I do not agree with or for something unethical is very scary. As a consumer and sometimes even as a producer, I get annoyed with really strict copyright laws that prevent any type of new expression.

Lawrence Lessig brings up some interesting points. As time has gone on, copyright laws have become more and more strict. What can fix this? No matter what happens, someone will be unhappy (either copyright owners that wish to control all rights for an unlimited amount of time or consumers and producers that wish to be able to take any material at all and transform it or use it for their own purposes.

I was reading a really interesting article on the NPR website called, “Not Coming to a Theater Near You: Satire Trailers.” One specific part really struck me. The article states that, “The Greeks used to end an evening of tragedy with what they called a “Satyr” play, a short farce that turned the tragedy inside out. The actor who’d just played a king — swallowing poison and dying, for instance — would now play a servant and swallow something that made him flatulent. It was the same basic idea, but tweaked to provoke knowing laughter. Which is, of course, what these spoof trailers do: provoke knowing laughter on the Internet, spread not by word of mouth, but by click of mouse. They prove once again that there’s nothing new under the sun…”

Some people believe that there are only about four original works in the whole of history. Everything else copies in some way or another until we are left with nothing but mashups. This is kind of a sad thought, but nonetheless holds truth. Some writer put their own experiences into their novels or take inspiration from other works. How can we say that it is okay to use one thing but not another? Is there a way to measure it? What does it really mean to own a work. Is it simply a matter of filling out the proper paperwork?

Is media and technology a mirror of or for society? A work (novel, video, song, poem, etc.) is a form of communication just like any other. Works are meant to go out into the world and to transform it. In turn, the world will then transform the works again.

In a Communication and Ethics class, I am currently learning about Aristotle’s Golden Mean. This really seems to fit this situation. Given the right point of view, any side is this ongoing discussion could seem right or wrong. It seems as though a compromise or agreement of some kind is really the best option.

I believe that people should be able to use any material that they want as long as they do not make a profit. I believe that the original owner or creator should always be credited. I believe that for a situation in which someone does make a profit, the original owner should get a share or some sort of prior agreement should be made.

Reading Due October 27th

Grace — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 06:09:44 +0000

I found the reading to be very interesting. I often look at ways in which media and technology shape society. I rarely look at ways that society shapes media or the use of technology. “…One of the ways of understanding new media, and particularly its networked form, is by considering it as the product of social relations as much as of technological capability” (Lister 215).

We have discussed before how important it is to know the many characteristics and aspects of new media in order to understand it and to receive it. Understanding the society that produced it is sometimes overlooked. I wonder whether the media is a reflection of society or whether society is a reflection of the media. This is a hard question to answer. I think that it is probably a bit of bother.

I am normally not that into statistics, but I found many of the statistics and table from this reading to be particularly interesting. I got a computer and internet access at the same time (around the time that I was in third or fourth grade). By the time that I was in sixth grade, all of my friends already had computers and internet access available at home. By seventh grade, computer classes were required. I never thought about the statistics of others. Computers seem so common now. It is hard for me not to imagine having one.

“In 1999 the US Department of Commerce reported that urban households with incomes of $75,000 and higher were more than twenty times more likely to have access to the Internet than rural households at the lowest income levels, and more than nine times as likely to have a computer at home. Whites are more likely to have access to the Internet from home than Blacks or Hispanics have from any location…For groups between the ages of 17 and 47 women are actually more likely to be Internet users than men” (Lister 199).

The differences can be broken down in ways other than ethnicity, economic status and gender. I found a website called, Digital.Leadnet. It had some information regarding the use of technology among Christians. Trends in the use or access of technology can be looked at and examined in so many different ways.

The information in the quote above is almost ten years old. I noticed that the charts from the reading went up to 2001. I wonder if the gap has been bridges somewhat now that internet access in available in more places, and the prices of computers have gone down.

Reading Due October 13th

Grace — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:02:00 +0000

“Can communities be separate from physical location?” This was a really interesting question brought up by Lister. I started thinking about the different ways that I interact online. I talk to friends. Sometimes I go to online forums and interact with people that I do not know. But can an online community really be compared to a real community. I really liked a quote cited in the text by Rheingold.

“There’s always another mind out there. It’s like having a corner bar complete with old buddies and delightful newcomers and new tools waiting to take home and fresh graffiti and letters, except instead of putting on my coat, shutting down the computer and walking down to the corner, I just invoke my telecom programme and there they are. It’s a place” (Lister 173).

I started again to look at my online habits. Can online forums that I visit really compare to actual communities? When online, I can go straight to a community based on just about any topic that one can think of (political, film, food, current events, etc). Then I can immediately pose any kind of question to the community, or look for a current thread to comment on. Once I do, I have a huge number of people that may make comments on my comment if they wish. In this way, I believe that online communities are better. They are more convenient.

But does that really make them more realistic? I found an interesting article titled, “Communities: Virtual vs. Real” from Science Magazine. It brought up an interesting point. Anyone may leave an online community at any time that he or she wishes. Then they “disappear.” I could type anything without thought of repercussions and then just leave. In real life, people are more accountable. With differences like this one, is it really possible to ever have a realistic online community. The rules are different.

I don’t think that it is really possible to answer these questions. Those that are able to come up with answers would certainly not come to a consensus. Everyone has a different idea of realistic and of community. Real communities themselves differ from each other just as online communities differ from each other.

Reading Due September 22nd

Grace — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 06:09:35 +0000

This reading was very interesting for me as someone who has enjoyed what little experience that I have had with comics, but never really thought about them that much. I found the section about time frames to be especially interesting. As a major in film studies, I have always been really interested in film and taken for granted (especially when it comes to adaptations of comic books) that a film can show more than a comic. I found myself questioning this. Is it possible for a comic to show more? A single frame of a comic can take one moment of time for the reader to examine for an infinite amount of time. The reader may even go back and look at that one specific moment of time if he or she wishes. The person that creates this comic can fill this single frame with as much information, and the reader can process all of it (the character in the foreground speaking, someone in the background having a reaction, a hidden item on the bookshelf in the corner, the wristband that one of the characters is wearing, etc).

I also found the point made about people seeing themselves in everything to be interesting, but I cannot help wondering. I have read comics before that I have really liked, but I have also watched movies that I have really liked. I always really enjoy it when I can feel a connection with a character, but this connection does not necessarily have anything to do with physical appearance. I tend to respond more to the things that a character is going through or his or her reactions. I wonder if people agree with me. Do people respond more to a character’s physical similarities, or do people tend to see it the way that I do?

I wonder whether there is a difference between the terms comic book and graphic novel. I must admit that I have always associated comics with humor both because of their name and because my first experiences were with the Sunday funnies. But comics can have value aside from making a reader laugh. I found an interview in which Scott McCloud speaks of one such comic called “Nancy.”

Reading Due September 15th

Grace — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 05:08:33 +0000

I thought that the reading by Jenkins was especially interesting. I do not really think of convergence that much, but it really is a part of my everyday life. First I wake up (my cell phone has an alarm function that wakes me up on time). After getting ready, I usually get on my computer. I usually check my email, check to see if there are any interesting new movie trailers, perhaps listen to the radio, and check out any interesting news items all from my computer. I use my cell phone throughout the day to make calls, send and receive text messages, play games, take photos, etc. That is just an average day, and already convergence has come up several times.

It seems as though convergence is coming up more and more anywhere that technology is involved. Technology is making our lives easier and easier. Convergence allows us to do more and more, using fewer devices.

I found an interesting video on Youtube called, “Cars of the Future.” It discusses new technology in automobiles using the idea of convergence.

The author brought up an interesting point. While trying to buy a cell phone, he was unable to find a simple cell phone where he could simply make and receive calls. Cell phones are becoming so versatile today using the principal of convergence. But does this idea really make everyone’s life simpler? As new technologies are converging with other new technologies, are older technologies getting lost along the way? Are we moving and evolving as a culture so fast, that we end up loosing everything in the middle?

Reading Due September 8th

Grace — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:57:01 +0000

Media constantly changes. There are new forms of media, media is expressed and received in different ways, and constantly redefines itself. According to Lister, new media can refer to quite a wide range of changes. These changes may include production, distribution and use. I have always tended to look at media as a thing that I experience. It is something that I use. It is interesting to view it from other viewpoints that on might not experience very often (the experience of a distributor or producer).

New media itself is hard to classify. Where is the line drawn between new and old media. The answer is different depending on the generation in which someone is born. The answer could even be different for people that are the same age. I tend to think of new media as things that have not always been around, as things that I can remember emerging. I tend to think of emailing, podcasts, dvds, and all other types of high-tech technological ways of communication or of spreading information.

Media has sort of become less and less concrete. It is interesting to think of the lines drawn between new and old media and the lines between ownership becoming less and less concrete as well. Lister mentioned that as information becomes more and more easily accessible, becomes more and more interactive, and as it changes more and more, laws concerning the media become more and more confusing.

I wonder whether I am the only one that sees new media as becoming less and less concrete. I always consider new media to be more complicated and more technical, but really it just seems to be getting more and more vague.

According to Lister, new tends to go hand in hand with better. But is this really true? Some people would disagree. Some believe that this virtual, online world is ruining the concrete, written word. I know personally the new types of media have changed my life. A New York Times article published this August called, “New Media Stream Into an Old Tradition” discussed some of the advances in media that have been seen during the current presidential election. It was an interesting article, because I take many of these advances for granted, but really this is the first presidential election when they have come into play.

First Post

Grace — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 23:16:42 +0000

This is grace writing my first blog post!