Sep 26 2010
Framing Questions: Week 5
1. In the novel “You Are Not a Gadget, A Manifesto”, Lanier discusses the psychological ways that humans inherit technology as a second nature and how potentially dangerous these dependencies are in our lives. He states that our gadgets are structures that have the capability to “change how you conceive of yourself and the world”. He then goes ahead and states that computer programmers and technological developers have no need to argue their case because, “it only takes a tiny group of engineers to create technology that can shape the entire future of human experience with incredible speed.” Now, as a person who just recently purchased an iPhone 4 because I felt a dire need to do it, I have begun to worry about my own dependency on technology. I check the Internet at least 20 times a day and am either texting or talking on my phone for a total of at least an hour or two everyday. As technological developers continue to create more tools for humans to become social and more informative/addicted to technology, will we as human race begin acting as a technological device ourselves? Will we begin to absorb ourselves into our devices so much that it, in essence, becomes second nature or another limb of our body that we must simply can’t live without?
2. Lanier often brings up this notion of “locked in” when he refers to particular computer software and the way things simply have to be accepted due to the inherent software that have been already manifested and adapted to by the population. With this concept of being “locked in” by particular software that have already been developed and constantly re-developed through newer versions of the same software, is he implying that this concept locks inhibits some of the human mind’s creative development process in regards to computer programming because of all the other software that have already been set in stone? Does the computer’s current software packages and computer programs inhibit the creative processes and further development of other, possibly better software that could potentially be created? In essence, does the limitless possibilities gadget, the computer, technically inhibit itself because of its accepted, workable mainstream support software systems that are currently in existence, that which bicariously also impede new developments that aren’t supported on that scale?
3. In, Henry Jenkin’s essay entitled “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars? Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture?” he discusses the notion of digital amateurization development of content and this new participatory culture that has sprung out of the digital web. With this being said, amateurization is all about individuals outside of a professional scene creating content that can be distributed easily on the web, without high transaction and development costs, which differs greatly from mainstream content corporations. Will amateurization, then, one day completely replace mainstream content-development companies and level it to a diffusion of competition for all developers or will it simply add to and build other corporate entities such as the television shows Tosh.0 and Web Soup as well as the movie The Social Network? All of this content is gathered from the web, rather than gathered from other means and put onto the web. Therefore, are these two ways of developing and distributing content a type of media convergence in and of its ownself?