Sep 30 2010
Week 5 Responses
1. In response to my first question, I do believe that as humans we will adapt to our technology. The extent to which we will, I don’t believe, will inherently take over our humanistic characteristics. Although we may feel a strong attachment and dependency on our specific technologies, I know that personally, sometimes, I am happy to get away from all of it. There are situations when technology will not suffice and we need to breathe for ourselves, take in fresh air, and admire non-man made structures. And there are other times that technology becomes my tool for expression and absorption of inspirational life content.
Today in class we discussed copyright and the ways in which people have the capability nowadays to remix remixes. A question was brought up by a fellow classmate regarding the Russian pirate video stores that were depicted in the documentary, “Good Copy, Bad Copy.” She asked the question that if it is true that Russian video stores only contain about 20% of original videos, then how is it possible that they get 80% pirated material from those original works to distribute? I found that a very interested question. There is only so much, and so many different ways, that one can come up with when creating new content from other material. This being said, remixes of those remixes can than occur and then its a whole other ball game. It’s almost like a mathematical equation thats possibilities grow exponentially each time you add an extra remix. These people, such as Gregg Gillis of Girl Talk and Brian Burton of Danger Mouse, use technology as tools towards expressing their individual creativity. Ironically enough however, in the interview, Gregg Gillis stated that even though he downloads numerous amounts of digital files, there is just some nostalgic humanistic value about going to a record store and purchasing an album. This being said, it is point in case that although technological gadgets may be becoming an increasingly dependent tool, I don’t believe it can ever become the main substitution for first-hand humanistic, real-life experiences.
2. My second question is in regards to Lanier’s concept of the term “locked in”. I do believe that Lanier hit the nail on the head when he discussed this term. I highly agree with his statement that “the process of lock-in is like a wave gradually washing over the rulebook of life, culling the ambiguities of flexible thoughts as more and more thought structures are solidified into effectively permanent reality.” You can see this exemplified in the uses of the Internet, social networks, even everyday symbols such as typographical language, flags etc. Most of the population never really even questions these societal structures set in place and when they do, they really can’t do much to change it. Once a human being is conditioned into a habit (or structurized foundation), it is hard to break, especially when that habit spans across many populations on the globe. Therefore for example, I would imagine it would be extremely dififcult for new software systems to cater to musicians through something other than MIDI (discussed on pgs.9-12) because MIDI is used by everyone and therefore an already acceptable tool. To question that and form something completely new, as well as try to establish that idea everywhere just so other people can access and use it, especially if its just equivalent or slightly better than the preexisting tool, is nearly impossible. The best example that I can think of thus far is the blu-ray dvd player. Even though blu-ray may produce a slightly better picture quality, it has been nearly impossible to get Americans to switch over solely to using only these players. If DVD’s are still being made, and they remain to be significantly cheaper than blue-ray discs, American’s will prefer to purchase them. Unfortunately, even if the new ideas potentially create better tools and better content quality, people will always be resistant to change if something existing benefits them almost just as easily.
3. In brief response to my third question asking about Henry Jenkins thoughts about amateurization, I believe that digital amateurization development will never fully replace main stream content. There are some inherent differences that will always remain static. Mainstream content serves a different purpose than amateurization content. In this, I am referring to the quality vs. quantity conundrum. Although the Internet might be a more effective tool when locating and gathering information efficiently, it sometimes lacks the quality experience of mainstream content. I am not only talking about the so-called “trustworthy professionals” behind the scenes or the “polished content” that is produced, but I am discussing the distribution approaches. There is still something very appealing about going to see a movie at a movie theater for example, or even physically holding a periodical or a book.
Each technological device serves a purpose. This is why we juggle back and forth between the various ones on a day by day basis in order to receive the fulfillment that we need (uses and gratificatoins theory).
In regards to the Tosh.0 and Web Soup categories, as well as The Social Network, I believe that once again it is just media convergence at its finest. They’re taking inspirations from the Web, producing resalable content, and distributing it for money to the masses for a profit (or ratings). Truly, its ingenious.