The Future of the Internet

A couple of weeks ago I turned on my XBox 360 and there were new icons informing me of new capabilities for my game console. I always find this a little disconcerting. I'm still accustomed to my old un-networked consoles that just turned on and played whatever game was inserted in their drive. This new system is pretty nice. There is a lot of talk in media that the Xbox 360 and the PS3 could be the devices that finally integrate the web and television. Microsoft just added facebook and twitter applications to the Xbox and I already enjoy Netflix Instant Streaming and Amazon on Demand. The evolution of the gaming console into this multi-purpose unit relates well to this week's readings. Jonathan Zittrain's The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It introduces the idea that the success of the internet and other networked innovations relied on its "generative" nature. The fact that the internet was an open space where dozens of people could collaborate, modify and enhance, is what made it work better than the tightly controlled environments or "tethered". Starting with the history of the first PC Zattrain points out a recurring pattern:

"The pattern begins with a generative platform that invites contributions from anyone who cares to make them. The contributions start among amateurs, who participate more for fun and whimsy than for profit. Their work, previously unnoticed in the mainstream, begins to catch on, and the power or the market kicks in to regularize their innovations and deploy them in markets far larger than the amateurs' domains. Finally the generative features that invite contribuation and that worked so well to propel the first stage of innovation begin to invite trouble and reconsideration, as the power of openness to third party contributions destabilizes its first set of gains." (p. 18)

When the original Xbox came out, coders figured out a way to modify the Xbox to many other functions. This hack gained so much popularity it turned into the Xbox Media Player. This modification was not sanctioned by Microsoft, but its popularity pressed them to develop more multimedia capabilities for the Xbox and later the XBox 360. In spite of the fact that the Xbox was a "tethered" device, coders managed to maximize the potential of a gaming console. Instead of exploiting this development, and using the generative model, Microsoft chose to block development and keep within a closed system. It incredible to me that they let all that potential go to waste.

A few weeks ago, in an effort to prevent piracy, Microsoft blocked users of modified Xbox 360 consoles from Xbox live. Now, I can understand this on one hand, many Xbox mods are ways to circumvent copyright and anti-piracy codes. So its a tradeoff, you try to cheat the system, you lose certain privileges. On the other hand, this policy also blocks people who modified their box to maximize the potential of their purchase. They paid for it, why shouldn't they be able to enhance it? By locking down controls, Microsoft not only hurts consumers but slows their own development. The creators of the initial Xbox Media Player have moved on and now have a multi-platform "media player and entertainment hub" in development. XMBC is manned by volunteers, who "write software because we enjoy doing it". Their code is currently being used by Boxee and Plex media centers. While, I am not sure why anyone would want to write code for free, it does seem that their system of collaborative, generative work is producing fun, new technology.

Zittrain points out that:
"A move to tethered appliances and Web services means that more and more of our experiences in the information space will be contingent. A service or product we use at one moment could act completely differently the next, since it can be so quickly reprogrammed without our assent." (p. 176) Exemplified when modified Xbox 360 users were shocked to find themselves cut off from Xbox live, or my own frustration when facebook changes their layout. (I still hate the live feed/news feed.)

Zittrain believes that generative spaces should be preserved. With the help of governments who can "help reinforce the the conditions necessary for generative blossoming, and they can also step in-- with all the confusion and difficulty that notoriously attends regulation of a generative space-- when mere generosity of spirit of goodwill cannot resolve conflict. But such generosity of spirit is a society's power first line of moderation."(p. 246)

This does seem a little utopian to believe that a "spirit of goodwill" can solve problems. The power and allure of money would seem to be much stronger than goodwill. But I will try to stay in Zittrain's camp and be optimistic.

The Exploit

At about 9:45 Thursday night a fire broke out in the electrical room at NBC5's 3900 Barnett Street Studios in Fort Worth. The fire spread and became serious enough that the building was evacuated and the entire station lost power in the middle of the ten o'clock newscast. The ramifications of this fire extend beyond two canceled newscasts (Telemundo 39 is located in the same building) in the DFW area. Telemundo in Fort Worth provides news to other stations in the southwest region. Plus, thousands of dollars were lost because commercials were not broadcast. Since this occurred during a sweeps period, the lost viewership numbers could implicate what can be charged in the future. (Nielsen Media Research will most likely remove that night when determining NBC 5 and T 39's audience average) The Fort Worth studios also house the local news graphics hub. This means that when the building was evacuated, all the NBC-owned affiliates from WNBC in New York to KNBC in LA did not receive graphics for their newscasts. There was no one to create them. The moment the station lost power, important network connections were lost, the news producer's wire feeds, their connections to the graphics hub, the links to the NBC news video feeds, the links to the commercial hub in Atlanta, and the e-mail server based in New York and supported in India. NBC/Universal is a highly connected corporation and has used the power of networks to create efficiencies, by centralizing or "hubbing" certain duties. There is a balance of risk and reward in making these networked entities. A hub can reduce head count and maximize efficiencies, but it leaves workflow vulnerable if part of the network breaks down. The events at NBC 5 do not have the widespread repercussions of the SARS virus or an internet worm. But it does follow some of the characteristics of network behavior according to this week's reading. In The Exploit: A Theory of Networks, Alexander R. Galloway and Eugene Thacker say:

". . . it is in the nature of networks to transgress boundaries of all kinds--institutional, disciplinary, national, technical and ideological. As illustrated previously, a single entity such as computer worm or pouch of powdered anthrax immediately draws together a range of network nodes. . ." (p.97)

An electrical fire in one building affected the institution that is NBC 5/T 39, spread to other related institutions (WNBC, KNBC, etc..) it effected the the local Nielsen process and its network of sample households, and of course it effected the community of viewers who saw the stations abruptly go to black. Galloway and Thacker say:

"While networks can be individuated and identified quite easily, networks are also always "more than one." Networks are multiplicities, not because they are constructed of numerous parts but because they are organized around the principle of perpetual inclusion." (p.60)

Because of the network structures in place, it is impossible for there to be an "isolated incident". The only way to prevent this would be to break up the very structure that makes the institution viable.

The problem is the networks we enjoy and require for so much of life are also the means through which things like disease or computer viruses easily spread. And seemingly separate networks can effect each other. As Galloway and Thacker point out when talking about SARS:

"But SARS is also much more than just a biological network-- it brings together other networks together such as transportation, institutional, and communications networks." (p.89)

The efficiency of the world's transportation networks led to the virus spreading internationally. On the other hand, the increased connectivity and collaboration of scientists led to a quick identification, isolation and treatment. Do networks fail when a virus is spread? Galloway and Thacker believe;

"There are as many lessons to be learned from the "failures" of networks as there are from the successes. Perhaps we can note that a network fails only when it works too well, when it provides too little room for change within its grand robustness, as the example of the computer virus illustrates. . . If a network contains its own failure, then is also contains its own transgression of borders." (p. 96-97)

In this way, networks fail only when they succeed. Networks cultivate the flood, but the flood is what can take down the network." (p. 96)

Galloway and Thacker assert that the best way to navigate this interconnected world is to "scale up, not unplug. Then during the passage of technology into the this injured, engorged, and unguarded condition, it will be sculpted into something better, something in closer agreement with the real wants and desires of its users."

This seems to be a very optimistic view of networks, but it seems we don't have a choice, the networks will grow and we will continue to be more connected.

The incident at NBC 5 probably won't effect NBC/Universal's use of network resources to create efficiencies. There are more divisions to be hubbed. (I hear accounting and finance are next. . .)

Thoughts on Six Degrees

This weekend a friend posted this video of a happy dog seeing his owner for the first time after his deployment in Afghanistan. Of course its heartwarming to see a dog so happy, But the info posted by Capt. Andrew Schmidt is fascinating. He describes is own shock as a video he posted on April 11, 2008 became a sensation a year and a half later. He posts on November 14, "This is getting crazy. They ran this on the Today Show today. I'm not a public person ... this is getting a little intimidating. I'm glad that this clip of Gracie has made so many people happy." On the 15th he says "You have to be careful, because you have no control when you go on TV unless you are very, very savvy (I am not). Or you get crazy and end up building a UFO weather balloon in your back yard."
What is it about this particular video? Why did this one go viral?

In his book Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age Duncan Watts is attempting to explain this phenomena. Watts gives a broad overview of the history of network theory and small worlds. He discusses the famous Stanley Milgram experiments and how it led to the the term "Six Degrees of Separation". From there he explains how his own experiments and that of his colleagues, give further insight into the way networks behave. He shows that networks made up of completely different things can still behave in similar ways. One of his first tests was to compare the actors (six degrees of Kevin Bacon), electrical power grids, and the bacterium C. Elegans. All three groups qualify as small world networks because they had some "mechanism by which two nodes that are connected to a common third node are more likely to be connected to each other than two nodes picked at random." (p. 97) Even though small world networks can be found everywhere, they are not the only type of network. Watts spend most of the book finding the similarities in different networks and then points out the discrepancies in these findings. It can be a little frustrating. Just when you think Watts is going to lay down a mathematical formula that will predict network behavior, he instead shows the many ways the network is unpredictable. But, he believes studying them can give insight as to why events happen in a particular way. Watts explains:

"Networks share resources and distribute loads, and they also spread disease and transmit failure--they are both good and bad. By specifying precisely how connected systems are connected, and by drawing explicit relationships between the structure of real networks and the behavior (like epidemics, fads, and organizational robustness) of the systems they connect, the science of networks can help us understand our world." (p. 303)

Beyond the explanation and overview of network theory, the book is a narrative about how one scientists' own social network led to many studies, experiments and ultimately the book. Each time Watts introduces a new colleague or thinker, he gives an account of how he came to know them. He's illustrating once again the breadth of small world networks, even as he explains them.
Here are some last thoughts:

If Manovich divides new media into two forms the database and the narrative, where does the network fit in? The very fact that we are so connected through a network allows the databases to be built. Without a network there is no Wikipedia, or Huffington post or Youtube.

Is there a bit of MacLuhan in Watts' work? Is the network as "medium" also the message?

Smells Like Teens

Smell like teens...

When I go see a movie at Northpark Mall I often have this moment of "Wow, that's what teenagers look like now, I haven't seen one in a while." In my neighborhood, you see a lot of parents with young children, married couples without kids, and singles, but teenagers are quite rare. I forget the limited number of public spaces that are available to people under 18. I remember in high school walking the aisles of the 24 Hour Kroger just because it was open and we still had time before we were expected to be home. Teens seek out places where they can express themselves away from the watchful eyes of teachers and parents. Its in these places that they form their identities, as individuals apart from their parents. Now, with all the anti-loitering and teen curfew laws there are even fewer public spaces that are available to teens. As danah boyd explains in "Taken Out of Context" teens have turned to social media as their public space and it is an important part of expressing their identity. (p.171) Boyd provides a great number of anecdotes about how teens use myspace and facebook as forms of expression and interaction. The design and content of their pages, and even the service they choose (facebook vs. myspace or both)are reflections of how they want to represented.

What I found most interesting and a little disturbing is how fear underlies many of the decisions teens make about their online identities.
Many were reluctant to join social media because they were afraid of sexual predators. They are encouraged to lie and hide information in order to be "safe". While parents seem to fear that any minute a stalker will come out of the computer and grab their child, the teens seem to have a good understanding of safe and reasonable behavior. As boyd points out:

"Teens had numerous strategies for staying safe, many of which mirrored the strategies that adults and safety organizations perpetuated. Upset that teens were being restricted from social network sites, Danny, a 17-year-old from Florida, emailed me with a list of safety guidelines that he thought all teens should adopt:
A) Only accept “Buddy Requests” from people you know personally/are bands.(Cheesy, I know, but it’s the safest way. I have around fifty-eight friends, and I can tell you their name, address, or what their most popular songs are).
B) Don’t give out personal information. (I don’t have my school listed even! State and City, that’s it. Don’t give it when asked.)
C) When posting a picture, ask if it shows you in a positive manner, and if it is something you would wear to go visit your grandparents/religious leader. (Mine are!)
D) Keep your parents involved. If you hide things from them, they will find out, and you will get in trouble. Be open with them—most of the time, they are cool about stuff like this." (p.284)

What a good kid. Its frustrating that so many children have to work through these basically unfounded fears to navigate their social world. From the moment teens were labeled as a demographic group, adults have feared the things teen love. Comic books, rock and roll, video games, Dungeons and Dragons (also known by its made-for-tv movie name "Mazes and Monsters"), are the source of danger, ignoring the real causes of social problems like neglect, poverty, or addiction. Boyd explains:

"Research shows that teens are not randomly at risk; psychosocial problems combined with risky behaviors are the key predictors of risk
(Ybarra and Mitchell 2008). In other words, the teens others see as “stupid” for not understanding how to be safe may actually be dealing with much larger personal issues." (p. 273)

Also, its easier to blame an aspect of media than to accept the fact that sometimes random, terrible things happen and there is no one to blame. By focusing anxiety towards media parents are able to feel in more control. Parents can use the issue of safety as a means to limit the independence of their child. They are able to justify invading a child's privacy if they suspect their child is involved in risky behavior.

boyd's work also made me think about the decisions I make on social media, and how I don't believe adult habits are that much different from teen's. As adults we like to think that our mediated social group is not filled with quite as much drama or angst. But, I have friends who suffered the wrath of thier wives for a thoughtless status update or comment, and even one person who lost their job because of something they posted on myspace. Personally, I'll admit to having tiny sense of outrage when someone "defriended" me. I hadn't been there in a long time but looking at my myspace profile made me wonder how much had I changed from the girl who plastered her bedroom walls with pictures of James Dean, John Lennon and INXS. And yes, I'm a little hesitant about showing you the old myspace profile, but what the heck. Hopefully you won't judge me too harshly.

Lastly the whole myspace vs. facebook thing reminds of the debate in the sixties amongst teenage girls. Beatles or Rolling Stones.
(I pick the Beatles even though picking the Stones would mean I'm edgier.)

Thanks for reading. Only 3 Blogs left!

Foucault and Nakamura

Foucault: Discipline and Punish

Everyday our decisions are influenced by the fact that someone may be watching us. I don't speed during my morning commute because of the friendly officers with radar guns. I'm careful not turn right on that red light, because of the newly installed camera.
In "Discipline and Punish", Foucault compares modern society to the Panopticon. The Panopticon was a prison design invented by Jeremy Bentham. The idea behind the Panopticon was to design a prison where a single guard could see all the prisoners but remain unseen. The fact the prisoners know that they are possibly being watched will make them behave. Foucault explains " . . . the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power. " (470) The Panopticon was never actually constructed, but Foucault used this idea to form the social theory of panopticism. He explains that society has two types of disciplinary images the discipline-blockade and the discipline-mechanism. The discipline-blockade wields it power in enclosed institutions, that separate groups of individuals. Prisons, schools and hospitals are examples. The discipline-mechanism affects an entire population and relies on surveillance to force the population into compliance. Foucault named this mobile and extendible societal formation panopticism.
In our panoptic society we accept the fact authorities and other citizens are watching us and adjust our behavior accordingly. Its a quiet almost invisible form of discipline.

Over the years there has been much debate about an individual's privacy vs. the public good. People feared the surveillance and it was manifested with terms like Big Brother. Now, privacy does not seem to hold as much importance. In a post 9/11 world, citizens seem more willing to be watched, searched and recorded assuming that this makes the world a safer place. Also, and perhaps more accurately, people volunteer private information in the name of convenience, or entertainment. Its a cheery happy panopticon, where we are aware of being watched and we're comfortable with it. In fact, we use it to our gain. In this CNN.com article Pete Cashmore, claims that privacy is dead and that being too private can damage your career, and ultimately leave you marginalized in society. We are encouraged to reveal information in order to make friends and further our careers, while knowing that this information will be used by others to make money.
Ultimately, what are we really giving up and what are we gaining? I keep thinking about how exotic dancers will argue that they aren't being exploited, but work voluntarily. The "choice" makes it okay. But, with all the pressure to bank, register, educate, buy, and socialize online. Do we really have a choice?

Lisa Nakamura: Cybertyping and the Work of Race in the Age In Digital Reproduction

Want to get really depressed? Read the comments at the end of any article on dallasnews.com. Inevitably any social problem will be blamed on people of color. Its horrible. Yep. Racism is alive and well and reflected everyday on innumerable websites. Lisa Nakamura asserts that the internet has created a new kind of sterotyping and racism which she calls "cybertyping". She says:

"Cybertypes are more than just racial stereotypes "ported" to a new medium. Because the Internet is interactive and collectively authored, cybertypes are created in a peculiarly collaborative way, they reflect the way that machine enabled interactivity gives rise to images of race which both stem from a common cultural logic and seek to redress anxieties about the ways that computer-enables communication can challenge these old logics. . . Cybertypes are the images of race that arise when the fears, anxieties, and desires of privileged Western users (the majority of Internet users and content producers are still from Western nations) are scripted into a textual/graphical environment that is in constant flux and revision."

Nakamura views the promise of a "post-racial democracy" as nothing more than a device to hide racism in America. She explains that "Digital reproduction produces new iterations of race and racialism, iterations with roots in those produced by mechanical reproduction. Images of race from older media are the analog signal which the Internet optimizes for digital reproduction and transmission." Instead of moving past racial stereotypes they are more easily reproduced, amplified and distributed with digital technology.

Nakamura wrote this essay a few years before blogging and social media became commonplace. Now its is much more difficult to separate your online identity from your true identity. In fact, it seems like a waste of time. How can you be social if you are not at least some semblance of yourself? What would be the point. By contributing to the blogosphere and participating in social media, minorities now have an opportunity to express and "broadcast" their viewpoint in way that was unavailable through traditional media. And the racial stereotypes and social conflicts are also more easily disseminated. I would like to hear Nakamura's comments since the election of President Obama and his campaign's use of Web 2.0.

Great. I'm a scribe.

Great. I'm a scribe. This weekend I had an "Obsolescence Party" at my house. Guests were invited to play the Atari 2600 and Super Nintendo game systems, drink Tab or Bartles & James wine coolers, and bring obsolete items for show and tell. My items were a slide rule and a Bernoulli disk that holds 90MB of information.
I don't know what a slide rule's for, (Sam Cooke reference) but the disk holds a lot of meaning for me. It stored the first graphic I ever made as a professional broadcast graphic designer. And now its just a piece of plastic, the machine that I trained on for almost a year just to make a simple graphic was replaced over a decade ago by Adobe Photoshop. Instead of computer graphics being an exclusive club with only a few practitioners, kids are taking animation classes in high school. Clay Shirky in Here Comes Everybody says:

"The spread of cheap and widely available creative tools is sad for people in the advertising business in the same way that movable type was sad for scribes--the loss from this kind of of change is real but limited and is accompanied by a generally beneficial social change." (209)

I agree. It is sad. And sometimes I wonder what's so "beneficial" about the social change? The reading once again reinforces the theme of this class: we are in the midst of revolutionary change and as Shirky points out,

"The comparison with the printing press doesn't suggest that we are entering a bright new future--for a hundred years after it started, the printing press broke more things than it fixed, plunging Europe into a period of intellectual and political chaos that ended only in the 1600's." (73)

Shirky's title Here Comes Everybody is appropriate because it sounds optimistic, but let's face it, we don't like "everybody". Its like public transportation. Convenient, yes. But it loses some of its appeal when a crazy, smelly dude sits by you and wants to strike up a conversation about UFO's. Don't get me wrong. (not a Pretenders reference) There are features of this revolution that are both trivial and wonderful. Never having to decode the "Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature" --awesome. Watching the season premiere of "30 Rock" on Hulu--awesome. But even these little conveniences have a price, some company is probably bankrupt because the "Reader's Guide" was their major client, and Hulu is contributing to the demise of broadcast television and my own career. Beyond these small conveniences, new ways to gather knowledge and express ideas are spreading to millions of people. In his epilogue and in this speech, Shirky explains how, social media tools after the China Sichuan earthquakes challenged the Chinese government's control over information. While they were prepared to filter the major media outlets they failed to realize that ". . . services like QQ and Twitter erode the the distinction between 'media' and 'communication.'"(297) Ordinary citizens now had the tools to "report" and "broadcast" to anyone. The tools are there, and its doesn't matter if I, or governments, or institutions like it. Shirky compares the dramatic improvement in socials tools to steering a kayak "We have a small degree of control, but that control does not extend to being able to reverse, or even radically alter, the direction we're moving in. Our principal challenge is not deciding where we want to go, but rather staying upright as we go there."

I think most of us are in the Emerging Media and Communication program, because we are trying very hard to stay upright. It would be nice if there were some clear answers. Do this, learn this, and you will never be obsolete. But for all of us who were on friendster or had a geocities web site, its pretty apparent that there's no solid way to predict the next "BIG THING" or know if this "BIG THING" has true staying power. Two things from the reading stand out to me. First, Shirky likes to compare elements of social media to barn raising, a group of people can build a barn or open source software in a short time, while individually a farmer or coder might never be able to. Much of the success of social media depends on the participation of the users and their willingness to contribute their work, time, creativity for free. Secondly, failure is tolerated, in fact its expected. Meetup groups fail, but new information about what works and doesn't work is gathered. So what's a 21st Century scribe to do? I think we have to contribute, participate, and can't be afraid to fail.

On that note, I was very intrigued by the social media tool, dodgeball, that Shirky mentions in Chaper 9, so I did a little research. Turns out it was bought by Google and the service was ended. But, the creator has a new service called foursquare. I've joined and even started contributing. Let's see if it fails. (By the way, right now I have 2 friends. It would be great to have more... hint?) Lastly, I recommend A Whole New Mind by Daniel H. Pink if you are creative professional in need of a pep talk.

Fun with Public Spheres

Let's order some coffee, grab a seat, start up a conversation, change the world.

Who would have thought that the importation of coffee from the Ottoman Empire would contribute to transforming the social/political structures of Western Europe. Frequented by both aristocracy and bourgeois society, they were a place to learn the news and exchange ideas. They were the nexus of "the public sphere". Jurgen Habermas defines the public sphere as ". . . a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed." The public sphere was not the physical coffee house, but the discussion that took place within its walls. It was made up of private individuals who as a public body transmitted the needs of society. The newspaper became a vital element of the public sphere and was no longer just a compilation of notices or recent events, but influenced public opinion. This changed once newspapers became commercialized. (around 1830) Jurgen says, "In the transition from the literary journalism of private individuals to the public services of the mass media, the public sphere was transformed by the influx of private interests, which received special prominence in the mass media."
Peter Boeder sums this up nicely:

"According to Habermas, the emergence of the mass press is based on the commercialisation of the participation of the masses in the public sphere. Consequently, this ‘extended’ public sphere lost much of its original political character in favour of commercialism and entertainment."

The conversations at the coffee houses were silenced by radio and television. The idea of public opinion was transformed into publicity and public relations.

Habermas' ideas have become a source of debate since the digital revolution.
Are internet communities just another form of media commodity controlled by commercial interests? Or are they virtual public spheres?

Pieter Boeder says that "New forms of citizenship and public life are simultaneously enabled by new technology and restricted by market power and surveillance." He quotes Rheingold's argument that "The consumer society, the most powerful vehicle for generating short-term wealth ever invented, ensures economic growth by first promoting the idea that the way to be is to buy." With each new form of social media, commercialization occurs and effects the discourse. Bloggers are now sponsored by companies to write reviews. Facebook removes Scrabulous due to pressure from Hasbro.

Poster says:

"The question of the potential for new forms of social space to empower individuals in new ways is foreclosed in favor of preserving existing relations of force as they are embodied in the state."

Institutions will impose their will. Napster is shut down. YouTube videos blocked due to copyright issues.

Boeder concludes "The public sphere is alive and well, although it will never be quite the same. Habermas' coffeehouse discourse has evolved in the direction of mediated communication within electronic networks: Its future is with the digital media, which offer exciting possibilities as digital networks enhance and change social structures"
Twitter seems to meet that "coffeehouse ideal" because the users have determined much of its language and protocols. And of course its use during the Iraq elections is evidence of its power to spread news and information directly from the user/citizen.

The public sphere as a face-to-face community has been transformed into a form of electronically mediated discourse.
But what sort of discourse? Habermas believed that critical and rational discussion would minimize prejudices and fortify democracy. Looking at online discussions I'm not so sure. Are we debating or hurling insults. Is this really participation? Sometimes I agree with Fernback and Thompson:

"It seems most likely that the virtual public sphere brought about by (computer-mediated communication) will serve a cathartic role, allowing the public to feel involved rather than advance actual participation."

Final Note:
I really liked Poster's idea that the internet is not a tool but a social space. (Hammer vs. Germany) When I think of it in those terms, its potential seems so much broader. Its not just a tool to make money, or communicate, but a place. A place to shop (of course) but also to interact, learn, create, contribute, enjoy. Nice.

Thanks. Must pass out now.

Where's My Decoder Ring?

Stuart Hall in Encoding/Decoding explains the process of mass communication in terms of production, circulation and reception. He describes it as a "continuous circuit". Within the production process a message is created or "encoded". The viewer decodes the message. "Meaningful" discourse occurs at the junction of encoding and decoding. Institutions, personal experience, and ideologies effect both the creation of the message and how the message is received. He says the production process is 

" . . . framed throughout with meanings and ideas: knowledge-in-use concerning the routines of production, historically defined technical skills, professional ideologies, institutional knowledge, definitions and assumptions, assumptions about the audience and so on frame the constitution of the programme through this production structure."

This statement made me think about how production techniques influence the way televisions producers create a message. One thing I thought of was how all television production used to be tape-based. Its obvious that tape carries video and audio information. But it also has other types of information, control track and professional tape has time code. Time code is a data stream laid onto tape that assigns a specific time to each frame of video. This data allows a computer controlled editor to access a specific frame, allowing frame-accurate edit decisions to be made. In other words time code "translates" the information on the tape to a "language" that computers (and people) can understand and implement universally. For videotape editors, time code is the life blood, and tapes with breaks in time code can ruin their day. They may choose to omit a shot or soundbite if it doesn't have time code in favor of one that has. So, from one of the initial moments in the production process, a "code" is required to create the message and can influence the message. The production process constantly influences the content of a local newscast. The availability of a cameraman or reporter, a broken microphone, or fantastic video can all determine whether a story airs on a newscast. All of these factors effect the encoding of the message.

In new media the production process also effects the message and once again a code exists at its genesis. The very choice of a certain code (flash, html, java ...) impacts the message. The content of a web page is often determined by bandwidth, browser compatibility, screen resolution, or the limitations and preferences of the user's computer. A programmer may avoid using a flash animation, or large graphic files so that more internet users can view her page.

Another idea that really stood out for me is Hall's discussion of visual language and code in television. He says "The televisual sign is a complex one. It is itself constituted by the combination of two types of discourse, visual and aural." He adds that it is also iconic since tv uses a two-dimensional screen to translate the three-dimensional world. The newscast seem to be a perfect storm where these three forms meet.  While the anchor or reporter reads a story, there is a constant visual reinforcement with video or graphics. I find the graphics particularly interesting because they are an explicit example of iconic language yet they seem to be invisible to the casual viewer.

Here's an example of a typical OTS (over-the-shoulder). Without text or audio its easy to discern that the story is about school violence.

 

Or that this one is about hospitals. 

Even when using text there is a certain amount of "encoding" to further the meaning.

Programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are like a Russian nesting doll of visual language as they use the overall format of a newscast down to the graphics to create "fake" news. Internet sites like The Onion also use the visual language of a regular news site for comedic effects. These forms assume the receiver of the message is already versed in their particular visual language, and will interpret the message within the "dominant code". 

As the number of media outlets multiplies, and the language becomes more and more complex, its amazing that the viewers still manage to decode the message the encoders are trying to send.  

The Database

Last year while in Los Angeles I visited The Museum of Jurassic Technology. Its an odd place with a strange collection of objects. As I meandered through the museum, I came to realize the museum itself is the exhibit. The collections and information within its wallls are there to serve this purpose. It’s a simulation of a museum experience, with some real and some obviously fabricated exhibits. What was really important in this experience was the interface of the museum. Its presentation of the artifacts.

This experience came to my mind when Lev Manovich in his book “The Language of New Media” talked about the database as a dominant form in new media. Manovich divides what he terms “new media objects” into two forms, database and narrative. He says “ . . . works in new media can be understood as either constructing the right interface to a multimedia database or as defining navigation methods through spatialized representations.” Most often websites are some form of database, they are an interface to a collection of knowledge. Its easy to cite examples of this form, Facebook is a database containing information about people, what they like, the events they attend, the groups they belong to. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, one of the oldest forms of database. For Manovich,

“The database becomes the center of the creative process in the computer age. Historically, the artist made a unique work within a particular medium. Therefore the interface and the work were the same; in other words, the level of an interface did not exist. With new media the content of the work and the interface are separated. It is therefore possible to create different interfaces to the same material.”

In social media, the power of the interface is quite apparent. Why do people choose
Facebook over myspace? The information is essentially the same. Its about the way the information is presented and the ease with which we can access it.
Those examples are quite obviously database forms but Manovich asserts that

“Regardless of whether new media objects present themselves as linear narratives, interactive narratives, databases or something else, underneath, on the level of material organization, they are all databases . . . a database can support narrative, but there is nothing in the logic of the medium itself that would foster its generation.”

The way I understand it is that RPG’s (such as my favorite Final Fantasy VII) have narrative attributes, a storyline, but underneath, there is the database form. Instead of having immediate access to information, the user must perform certain tasks to acquire “skills” or “data”.

Manovich views the database as more than a “structured collection of data” but as a cultural form that is different from reading a story or watching a film. Manovich does not believe the database as cultural form exists solely in new media and cites examples in film such “The Man wth a Movie Camera”. The very structure of the movie is a database of shots arranged in a particular order to become a picture of modern life. Manovich says “. . .we may even call database a new ‘symbolic form’ of the computer age. . . the world appears to us an endless and unstructured collection of images, texts and other data records, it is only appropriate that we will be moved to model it as a database.”

Artists including Lev Manovich are still learning how to merge database and narrative into a new form. Games like The Path and the slow game movement may be the early stages of this new form. Or perhaps the new form will extend into the physical rather than digital world. The and/or Gallery’s YTMND show was a collection of internet memes, images, and animations displayed on video screens. A collection of collections. What is apparent in these exhibits and the Museum of Jurassic technology is that artists are aware of the relationship between interface and database and are using this relationship for expression.

The Language of Change

When Walter Benjamin wrote “The Work of Art in the Mechanical Age of Reproduction” in 1936 the world was in turmoil. Still suffering from the Great Depression and seeing the rise of a new rise of facsism. By this time, photography and film had made a significant impact on culture and the masses. In this frame, Walter Benjamin writes about the influence of all forms of mechanical reproduction on society. He asserts that the new techniques have changed more than just how artists create. They have changed the way the public perceives the world and the individual. Thus changing the political and social structure of Western Europe.

He first refers to paintings and photography. He asserts that a painting has an “aura” a sense of place and time that gives it authenticity. A reproduction lacks this element and its quality is depreciated. The importance of this aura is attached to ritual. Ritual can be attached to sacred or secular functions. For example, the work of Renaissance artists followed the “cult of beauty”. The invention of photography and “mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from it parasitical dependence on ritual… the work of art reproduced becomes the work of art designed for reproducibility.” Once society is able to mechanically reproduce art, there is no point in “authenticity”. A print of a photograph is the same whether it’s the first or the fiftieth. Now art is no longer connected to ritual but to political practice.

In film, he asserts that the camera “is substituted for the public” and the “aura that envelops the actor vanishes”. It is replaced by mystique. Film is essentially based in illusion, the spectacle of production is unseen and increased by the use of editing or “cutting’. Film is an art form that is received in a “state of distraction”.

In order to achieve a “suspension of disbelief” the viewer is distracted by the film techniques themselves. The language Benjamin uses to descibe much of his theories has a violent undertone. There are metaphors to bombs and bullets and violence when describing the impact of mechanical reproduction on mass culture.

“Our taverns and our metropolitan streets, our offices and furnished rooms, our railroad stations and our factories appeared to have us locked up hopelessly. Then came the film and burst this prison world asunder, by the dynamite of the tenth of a second, so that now, in the midst of its far-flung ruins and debris, we calmly and adventurously go travelling.”

Benjamin specifically chooses the language of war and violence as a reaction to the turbulent times. He write that “mass movements, including war, constitute a form of human behavior which particularly favors mechanical equipment.” As art is commoditized it becomes useful to the politician. Perfectly exemplified by the film “Triumph of the Will” and the newsreels of Hollywood. The politician and the movie actor share an unlimited public that is malleable to the new media. Which “results in a new selection, a selection before the equipment (of mechanical reproduction) from which the star and the dictator emerge victoriously.”

Fifty years later Bill Nichols attempts to apply the theories developed by Benjamin about mechanical reproduction and compare them to the computer. He states that “Instead of reproducing, and altering our relation to an original work, cybernetic communication simulates, and alters our relationship to our environment and mind.” Instead of “reproduction” we now “simulate.” Films are about suspending disbelief but computer technology is about absorption. Nichols uses the “Star Wars” defense system initiated by Reagan as an example of computer simulation’s unseemly consequence, but the tone and language of his essay does not contain the violent phrasing that was in Benjamin’s. While mechanical reproduction (film) was delivered to the masses, much of computer technology affects multitudes individually. Instead he explores how technology is changing the definition of self, life and family. “The important issue here is that the power of cybernetic simulation prompts a redefinition of such fundamental terms as life and reality, just as, for Benjamin, mechanical reproduction alters the very conception of art and the standards by which we know it.” The language of war is replaced with the language of psychoanalysis.

Social networking is an excellent example of this altering of the definition of self. Online, individuals are represented with a series of 1’s and 0’s yet somehow transformed to create a personae, an individual, a profile. Working, reading, watching media on a computer are acted singularly, not as a group. Yet, there is a desire to reach out and be part of a community. Privacy is lost in order to engage. While we sit alone in our chair typing we are joined to a massive network of users.

I think this is the very reason social networking is so widespread. As we are absorbed by technology we want to establish some form of individualism. We want to communicate what “we are doing” or “update or status” to remind ourselves that we are, in fact, an original, unduplicated, individual.

Thanks for reading.

I thought this was a cool site for Walter Bejamin fans.

2 Revolutions

We are in the midst of a revolution and it is remarkably similar to one that took place 500 years ago after the invention of the Printing Press.
According to Roget's Dictionary a revolution is a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. While evolution is the gradual development of society and social forms, institutions, etc., usually through a series of peaceful stages. In The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe Elizabeth Eisenstein makes the claim that the printing press became an "agent of change" and brought about a cultural revolution. While historians often point out the impact of literacy on culture, Eisenstein points to the invention of the printing press, not just scribal culture, as a moment of definitive and exponential change.

In an interview, she compares it to the Agricultural revolution saying:

"Chaucer said his clerk needed twenty books to fill his shelf It took ten scribes ... to feed one clerk it's sort of a
little like the agricultural revolution it take ten farmers to feed one city folk after the agricultural revolution it's
one farmer feeds twenty city folk."

After the invention of the printing press, it no longer was an "economy of scarcity" with people "starved" for more books. Instead, books could be easily reproduced, and the number of people who had access to reading materials multiplied. Historians acknowledge that in the sixteenth century there was a huge growth in knowledge, Eisenstein argues that there must be a link between this explosion of learning and printing. How could Marlow and Rabelaise write of the intoxicating pleasure from book reading if they did not have access to books more easily than their predecessors? She explains the scholar no longer had to wander from town to town to look at rare manuscripts, but could stay in one place and consult different books. This allowed more people to take up scholarly pursuits. Access to books created an era of "intense cross referencing between one book and another". The print shop itself became a source of innovative and scholarly work rather than academic institutions alone. Printing encouraged collaborative activities as artists, scholars, practitioners, and theorists worked together and checked each others work. This does not mean that the printing press was used solely for disseminating only scholarly texts, in fact Eisenstein states:


"The new wide-angled, unfocused scholarship went together with a new single-minded, narrowly focused piety.
At the same time, practical guidebooks and manuals also became more abundant, making it easier to lay plans
for getting ahead in this world -- possibly diverting attention away from uncertain futures in this one."


This cultural shift is very similar to what we are experiencing in the digital revolution. Instead of being bound to the printed word we can digitally access limitless amounts of knowledge. Facts can be checked by going to innumerable sites. And the interlinking, and aggregating of information is the standard. Sites like Wikipedia are not unlike the print shop in early modern Europe as people from a variety of specialties are encouraged to contribute and collaborate on entries. Just as learning in that time shifted from the monasteries, academies, to a wider variety of the population, learning today is moving away from the old institutions. Broadcasting ideas is no longer limited to those few scholars, journalists, or politicians with access to old forms of media. Anyone with a computer and the desire to communicate can put their ideas up for the world to see.

I can't help but be reminded of McLuhan's "the medium is the message". Eisenstein acknowledges his book The Gutenberg Galaxy as influencing her thinking. She does not hesitate to assert printings importance to the Reformation and describes it as an "emancipatory force" for the Germans from the papal authority of Rome. Without print, Luther's ideas would not have spread as quickly and garnered the support of a population. Instead Rome not only had to deal with not just one rebel priest, but a group of disenfranchised people. Now world leaders must quell dissension that is spread in seconds across continents. From the election in Iran to our own debate on healthcare, its can't be denied that digital communication is influencing events just by its mere existence.

What informs my thinking as I read more on this subject is that new technologies do change society and culture, but its seems basic human nature stays the same. It seems every age bemoans decline of their society and the evils of (insert medium here). Yet somehow humans adapt, take the things they need and continue to create, learn, and live.

Remediated Beatlemania

Every time I see the Beatles' Ed Sullivan performance I get goosebumps. I completely empathize with the girls screaming and crying for John, (especially John) Paul, George and Ringo. My love for the Beatles is a good example of Bolter and Grusin's remediation. Remediation is a term that captures the constant “oscillation” between “transparent immediacy” and “hypermediacy”.
In Remediation, Bolter and Grusin claim that this desire for immediacy is the creative impulse that is constantly developing new media forms. Transparent immediacy occurs when the user is completely immersed in the media experience, the media attempts to be invisible. In hypermediacy a person is completely aware of the media, they are actually using the media to generate the experience.
I was born after the Beatles broke up. I had no chance to experience them with any sort of immediacy. My encounters were through technology, radio, and the cassettes I patiently taped during an all day marathon of Beatles A to Z on KZPS. I collected pictures, books and calendars, pretty much anything I could get my hands on. Best Christmas ever-I got the all the Beatles albums on vinyl. (Even in 1986 that was a bit retro as I only had a cassette player and had to get a buddy to record them for me) Just as in the wider culture of media, each thing I bought every film I went to promised to "reform its predecessors by offering a more immediate or authentic experience." Watching "A Hard Days Night" is more immediate than just listening to them on your stereo or looking at pictures. In some ways it was even better than seeing them in concert, no screaming girls, and in the dark theater a person could get to know them in a new, intimate way. When the "Beatles Museum" came to Dallas, it was a hypermediated experience. I could sit in a recreation of The Cavern Club and watch the band's performance on a screen. While I was completely aware that it was not The Cavern, but an installation in the West End, and obviously it was a screen not the band in person, it was still a fun experience. In no way was I unaware of the media being used, but I was enjoying my experience because of the media.

When looking at the history of the Beatles they seem to have a uncanny ability to impact and utilize media to its fullest ability. From their early recordings that capture the live energy of their Hamburg and Cavern gigs, history-making performances on television to innovative films that are still admired for their editing and pace, the Beatles were constantly creating new ways for their fans to connect and experience their work. Even over 30 years after their break up and the death of half their members, the Beatles are still evolving and generating new encounters. On 9.9.9 they released remastered versions of their albums and the long-awaited, much anticipated Beatles Rock Band. Seth Schiesel of the New York Times opines:

"The Beatles: Rock Band is nothing less than a cultural watershed, one that may prove only slightly less influential than the band’s famous appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964. By reinterpreting an essential symbol of one generation in the medium and technology of another, The Beatles: Rock Band provides a transformative entertainment experience."

There has been much discussion in the music and gaming industries about the impact of Guitar Hero and Rock Band. Both games create a strangely immersive experience. Its hard to explain why pushing buttons on a little plastic guitar while staring at a television screen can be exhilarating. But it is. Part of it is the concentration required to actually play the game and succeed, the reward for success is not only a good score but the roar of the crowd in the game. The better you play, the louder they scream. For me its zen-like, as allowing your mind to wander will surely cause you to miss a note. Conversely while you are playing, the graphics on the screen simulate your band performing at a rock show. Just as a real rock concert is a hypermediated experience, the game creates another hypermediated performance. Its complete remediation. A constant movement between total absorption and awareness of the circumstances creating the experience. The New York Times says:

"It is an imperfect analogy, but listening to a finished song is perhaps like being served a finished recipe: you know it tastes great even if you have no sense of how it was created. By contrast, playing a music game like Rock Band is a bit closer to following a recipe yourself or watching a cooking show on television. Sure, the result won’t be of professional caliber (after all, you didn’t go to cooking school, the equivalent of music lessons), but you may have a greater appreciation for the genius who created the dish than the restaurantgoer, because you have attempted it yourself. "

Of course, there are people who get angry and say "Stop wasting your time with a silly game and learn to play the guitar for real!" I kind of agree with them, but no matter how much I practice I will NEVER be able to play Stevie Ray Vaugh's Texas Flood. (But I did score 90% correct on Guitar Hero and that WAS awesome.) What they are missing is that playing the game creates a new appreciation of the original media. Just as previous released versions of Rock Band, have given new generations an appreciation of classic rock. Beatles Rock Band will create new generations of remediated Beatlemaniacs. I haven't bought my own personal version of the game, there's that whole "graduate school" and "work" thing getting in the way. But eventually it will have to happen and my heart may actually burst with satisfaction when I play the Abbey Road Suite.

Most likely lukewarm

In the early part of the century Saussure went to great lengths to structuralize language and how it is formed, he did little to separate speech from writing. In fact he says writing has "an identical state of affairs" because the symbols are arbitrary and agreed upon in a communal sense. Ong and McLuhan both regard speech or orality and literacy as two very different mediums. Ong points out that all human societies have a spoken language, yet only 106 or so have been written down to create literature. Most have never been written at all. Literacy transforms a language into something larger and changes the way humans learn. Instead of apprenticeship or discipleship, literate cultures study. Ong writes that long after the development of the alphabet and writing, even in the middle ages people still trusted oral traditions over writing. Only the invention of the printing press created widespread literacy and according to McLuhan brought about nationalism and the industrial age. Then, writing became the more trusted media. Which leads to McLuhan's core idea, the medium is the message. Its not just a tool that can be used in one way or another. Its very creation transforms us. The printing press not merely its products changed the culture from oral/tribal to literate/mechanical.

Now, electronic media because of its participatory nature is transforming the culture into what Ong calls "secondary orality". Ong says "Contrasts between electronic media and print have sensitized us to the earlier contrasts between writing and orality." McLuhan divides media into two categories, Hot and cool. A hot medium has little participation, the data is completely filled. A cool medium requires a small amount of visual data and makes a greater demand upon the audience. McLuhan categorized radio, print and photography as hot media while comics and telephone and television as cool. Television is a cool medium because we have to process the small pixels into a message made of visuals and sound. But how would he categorize the internet and social media? Research is showing that our use of the social media ties us to the printed word more than ever. To borrow from Nicholas Carr "...we are wrapped in a cocoon of text that would have boggled McLuhan’s mind." However, social media is participatory. Our "profiles" are part of a community. Blogs are created to share ideas in the "global village". But, the computer draws the user into its world. Articles are read, programs are viewed individually. Are these terms even relevant? As media converges into a mashup of sound, print, image, and motion are we mixing up a lukewarm brew?

McLuhan theorized that electric media is transforming or "retribalizing" the culture. In his Playboy interview he refers to the social upheaval and the birth of hippie cultures as examples of this retribalization. While print "demanded both personal fragmentation and social uniformity" , the use of electronic media is creating an integrated human. Electronic media itself creates a clash of cultures as the "segmented visual culture" collides with the integrated electronic culture. At other times in human history the birth of new technologies was at a slower pace. People were able to become adjusted or "numbed" by them to a point that that the changes created by the new media become invisible. It is societies way of coping with these changes. However, now the changes are coming so quickly that we are unable to enter this state and thus we are in upheaval. Society is fighting between the segmented individualistic world of mechanical/print and the integrated world of electronic media.

How is social media changing our society? It seems like everyone has an answer to that question. But in terms of McLuhan's idea of retribalization, where do we stand? He stated that print required personal fragmentation and social uniformity. "The retribalized man can lead a far richer and more fulfilling life... a participant in a seamless web of interdependence and harmony." But he also says that electric technology will trigger more discontinuity, diversity and division. Polarization and conflict as well as love and harmony are likely.

Last question, as new technologies change our culture, how do we stay sane? McLuhan says that schizoprenia and alienation may be the unavoidable result of literacy. What is the result of the electronic age?

See Philip K. Dick.

Plato & Saussure

The Phaedrus analyzes two of civilization's most basic forms of communication, rhetoric and writing. Plato find faults with both forms. His distrust of persuasive argument stems from his belief that the rhetorician must know the subject down to it indivisible form. That pursuit of knowledge transforms the person from rhetorician into a philosopher. Rhetoric moves away from perfect forms because persuasive abilities are more important than the truth. Plato further argues that writing is a poor substitute for face to face discourse. Without the author present there is no way to gain further explanation, or expound on ideas, also there is danger of those ideas being easily misinterpreted. The written word cannot be catered to the specific needs of the reader in the way a teacher can mold a lesson for a student. He compares it to a painting, while admirable for its endeavor, it cannot achieve all that its trying to represent. Its is very interesting is that so many contemporary conversations still examined these ideas.

In the world of social media writing takes on new characteristics. The author can be engaged and, if willing, offer further explanation. Conversations do not require face to face interaction, but immediate dialog can occur between to parties. Larger communities are created and the discussion can span continents. Revolutions are chronicled in real time by the participants. In an article in WIRED Clive Thompson points to the Stanford Study of Writing. It finds that while pundits may moan that technology is making us illiterate, the internet and social media are in fact making us more literate. He quotes Andrea Lunsford who says, "I think we're in the midst of a literacy revolution the likes of which we haven't seen since Greek civilization." . While these features in some way refute Platonic arguments against writing, there are new issues that reinforce the pitfalls of the written word. Debate and discourse are encouraged on blogs, and social networking sites. New ideas are discussed and the world can chime in on the debate, however they often devolve into flame wars. So much so that most popular sites must police the contents of discussions and other such as D Magazine's Frontburner have removed comments altogether. (Because of its apparent conservative leanings its really no surprise.) Irresponsible postings have caused job terminations, and in one case, suicide. Individuals can anonymously impart opinions and ideas, without having to to accept responsibility for them. Because of new technologies, lies can spread farther and faster. And, its much more difficult to retract them. It all goes back to an essential truth of technology, be it rhetoric and writing in ancient Greece, or social networking today. The intent of the users determines the form, and "goodness" of the technology.

Sassure's Course in General Linguistics is an analysis of the structure of language or a term he creates "semitiocs". All language is relational and words are more about what they are not rather than what they are. Bit is bit, because it is not but, bat, or bet. Only because of this relational framework are we able to talk of things out of our immediate presence, or that are not in the present. A person can talk about the lamp in the other room with out having to physically show it. (of course, then it wouldn't be in the other room....) Language is a "communal contract" created by the community. Saussure breaks down language into signs. A sign is made up of the signified and the signifier. The signified is the concept and the signifier is the "sound image" associated with the concept. Saussure is not interested in the history of words, but language as a social structure.
Social media offers a new way to look at Suassure's theories in action. As social media creates new communities, a new language is formed. The internet meme is one example of this. Internet memes often have a complex history that is in some ways irrelevant. What is relevant is the agreed-upon meaning. When a person is rick-rolled the meaning is clear yet to lay it out in exact terms is difficult. The other interesting aspect of Rick-rolling in the context of Saussure is that it is playing with the concept of Signified/Signifier. The mix of the "subject" with the "rick" content creates a sign (rick-rolled.) Saussure's theories are in action as we daily. We are not actively creating language, but it is happens over time. However we are more aware of this phenomenon and in sites like Know Your Meme are even tracking the newest results. Another point that Saussure makes about language is that it takes time to assimilate language and it happens gradually. We are all at different levels in assimilating the new language created by social media, and just as in traditional language it seems much easier to learn when you are young.

Class and Blogging Begin

The first of many blogs about emerging media.