this video was so intense. immediately, the van halen song "right now" came to mind. and then the female singer started singing "right here, right now, right here, right now." i lost it.
i imagine the intended audience for this video would be businesses that haven't quite made the jump to digital and social marketing. it is hard to imagine that anyone out there doesn't realize that social media is not just a fad and is "a fundamental shift in the way we communicate."
the presentation seemed a bit abrasive and urgent to me. the statistics presented were, indeed, interesting. and i suppose if you're trying to convince a stodgy, stuck-in-his/her-ways business owner, the message might need to be presented so strongly.
aside from my aversion to the unnecessary intensity of the video, i do think it was well-produced. it had some of the same stylistic elements of "the machine is us/ing us:" e.g. typing in a twitter interface while discussing twitter.
one argument made took me aback: "Generation Y and Z consider e-mail passe." really? i'm not sure which generation I'm in, but i consider e-mail awesome.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
professional investigation
after reading Hey unemployed media professionals!, i am shocked that the author does not mention online identity.
my online identity is something i am constantly waffling about. my blog is a really important part of my self-expression and i often don't contemplate the content/message of a post before clicking "publish." there is occasionally questionable material and i will be reminded of this by emails from my father. most of what i write is not really worthy of being read by anyone, it's just catharsis for me. over the last year, i've started a few side-blogs, none of which made it past a few posts: holiday mantis, we hate you, i can't stop.
i think that if there is one thing standing in the way of me getting a totally killer job as a video producer for a local news organization (that would be the ideal position for me) after earning my MA in new media studies, that thing will probably be my online identity.
and this is where the struggle comes in: do i sacrifice self-expression in the name of finding a job? i don't think that is something i can justify. this is a murky area ridden with fine lines and slippery slopes. i suppose the job determines the amount of importance on online identity. but much like i think drug testing for jobs is silly, discounting me as a potential job candidate because i write a blog about synchronicity and am often saracastic is silly.
anyway, back to the blog post and things she actually did mention:
i think her 5 main points hold true. you gotta be in it to win it and you can't expect to win fame and fortune by maintaining a blog.
online media as a career field is still new. no one really knows any sure-fire secrets to securing a job. this isn't law school or med school. and i think that's part of what makes it so exciting. we can do whatever we want. we can create a new job that has never existed before to suit our desires. to me, that sounds much better than taking the bar exam.
my online identity is something i am constantly waffling about. my blog is a really important part of my self-expression and i often don't contemplate the content/message of a post before clicking "publish." there is occasionally questionable material and i will be reminded of this by emails from my father. most of what i write is not really worthy of being read by anyone, it's just catharsis for me. over the last year, i've started a few side-blogs, none of which made it past a few posts: holiday mantis, we hate you, i can't stop.
i think that if there is one thing standing in the way of me getting a totally killer job as a video producer for a local news organization (that would be the ideal position for me) after earning my MA in new media studies, that thing will probably be my online identity.
and this is where the struggle comes in: do i sacrifice self-expression in the name of finding a job? i don't think that is something i can justify. this is a murky area ridden with fine lines and slippery slopes. i suppose the job determines the amount of importance on online identity. but much like i think drug testing for jobs is silly, discounting me as a potential job candidate because i write a blog about synchronicity and am often saracastic is silly.
anyway, back to the blog post and things she actually did mention:
i think her 5 main points hold true. you gotta be in it to win it and you can't expect to win fame and fortune by maintaining a blog.
online media as a career field is still new. no one really knows any sure-fire secrets to securing a job. this isn't law school or med school. and i think that's part of what makes it so exciting. we can do whatever we want. we can create a new job that has never existed before to suit our desires. to me, that sounds much better than taking the bar exam.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
microvlogging
so i just learned about microvlogging this morning and immediately opened an account.
i am pretty anti-twitter, at least for my own personal use. i don't really care what other people do, but i have been against it from the very beginning.
but. i'm a big fan of the vlog. i am guilty of recording and editing vlogs, but not posting them to the internets because they make me feel self-absorbed.
anyway, i think robo.to is pretty fun. i don't know if it really serves a purpose, but it makes me giggle.
i am pretty anti-twitter, at least for my own personal use. i don't really care what other people do, but i have been against it from the very beginning.
but. i'm a big fan of the vlog. i am guilty of recording and editing vlogs, but not posting them to the internets because they make me feel self-absorbed.
anyway, i think robo.to is pretty fun. i don't know if it really serves a purpose, but it makes me giggle.
Multimodal Discourse/ Remediation
my first impression upon completing this reading, was that multimodality allows for individualization and the ability to convey a message more effectively than in a monomodal form.
the overlapping functions of the four semiotic strata kress and van leeuwen define (discourse, design, production and distribution) brought to mind the dimensions of media from the turnley paper we read earlier this semester. it seems to me that without defining the discourse, design is impossible. and of course without the design, there is nothing to produce or distribute.
the discussion of provenance and experiential meaning potential interested me. inspiration and what springs forth from it is something i think about a lot. a few months ago i wrote a blog post about how sometimes i resent art because it makes everything seem inauthentic. i feel like everything is cliche and nothing is genuine because it is this endless cycle of provenance and experiential meaning creation. i received comments, and i have gone back and forth in my own mind, saying that it is okay and that is what art is for and that is just how the world works.
this, i think, ties into the reading by bolter and grusin from "Remediation." remediation is defined as the process of new media (specifically, in this case, digital media) defining themselves by borrowing from and/or repurposing old media. the reading also focuses on immediacy and hypermediacy. immediacy is the "perfection, or erasure, of the gap between the signifier and the signified, such that a representation is perceived to be a thing itself [via]." hypermediacy's goal is make the viewer aware of the medium/media in use.
essentially, the argument made in Remediation is that new media is necessarily derived from old media. and it can never escape that or hide it or transcend it. "Repurposing as remediation is both what is 'unique to digital worlds' and what denies the possibility of that uniqueness." This quote reminds me of my blog post about resentment for art. Because everything is derivative, nothing is pure. And i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it can get me down on days i'm feeling particularly uncreative. i think the lesson to be taken away from this reading is that it's okay to build upon the past and make it better; make it your own.
so basically, the provenance of an old medium can lead to the experiential meaning potential of a new medium being realized and help to form the new medium until it takes on its own "personality," if you will.
the overlapping functions of the four semiotic strata kress and van leeuwen define (discourse, design, production and distribution) brought to mind the dimensions of media from the turnley paper we read earlier this semester. it seems to me that without defining the discourse, design is impossible. and of course without the design, there is nothing to produce or distribute.
the discussion of provenance and experiential meaning potential interested me. inspiration and what springs forth from it is something i think about a lot. a few months ago i wrote a blog post about how sometimes i resent art because it makes everything seem inauthentic. i feel like everything is cliche and nothing is genuine because it is this endless cycle of provenance and experiential meaning creation. i received comments, and i have gone back and forth in my own mind, saying that it is okay and that is what art is for and that is just how the world works.
this, i think, ties into the reading by bolter and grusin from "Remediation." remediation is defined as the process of new media (specifically, in this case, digital media) defining themselves by borrowing from and/or repurposing old media. the reading also focuses on immediacy and hypermediacy. immediacy is the "perfection, or erasure, of the gap between the signifier and the signified, such that a representation is perceived to be a thing itself [via]." hypermediacy's goal is make the viewer aware of the medium/media in use.
essentially, the argument made in Remediation is that new media is necessarily derived from old media. and it can never escape that or hide it or transcend it. "Repurposing as remediation is both what is 'unique to digital worlds' and what denies the possibility of that uniqueness." This quote reminds me of my blog post about resentment for art. Because everything is derivative, nothing is pure. And i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but it can get me down on days i'm feeling particularly uncreative. i think the lesson to be taken away from this reading is that it's okay to build upon the past and make it better; make it your own.
so basically, the provenance of an old medium can lead to the experiential meaning potential of a new medium being realized and help to form the new medium until it takes on its own "personality," if you will.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
homeless tv
i recently started an internship at a web video production house and this youtube video was sent around by the head producer. it's pretty funny:
on a related note, have y'all heard about the newest american girl doll? she's homeless! and costs just shy of $100.
on a related note, have y'all heard about the newest american girl doll? she's homeless! and costs just shy of $100.
Monday, October 5, 2009
check out danah boyd's research
So this post is about a study/speech that I wanted to use for the Pew report assignment but I wasn't sure if it was statistics-laden enough. I figured I should write about it anyway.
The woman who gave this speech/performed the research is really awesome. A friend turned me on to danah boyd's work a handful of months ago and I like what she's doing. She focuses on how teens use the internet and social networking to socialize and how it reflects their real life interactions.
I got really pumped when I saw this article on the root (an off-shoot of one of my top 3 sites, slate) because i saw danah's name.
what i gather from essays i've read by danah boyd is that the online social networks are often reflective of what the teens are trying to project in real life (meatspace) social circles. her argument with this research is that the same class and racial segregation that occurs in the cafeteria and study hall occurs online on myspace/facebook. she says in the root interview: "[Social media] is their hanging out after school. It reflects all kinds of things back at us that mirror and magnify what we like to pretend doesn’t exist."
and it's not just saying that only one race has a significant presence on one site and a different race has a significant presence on another site. she also looks at friending trends. online, as in real life, she has found a lot of segregation.
i have a 14 year-old niece and i keep a pretty vigilant watch over her myspace and facebook pages. it is smack-you-in-the-face clear that teens' online identities are a huge part of their real life identities. she is constantly begging for picture comments and posts about 7 versions of the same photo. she broadcasts who her best friend is that week and what boy she's in love with.
i think the research danah boyd is performing is really relevant and useful. this is a whole new animal for parents of teens to deal with, what with cyberbullying and cyberpervs and predators. since parents of today's teenagers didn't grow up with the internet, let alone facebook, they need all the insight they can get.
The woman who gave this speech/performed the research is really awesome. A friend turned me on to danah boyd's work a handful of months ago and I like what she's doing. She focuses on how teens use the internet and social networking to socialize and how it reflects their real life interactions.
I got really pumped when I saw this article on the root (an off-shoot of one of my top 3 sites, slate) because i saw danah's name.
what i gather from essays i've read by danah boyd is that the online social networks are often reflective of what the teens are trying to project in real life (meatspace) social circles. her argument with this research is that the same class and racial segregation that occurs in the cafeteria and study hall occurs online on myspace/facebook. she says in the root interview: "[Social media] is their hanging out after school. It reflects all kinds of things back at us that mirror and magnify what we like to pretend doesn’t exist."
and it's not just saying that only one race has a significant presence on one site and a different race has a significant presence on another site. she also looks at friending trends. online, as in real life, she has found a lot of segregation.
i have a 14 year-old niece and i keep a pretty vigilant watch over her myspace and facebook pages. it is smack-you-in-the-face clear that teens' online identities are a huge part of their real life identities. she is constantly begging for picture comments and posts about 7 versions of the same photo. she broadcasts who her best friend is that week and what boy she's in love with.
i think the research danah boyd is performing is really relevant and useful. this is a whole new animal for parents of teens to deal with, what with cyberbullying and cyberpervs and predators. since parents of today's teenagers didn't grow up with the internet, let alone facebook, they need all the insight they can get.
Pew report: Networked Families
October 2008, Networked Families, by Barry Wellman, Aaron Smith, Amy Wells and Tracy Kennedy
This report is an examination of how new technologies, namely cell phones and the Internet, play a role in family relationships and closeness. The researchers examined a few different types of households for their study: married without children, married with children (ages 7-17), multiple non-married adults and children in one house, multiple non-married adults and no children in home, and single parents.
Ultimately, the researchers found that most people feel new technologies have had a positive impact -- if any -- on their familial relationships. The majority of those surveyed said they think the closeness in their families are equal to or greater than the levels of closeness they experienced growing up.
Before reading this report, I thought of a current commercial for a cell phone service provider (the company escapes me now). Two little girls are texting each other: "what r u doing?" "eating, lol. u?" then the camera pulls back and the viewer sees that they are sisters, sitting next to each other at a dinner table with their mother and father. father rolls his eyes in exasperation. i have no doubt this happens at many dinner tables in real life.
I also thought about the family I used to be a nanny for and how the kids would, if allowed, spend hours upon hours online. They were really into webkinz, and would get completely hypnotized by playing in this online world. All three of them would crowd around the computer and argue over whose turn it was to man the controls.
A major point in the study is: "The internet enables shared 'Hey, look at this!' experiences." This point is made in conjunction with the finding that 52% of those surveyed that fall into the married-with-children category go online with another person at least a few times a week. This refutes the assumption that internet use can be isolating. I thought this was an interesting point to make and at first I balked at it. I wrote in my notes, in fact, "This is still passive interaction," comparing it in my mind to television. But upon further reflection I think maybe there is some validity to the point that sharing "hey look at this" experiences can nurture closeness. As with any kind of media (books, magazines, radio programs, television), digital media can spark robust conversation and debate and help people learn more about each other.
The wording about the finding that people surveyed claimed they watch less television "thanks to the internet" was troublesome to me. Not all television is bad. Most of it is bad, but there is worthwhile, enriching programming out there. There is also a lot of bad, unproductive internet content. I'm not convinced that watching less television and using more internet is a positive thing. Not to say it is negative, but I found the wording to suggest the former.
The study notes that spouses often keep in touch throughout the day via cell phone calls. Most of their calls are just to say hi and check in with each other, rather than making major plans.
A few points made in this study brought to mind McLuhan's argument that we ignore and/or understate the amputations caused by new media. One sentence in particular stands out: "Roughly nine in ten internet users say that the time they spend online has had no impact on the amount of time they spend with friends, family or at social events." I don't know if I buy that. I do believe that people responded that way, but I don't believe it to be true. I know that I have been distracted and then been late to meet with friends/family because I was on the Internet. I also have been victim to the iphone: I'm out to dinner/drinks/whatever with a friend who has an iphone and he will look something up on wikipedia mid-conversation. When this happens, while we're all physically together, we aren't mentally in the same place. I think this is more detrimental to interpersonal relationships than being too busy with work to go out to dinner. I think people are in denial of their abilities to forget that they are spending time with someone and that it is rude to surf the internet on your phone or text with other people.
In the end, the study argues that for most families, cell phones and the internet have been mostly good additions to the households.
This report is an examination of how new technologies, namely cell phones and the Internet, play a role in family relationships and closeness. The researchers examined a few different types of households for their study: married without children, married with children (ages 7-17), multiple non-married adults and children in one house, multiple non-married adults and no children in home, and single parents.
Ultimately, the researchers found that most people feel new technologies have had a positive impact -- if any -- on their familial relationships. The majority of those surveyed said they think the closeness in their families are equal to or greater than the levels of closeness they experienced growing up.
Before reading this report, I thought of a current commercial for a cell phone service provider (the company escapes me now). Two little girls are texting each other: "what r u doing?" "eating, lol. u?" then the camera pulls back and the viewer sees that they are sisters, sitting next to each other at a dinner table with their mother and father. father rolls his eyes in exasperation. i have no doubt this happens at many dinner tables in real life.
I also thought about the family I used to be a nanny for and how the kids would, if allowed, spend hours upon hours online. They were really into webkinz, and would get completely hypnotized by playing in this online world. All three of them would crowd around the computer and argue over whose turn it was to man the controls.
A major point in the study is: "The internet enables shared 'Hey, look at this!' experiences." This point is made in conjunction with the finding that 52% of those surveyed that fall into the married-with-children category go online with another person at least a few times a week. This refutes the assumption that internet use can be isolating. I thought this was an interesting point to make and at first I balked at it. I wrote in my notes, in fact, "This is still passive interaction," comparing it in my mind to television. But upon further reflection I think maybe there is some validity to the point that sharing "hey look at this" experiences can nurture closeness. As with any kind of media (books, magazines, radio programs, television), digital media can spark robust conversation and debate and help people learn more about each other.
The wording about the finding that people surveyed claimed they watch less television "thanks to the internet" was troublesome to me. Not all television is bad. Most of it is bad, but there is worthwhile, enriching programming out there. There is also a lot of bad, unproductive internet content. I'm not convinced that watching less television and using more internet is a positive thing. Not to say it is negative, but I found the wording to suggest the former.
The study notes that spouses often keep in touch throughout the day via cell phone calls. Most of their calls are just to say hi and check in with each other, rather than making major plans.
A few points made in this study brought to mind McLuhan's argument that we ignore and/or understate the amputations caused by new media. One sentence in particular stands out: "Roughly nine in ten internet users say that the time they spend online has had no impact on the amount of time they spend with friends, family or at social events." I don't know if I buy that. I do believe that people responded that way, but I don't believe it to be true. I know that I have been distracted and then been late to meet with friends/family because I was on the Internet. I also have been victim to the iphone: I'm out to dinner/drinks/whatever with a friend who has an iphone and he will look something up on wikipedia mid-conversation. When this happens, while we're all physically together, we aren't mentally in the same place. I think this is more detrimental to interpersonal relationships than being too busy with work to go out to dinner. I think people are in denial of their abilities to forget that they are spending time with someone and that it is rude to surf the internet on your phone or text with other people.
In the end, the study argues that for most families, cell phones and the internet have been mostly good additions to the households.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
