For those of you interested in what advanced work in new media theory looks like, check out the schedule of presentations at this year's Digital Arts and Culture conference:
http://dac09.uci.edu/
I'll be there!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Artists for Movement
The United States is known as a melting pot nation: with a slew of ethnicities, religions, and ideologies blended together to form one diversely unified nation. No one person originated from this land, as our founding fathers migrated to the coasts of the East Coast from Great Britain. For these reason the subject of immigration hits home to many of us. Personally, as a child of two Mexican immigrants, it is a subject met with personal accounts and sympathies for those who tread arduous journeys to reach America, which many see as the “land of dreams”. In his/ her article “Border Hacks: Electronic Civil Disobedience and the Politics of Immigration”, Raley discusses political power in art and media that allow voices of opposition to be heard, despite the quieting by the slanted, political main stream culture. More importantly does Raley emphasize individual power in forming resistance to positions we do not agree with are simply unjust.
With a massive number of “3,500 people [who] are reported dead attempting to cross the United States” (3), it is evident that something must be done with the way the U.S.-Mexico border is dealt with. Although these individuals are attempting to enter this country, their consequences for their actions are not equivalent to the consequence they are given, death. Raley continues to explain that “Minutemen claim the right to make sovereign decisions about friend and enemy” (8). Minutemen are in general right-winged Americans strongly against the ideas of foreigners entering our country, and although this may not encompass the nation’s beliefs, the still hold the power to catch and return people back to their home country. These individuals grasp someone else’s life in their hands – whether or not they achieve their goal of reaching a land where they’re potential matches the opportunities provided, or whether they return to a life of scrounging for jobs at the local tienda(store). Our nation and culture continuously refers to these struggling individuals as ‘Others’ or ‘Aliens’ which in turn deems them “neither alive nor dead, but interminably spectral” (10). As a result, American citizens dismiss the migrants’ human characteristics and lump them together as a bounded society – without looking more in depth into their various experiences that each one of them has. Therefore the “war against terrorism is a war without end will be one that justifies itself endlessly in relation to the spectral infinity of its enemy” (10). As the political continues to dehumanize immigrants and impersonalize their efforts, a resistance by American society will persist because it is as if they are fighting nothing—just another meaningless face of the many.
In order for the whispers of the opposition to become more audible, forms of art and media allow for widespread coverage and personalization. Trebor Scholz and Carol Flax’s hypermedia project, Tuesday Afternoon, “contrasts issue of individually experienced border control” (19) by superimposing a map of the U.S.-Mexico border with a QuickTime video of someone walking along the border, short stories are presented in hypertexual form—from a woman being denied entry to a country after displaying her faulty travel visas, to a women given thirty days to leave the country after her marriage of convenience is nullified. It also estimates where people have fallen to death along the border. All of these accounts allow the large population an opportunity to open their eyes to personal accounts of the dismay and pain that may come along with being denied access to a country. It is not merely a trip back to where you came from, rather it is a shattering of hopes and plans that are extensively made; it is a more comfortable life denied, it is a denial of harnessing one’s potential. In art demonstrations such as this, first person accounts are presented in a way where those not familiar with this kind of exertion can see the disappointment in a migrants face, feel the moment of rejection, and make opinions of their own as to the raw nature of immigrating. This art form encourages “freedom of movement” (18) in that all the hardships would be solved if people were allowed the mere freedom of going where one chooses. It is the “revenge of nomadism over the principle of territory” (23). This idea is a large idea, in that has grand possibilities to it. Why create divisions among the global community? It is a form of separation between races, classes, and ideologies that perhaps creates feuds among nations as we seem to feel that we cannot relate to one another.
Continuing to individualize the process of crossing borders, the Border Film Project gave five hundred people disposable cameras Minutemen and migrants to record their experiences. With images such as migrants walking and Minutemen on the lookout for illegal citizens crossing the border, these images have a “memorializing capacity as well” (28). As the country creates a sense of invisibility for migrants, these photos create a sense of true reality because they are direct representations of the events that happen in life along the border.
It is essential to give separate identities to those people who are courageous enough to attempt to enter this country. Although they are not legally admitted here, they risk their lives and reputations in forging that extensive journey across the long, hazardous journey. By robbing them of their individuality, we rob them of respect as a human being. Would you consider my parents as one of the ‘Other’? As the faceless, bodiless, mindless? Just another immigrant? These art and media projects allow my mother and father to gain their defining features once again. They now become human.
With a massive number of “3,500 people [who] are reported dead attempting to cross the United States” (3), it is evident that something must be done with the way the U.S.-Mexico border is dealt with. Although these individuals are attempting to enter this country, their consequences for their actions are not equivalent to the consequence they are given, death. Raley continues to explain that “Minutemen claim the right to make sovereign decisions about friend and enemy” (8). Minutemen are in general right-winged Americans strongly against the ideas of foreigners entering our country, and although this may not encompass the nation’s beliefs, the still hold the power to catch and return people back to their home country. These individuals grasp someone else’s life in their hands – whether or not they achieve their goal of reaching a land where they’re potential matches the opportunities provided, or whether they return to a life of scrounging for jobs at the local tienda(store). Our nation and culture continuously refers to these struggling individuals as ‘Others’ or ‘Aliens’ which in turn deems them “neither alive nor dead, but interminably spectral” (10). As a result, American citizens dismiss the migrants’ human characteristics and lump them together as a bounded society – without looking more in depth into their various experiences that each one of them has. Therefore the “war against terrorism is a war without end will be one that justifies itself endlessly in relation to the spectral infinity of its enemy” (10). As the political continues to dehumanize immigrants and impersonalize their efforts, a resistance by American society will persist because it is as if they are fighting nothing—just another meaningless face of the many.
In order for the whispers of the opposition to become more audible, forms of art and media allow for widespread coverage and personalization. Trebor Scholz and Carol Flax’s hypermedia project, Tuesday Afternoon, “contrasts issue of individually experienced border control” (19) by superimposing a map of the U.S.-Mexico border with a QuickTime video of someone walking along the border, short stories are presented in hypertexual form—from a woman being denied entry to a country after displaying her faulty travel visas, to a women given thirty days to leave the country after her marriage of convenience is nullified. It also estimates where people have fallen to death along the border. All of these accounts allow the large population an opportunity to open their eyes to personal accounts of the dismay and pain that may come along with being denied access to a country. It is not merely a trip back to where you came from, rather it is a shattering of hopes and plans that are extensively made; it is a more comfortable life denied, it is a denial of harnessing one’s potential. In art demonstrations such as this, first person accounts are presented in a way where those not familiar with this kind of exertion can see the disappointment in a migrants face, feel the moment of rejection, and make opinions of their own as to the raw nature of immigrating. This art form encourages “freedom of movement” (18) in that all the hardships would be solved if people were allowed the mere freedom of going where one chooses. It is the “revenge of nomadism over the principle of territory” (23). This idea is a large idea, in that has grand possibilities to it. Why create divisions among the global community? It is a form of separation between races, classes, and ideologies that perhaps creates feuds among nations as we seem to feel that we cannot relate to one another.
Continuing to individualize the process of crossing borders, the Border Film Project gave five hundred people disposable cameras Minutemen and migrants to record their experiences. With images such as migrants walking and Minutemen on the lookout for illegal citizens crossing the border, these images have a “memorializing capacity as well” (28). As the country creates a sense of invisibility for migrants, these photos create a sense of true reality because they are direct representations of the events that happen in life along the border.
It is essential to give separate identities to those people who are courageous enough to attempt to enter this country. Although they are not legally admitted here, they risk their lives and reputations in forging that extensive journey across the long, hazardous journey. By robbing them of their individuality, we rob them of respect as a human being. Would you consider my parents as one of the ‘Other’? As the faceless, bodiless, mindless? Just another immigrant? These art and media projects allow my mother and father to gain their defining features once again. They now become human.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Information Terrorism
The author in “Border Hacks” differentiates between Web Activism and Hacking – which was classified as “information terrorism.” True, in some cases Web Activism can be harmless, and can be used to raise public awareness. But, as discussed in “Photoshop for Democracy,” activism, even in the form of parodies, photoshopped pictures, and other related “harmless” activities can cause great damage not only to political candidates but to larger groups as well. Some of these images are used as “terrorism” because, on the Internet, nothing and no one is really safe from un-filtered images, from controversial debated to outright lies. Just as Joseph Goebbels, a truly dark and sinister, but brilliant propaganda figure, once said, “a lie spoken a thousand times becomes the truth!” On the internet, just one YouTube video can become popular, “go viral,” as it is called. These will be copied not one thousand, not ten thousand, but hundreds of thousands of times, maybe even millions, as what happened to the now-famous Gary Brolsma video popularly called “The Numa Numa Guy.”
While a short clip of a teenager (Brolsma was 18 at the time) dancing to a Moldovan song may cause little alarm, the rate at which it spread across the internet (over 700 million views estimated by now, allegedly copied thousands of times to other websites) shows the power of the web to carry any information, including disinformation, inciting terror in the citizens of a nation, causing social disruption, and, possibly, rebellion.
One of the reasons for this is that people are basically willing to take what looks and sounds scary, frightening, out-of-bounds, and accept it as true. This is the same principle as that which dove hundreds of people to large-scale paranoia during the UFO-scares of the 50’s, thousands to protest everything from the Vietnam War to oppressive government control in the 60’s and 70’s, and still drives thousands of protestors today. Lies are easier to make attractive, they are, in a way, as Venus Flytraps to unsuspecting flies – they look very pretty, they are easily acceptable, no matter how illogical, and they are very often malicious on many levels.
Thus, Web Activism can and often is a very potent form of terrorism, especially in the societies where people easily believe in many things. One example is from 2008, when a YouTube user found a large number of black containers which reminded him of coffins and uploaded a somewhat long clip of walking around them and even inspecting one. A few weeks later, that very video became Russian News, with newscasters quite seriously claiming that America must be preparing for World War III, having allegedly made “millions of bio-degradable coffins.” News stories like this often appear in various Russian, European, and even U.S. publications, mostly about what happens in nations other than the one which published the paper. Thus, if one video was for a time a cause of serious dismay and un-comfort on a national level, then any political “activism” can be boosted to the level of a serious national security threat. And thus, should also be classified as potential information terrorism.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Copyright Law
Anthony Su- Week 14 Blog Post
First, I would like to discuss the distinction between a society based on raw material and one based on information. A society based on raw material kind of resembles a farm or a society that does not value education highly. On the other hand, a society based on information is highly intellectual, with technology and many ideas that should not be freely distributed. I think that copyright is certainly more applicable to a society based on information. For example, people can replicate music or movies more readily than something that is not intellectual. It is highly unlikely for someone to replicate a potato or a solid, physical material from a market and sell it. It is possible for someone to copy a farming method, but I don't see that as bad as breaking copyright law. The one who tries to copy the farming method does have to put in the work to produce a product. On the other hand, copying intellectual material is way worse because it is so easy to say, copy a song, without putting in much work. The person who initially came up with a song or work put in all the work or human labor already. Copyright is so much more of an issue in societies based on information. That is a reason why copyright isn't a big issue in the past; many societies were not intellectual or based on information.
Secondly, I think that Copyright is very important. People do have a right own their information. I totally agree with the humanitarian origin of copyright. To take someone's new, original idea away from that person is analogous to taking a part of that person's brain away. People do need the credit they deserve for a work. The time and effort someone spends on an intellectual work should be recognized. It is not right to break copyright laws. It is like plagiarism, which is highly not tolerated in many institutions of education these days. In this sense, patents should be supported and it is not wrong for someone to want to get rich off an innovative idea. That being said, the more steps needed in order for a work to be published, the worse the situation becomes. Publishers, or other people who authors/composers need to see before making their work final and out to the public, should not be legitimate working men. I am sure that publishers have to sign agreements before they look at an author's work, but it is still an unnecessary step in the process of making intellectual property and distributing it to the public. The extra step of handing a work to a publisher to have it printed takes extra time, and the author could publish his or her own work. This idea may be radical and against the law, but it is a suggestion I have. It would be nice to simplify society and lower the number of steps required to publish and distribute intellectual work. Without the publishers, the work of an author may be more pure and the probability of breaking Copyright laws can be reduced.
I would also like to discuss sausage factories. I liked comparing this to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle earlier today to show the horrific nature of producing meat. They are disgusting, but I find that there should be one reason why we should take pity on some members of society and respect the work they do. Even though the quality of labor may not be good, as seen by occasional fingers sticking out of meat loaves and hair in dishes, due to the unsanitary conditions of the factory, I feel that the producers are doing the best they can given the conditions of the working place. I feel that overall, our society should give more respect to people like these, even though this situation is less common in the world today. Without them, our world would be much different. It is just like we need material imported from China, our world would be much different without this trading partner we have. We cannot produce some material that China can produce. Even though the quality of some work is not good, we should still respect it for what it is. Same thing goes with copyright, we should respect authors and composers for working hard on their intellectual works.
Finally, I do agree with what's been said earlier about fear deterring certain people from coming up with very innovative ideas.
First, I would like to discuss the distinction between a society based on raw material and one based on information. A society based on raw material kind of resembles a farm or a society that does not value education highly. On the other hand, a society based on information is highly intellectual, with technology and many ideas that should not be freely distributed. I think that copyright is certainly more applicable to a society based on information. For example, people can replicate music or movies more readily than something that is not intellectual. It is highly unlikely for someone to replicate a potato or a solid, physical material from a market and sell it. It is possible for someone to copy a farming method, but I don't see that as bad as breaking copyright law. The one who tries to copy the farming method does have to put in the work to produce a product. On the other hand, copying intellectual material is way worse because it is so easy to say, copy a song, without putting in much work. The person who initially came up with a song or work put in all the work or human labor already. Copyright is so much more of an issue in societies based on information. That is a reason why copyright isn't a big issue in the past; many societies were not intellectual or based on information.
Secondly, I think that Copyright is very important. People do have a right own their information. I totally agree with the humanitarian origin of copyright. To take someone's new, original idea away from that person is analogous to taking a part of that person's brain away. People do need the credit they deserve for a work. The time and effort someone spends on an intellectual work should be recognized. It is not right to break copyright laws. It is like plagiarism, which is highly not tolerated in many institutions of education these days. In this sense, patents should be supported and it is not wrong for someone to want to get rich off an innovative idea. That being said, the more steps needed in order for a work to be published, the worse the situation becomes. Publishers, or other people who authors/composers need to see before making their work final and out to the public, should not be legitimate working men. I am sure that publishers have to sign agreements before they look at an author's work, but it is still an unnecessary step in the process of making intellectual property and distributing it to the public. The extra step of handing a work to a publisher to have it printed takes extra time, and the author could publish his or her own work. This idea may be radical and against the law, but it is a suggestion I have. It would be nice to simplify society and lower the number of steps required to publish and distribute intellectual work. Without the publishers, the work of an author may be more pure and the probability of breaking Copyright laws can be reduced.
I would also like to discuss sausage factories. I liked comparing this to Upton Sinclair's The Jungle earlier today to show the horrific nature of producing meat. They are disgusting, but I find that there should be one reason why we should take pity on some members of society and respect the work they do. Even though the quality of labor may not be good, as seen by occasional fingers sticking out of meat loaves and hair in dishes, due to the unsanitary conditions of the factory, I feel that the producers are doing the best they can given the conditions of the working place. I feel that overall, our society should give more respect to people like these, even though this situation is less common in the world today. Without them, our world would be much different. It is just like we need material imported from China, our world would be much different without this trading partner we have. We cannot produce some material that China can produce. Even though the quality of some work is not good, we should still respect it for what it is. Same thing goes with copyright, we should respect authors and composers for working hard on their intellectual works.
Finally, I do agree with what's been said earlier about fear deterring certain people from coming up with very innovative ideas.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Animated News --- Now Kids Can Watch How Crimes Happen
*Before I begin, I would like to warn the audience that the subject of my post is not exactly something we’ve talked about in class or read for homework. But, seeing that this subject that I am about to discuss is a very interesting form of new media and that it somewhat relates to the issues we’ve studied, I feel obligated to share it with the class.
Animated News — Now You Can Watch The Crime Happen Like A Movie
I was just watching the news the other day when I came across a very interesting new-media topic— animated news. Recently, a Taiwanese news publication company, the Apple, has introduced animated recreations of crimes into its daily news program. At the company’s headquarter, hundreds of engineers work to turn materials gathered by field journalists into detailed 3-D animated movies. Bloodshed, live actions of robbery, shooting, rapes etc. you name it, “animated news” covers a wide range of social topics from gang violence and street fights to sexual assaults and domestic violence. And while the company allegedly claims that minors under eighteen years of age are not allowed to view the overtly graphic animations, kids can still download the animated news online and watch the clips either on the computer or on their cell phones. (*An example of a less-violent piece of animated news may be viewed on the following website if anyone is interested: http://www.xcar.com.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=11018964 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsIkpBSRpc ) Furious parents and educators are concerned that the realistic depictions of violence and inappropriate sexual contents would have negative influence on children. The Tai Pei government too, has imposed a daily fee of 500,000 yuan on the Apple Publication and has ordered the company to stop producing animated news. At the same time, media scholars also resist this “new news movement.” Instead of worrying about kids watching recreations of violent crimes, media scholars are more concerned about the change in the nature of news brought by its latest form(animated news).
Aside from the concern over the negative impact on the nature of news brought by this animated news movement, there are two fundamental problems that cannot be overseen: violence and sexuality.
Let’s start with sexuality. This past week, we’ve talked about how sexuality is portrayed in video games. In Hot Date, Consalvo argues that the design of characters in video games reflect a traditional social belief that women are vulnerable princess who need to be saved by prince-charmings and that the most influence such video games can have on the player is that the games allow players to explore their identity (sexual-wise) playing as the main character (who is usually a guy). But in animated news, sexuality is a much more dangerous component of the medium. The problem is no longer who is playing prince charming; the problem now is how will guys treat women watching rape or other sexual violence recreations growing up. Similarly, will girls thus assume a weak, victimized image?
Secondly, there is the concern over kids' exposure to violence via new media. Here is something to think about: if we do not want expose kids to violent contents, then why do we produce all sorts of media with violent contents in the first place? In a way, the fault is actually on the adults. According to Baidu's Encyclopedia on animated news, the animated news movement is actually driven by the market for sex and violence. If that sentence does not make sense, think of it this way: since the daily news program is converted to animated news which primarily covers news on violent, sexual crimes and even suicides, the entire news spectrum is then converted to violent and sexual contents. Now you may ask why there is this conversion from traditional news to animated news. More specifically, you should ask why such conversion is necessary or unavoidable. The answer is actually quite simple—because sex and violence sells. Remember that article we read earlier on violent video games and kids? The author of that article argues that adults are more afraid of children mastering technologies better than adults do than they are afraid of kids being exposed to violence via video games. But perhaps what adults should really be afraid of is the consequence of their subconscious (or is it?) preference for sex and violence. The entertainment industry will not stop selling sex and violence unless there is no market for it. And until then, good luck to the parents and educators who strive to keep children safe from media contents inappropriate for the kids’ age.
Huiling P.
Animated News — Now You Can Watch The Crime Happen Like A Movie
I was just watching the news the other day when I came across a very interesting new-media topic— animated news. Recently, a Taiwanese news publication company, the Apple, has introduced animated recreations of crimes into its daily news program. At the company’s headquarter, hundreds of engineers work to turn materials gathered by field journalists into detailed 3-D animated movies. Bloodshed, live actions of robbery, shooting, rapes etc. you name it, “animated news” covers a wide range of social topics from gang violence and street fights to sexual assaults and domestic violence. And while the company allegedly claims that minors under eighteen years of age are not allowed to view the overtly graphic animations, kids can still download the animated news online and watch the clips either on the computer or on their cell phones. (*An example of a less-violent piece of animated news may be viewed on the following website if anyone is interested: http://www.xcar.com.cn/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=11018964 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEsIkpBSRpc ) Furious parents and educators are concerned that the realistic depictions of violence and inappropriate sexual contents would have negative influence on children. The Tai Pei government too, has imposed a daily fee of 500,000 yuan on the Apple Publication and has ordered the company to stop producing animated news. At the same time, media scholars also resist this “new news movement.” Instead of worrying about kids watching recreations of violent crimes, media scholars are more concerned about the change in the nature of news brought by its latest form(animated news).
“The journalists become scriptwriters and the engineers become directors. All there is to the ‘news’ are just imagined details. So the whole animated news is just fake news in reality,” says Taiwanese media scholar Fengjia Zhuang.
Aside from the concern over the negative impact on the nature of news brought by this animated news movement, there are two fundamental problems that cannot be overseen: violence and sexuality.
Let’s start with sexuality. This past week, we’ve talked about how sexuality is portrayed in video games. In Hot Date, Consalvo argues that the design of characters in video games reflect a traditional social belief that women are vulnerable princess who need to be saved by prince-charmings and that the most influence such video games can have on the player is that the games allow players to explore their identity (sexual-wise) playing as the main character (who is usually a guy). But in animated news, sexuality is a much more dangerous component of the medium. The problem is no longer who is playing prince charming; the problem now is how will guys treat women watching rape or other sexual violence recreations growing up. Similarly, will girls thus assume a weak, victimized image?
Secondly, there is the concern over kids' exposure to violence via new media. Here is something to think about: if we do not want expose kids to violent contents, then why do we produce all sorts of media with violent contents in the first place? In a way, the fault is actually on the adults. According to Baidu's Encyclopedia on animated news, the animated news movement is actually driven by the market for sex and violence. If that sentence does not make sense, think of it this way: since the daily news program is converted to animated news which primarily covers news on violent, sexual crimes and even suicides, the entire news spectrum is then converted to violent and sexual contents. Now you may ask why there is this conversion from traditional news to animated news. More specifically, you should ask why such conversion is necessary or unavoidable. The answer is actually quite simple—because sex and violence sells. Remember that article we read earlier on violent video games and kids? The author of that article argues that adults are more afraid of children mastering technologies better than adults do than they are afraid of kids being exposed to violence via video games. But perhaps what adults should really be afraid of is the consequence of their subconscious (or is it?) preference for sex and violence. The entertainment industry will not stop selling sex and violence unless there is no market for it. And until then, good luck to the parents and educators who strive to keep children safe from media contents inappropriate for the kids’ age.
Huiling P.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
No Longer Lessig's "Free Culture"
I went ahead and wrote about Lawrence Lessig's piece on Free Culture for this week's blog post. I hope this is acceptable.
The dramatic shift from a ‘“free culture’” as described by Lawrence Lessig to one dominated by fear, in which everyone is afraid of being sued for accidentally ‘copying’ another’s patented material in their artworks/inventions, reveals a flaw in today’s definition of piracy. Lessig’s initial example of how the ‘who owns what?’ issue (in which the Causby’s argued the Wright brother’s airplanes were trespassing on their airspace, causing their chickens to die) was resolved in favor of the airplane creators. However, it's clear that those who violate some established societal norms with their creativity are increasingly on the receiving end of punishment, which clearly points to the deterioration of our “free culture”.
As mentioned by Lessig in his later chapters, the world-famous character Mickey Mouse was actually copied from the show Steamboat Bill Jr. Walt Disney, fascinated by the success of the film, created a direct parody of it in what was later called ‘Steamboat Willie.’ As this film became a success, Disney reaped profits off of more tales he didn’t create - reinventing the stories from the Brother’s Grimm with happy endings; today’s disney classics. Ironically, the copyright for Mickey Mouse and his friends is still enforced today. Every 20 or so years when the copyright is about to expire, Walt Disney lobbies Congress to lengthen the number of years a character can be copyrighted. Mickey Mouse is now over 80 years old! Corporate greed dominates a culture to the extend that one cannot recreate the world’s most beloved character without facing penalties for copyright infringement.
Other horror stories exist, such as copyrights on songs that are now integral to our culture, including “Happy Birthday to You”. Piracy seems to harm all aspects of creativity- one can not create a song without being sued for ‘copying’ a series of chords (as Coldplay was sued for Viva la Vida), one cannot invent more efficient equipment without being smothered by a dominant company (as Armstrong was nailed by the RCA for inventing FM radio), one cannot create characters in a book without being questioned (J.K. Rowling was sued for Harry Potter). It appears that the idea of ‘piracy’ has been used too much to stifle creativity; it has become a misnomer in todays society.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
You've got to be kidding me
I couldn't not post this story...many of you may have already seen or heard about it, but it was news to me.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/man-marries-a-videogame/1376577
Comments?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)