The documentary Catfish was the most enjoyable video we've watched this semester in my opinion. The movie provides an excellent example of fraud over the internet and how who we communicate with over the internet may not be who he or she appears to be. The film follows a man Nev who receives paintings presumably by a young girl. He is impressed with her work and eventually ends up in contact with the girl's mother via phone, as well as an online fling with the girl's older sister who is around Nev's age.
However, as the movie goes on, it becomes increasingly evident to Nev, his brother filming the documentary, and the viewers that something about the family is off. The girl's (Abby) older sister Megan has a crush on Nev and they communicate primarily through Facebook but also through text messaging. He pursues the relationship. She claims to be a musician and sends him songs, but he eventually discovers that none of the songs are her original work. Nev's team goes to Megan's home to investigate, but nobody lives there. They then go to the town that the family supposedly lives in. The art gallery where Abby is supposed to have her work being displayed is clearly empty. They arrive at the house, where Nev finally meets Abby, who is almost entirely disinterested in art, clearly showing that she could not have made the artwork that Nev finds so appealing. It turns out that Abby's mother Angela has fabricated the whole story. She was the one who made all of the paintings and made up Megan's life. Megan is a real person but is in alcohol rehab. Her facebook friends had their pictures taken from Angela is married and her husband's two children are both mentally disabled. It turns out at the end of the film that the truths Angela revealed are even lies themselves, for example, Megan TOTALLY does not exist and her facebook pictures were of a random model halfway across the country. Nev at no point in the movie appeared to be really upset with her (although he was upset at Megan not existing), his view is more sympathetic as opposed to angry (which many people would be, understandably). At the end of the movie, it is stated that Nev continues to be friends with Angela on facebook, suggesting that they may still be in contact. Angela did what she did because she was depressed and unsatisfied with the life she was living, having to sacrifice a lot to keep her medium sized family together.
The movie portrays the themes such as democratization of the web and web 2.0 very well. For democratization of the web, a "common" woman is able to create multiple different people that don't exist in real life and fully convince somebody that a girl exists and wants to be in a relationship with him. If she can do it, why not anyone with access to a computer (or even a smart phone)? This is evident in everyday society on the internet. For example, on Twitter, due to the potential of impersonation accounts, celebrities have to be verified by Twitter in order to gain a seal of approval. This seal is displayed next to their name on their twitter page. If this practice didn't exist, anybody can impersonate a celebrity whether it's Justin Bieber or the president. The check seal can be seen next to Obama's name here. Facebook currently has no such safeguards, leading to some impersonation profiles for famous musicians, actors, etc. One of my favorite singers has at least 10 profiles on Facebook even though he maintains an "official" fan page.
Profiles such as these may cause slight irritation to people who are duped if they believed it was the actual person then find out the truth. However, a more dangerous reality is if someone who is, for example, a sexual predator, pretends to be somebody they're not (like a 14 year old girl) and associates with young children. This is something that has happened way too many times in the past and now police departments have even set up sting operations where undercover cops bait would-be predators to a home to be arrested (as shown on To Catch a Predator).
Ultimately, Catfish proves that one should not always be immediately trusting of what they see online. The variety of web 2.0 tools at our disposal today, whether it's Facebook, blogs, Twitter, YouTube, etc. make it all too easy to create somebody who doesn't exist and use that imaginary person to one's advantage.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Exit Through the Gift Shop
The mysterious Banksys' 2010 "documentary" Exit Through the Gift Shop documents the life of one Thierry Guetta as he works to establish himself as a legitimate street artist. Gueretta finds out that his cousin is Invader, an infamous street artist known for making mosaics of characters from the classic game Space Invaders (good game...). Guetta, who already has a habit of filming seemingly his entire daily life, is newly fascinated with street art and eventually comes to meeting the infamous street artist Banksy. After filming some of Banksys exploits, Guetta assembles a horrible 90 minute film deemed as "unwatchable." Guetta takes on the role of being a street artist, adopting the name "Mr. Brainwash." The film ends with Guetta opening an art exhibit and selling hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of his newly created art. Guetta's credibility as an artist is a topic of dispute considering he has no original style (he rips off of the various street artists he has watched do their work) and had his paid assistants create much of his ideas as well as the gallery he exhibits.
Street art is illegal in nearly every place it exists, and I believe that its illegal status strengthens the meaning of the work. As shown in Exit Through the Gift Shop, a lot of street art shows rebellious cultural or political themes. A lot of street artists are anonymous (such as Banksy) and work in the cover of night, which I think adds a mysterious element to them and their artwork. The fact that street art is mostly illegal, especially works that are politically or socially suggestive (the series of "OBEY" works) give the works a sense of rebellion and any attempts to remove them reinforces the point(s) that they are trying to make. Banksy's Guantanamo Bay prisoner at the amusement park's roller coaster was a very disruptive work that despite posting no obvious safety hazards caused Guetta to be interrogated by security, possibly because prisoner treatment there is a controversial issue. Additionally, street art is a unique form of art; it is more of a low-production value form of art as opposed to a professional sculpter, drawer, or painter. It's something that almost anyone can do (as long as you are willing to deal with the consequences if caught).
Banksy's anonymity I feel adds two certain elements to his work. The anti-war themes he exhibits in his work and his anonymity combine to give a feeling that he is staying anonymous because he is afraid of getting into trouble with the law (metaphorically speaking, as there is nothing wrong with the messages he conveys due to freedom of speech). The fact that he is anonymous also suggests that any one of us can be Banksy. There doesn't need to be any form of art school or professional training or artistic talent inside of us, all we need are some materials, an idea, and a building to put it on for us to be Banksy. He is a powerful voice without an identity.
Street art is illegal in nearly every place it exists, and I believe that its illegal status strengthens the meaning of the work. As shown in Exit Through the Gift Shop, a lot of street art shows rebellious cultural or political themes. A lot of street artists are anonymous (such as Banksy) and work in the cover of night, which I think adds a mysterious element to them and their artwork. The fact that street art is mostly illegal, especially works that are politically or socially suggestive (the series of "OBEY" works) give the works a sense of rebellion and any attempts to remove them reinforces the point(s) that they are trying to make. Banksy's Guantanamo Bay prisoner at the amusement park's roller coaster was a very disruptive work that despite posting no obvious safety hazards caused Guetta to be interrogated by security, possibly because prisoner treatment there is a controversial issue. Additionally, street art is a unique form of art; it is more of a low-production value form of art as opposed to a professional sculpter, drawer, or painter. It's something that almost anyone can do (as long as you are willing to deal with the consequences if caught).
Banksy's anonymity I feel adds two certain elements to his work. The anti-war themes he exhibits in his work and his anonymity combine to give a feeling that he is staying anonymous because he is afraid of getting into trouble with the law (metaphorically speaking, as there is nothing wrong with the messages he conveys due to freedom of speech). The fact that he is anonymous also suggests that any one of us can be Banksy. There doesn't need to be any form of art school or professional training or artistic talent inside of us, all we need are some materials, an idea, and a building to put it on for us to be Banksy. He is a powerful voice without an identity.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Monday, April 11, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
Keen and Democratization of the Web
1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links.
Keen's definition of "democratized media" is media, whether it's in the form of a news article, film, or song, that is produced, contributed to, and/or edited by non-professionals. To direct quote, "Audience and author had become one..." A good example of democratized media would be CNN's iReport where registered users can submit their own content as news to CNN.
Keen's main criticism with this recent trend is that it makes professionally produced material obsolete, and professional movie producers, musicians, artists, journalists, etc. are being replaced by amateurs with no formal training. A serious potential consequence of this is that it makes "truth and trust...the whipping boys of the Web 2.0 revolution. In a world with fewer and fewer professional editors or reviewers, how are we to know what and whom to believe?" For example, while it is moderated, anybody with computer (or web access, period) access can edit an article on Wikipedia to say whatever they want (a major reason why it is not considered a valid academic source).
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
Both Keen and Rushkoff analyze the rising presence of Web 2.0 in everyday society. However, Keen's view is that Web 2.0 is entirely bad and that it is corrupting professional content entirely. Rushkoff on the other hand simply believes that Web 2.0 content is becoming more present in everyday life and can be a bad thing if it takes over too much. He seems to acknowledge the benefits, and I agree with him more than Keen. I think Keen's view is more extreme.
Both Keen and Rushkoff analyze the rising presence of Web 2.0 in everyday society. However, Keen's view is that Web 2.0 is entirely bad and that it is corrupting professional content entirely. Rushkoff on the other hand simply believes that Web 2.0 content is becoming more present in everyday life and can be a bad thing if it takes over too much. He seems to acknowledge the benefits, and I agree with him more than Keen. I think Keen's view is more extreme.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Individuality and social media
Marshall McLuhan believes that "the medium is the message." In other words, the methods with which one communicates with other people, whether it's face-to-face, a social networking website (Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc) or via text messaging/AIM, are simply extensions of who we are. I stated in a previous blog posting that a potential reason for Facebook's massive success is that it was more user friendly than MySpace and more "streamlined." It's almost like it's "MySpace done right." Most people go by their real name on Facebook compared to screen name-like names on MySpace. Additionally, Facebook users all have the same profile layout in terms of text font, color scheme, and where things are. MySpace on the contrary, gave its users much more freedom with music playing on the profile page, various background images and text font/colors.
There are two definitions of "whither." One is "to what place or state," as in "whither are we bound?". The other definition is "What is the likely future of," as in "whither modern architecture?" When the question "whither the individual," is asked, one is asking "what is the future of the individual?" It is often debated if users are expanding their identity and making it more public who they are, or if we are curtailing individuality by forcing everyone to conform to these social media standards.
I don't feel MySpace was that way and despite Facebook's more generic interface, it is still possible to personalize your profile if you have one. How is liking the pages of your favorite band, athlete, sports team, or television show any different from telling others than you are a fan of it? Furthermore, in earlier days of Facebook, you didn't "like" pages, you "became a fan" of them! Additionally, one is able to tell what religion they follow, relationship status, and political views they have. These are open, so you are not obligated to follow a organized religion. One can type in whatever they want. For example, if you are a huge fan of an athlete like Usain Bolt, one could list their religion as "Church of Usain Bolt" when they are in reality just a Christian. Sites such as Facebook simply make it easier to express one's individuality, they don't hinder one's creativity.
Another example would be YouTube. Some users use YouTube for illegal activities, such as uploading copyrighted content like TV shows, movies, and music videos for people to watch for free. Some professional musicians upload their own music. Still, a vast number of Youtube's users are amateurs who upload their own original videos. Some of these amateurs have become famous as a result of their YouTube pages. The most notable example is probably Justin Bieber, who for better or worse (depending on who you are) was signed to a record deal because he was noticed by an agent who viewed his YouTube videos. And after all of that, some user channels still are a mix of all of the above. Although the purpose is universal for all users (to upload videos), people are able to express their individuality in different ways.
However, I think . One of the most is that they're "Facebook official," that their Facebook profiles have been updated to say that they are in a relationship with each other.
There are two definitions of "whither." One is "to what place or state," as in "whither are we bound?". The other definition is "What is the likely future of," as in "whither modern architecture?" When the question "whither the individual," is asked, one is asking "what is the future of the individual?" It is often debated if users are expanding their identity and making it more public who they are, or if we are curtailing individuality by forcing everyone to conform to these social media standards.
I don't feel MySpace was that way and despite Facebook's more generic interface, it is still possible to personalize your profile if you have one. How is liking the pages of your favorite band, athlete, sports team, or television show any different from telling others than you are a fan of it? Furthermore, in earlier days of Facebook, you didn't "like" pages, you "became a fan" of them! Additionally, one is able to tell what religion they follow, relationship status, and political views they have. These are open, so you are not obligated to follow a organized religion. One can type in whatever they want. For example, if you are a huge fan of an athlete like Usain Bolt, one could list their religion as "Church of Usain Bolt" when they are in reality just a Christian. Sites such as Facebook simply make it easier to express one's individuality, they don't hinder one's creativity.
Another example would be YouTube. Some users use YouTube for illegal activities, such as uploading copyrighted content like TV shows, movies, and music videos for people to watch for free. Some professional musicians upload their own music. Still, a vast number of Youtube's users are amateurs who upload their own original videos. Some of these amateurs have become famous as a result of their YouTube pages. The most notable example is probably Justin Bieber, who for better or worse (depending on who you are) was signed to a record deal because he was noticed by an agent who viewed his YouTube videos. And after all of that, some user channels still are a mix of all of the above. Although the purpose is universal for all users (to upload videos), people are able to express their individuality in different ways.
However, I think . One of the most is that they're "Facebook official," that their Facebook profiles have been updated to say that they are in a relationship with each other.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Social Media/Web 2.0
1. I don't feel this is a "one or the other" question, as I believe both will happen. Amateur user-generated content I feel will continue to improve as professional software (such as Final Cut, iMovie, Photoshop, Flash, etc.) become more available and user friendly to the average computer user. I feel people between the age of 15-30 are much more adept at using this technology than the generation before. At the same time, I believe professional production values will continue to drop but not go past a certain point. A lot of "homegrown" ads are used because they have more of a potential to go viral online (passed and sent from person to person)
2. The social media site I use the most is Facebook, and the only other one I use on a semi-regular basis is Twitter (I do not "tweet", I follow news sources/athletes/musicians). I use Facebook to mostly stay in touch with others in a more "public" setting than text messaging. I've reestablished contact with some of my old friends who have moved away. I don't play any games (I played Farmville for a bit but stopped) and rarely do any quizzes.
I think Facebook is more successful than MySpace because it is a more streamlined and user-friendly interface. MySpace allowed their users to customize almost all aspects of their profile, such as backgrounds, text, music, etc. Many people were not "graphic experts", resulting in pages that were very hard to look at. Additionally, Facebook encourages people to use their real names (or a first and middle name) as opposed to MySpace's abstract nicknames. This may make it appeal to a larger audience among adults (post-college).
While Facebook has drawn criticism in the past for it's ever-changing privacy settings and various other changes (new photo viewer, website redesigns, etc.), it is still one of the most visited websites on the internet and does not show any sign of slowing down for the time being.
3. Transparency is important because what you write online is readable by everyone indefinitely. If your tweets or website or other social media expression is sponsored by a third party, the legitimacy of what you write is questionable. The integrity of the writer may also be compromised. This controversy happened a few years ago when a Gamespot.com review editor left the site after giving a game, whose publisher sponsored the site at the time, an unfavorable score. LINK
I think transparency is just as important in the offline world. Take magazines or newspapers for example. While it has been noted that all press is biased, cable news networks such as FOX News and MSNBC have been criticized in the past for promoting conservative and liberal political agendas, respectively. Keith Olbermann recently left MSNBC after it was discovered he donated money to democratic political campaigns. News sources should be as unbiased as possible and if not should be noted who they support, so the public is aware facts may be twisted.
2. The social media site I use the most is Facebook, and the only other one I use on a semi-regular basis is Twitter (I do not "tweet", I follow news sources/athletes/musicians). I use Facebook to mostly stay in touch with others in a more "public" setting than text messaging. I've reestablished contact with some of my old friends who have moved away. I don't play any games (I played Farmville for a bit but stopped) and rarely do any quizzes.
I think Facebook is more successful than MySpace because it is a more streamlined and user-friendly interface. MySpace allowed their users to customize almost all aspects of their profile, such as backgrounds, text, music, etc. Many people were not "graphic experts", resulting in pages that were very hard to look at. Additionally, Facebook encourages people to use their real names (or a first and middle name) as opposed to MySpace's abstract nicknames. This may make it appeal to a larger audience among adults (post-college).
While Facebook has drawn criticism in the past for it's ever-changing privacy settings and various other changes (new photo viewer, website redesigns, etc.), it is still one of the most visited websites on the internet and does not show any sign of slowing down for the time being.
3. Transparency is important because what you write online is readable by everyone indefinitely. If your tweets or website or other social media expression is sponsored by a third party, the legitimacy of what you write is questionable. The integrity of the writer may also be compromised. This controversy happened a few years ago when a Gamespot.com review editor left the site after giving a game, whose publisher sponsored the site at the time, an unfavorable score. LINK
I think transparency is just as important in the offline world. Take magazines or newspapers for example. While it has been noted that all press is biased, cable news networks such as FOX News and MSNBC have been criticized in the past for promoting conservative and liberal political agendas, respectively. Keith Olbermann recently left MSNBC after it was discovered he donated money to democratic political campaigns. News sources should be as unbiased as possible and if not should be noted who they support, so the public is aware facts may be twisted.
Monday, February 14, 2011
McLuhan photoshop final post
In recent years, attention has been given to how communicating online affects how adolescents communicate with others. Before instant messaging services a very common method of communicating worldwide was sending formal "snail mail" letters, but now one can talk in real time via instant messaging, phone, or video conferencing software with others halfway across the world. With the rise of new mediums, the messages sent through them have been changed to a more informal tone
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
McLuhan photoshop 1
Above is my progress on the McLuhan photoshop assignment. It is obviously a work in progress, today was mostly dedicated to processing images (cropping, transforming, etc.). The final product will look significantly different.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Communication Mediums
MySpace was one of, if not the, first widely popular social networking websites, and was for a time the most popular social networking website, starting in June 2006. It allowed users to create profiles listed with their interests, favorite music, movies, shows, and keep in contact with friends who also had a MySpace profile. One of it's original functions which still holds strong today is help unknown bands gain widespread exposure via updating their own band profiles.
AOL Instant Messenger is a instant messaging service where users communicate through computers by typing. While it is not used as heavily anymore (due to the rise of Facebook Chat and texting among other things), it was one of the first massively successful ways for people to communicate online.
Skype is a VoIP video conferencing program, allowing communication between people via video and audio through the internet. The idea of a video-phone has been around for decades, but Skype on the computer is one of the most successful applications of this idea. It can make calls to users within the service for free, and can also make audio calls to landlines and cell phones for a fee. Oovoo is a similar program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)