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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)