After watching the first episode of "Black Mirror" in class, I was a little skeptical about just how dark things needed to get before a point was made about our addiction to screens as a culture. However, after watching the next two episodes on my own, I really started appreciating the different stories told in each episode. Each episode, telling an entirely different story (in a different reality, with a different cast), made its own statement on our growing dependence on technology as a society, and presented a possible outcome of its unending evolution.
It was a smart choice for the show to start off in a present-day scenario in Episode 1, "The National Anthem". Kicking off the show with a message about our current tendency to become absorbed by the technologies around us, "Black Mirror" gives us two following predictions of how that addiction will someday evolve once our technologies have advanced. For me, the scariest prediction was in Episode 3, "The Entire History Of You", through which we're shown a reality in which our every memory is stored as a tangible recording to be played back and reflected on at any time.
I thought this concept played off of many issues that we struggle with as a society of digital media consumers today: privacy, digital permanence, trust, etc. Despite the many problems this technology would amplify, like how much the government would legally be able to access, how privacy laws would work around our memories (something once existing in our minds alone, now tangible), and how we would act differently knowing our every memory was being recorded, the scariest part of this for me was the issue of trust (especially within a relationship) that this technology would amplify.
When we're suspicious of another person's unfaithfulness, betrayal, or general wrongdoing, our first instinct might be to look through their phone. After all, everything but our memories are stored on there as tangible proof: photos, text messages, our activity on different social media networks, and more. That's what made Episode 3, "The Entire History Of You" so scary to watch- it was a very real idea. We watched what "show me your phone" might look like in the not-so-distant future: the suspicion, the snooping, the investigation, the analyzation, etc. Except, in this not-so-distant future, we would see quite literally everything. Our memories can't be twisted by how we've worded something in writing, how something appears in the context of a social network, or the absence of human contact from behind a screen. This episode suggests that we might not be very far from eliminating all that uncertainty, and having the entire history of ourselves on hand at all times, ready for playback, through the good and the bad.
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Sunday, April 10, 2016
"Geek Heresy": Chapter 3 [Post #9]
In Chapter 3 of Geek Heresy, "Geek Myths Debunked: Dispelling Misguided Beliefs About Technology", we finally read about a different perspective on human responses to new technologies. In other words, it's finally being discussed that we, as technology consumers, just might be more to blame for our addictions than the technologies themselves.
It's a pattern we see each time a new technology is introduced into our lives: we get it, we use it, and we slowly start to realize we have a hard time living without it. Every now and then, said technologies become domesticated and ingrained in our lives. Nothing new. However, before we place blame on the advancements of technology, the addictive nature of said technologies, or even the consumers of these technologies, we should take a step back- all the way back to the very fiber of our beings.
Toyama writes, "we certainly didn't walk around with tiny speakers in our ears prior to the 1980s. But that doesn't mean these new behaviors were out-of-the-blue creations of the technology, per se" (p. 39). He then delves into a discussion that technologies access aspects of human nature and amplify the tendencies we already have, but they tend to take the majority of blame for feeding our addictions to new technology. He then goes on and writes, "Sony leaders recognized this desire [to listen to music in a portable way] and built a low-cost, portable device to meet it. Consumers bought hundreds of thousands of units and adapted their listening habits...throughout, it's people taking action. The device is inanimate" (p. 39). Hmm...
As our technology and media advance, it's easy to see these devices, build them up to be of higher control than us, and give them credit as living, breathing, scheming beings with intent. However, we need to take a step back as consumers of these technologies and media and remember that only humans can acknowledge, act on, and adapt to human tendencies. And with these skills, humans have created these technologies and media, humans have interacted with these technologies and media, and humans have adapted their lives around these technologies and media. It's time to start taking credit!
It's a pattern we see each time a new technology is introduced into our lives: we get it, we use it, and we slowly start to realize we have a hard time living without it. Every now and then, said technologies become domesticated and ingrained in our lives. Nothing new. However, before we place blame on the advancements of technology, the addictive nature of said technologies, or even the consumers of these technologies, we should take a step back- all the way back to the very fiber of our beings.
Toyama writes, "we certainly didn't walk around with tiny speakers in our ears prior to the 1980s. But that doesn't mean these new behaviors were out-of-the-blue creations of the technology, per se" (p. 39). He then delves into a discussion that technologies access aspects of human nature and amplify the tendencies we already have, but they tend to take the majority of blame for feeding our addictions to new technology. He then goes on and writes, "Sony leaders recognized this desire [to listen to music in a portable way] and built a low-cost, portable device to meet it. Consumers bought hundreds of thousands of units and adapted their listening habits...throughout, it's people taking action. The device is inanimate" (p. 39). Hmm...
As our technology and media advance, it's easy to see these devices, build them up to be of higher control than us, and give them credit as living, breathing, scheming beings with intent. However, we need to take a step back as consumers of these technologies and media and remember that only humans can acknowledge, act on, and adapt to human tendencies. And with these skills, humans have created these technologies and media, humans have interacted with these technologies and media, and humans have adapted their lives around these technologies and media. It's time to start taking credit!
Sunday, April 3, 2016
"Geek Heresy: Rescuing Social Change From the Cult of Technology" : Intro & Ch. 1 [Post #8]
The introduction of "Geek Heresy" raises an interesting point: "talent is universal; opportunity is not" (ix). I was skeptical of this at first, but kept reading to give it a chance. As the introduction goes on, we delve into Megan Smith's arguments that technology creates a vast availability of everything there is to know about everything, all in one convenient place (the internet), and that these technologies not only bring us together, but also bring us all widespread opportunity: an outlet for all of our "talents".
My issue with this is, does everyone really have a talent worthy of limitless opportunity? Do we all deserve this opportunity? And most importantly, what does "talent" become when opportunity becomes vast?
It's this kind of thinking that has driven consumers of digital media to being perceived as selfish, narcissistic, and arrogant. When we're given these opportunities that technologies bring, it's not long before we see ourselves as worthy of attention, recognition and reward. Is this the positive social change Smith envisions in her discussion of talent and opportunity?
Certain people are given opportunity to influence and change technology. Certain people are given opportunity to make themselves known with technology. Certain people are given opportunity to influence social change with technology. It's important to note the difference between seeing technology as something we deserve to host our talents, and seeing technology as something we can use in conjunction with our talents to help change the world for the better.
My issue with this is, does everyone really have a talent worthy of limitless opportunity? Do we all deserve this opportunity? And most importantly, what does "talent" become when opportunity becomes vast?
It's this kind of thinking that has driven consumers of digital media to being perceived as selfish, narcissistic, and arrogant. When we're given these opportunities that technologies bring, it's not long before we see ourselves as worthy of attention, recognition and reward. Is this the positive social change Smith envisions in her discussion of talent and opportunity?
Certain people are given opportunity to influence and change technology. Certain people are given opportunity to make themselves known with technology. Certain people are given opportunity to influence social change with technology. It's important to note the difference between seeing technology as something we deserve to host our talents, and seeing technology as something we can use in conjunction with our talents to help change the world for the better.
Monday, February 29, 2016
"Hamlet On the Holodeck": Chapter 3 [Post #7]
I really enjoyed how this reading explored the origins of multimedia all the way back to the "birth of cinema" in 1895. Not only does it speak to how far media have come, but it also speaks to how far we've come as media consumers. Once, we were scared of a train moving on a screen. Now, we're interacting with the media in front of us, sometimes convinced that we're controlling it, instead of the opposite, which is more often true.
I was really shocked while reading about "Eliza", the language processing "persona" that served as a digital therapist, created by Joseph Weizenbaum. (Right off the bat, this gave me a really eerie Her vibe, to any of you who might have also made the mistake of seeing that movie!) I can understand how anyone who interacted with "Eliza" could have initially assumed they were in control. However, as human beings, we associate communication with human interaction, even if that may be taking place on a digital platform. That said, despite any previous knowledge of its purely digital existence, communicating with a device that's communicating back could start to mess with your head. This is especially possible considering the idea that with "Eliza", human communication has been broken down and reduced to a mere formula. For me, that really speaks to how we've socially constructed technology in a way that it constructs us right back: "It's surprising how often we forget that the new digital medium is intrinsically procedural...It was designed not to carry static information but to embody complex, contingent behaviors" (Murray). If that's not terrifying, I don't know what is!
While we create these technologies and facilitate their environments, we also participate in and interact with these media. This is yet another reason why so much emphasis is placed on being media literate in today's culture. The more we know about what we're creating, affecting and inducing, the less we allow it to deceive or misguide us.
I was really shocked while reading about "Eliza", the language processing "persona" that served as a digital therapist, created by Joseph Weizenbaum. (Right off the bat, this gave me a really eerie Her vibe, to any of you who might have also made the mistake of seeing that movie!) I can understand how anyone who interacted with "Eliza" could have initially assumed they were in control. However, as human beings, we associate communication with human interaction, even if that may be taking place on a digital platform. That said, despite any previous knowledge of its purely digital existence, communicating with a device that's communicating back could start to mess with your head. This is especially possible considering the idea that with "Eliza", human communication has been broken down and reduced to a mere formula. For me, that really speaks to how we've socially constructed technology in a way that it constructs us right back: "It's surprising how often we forget that the new digital medium is intrinsically procedural...It was designed not to carry static information but to embody complex, contingent behaviors" (Murray). If that's not terrifying, I don't know what is!
While we create these technologies and facilitate their environments, we also participate in and interact with these media. This is yet another reason why so much emphasis is placed on being media literate in today's culture. The more we know about what we're creating, affecting and inducing, the less we allow it to deceive or misguide us.
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
"A Creator's Guide to Transmedia Storytelling" : Chapters 7-13 [Post #6]
Having now read more of "A Creator's Guide to Transmedia Storytelling", transmedia seems a lot more clear, and more of a concrete term than a speculated idea. This was clarified mostly through extensive examples (which were much appreciated) in chapters five and six, such as different TV shows and movies. Discussing different examples in class today also helped immensely. Transmedia might be a term best defined by examples instead of a hard and fast definition.
In chapter seven, we're introduced to another term lacking a single definition across the board: story/storytelling. Unlike the typical idea of a story that we're used to thinking of when we hear the term, marketers use "story" to describe a message or image that's conveyed quickly and simply with the intent of evoking a particular response. This seems simple at first, but of course, this general formula could lead to a multitude of results, all dependent on what's being marketed and the "story" that the target demographic needs to hear. As the reading discusses, this story can be a single photo, a quick blurb, or a "full-blown, narrative-based marketing [campaign]" (p. 70).
I think it's really interesting that through learning these terms and concepts, we're forming this media literacy that teaches us not only how to market, but also how we're marketed to. I have to wonder if this will lead to further reluctance to trust the media. I would hope it would lead to a better understanding of what is real and honest, but as we've learned, maybe we're just being told a really convincing story.
In chapter seven, we're introduced to another term lacking a single definition across the board: story/storytelling. Unlike the typical idea of a story that we're used to thinking of when we hear the term, marketers use "story" to describe a message or image that's conveyed quickly and simply with the intent of evoking a particular response. This seems simple at first, but of course, this general formula could lead to a multitude of results, all dependent on what's being marketed and the "story" that the target demographic needs to hear. As the reading discusses, this story can be a single photo, a quick blurb, or a "full-blown, narrative-based marketing [campaign]" (p. 70).
I think it's really interesting that through learning these terms and concepts, we're forming this media literacy that teaches us not only how to market, but also how we're marketed to. I have to wonder if this will lead to further reluctance to trust the media. I would hope it would lead to a better understanding of what is real and honest, but as we've learned, maybe we're just being told a really convincing story.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
"A Creator's Guide to Transmedia Storytelling" [Post #5]
I found it really interesting (and a little confusing!) that the chapter "What Is Transmedia Anyway?" discussed right away how difficult it is to pinpoint exactly what "transmedia" is. In fact, I felt like the author was going back and forth on different definitions and interpretations throughout the entire reading, which I'm sure is indicative of how many forms transmedia can take, but also makes it hard to apply its meaning to real life scenarios and think of examples.
Most generally (by my understanding of the reading), "transmedia" refers to a story being told across several platforms, with each platform contributing a separate, independent part of that story. The reading mostly refers to movie franchises as examples, such as Star Wars and Avatar, which include storytelling via other media beyond the films, such as books and video games. Initially, this doesn't seem like anything new- nowadays, every big film is marketed across several media prior to its release. However, in this case (one we're used to seeing), each of these platforms aren't contributing different independent parts of the story, which is something we don't see as often. This might be a big reason why so many of us seem to be struggling with the meaning of transmedia!
As for examples, I have to wonder if a TV show with an accompanying video game (like The Walking Dead) would count as transmedia. Even though the video game might follow the same basic premise as the TV show, in a sense, you add your own story through your own experience of the video game. Could be a stretch. However, also along the Walking Dead lines, a much more obvious (also much more possible) example of transmedia would be the comic books and the TV show. While some of the TV show plot line follows the comic books, most of the TV show takes its own spins off the general story told through the comic books. This particular example of transmedia actually causes a lot of fan buzz: fans who are familiar with the comics make certain predictions based on the plot line of the comics, comment when the TV show has strayed from the comics' plot line, etc.
Most generally (by my understanding of the reading), "transmedia" refers to a story being told across several platforms, with each platform contributing a separate, independent part of that story. The reading mostly refers to movie franchises as examples, such as Star Wars and Avatar, which include storytelling via other media beyond the films, such as books and video games. Initially, this doesn't seem like anything new- nowadays, every big film is marketed across several media prior to its release. However, in this case (one we're used to seeing), each of these platforms aren't contributing different independent parts of the story, which is something we don't see as often. This might be a big reason why so many of us seem to be struggling with the meaning of transmedia!
As for examples, I have to wonder if a TV show with an accompanying video game (like The Walking Dead) would count as transmedia. Even though the video game might follow the same basic premise as the TV show, in a sense, you add your own story through your own experience of the video game. Could be a stretch. However, also along the Walking Dead lines, a much more obvious (also much more possible) example of transmedia would be the comic books and the TV show. While some of the TV show plot line follows the comic books, most of the TV show takes its own spins off the general story told through the comic books. This particular example of transmedia actually causes a lot of fan buzz: fans who are familiar with the comics make certain predictions based on the plot line of the comics, comment when the TV show has strayed from the comics' plot line, etc.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Super Bowl 50: Advertising, Marketing & Social Media [Post #4]
As many of us have already mentioned, both in our blog posts and in real life, the Super Bowl is about so much more than the game. Regardless of who we're rooting for, many of us show up for the snacks and tune in for the ads- at least that's how I'd define my attraction to the Super Bowl! The Super Bowl, as the biggest televised event of the year, has evolved into a culture in itself. Even though the football is what brings us there in the first place, we stick around for everything else: the halftime show, funny and/or moving ads, and of course, the party that usually accompanies all of the above.
Leading up to the Super Bowl, we're hyped up through social media. #SB50 was everywhere over the last couple of weeks, crossing over several networks to bring us all the info, ad spoilers, and snack ideas that have become such a huge part of the big game. Of course, once we turn on our TVs the night of, plenty of built up expectations are coming with that. That being said, I felt like this year was a little lackluster in the ad department. Sure, bits and pieces were fun: Amy Schumer, Ryan Reynolds, etc. (Lots of celebrity cameos this year...perhaps to make up for lack of excitement and creativity in other areas?) But after years of screaming goats, adorable puppies and highly anticipated movie trailers, nothing really jumped out at me this Sunday night. I didn't find myself wanting to talk about any particular moment with friends the next day, and I didn't hear others bringing anything up either. (Would this have turned out differently had I maybe watched the Super Bowl in a larger group? A smaller group? If others were able to point out things I otherwise wouldn't have noticed?)
Instead, I feel like this year's post Super Bowl conversation revolved around the halftime show. Was Beyonce making a political statement? Oh my god Beyonce is going on tour. Might Beyonce be overrated? Why isn't anyone talking about Bruno Mars?!?! Of course, this conversation has primarily played out on social media, in addition to the pre-Super Bowl conversation. And it will probably continue to play out for weeks to come...hence the power of the Super Bowl, even a somewhat dull one. No matter what, it seems like people will always end up talking about something, especially across these social networks that make it so easy and reach so many.
Leading up to the Super Bowl, we're hyped up through social media. #SB50 was everywhere over the last couple of weeks, crossing over several networks to bring us all the info, ad spoilers, and snack ideas that have become such a huge part of the big game. Of course, once we turn on our TVs the night of, plenty of built up expectations are coming with that. That being said, I felt like this year was a little lackluster in the ad department. Sure, bits and pieces were fun: Amy Schumer, Ryan Reynolds, etc. (Lots of celebrity cameos this year...perhaps to make up for lack of excitement and creativity in other areas?) But after years of screaming goats, adorable puppies and highly anticipated movie trailers, nothing really jumped out at me this Sunday night. I didn't find myself wanting to talk about any particular moment with friends the next day, and I didn't hear others bringing anything up either. (Would this have turned out differently had I maybe watched the Super Bowl in a larger group? A smaller group? If others were able to point out things I otherwise wouldn't have noticed?)
Instead, I feel like this year's post Super Bowl conversation revolved around the halftime show. Was Beyonce making a political statement? Oh my god Beyonce is going on tour. Might Beyonce be overrated? Why isn't anyone talking about Bruno Mars?!?! Of course, this conversation has primarily played out on social media, in addition to the pre-Super Bowl conversation. And it will probably continue to play out for weeks to come...hence the power of the Super Bowl, even a somewhat dull one. No matter what, it seems like people will always end up talking about something, especially across these social networks that make it so easy and reach so many.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)