Rheingold's article The Virtual Community brought up a valid point that I had never thought of before. Rheingold talks about virtual communities in that they are used by some as a form of psychotherapy. He claims that many virtual community users spend hours upon hours pretending to be someone they're not which can be a way to get things off their chest or live someone else's life. Rheingold didn't go too much into detail about this as a form of psychotherapy but it made me think of the way I use Facebook. We discussed in class why some people use virtual communities and some freshmen stated that they used it before coming to IU to meet their future roommates or other people on their dorm floors. As a senior, I didn't know about Facebook until I got to IU and even then it wasn't as popular as it is now. To begin with, I was against Facebook because I didn't see the point in joining. However, over the years I have found that if I don't have anything else to do I get on Facebook and look at pictures of old friends, talk to recent friends or even rearrange my profile. It sounds kinda lame but, in a way, I use it as a form of psychotherapy. It makes me feel good to get online and communicate with friends of mine. Plus, looking at friends' pictures from our recent SB activities is always fun because you get to see where everyone went and how much fun they had. It is such a nice and relaxing (and convenient) way to share pictures and information to people that may go to a different school or live in a different state. Rheingold makes a good point that we use virtual communities this way and we may not even be aware of the ways in which we use this technology. I really hadn't ever thought of it in that way but after reading this article, it opened my eyes to a different way of thinking.
This, I also want to add, helps me appreciate and respect other people's taste and opinions of other virtual communities like Second Life. We discussed in class that people get on to talk to other friends and share problems with them. It seems odd to those of us who don't do that, but ask yourself this: is it really all that different than what I'm doing with Facebook? Yes, I've met these people in person, but some of my friends I met only once. If I meet someone at a party and they befriend me, does that count as really knowing them? For example, one guy met me at a party when I was visiting a friend at Purdue and I haven't seen him since. He has sent me a couple of messages and posts comments on my wall and on some pictures. As creepy as that sounds, we're actually pretty good 'virtual friends', just not 'personal interaction friends.' So, as I asked before, how different are Second Life and Facebook?
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Andrew Keen
Andrew Keen's article The Cult of the Amateur is very interesting to me because I feel that I agree with him on some points but then disagree with him at the same time. I am constantly going back and forth about some of the issues he discusses. For instance, the clip of him on the Colbert Report we watched for class made him look a bit elitist but I kinda agree with a him (slighty). He claims that the internet is killing our culture because just about anyone who has the access to and knowledge of computers can post any type of "art" they want. I agree in that I wouldn't want to go online and see some average joe's artwork if I really wanted to be inspired or look at good art. However, this poses another problem in itself. Who is to say that this "amateur" art isn't good quality. Why couldn't someone want to look at this art or other information some average joe posted? Blogs are another exmaple of something anyone could post and write about their personal lives or opinions about an issue going on in the world today. My personal opinion wouldn't necessarily mean anything to some professor researching a topic I happen to write on in my own personal blog. In this example, Keen is making the statement that the internet is killing our culture because my (or someone else's) meaningless blog posts or artistic work is blasted all over the internet as if it isn't worth being there. At the same time, I kinda disagree with him because, like I said above, who is he to say that those blog posts aren't a mode of self expression and deserve to be there? He claims that the internet is for amateurs and amateurs don't actual creat great culture. How can he say something like that? It all goes back to personal taste. I agree with Colbert in that the green screen challenge is a type of art, even though it was created by amateurs. Now so called "stealing" a clip from the Colbert show and posting it on Youtube is a different issue at hand. I kinda agree with him on this but at the same time I don't think it is killing our culture, I think it is changing our culture. To prove my argument, I never watched the Colbert Report before, but after seeing clips from Youtube (and clips in class) I have a new found love for the show. I wouldn't have seen clips if not for Youtube (and this class of course).
This idea also relates to artists posting their artwork online and people stealing it for their own use. This poses a difficult problem when artists start losing money because everyone is stealing their work, so Keen says. Books can be an example of what Keen is talking about here. If an author has his/her book online and someone took a chunk of information out of it, then they wouldn't need to purchase the whole thing if they already got what they needed. Again, I agree with him but at the same time I think that it is convenient for me, as a college student, to search for an article online and not have to rent or purchase the entire book. So, again I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this article because he makes a good point but I think it would be better if he would make the statement that the internet is changing our culture, not killing it.
This idea also relates to artists posting their artwork online and people stealing it for their own use. This poses a difficult problem when artists start losing money because everyone is stealing their work, so Keen says. Books can be an example of what Keen is talking about here. If an author has his/her book online and someone took a chunk of information out of it, then they wouldn't need to purchase the whole thing if they already got what they needed. Again, I agree with him but at the same time I think that it is convenient for me, as a college student, to search for an article online and not have to rent or purchase the entire book. So, again I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this article because he makes a good point but I think it would be better if he would make the statement that the internet is changing our culture, not killing it.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
TRANSMEDIA STORYTELLING
Transmedia storytelling consists of multiple texts of a fiction that get spread out across multiple channels, in order to create a unified entertainment text [as a whole]. The movie Cloverfield is a good example of this in many ways. The simple fact that there are multiple channels through which Cloverfield fans (and the creators) post comments, video clips, pictures and clues serves as a main purpose for transmedia storytelling. Watching the movie is one medium used to tell the Cloverfield story, on-line interactive sites are another, and even searching Youtube where "real clue videos" are posted, are all different points of entry for fans to interact with and become a part of to get the full story.
I wanted to write this blog about how Seth's presentation of Cloverfield is a perfect example of transmedia storytelling. First of all, I would have never known that there were so many channels of Cloverfield text before Seth presented this on Wednesday. Going into this movie I would have had no idea there were secret clues or meanings behind specific scenes and words, etc. According to Jenkins, "transmedia producers have found it difficult to achieve the delicate balance between creating stories which make sense to first time viewers and building in elements which enhance the experience of people reading across multiple media" (Transmedia Storytelling 101). Cloverfield was a good example of transmedia storytelling because if you happen to come into contact with the movie Cloverfield for the first time without previous knowledge of the other forms of media storytelling, you would have simply been a satisfied viewer. However, if you would have had previous knowledge of the secret clues and then saw the movie, you would have been more engaged with the movie. Therefore, the line between "first timers" and so- called "expert fans" would have been crossed, yet clearly separated into two different viewers. Cloverfield did a good job of achieving a balance between keeping the first timers' interest and the expert fans intrigued to find out more clues after the movie.
At first I thought that the on-line sites for fans was a bunch of bull hockey. I felt that the creators just wanted to get money by connecting the Slusho product as a "clue" (on one of the characters' shirts) to the movie and gain financial insights to appear that the movie has secret connections. However, I came to the realization that media conglomerates, like the creators of Cloverfield and the company Slusho, have every reason to want to connect their brands and spread their franchises across multiple media channels in order to promote the movie while publicly advertising their product. This blurs the space between advertising (Slusho) and entertainment (Cloverfield) but in a subliminal way that made fans want to buy the product before seeing the movie. In conclusion, the creators of Cloverfield kept the fans intrigued by telling a story before the movie even came out in theaters. By adding clues that led fans to sites that eventually led them to more sites for more clues was a perfect example of telling a story through multiple media channels. Overall, I thought Seth did a great job of explaining how Cloverfield was a good example of transmedia storytelling.
I wanted to write this blog about how Seth's presentation of Cloverfield is a perfect example of transmedia storytelling. First of all, I would have never known that there were so many channels of Cloverfield text before Seth presented this on Wednesday. Going into this movie I would have had no idea there were secret clues or meanings behind specific scenes and words, etc. According to Jenkins, "transmedia producers have found it difficult to achieve the delicate balance between creating stories which make sense to first time viewers and building in elements which enhance the experience of people reading across multiple media" (Transmedia Storytelling 101). Cloverfield was a good example of transmedia storytelling because if you happen to come into contact with the movie Cloverfield for the first time without previous knowledge of the other forms of media storytelling, you would have simply been a satisfied viewer. However, if you would have had previous knowledge of the secret clues and then saw the movie, you would have been more engaged with the movie. Therefore, the line between "first timers" and so- called "expert fans" would have been crossed, yet clearly separated into two different viewers. Cloverfield did a good job of achieving a balance between keeping the first timers' interest and the expert fans intrigued to find out more clues after the movie.
At first I thought that the on-line sites for fans was a bunch of bull hockey. I felt that the creators just wanted to get money by connecting the Slusho product as a "clue" (on one of the characters' shirts) to the movie and gain financial insights to appear that the movie has secret connections. However, I came to the realization that media conglomerates, like the creators of Cloverfield and the company Slusho, have every reason to want to connect their brands and spread their franchises across multiple media channels in order to promote the movie while publicly advertising their product. This blurs the space between advertising (Slusho) and entertainment (Cloverfield) but in a subliminal way that made fans want to buy the product before seeing the movie. In conclusion, the creators of Cloverfield kept the fans intrigued by telling a story before the movie even came out in theaters. By adding clues that led fans to sites that eventually led them to more sites for more clues was a perfect example of telling a story through multiple media channels. Overall, I thought Seth did a great job of explaining how Cloverfield was a good example of transmedia storytelling.
Friday, February 22, 2008
sorry, here is the link so you can click on it opposed to copying and pasting it into the URL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNl6IJekiHA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNl6IJekiHA&feature=related
Textual Poachers
First I'll start by saying that I chose to write my blog on Harry Potter because I am a HUGE fan and I even go to midnight premieres! I know everything about HP and I've been obsessed since I first picked up the book yeeeears ago... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNl6IJekiHA&feature=related
This is a link from Youtube that a fan of Harry Potter (HP) made of Rupert Grint and Emma Watson who play Ron and Hermione (Harry's two best friends). In the books/movies, Ron and Hermione are thought to have a love interest in one another but nothing is ever discussed openly about it (however, it is very obvious to readers and it is the way J.K. Rowling wrote it). They are really good friends (in the books/movies) and they try and date other people but the other one always ends up getting jealous. In the fourth book/movie, they go to a dance and Hermione gets asked by another guy and when Ron sees her with makeup on and in a dress his heart practically melts. He then sees that she is with this other guy and makes a rude comment about it to her. Hermione gets upset and tells him that maybe he shouldn't have been a wuss and should have asked her himself- proving that she actually wanted to go with him! I won't spoil the last book and tell you whether or not they actually do end up getting together or not, but most fans believe they will/do. However, this link above shows a devoted fan who cut pictures from the previous movies, award shows, interviews, and on-the-set to edit them all together. Adding a "love song" playing in the background of these pictures portrays the idea that they actually have a love connection in real life, not just in the books/movies. This type of fan editing is just like the example Henry Jenkins used in his article "Get a life!": Fans, Poachers, Nomads and the Youtube video about the Star Trek characters Spock and Kirk.
My example of HP explains Jenkins' idea of textual poaching, or stealing text (any form of text= books, videos, picture, art, etc.) and editing it together to create a new text. In the example with Ron and Hermione/ Rupert and Emma, editing pictures taken of them together to make it look like they really have feelings for each other is a perfect example of poaching the original text to create an illusion that may or may not really be there. No one besides those two know for sure if they really have feelings for one another but the fans want to believe it and create a new text to make it look like it. For example, showing pictures of them holding hands [on set] may actually be a scene from a movie in which they are holding hands (because that does happen a few times, by accident of course!). But edited the way the [fan wants it to look] creates a new text in which those two are holding hands in their regular clothes and, taken out of context, looks like they are holding hands in real life! According to Jenkins, this type of fan editing (or textual poaching) becomes a problem with "the relationship between the reader and writers as an ongoing struggle for possession of the text and for control over its meanings" (pg 24). This form of grassroots editing takes the meaning from the text and twists it to create a new meaning according to the fans. Even though Ron and Hermione have a love interest in the books/movies it doesn't mean they do in their personal life. Fans who want to believe that they do can create videos like this one to "prove" that it is real. The only difference in this example is that they are taking a text and creating a new text outside of that original text. By this I simply mean that they aren't cutting and editing parts of the movie to make it look like they love each other [in the movie] because it is already there. Instead they are editing it to look like that love connection reaches out to their personal lives. This example shows how fans take possession of the original text and create a new meaning for the [characters] in their personal lives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNl6IJekiHA&feature=related
This is a link from Youtube that a fan of Harry Potter (HP) made of Rupert Grint and Emma Watson who play Ron and Hermione (Harry's two best friends). In the books/movies, Ron and Hermione are thought to have a love interest in one another but nothing is ever discussed openly about it (however, it is very obvious to readers and it is the way J.K. Rowling wrote it). They are really good friends (in the books/movies) and they try and date other people but the other one always ends up getting jealous. In the fourth book/movie, they go to a dance and Hermione gets asked by another guy and when Ron sees her with makeup on and in a dress his heart practically melts. He then sees that she is with this other guy and makes a rude comment about it to her. Hermione gets upset and tells him that maybe he shouldn't have been a wuss and should have asked her himself- proving that she actually wanted to go with him! I won't spoil the last book and tell you whether or not they actually do end up getting together or not, but most fans believe they will/do. However, this link above shows a devoted fan who cut pictures from the previous movies, award shows, interviews, and on-the-set to edit them all together. Adding a "love song" playing in the background of these pictures portrays the idea that they actually have a love connection in real life, not just in the books/movies. This type of fan editing is just like the example Henry Jenkins used in his article "Get a life!": Fans, Poachers, Nomads and the Youtube video about the Star Trek characters Spock and Kirk.
My example of HP explains Jenkins' idea of textual poaching, or stealing text (any form of text= books, videos, picture, art, etc.) and editing it together to create a new text. In the example with Ron and Hermione/ Rupert and Emma, editing pictures taken of them together to make it look like they really have feelings for each other is a perfect example of poaching the original text to create an illusion that may or may not really be there. No one besides those two know for sure if they really have feelings for one another but the fans want to believe it and create a new text to make it look like it. For example, showing pictures of them holding hands [on set] may actually be a scene from a movie in which they are holding hands (because that does happen a few times, by accident of course!). But edited the way the [fan wants it to look] creates a new text in which those two are holding hands in their regular clothes and, taken out of context, looks like they are holding hands in real life! According to Jenkins, this type of fan editing (or textual poaching) becomes a problem with "the relationship between the reader and writers as an ongoing struggle for possession of the text and for control over its meanings" (pg 24). This form of grassroots editing takes the meaning from the text and twists it to create a new meaning according to the fans. Even though Ron and Hermione have a love interest in the books/movies it doesn't mean they do in their personal life. Fans who want to believe that they do can create videos like this one to "prove" that it is real. The only difference in this example is that they are taking a text and creating a new text outside of that original text. By this I simply mean that they aren't cutting and editing parts of the movie to make it look like they love each other [in the movie] because it is already there. Instead they are editing it to look like that love connection reaches out to their personal lives. This example shows how fans take possession of the original text and create a new meaning for the [characters] in their personal lives.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Flickr assignment
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23728129@N06/sets/72157603900642670/show/
Sally, Michal, Katie, and I created this Flickr story.
That is the link to our awesome flickr story about Ugg boots and how every girl loves them and guys hate them... until they give in and try them on! To be honest, at first I wasn't very excited about doing the flickr assignment because it didn't sound very fun to me but I actually found it very fun and interesting. I'm glad we changed it up a bit and did something outside of the classroom. Plus, it was nice to get to know some of my classmates. Now I know at least one member in my blog group!
David Silver talks about photojournalism and how Flickr is (well, can be used as) an example of this. Silver defines photojournalism as "news reporting, enabled by the Internet, done by a dispersed, unorganized group of people — or a group that spontaneously (and temporarily) organizes around their interest in a particular event." Now, in the examples we used in class and many other examples online in Flickr, this is not the case. Our class didn't really make a photo- news story because we were experimenting and having fun with it. This is the case with a lot of the other stories on Flickr. I took a virtual look around Flickr to see other people's photos and saw that they had a lot to do with their personal lives more than on reporting news. However, Flickr offers a quick and easy way to creatively tell a story about anything that interests you, even if that may be news-related. However, Flickr is an internet-based tool, used by an unorganized group of people about a particular event. So, in fact, whether or not the story is news-related is irrelevant. Flickr is a tool used by many for many different stories.
In relation to Maderazo's blog about how Flickr can lead someone in the right direction and even spark a photog career, I agree on her basis for her comment. I can now see how that is possible by using this tool to post really neat and creative photos online for millions of users to view. Then, it is simple to get feedback on what the users liked or disliked. Someone who was really interested in photography could get a lot of helpful hints and useful information on how to take "good quality" pictures and they can learn how to use internet-based tools to reach a wide variety of users.
Flickr is a tool that I have never even heard of before this class, let alone ever used. I'm not sure that I would continue to place photos on this site because I'm not sure how protective it is and I don't want my personal life displayed on the internet, photos and all. However, I really enjoyed this project and I'm glad I got to try it out.
Sally, Michal, Katie, and I created this Flickr story.
That is the link to our awesome flickr story about Ugg boots and how every girl loves them and guys hate them... until they give in and try them on! To be honest, at first I wasn't very excited about doing the flickr assignment because it didn't sound very fun to me but I actually found it very fun and interesting. I'm glad we changed it up a bit and did something outside of the classroom. Plus, it was nice to get to know some of my classmates. Now I know at least one member in my blog group!
David Silver talks about photojournalism and how Flickr is (well, can be used as) an example of this. Silver defines photojournalism as "news reporting, enabled by the Internet, done by a dispersed, unorganized group of people — or a group that spontaneously (and temporarily) organizes around their interest in a particular event." Now, in the examples we used in class and many other examples online in Flickr, this is not the case. Our class didn't really make a photo- news story because we were experimenting and having fun with it. This is the case with a lot of the other stories on Flickr. I took a virtual look around Flickr to see other people's photos and saw that they had a lot to do with their personal lives more than on reporting news. However, Flickr offers a quick and easy way to creatively tell a story about anything that interests you, even if that may be news-related. However, Flickr is an internet-based tool, used by an unorganized group of people about a particular event. So, in fact, whether or not the story is news-related is irrelevant. Flickr is a tool used by many for many different stories.
In relation to Maderazo's blog about how Flickr can lead someone in the right direction and even spark a photog career, I agree on her basis for her comment. I can now see how that is possible by using this tool to post really neat and creative photos online for millions of users to view. Then, it is simple to get feedback on what the users liked or disliked. Someone who was really interested in photography could get a lot of helpful hints and useful information on how to take "good quality" pictures and they can learn how to use internet-based tools to reach a wide variety of users.
Flickr is a tool that I have never even heard of before this class, let alone ever used. I'm not sure that I would continue to place photos on this site because I'm not sure how protective it is and I don't want my personal life displayed on the internet, photos and all. However, I really enjoyed this project and I'm glad I got to try it out.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Photoshop for Democracy
I'm using the example that we discussed in class about Howard Dean and the 2004 elections. I remember following the primaries and although I didn't actively participate in Dean's online community, I think that was by far the best way to get votes. The video showing Dean getting excited about the primaries got twisted around to make him look crazy and mad. In reality, Dean actually had many followers because of his connection to voters through online activities. Having that strong of a connection to voters really would have given him the majority vote. I think it is saddening that his personal connection to voters wasn't as strong. He was stronger in the online community connection as opposed to personal and in the end, he didn't prevail. I agree with this article in the sense that online communities bring people closer but I think its attacking the personal connection. If he would have had that same strong connection in his personal connection then things would have been different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
