"The stupidest possible creative act is still a creative act." - Of Shirky's speech
There is a case when we don't perform things because we think we can already do the things. But, this is a false thought. Not until we represent our ability, though it is trivial, we cannot say that we conduct the things. Probably, people who have learned to play instruments such as piano and guitar might know what I mean. A student who learns to play the piano sees a music score and thinks this is playable enough. After a couple of days, s/he tries to play the music but feels it is not as playable as s/he thought well. My point is "if a person does not express his/her ability, the ability cannot be completed. Likewise, the LOLcats design, Shirky mentioned, might be a foolish creative performance, but if users didn't represent the foolish actions, there would be nothing about creativity. This is one point of "cognitive surplus" Shirky asserts.
Franky, I was trying to find out commonalities among three materials, Meggs' article, Howard's book, and Shirky's lecture, for next seminar. Instead of commonalities, I found myself some shared words among them: media (all possible communicative devices from humanistic tools like language and visuals to technologies), accessibility of information, and positive and developable change.
A History of Graphic Design (1998) describes the evolution of human communication tools, specifically, written language. According to the book, there are largely two written language types; one is logogram or graphic characters such as Egyptian and Chinese hieroglyphs and the other is alphabet form.
First, let's look at hieroglyphs. This was invented by figures of things. For example, these letters was made by imitating figures of sun and moon. Contemporary Chinese language still has a number of hieroglyphs whose combinations makes new meanings. It is interesting because new meanings made by the combinations are logically going on. Let me introduce some letters. Tree is represented as "木" in Chinese. When it is double written like "林," it means forest. When it is triple written like "森," it means forest with a lot of trees.
Unlike such graphical character systems, "an alphabet is a set of visual symbols or characters used to represent the elementary sounds of a spoken language"(27). This alphabet's invention encouraged more active human communications because its written systems are easier than hieroglyphs. From a historiographical view, letters as written communicative tools seems to evolve into more convenient and accessible forms.
Technology changes rapidly; Humans don't: While technologies may change rapidly human beings don't!
While reading this chapter, I came up with one issue: technological determinism vs. social determinism (we have already read about this issue last articles). A few months ago, Steve Jobs launched iPad which is a form of table computer. There are a lot of opinions about the tiny computer. But those opinions are largely divided as two: one group argued that iPad is really cool and it helps users more effectively communicate, and the other group asked what iPad is different from other lap tops or tablet PCs.
First group basically follows technological determinism. That is, technological developments can result in social change. Second group implies social determinism. That is, social demands cause technological developments. Actually, social determinism seems to be more persuasive than technological determinism in a capitalistic sense. As Howard said, the reason Hiltz and Turoff excellently anticipated the future of media environments is that "they based their predictions on a sociological understanding of the history of communication technologies and on deep-seated understandings about fundamental social needs rather than technological possibilities"(207).
However, consider about iPad case again. Who has imagined the form of iPad? I mean, is this really a socially-demanded technology? I think Apple Company tried to change societies in a technological deterministic perspective. Functions of iPad are not new any longer. Some said iPad is a bigger version of iPod. There is NOTHING about new technology. It just changed its appearance as Lexus and Camry have the same engines, different bodies. According to Maxism, it might be called fetishism. I would like to call this iPad case instrumental surplus. This instrumental surplus makes users more interested in an appliance itself than information or the access of the information. Thus, I don't think human being doesn't need to sensitively respond the rapid technological developments. Socially-demanded technologies do not appear as quickly as we think so. Their appearance looks so fast because there are lots of instrumental surplus.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Digital: a movement toward human instinct
Prabably, when I was around 13 years old, computer music appeared and became so faddish in Korean pop music market. It was called MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface). Many people were fanatical in the songs composed by MIDI. In my thought, there are three reason. First, people would enjoy their diverse and multi-changeable sounds which existing formal instruments (guitar, piano, drum etc.) could not imitate. Second, they would pay attention to, so called, "sampling," which is a way to compose and arranage a song by MIDI. A composer gets a sample which might be a part either of rhythm or melody of a certain song and inserts the sample into a song the composer is working. People would feel fresh when listeing to such a MIDI technique.
Of course, computer-aided music had been created before MIDI by things like synthesiser. Actually, synthesiser can be also one of MIDI. However, it is literally a computer-aided instrument. Simply put, it is not a computer, but an electronic musical tool implanting computing system. This is not only a distinct POINT between computer-based music (by MIDI) and computer-aided music (by synthesiser), but also the third reason why computer music was so attractive. That is, a computer is in my room but a synthesiser not there.
Even though not sharp readers, you might get it. Right! Computer is for everyone, just common people, but synthesiser is for musicians. The computer composers have is basically not different from one in my room. In other words, that means everyone who has a computer can make music. How fantastic! Anyone can play guitar on his/her computer. MIDI, this "infernal machine" enabled an RW culture beyond RO culture (33). Listerners begun to not regard music as artifact only musicians deal with any longer. It was possible for common computer users to create music and participate in it. MIDI absolutely resolved Sousa's fear that "fewer and fewer would have the access to instruments, or the capacity, to create or add to the culture around them; more and more would simply consume what had been created elsewhere"(25). It is more democratic in the sense of participation.
REMIX: For me, it is a familiar word, which reminds my nostalgia. Before saying about my nostalgia, let me first go back the second reason of computer music's popularity, "sampling." Some musicians used to remake the same song with sampling, then they called it "remix version." as far as I remember (now sampling is so popular that no musicians would not think of it as a special technique as they remake with it). I liked remix version than original one. So, at that time when computer music became popular - it's time to tell my nostalgia - I would like to make my own remix version, using songs I enjoyed. These were all forms of cassette tape, that is, analog formats. I picked several pop tapes (I remember some; Boyz II Men, Michael Bolton, New KIds On the Block and someKorean pops) and prepared one empty tape to copy the songs. Right, my method to remix them is a physical combination; to link parts of each song. That was my remix version. I feel, probably, RW is kind of one of human instincts. I really wanted to make (write) something after listening (reading) to the songs I liked. In that sense, it might be indispensible that digital technology appeared.
Another issues Lessing discussed is copyright. This has been still being one of hot issues online. His point is that copyright laws online should be least in the extent which protects copyrighters. Bascially, I agree with him but his argument is more or less ambiguous and not clear. He said "ther is no plausible argument that aloowing kids to remix music is going to hurt anyone" (114). He is right. I was also such a kid. But, I don't think that an illegal use of other's product itself can casue physical injury. Think about it. You upload my picture on facebook and someone downloads and retouch it, and spread out online. Oneday, you go to a website and encounter your remixed picture again. How would you feel? I know this is an extreme case but we have to consider about that. It is related to online privacy issue.
Of course, computer-aided music had been created before MIDI by things like synthesiser. Actually, synthesiser can be also one of MIDI. However, it is literally a computer-aided instrument. Simply put, it is not a computer, but an electronic musical tool implanting computing system. This is not only a distinct POINT between computer-based music (by MIDI) and computer-aided music (by synthesiser), but also the third reason why computer music was so attractive. That is, a computer is in my room but a synthesiser not there.
Even though not sharp readers, you might get it. Right! Computer is for everyone, just common people, but synthesiser is for musicians. The computer composers have is basically not different from one in my room. In other words, that means everyone who has a computer can make music. How fantastic! Anyone can play guitar on his/her computer. MIDI, this "infernal machine" enabled an RW culture beyond RO culture (33). Listerners begun to not regard music as artifact only musicians deal with any longer. It was possible for common computer users to create music and participate in it. MIDI absolutely resolved Sousa's fear that "fewer and fewer would have the access to instruments, or the capacity, to create or add to the culture around them; more and more would simply consume what had been created elsewhere"(25). It is more democratic in the sense of participation.
REMIX: For me, it is a familiar word, which reminds my nostalgia. Before saying about my nostalgia, let me first go back the second reason of computer music's popularity, "sampling." Some musicians used to remake the same song with sampling, then they called it "remix version." as far as I remember (now sampling is so popular that no musicians would not think of it as a special technique as they remake with it). I liked remix version than original one. So, at that time when computer music became popular - it's time to tell my nostalgia - I would like to make my own remix version, using songs I enjoyed. These were all forms of cassette tape, that is, analog formats. I picked several pop tapes (I remember some; Boyz II Men, Michael Bolton, New KIds On the Block and someKorean pops) and prepared one empty tape to copy the songs. Right, my method to remix them is a physical combination; to link parts of each song. That was my remix version. I feel, probably, RW is kind of one of human instincts. I really wanted to make (write) something after listening (reading) to the songs I liked. In that sense, it might be indispensible that digital technology appeared.
Another issues Lessing discussed is copyright. This has been still being one of hot issues online. His point is that copyright laws online should be least in the extent which protects copyrighters. Bascially, I agree with him but his argument is more or less ambiguous and not clear. He said "ther is no plausible argument that aloowing kids to remix music is going to hurt anyone" (114). He is right. I was also such a kid. But, I don't think that an illegal use of other's product itself can casue physical injury. Think about it. You upload my picture on facebook and someone downloads and retouch it, and spread out online. Oneday, you go to a website and encounter your remixed picture again. How would you feel? I know this is an extreme case but we have to consider about that. It is related to online privacy issue.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
See the unseen
I remember a visual artifact, "Viewer (1996, see more)," which I saw in The Museum of Modern Art in NYC. The artifact made by Gary Hill, a American video artist, represents a set of people wearing different cloths, looking different social background and ethnicity via a projector. It is not a picture but a video, although it is almost motionless. There, I took a picture of it below.
.jpg)
What I felt when seeing that was kind of post-modernistic ideas. While I was watching people projected on the screen and confronting them, I was confused whether I was seeing them or they were seeing me. I thought it is possible that not only I as a subject recognize the video art just as an object, but also, conversely, I might be showed as an object to people on the screen. That is, it seemed that the artist tried to break down technical relationship between a subject and a object - between viewing and viewed.
Technological developments and increasing non-textualized contexts have helped build new paradigm between subjects and objects; between viewers and the visual (described in Sturken and Cartwright's article) and between writers and readers/publishers (described in Sullivan's article).
As Sturken and Cartwright said, we are living in a flood of the visual. Also, there are a number of means representing it thank to digital media. But, visualized contexts can also cause any ambiguosness that people might feel when they look at images, try to interpret them. So, we need to know how to look images, and, at the same line of logic, "Practice of Looking" emphasizes how people have to receive the visual. The authors siad "studying visual culture is about seeing not only what is shown, but also how things are shown and what we are not shown, what we do not see."(6) See the unseen!
Active viewers tries to see the unseen while passive viewers tend to see just the seen superficially. Regardless of how viewers read images, however, meanings intended by producers creating them independently exist and affect viewer's interpretation. And then, they are again affected by another like authority and power. To explain it, Sturkent and Cartwright adapt Foucault's concept, "author function as a means of thinking about the producer function, and take an example of Nike advertising.
"We attribute the producer function to Nicke because the corporation and not the actual creative director of the ad, is the entity that owns and appears to speak through the work."(53)
Such meanings created by any power can be deconstructed, reinterpreted, reconstructed by new media. "The new modes embraced by youth culture consumers are about networks, connections, and aggregation - using websites and social networking to link to their interests and friends, and blogs to create networks about their style choices and social concerns."(89) Sullivan also argues that electronic writing would overcome dominant controling of the page by publishers, suggesting some alternative models of the writer-text-reader relationship shifted from traditional writing to electronic writing. Some of models even implies the concept of hypertext.This article is so predictable when we consider that was published in 1991.
.jpg)
What I felt when seeing that was kind of post-modernistic ideas. While I was watching people projected on the screen and confronting them, I was confused whether I was seeing them or they were seeing me. I thought it is possible that not only I as a subject recognize the video art just as an object, but also, conversely, I might be showed as an object to people on the screen. That is, it seemed that the artist tried to break down technical relationship between a subject and a object - between viewing and viewed.
Technological developments and increasing non-textualized contexts have helped build new paradigm between subjects and objects; between viewers and the visual (described in Sturken and Cartwright's article) and between writers and readers/publishers (described in Sullivan's article).
As Sturken and Cartwright said, we are living in a flood of the visual. Also, there are a number of means representing it thank to digital media. But, visualized contexts can also cause any ambiguosness that people might feel when they look at images, try to interpret them. So, we need to know how to look images, and, at the same line of logic, "Practice of Looking" emphasizes how people have to receive the visual. The authors siad "studying visual culture is about seeing not only what is shown, but also how things are shown and what we are not shown, what we do not see."(6) See the unseen!
Active viewers tries to see the unseen while passive viewers tend to see just the seen superficially. Regardless of how viewers read images, however, meanings intended by producers creating them independently exist and affect viewer's interpretation. And then, they are again affected by another like authority and power. To explain it, Sturkent and Cartwright adapt Foucault's concept, "author function as a means of thinking about the producer function, and take an example of Nike advertising.
"We attribute the producer function to Nicke because the corporation and not the actual creative director of the ad, is the entity that owns and appears to speak through the work."(53)
Such meanings created by any power can be deconstructed, reinterpreted, reconstructed by new media. "The new modes embraced by youth culture consumers are about networks, connections, and aggregation - using websites and social networking to link to their interests and friends, and blogs to create networks about their style choices and social concerns."(89) Sullivan also argues that electronic writing would overcome dominant controling of the page by publishers, suggesting some alternative models of the writer-text-reader relationship shifted from traditional writing to electronic writing. Some of models even implies the concept of hypertext.This article is so predictable when we consider that was published in 1991.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)