A Circle?


"New Media" when it appears is new, a novelty, but as time elapses and as this new media evolves, the process in which it grows mocks the pattern of the old "new media." Does this make sense? What makes this "new media" truly a novelty, if for the most part what is new is just a new version of some old artifact whose name we- as in us regular people- don't even know? Is "new media" simply just a new version of something that already existed somewhere in a different era? But then again, this isn't completely true, there are is some "new media" that is new in its own nature. I am being redundant, but it works for me, I need to rewrite what we've already read to understand the concept to a greater extent than just the surface.

If I just tilt my head 3 degrees, it's fine, but...


Nobody but me has any reason to care about this, but I find it really odd. All the pages in my NMR book are blatantly printed crooked. Not by a lot, but definitely noticeable at first glance. I just thought it was weird that a book on new media manages to screw up old media. I'm assuming nobody else had this problem with their book?

trusting the web

A few years ago I read a New York Times article about the increasing online interactions and their effect on real life or face-to-face interactions. I would have predicted that accesibility of blogging opinions online would create an environment where people would spew any crazy belief that popped into their head and onto a webpage, without really being held accountable for their position. However, it seems that the blogging community has opened up an opportunity for exchange for people to seriously contribute their perspective and be exposed to the ideas and the authentic beliefs of others (people and ideas they might not have been introduced to without blogs). Personally, I am excited about our class wikipedia possibly discovering the interconnectedness of our class. Being a student from an outside school, learning about my classmates through online interactions would make me aware of connections I shared with others in the class that I wouldn't have the chance to learn about in the classroom.

aaron sorkin vs bloggers


While visiting my favorite movie/entertainment news site, CHUD.com, I came across an interesting editorial about television creator Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing, Sports Night) and his tumultuous relationship with his own Internet fandom.

Sorkin's shows have large fan followings that have spread the word via internet message boards (they mention Television Without Pity) and now, via blogging. Unfortunately, Sorkin's new show, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, isn't very good. Now, those same bloggers who have preached his greatness are starting to be the most vocal bashers of Studio 60. Here's what Sorkin had to say about bloggers at a recent press conference:

YouTube, you rich

An example of a collaborative media growing with astronomical speed . . . YouTube. I saw this Forbes list of the top 10 disrupters of 2006, and thought it really illuminated the power of wiki technology (which YouTube could be considered!)

YouTube infamously got media giants to bow at their feet and relinquish control over video content -- further showing how sharing and collaborative posting are what matter in our "new mediated" world to a new generation of onliners. Also, note the cash Google forked over to YouTube founders for ownership . . . $1.65 billion. Wow. And the guys who started YouTube are only in their 20's. Make you feel a bit under-accomplished?

recovering collectivity

I just read an article about authorship and the individual genius for another class -- Martha Woodmansee's On the Author Effect: Recovering Collectivity. Woodmansee asks right off the bat: "Will the author in the modern sense prove to have been only a brief episode in the history of writing?" She concludes it will.

Had Woodmansee been able to forsee Wiki technology (she wrote the article in 1991) I think she would have made her point MUCH more vigorously.

It seems that we still need the guarantee of original authorship on so many things (a novel, an analytic essay, etc.) but I feel the Wiki are rapidly catapulting us back into collectivity. Just looking at the history of edits on a wikipedia page (like the United States entry, for example) we see that collectivity reigns.

New Media's Effect on Life as We Know It...

I think the New Media Reader (NMR) was talking to me about itself-- Well, at least the first two authors were talking to me about the NMR.

I do believe that I have never seen a textbook author refer to the textbook during an article. I actually had to stop reading and ponder over the perplexity of this matter. (Did you like my little alliteration?)

The most interesting quote that I took from the reading was on page 19. In talking about the new "ideological tropes" associated with new media, Lev claims that "it will contribute to 'the erosion of moral values'; it will destroy the 'natural relationship between humans and the world' by eliminating the distance 'between the observer and the observed.'" I have written in my margin: "Holy Poop".

Is Art Dying?


I found the following passage interesting. It is from "New Media from Borges to HTML"

"Thus in my view this book is not just an anthology of new media but also the first example of a radically new history of modern culture--a view from the future when more people will recognize that the true cultural innovators of the last decades of the twentieth century were interface designers, computer game designers, music video directors, and DJs--rather than painters, filmmakers, or fiction writers, whose fields remained relatively stable during this historical period." (16)

I do not believe that Lev Manovich is saying that people like Shakespeare, Van Gogh, etc. should be forgotten, but he does make the claim that we are moving from the romantic notion of an individual artist or author to this wave of new media. He believes the technological advancements in these new media forms are worthy accomplishments. In addition, the creators of these new media forms are the Shakespeares and Van Goghs of this generation.



A little over a year ago John Seigenthaler posted an editorial on USA Today complaining about false information on Wikipedia that connected him to the assassinations of both John and Robert Kennedy. His article stirred up the question over whether Wikipedia was safe from libel lawsuits. Apparently, from another article by CNET, Wikipedia is a service provider and therefore will not be to blame for any libel cases.



Hey all, Here's an interesting article I found about Wikipedia's use by legal courts in America. It seems like many courts and judges actually rely on wikipedia quite often for what appears to be more than trivial facts. I must say I'm really surprised. However, the article claims that when Wikipedia was used it is generally to look up colloquial terms that Britannica would not have. "Booty Music" is a good example of term/phrase that a judge appealed to Wikipedia for. I think it makes some sense to appeal to Wikipedia for common-language terms like this which are not defined in more scholarly encyclopedias.

Syndicate content