Virtual Worlds

Virtual Worlds are an interesting facet of the gaming community.  Their allowance of play without competition, objectives, or prescribed stories give users that would have otherwise ignored most online games the option to engage with others of the same mindset.  Often people can be deterred by the linear structure of games or the content that the promote (often violent, rarely creative) and these communities give them a means of role playing that they need.  It has been noted in studies before that some role playing is actually healthy for the human psyche, and programs such as Second Life provide this without diving head first into war or fantasy.  They instead provide a more "normal" avenue of role playing that mimics everyday life but in a more idyllic setting.

Nicholas Carr's article, "Is Google Making Us Stupider", explores many notions that I have toyed with in the company of my Tech-Savvy friends; his reference to HAL, the creepy AI, being all too prudent.  Maybe I am of a generation too young to notice the mental shift that Carr cites among many including himself, but I am of the opinion that technology is merely an aid to our imperfection.  Of course this ease of access to information will cause our thought process to change, but as the author notes, so too did written language and the printing press.  So what's wrong with accepting that our imperfect, ever-changing brains can be the beneficiaries of a "more perfect" system?  After all, humans have striven for perfection since we first came to understand our own shortcomings.  I see this ability to quickly gather and analyze information as by far one of the greatest achievements of the net, though it is scary to think that WE are the anomaly in the system.

Authoriship: a Problem of Pride

As the title implies, I would like to theorize authorship as a problem of pride, that is the individual's need for recognition.  Manovich compiles a nice list of alternative types of authorship which he implores the reader to consider, all of which he derives from New Media and rely on collaboration as their key tenet.  His analysis of these new forms is where this problem can be identified as one of pride, noting how in many of them the "originator" of a bit of art or "creator" of a game per say there seems to be primacy given to one individual or group over another based largely on whoever was "first".  Perhaps this holds some weight, after all, you can't have a Warhol without a photograph.  I contest this by claiming that, every image is a recreation, every song a remix, every sentence plagiarism, for there is ne'er a truly unique idea.  Even the inventor of the wheel must have simply observed stones rolling by to comprehend it's benefits.

Being a DJ and Producer of House music, Manovich's seeming fascination of DJ Culture and the idea of the remix and the sample amuses me.  In fact, he, in a way, describes it's nature and terminology as a sort of pinnacle for discussing New Media as a whole.  I believe he is scratching the surface of a broad concept that few fields outside Electronic music understand and that I have read about in some depth: everything is a remix.  Variation on an "original" work in the EDM (Electronic Dance Music) genre is no less valid than said original because the genre itself relies on sampling and there is an understanding among DJ's and Producers that virtually anything you can find a clip of is fair game.  Not only that, but the nature of DJing is such that one does not (save a few exceptions that I can think of) play exclusively their own music.  That is the beauty of the genre, the openness to interpretation.  In a way it's almost a Lockean sense of ownership: If I mix my labor with the earth (or in this case the art) then what I have created from it is undoubtedly mine, everyone who contributed before just needs to swallow their pride and accept that their idea has, or optimistically speaking, deserves, the potential billions of permutations derived from it.

Online Identity. Somewhere you can actually be who you want

This paper allows an in depth evaluation of online identity to transform into a broader self examination of identity values.  Calling into question the importance of such social factors as, race, sexuality, and class gives a sort of three-point frame work in which to examine online identity.  The author does this well, laying out arguments of identity that had (often) yet to be approached in the realm of cyberspace.  I would contend that while the author succeeds in this regard, he doesn't grapple enough with what I find to be the key to the whole debate, only noting it briefly at the end:  The identity (more importantly, the possibility of a non-identity) assumed by a person in cyberspace is entirely under their control and they must know the repercussions for what they portray.  There are more places online to express one's self than anywhere in history, granted there are more happy-go-lucky antagonists than ever before as well... Creating a faceless/raceless/sexless persona is totally possible if one finds that real life challenges created by these issues need a therapeutic, virtual release, and I think to some extent nearly everyone finds this outlet when they need it.

The revolution is in the streets, and it smells of blood.

Today's reading provides an excellent critique on the implementation of social media in popular uprisings, albeit, undervaluing this technology from the outset of the article.  Having studied these events in depth, as they happened, in my many Political Science courses, it occurs to me that while social media may not have been the most effective tool in the rebel arsenal for the duration of the Arab Spring, it was undoubtedly the prime mover.  When it was discovered that a young Tunisian man lit himself on fire in the name of dissent, it made shock waves felt a world away.  Well connected activists could not only communicate amongst themselves, but with social media as their proxy, could also generate international support, concern, and engagement for their cause.

Nothing will ever replace the demonstration on the streets - true, revolutions cannot be run online - true, but one more means of communication can hardly be a bad thing in highly controlled and censored countries.  While the author suggests that there are far too many inhibiting factors in an autocratic state that render internet communications nearly useless, he must have never heard of proxy servers, or TOR, or SATCOMs... There is always a way around control, it is just a matter of finding what loophole is easily exploitable, and the technologically savvy win that battle every time.

The Image of the Hacker

Metac0m's piece: "What Is Hacktivism" hinges on a fundamental question normally reserved for politics.  What is the difference between a hacker and a terrorist?  Simply put, he believes the difference is that hackers mustn't do anything to inhibit the free flow of information, as that is the beauty of the computer age.  In this way, hackers are the guardians of the web, those who subvert authority in order to help, not harm others. Himanem evaluates the hacker's work ethic, arriving at the conclusion that they approach their craft like an artisan, passionately creating worlds of code for no reason other than their love for it.  Uniting these two images, it seems the hacker is the vanguard of the digital age, but the outside world is not so kind, for not all hackers are seen in favorable light.  Being the target of hacking, many large institutions fight for internet reform today under the guise of security, but hackers know, sometimes you have to a little bit of wrong to gain a little bit of good.

My Expectations

Being my first TAM class, I don't know exactly what to expect from this class.  I am very interested in visual rhetoric and its practical applications, as I work in the fashion industry designing clothing as well as advertisements and I think this class will allow me to explore the depths of information and its presentation.  Already it is apparent that I will come away from this class more prepared to tackle my TAM minor.