Are you technologically dependant or defiant? Do you find yourself completely attached to your personal communication devices (cell phone, laptop etc)? More and more I am starting to realize how completely dependant people are these days on technology.
Okay, here’s an example of how ridiculously attached one of my best friends is to not only her Crackberry but her laptop too. Reading week…a time to party, relax and let go of life at home…right? Wrong! She brought not only her cell phone but her laptop and iPod too! Like honestly what is the point? Her reasoning behind bringing both was that she needed to do some homework and be able to text her boyfriend and call her mom. Sure letting your parents know that you’re still alive is important, I understand that…but sending tons of text messages a day and a couple of phone calls in a week while in another country isn’t necessary or cheap. Definitely hurt her dad’s wallet. I find it completely distressing that some people allow technology to become such a large part of their lives. My best friend is a prime example of how people are becoming consumed by technology. I don’t think that she could last a day without her cell phone and I’m not exaggerating…she has an addiction, technology has destroyed her. She cannot be saved. I can’t go out for dinner, be in the same vehicle with her or have a normal conversation with her because her full attention is on her phone. Her hand is glued. It would be nice to have a conversation with her where she is fully present, and actually paying attention…I miss those days!
All of this leads to my point about how individuals view technology differently, the resistance versus renaissance binary is an incredibly contentious and relevant issue plaguing contemporary society. Quite obviously I’m a resister, I choose not to adopt new technologies so easily because I don’t to become one of ‘those’ people that walk around ignoring life, living in a techno-bubble...never stopping to ‘smell the roses’. Most importantly is how these innovations are affecting human social relationships. People don’t smile when you pass them on the street anymore because they’re much too busy listening to their iPod’s, people don’t interact like they did even five years ago. Media convergence is breaking us down not keeping us together!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Sexting: Teens and the Public Sphere
I’m not sure if any of you have heard of this or if I’m just an oblivious hermit but apparently there is this new phenomenon called ‘sexting’…meaning sending naked or semi-naked pictures through cell phone picture messages. Weird. I stumbled upon this story while watching the news over the weekend and thought that it fits within our discussions on citizen media and the public sphere quite perfectly.
Many teenagers are being faced with criminal charges for ‘sexting’, recently six Pennsylvanian teens have had to undergo legal repercussions for taking part in these acts (some call them felonies). One in five teens are involved in sexting which is why there is an urgency to educate them about the effects of their actions; once pictures are released into the public sphere they are gone. Those who take part in these acts are completely naïve, the reality is that once pictures are posted on the internet or released into the digital sphere all control is lost. The connection between the Internet and cell phones becomes quite clear, once a cellular picture message is sent the receiver then has the ability to send it to whoever and however many people they want.
Children are growing up too fast and entering the larger public sphere at too young of an age. Communications technologies are being wrongly used, further showing that children need to be censored (just as with the internet the same can be said for cell phones). Children are not responsible enough to understand the severity of this issue and the consequences of getting themselves involved in sharing x-rated photos of themselves.
We all know that once pictures are released in any type of digital format we automatically lose track of them and can no longer control who sees them and what is done with them. Issues of privacy and self censorship are directly linked to this conversation. I’m sure that teens aren’t the only ones involved in sending offensive picture messages but its frightening to hear about the younger generation taking part in these types of acts especially when they don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. The severity of this issue rests in the very fact that once you send pictures you automatically lose your control and rights to privacy, in essence your private life is exposed to the public. Similar examples are posting pictures on Facebook or Myspace.
Do children have enough discretion to censor themselves or do higher authorities need to intervene?
If you want more information about this check out the following websites:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WorldNews/story?id=6456834&page=1
Many teenagers are being faced with criminal charges for ‘sexting’, recently six Pennsylvanian teens have had to undergo legal repercussions for taking part in these acts (some call them felonies). One in five teens are involved in sexting which is why there is an urgency to educate them about the effects of their actions; once pictures are released into the public sphere they are gone. Those who take part in these acts are completely naïve, the reality is that once pictures are posted on the internet or released into the digital sphere all control is lost. The connection between the Internet and cell phones becomes quite clear, once a cellular picture message is sent the receiver then has the ability to send it to whoever and however many people they want.
Children are growing up too fast and entering the larger public sphere at too young of an age. Communications technologies are being wrongly used, further showing that children need to be censored (just as with the internet the same can be said for cell phones). Children are not responsible enough to understand the severity of this issue and the consequences of getting themselves involved in sharing x-rated photos of themselves.
We all know that once pictures are released in any type of digital format we automatically lose track of them and can no longer control who sees them and what is done with them. Issues of privacy and self censorship are directly linked to this conversation. I’m sure that teens aren’t the only ones involved in sending offensive picture messages but its frightening to hear about the younger generation taking part in these types of acts especially when they don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. The severity of this issue rests in the very fact that once you send pictures you automatically lose your control and rights to privacy, in essence your private life is exposed to the public. Similar examples are posting pictures on Facebook or Myspace.
Do children have enough discretion to censor themselves or do higher authorities need to intervene?
If you want more information about this check out the following websites:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/15/national/main4723161.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WorldNews/story?id=6456834&page=1
Monday, March 9, 2009
Reduce, Reuse Recycle
We can see how different cultural products have undergone changes in response to our growing reliance on technology. In a digital society cultural productions have to rework themselves to remain not only competitive but to simply remain in existence. What I want to make clear here is how cultural productions today use ‘framing’ as a means to alter the contexts of things and make them into new cultural productions. In essence these productions come from pre-existing ideas and are variations…they are recycled, reused and reclaimed. Here we see how culture is used differently today.
My discussion about these notions of ‘digital culture’ and ‘cultural objects’ stems from a recent presentation by guest lecturer Dr. Darren Wershler who emphasized his involvement in contemporary representations of poetry. He illustrated how print based notions of literature such as poetry have needed to adapt to change in order to stay current and competitive. Poetry has transcended by becoming what he calls ‘digital poetics’. As a type of literature that has never been particularly successful in terms of selling power Wershler saw a need for a change in form. It could be said that poetry had a bleak future before the creation of digital poetics and a s a cultural object poetry in turn brings to light notions of framing and copyright.
Dr. Wershler posed the questions: Who really owns what? What is really yours? The truth is that you cannot copyright an idea if no one technically owns it. An example of changing the context of things or altering a cultural product is that of art. New interpretations are being created from old concepts in the contemporary art world. ‘Digital poetics’ is an example of using culture differently today and involving the notion of the ‘collective’ whereby this cultural production is now widely accessible and available for anyone to access…so long as they have an internet connection. As Nancy Miller points out in her article “Minifesto for a New Age” as a culture today we are fixated on this notion of sampling and consuming popular culture in “…the same way we enjoy candy and chips-in conveniently packaged bite-size nuggets made to be munched easily with increased frequency and maximum speed. This is a snack culture” (Wired Magazine, Miller 2007). This is an important point to recognize, we are a culture that thrives on immediacy, simplicity and ease of availability. I feel that digital poetics clearly exemplifies these notions. As a new form of poetry that involves internet coding to produce poems through random fabrication of sentences it puts poetry on common grounds for us all.
The most important point to take away from all of this I feel is what digital poetics reveals about our culture. We ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ ideas and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing…in fact maybe we can change our mindset to think of this new form of cultural production as a ‘greener’ approach. Reduce, reuse, recycle involves more than just the physical state of our environment but the state of our intellectual culture.
My discussion about these notions of ‘digital culture’ and ‘cultural objects’ stems from a recent presentation by guest lecturer Dr. Darren Wershler who emphasized his involvement in contemporary representations of poetry. He illustrated how print based notions of literature such as poetry have needed to adapt to change in order to stay current and competitive. Poetry has transcended by becoming what he calls ‘digital poetics’. As a type of literature that has never been particularly successful in terms of selling power Wershler saw a need for a change in form. It could be said that poetry had a bleak future before the creation of digital poetics and a s a cultural object poetry in turn brings to light notions of framing and copyright.
Dr. Wershler posed the questions: Who really owns what? What is really yours? The truth is that you cannot copyright an idea if no one technically owns it. An example of changing the context of things or altering a cultural product is that of art. New interpretations are being created from old concepts in the contemporary art world. ‘Digital poetics’ is an example of using culture differently today and involving the notion of the ‘collective’ whereby this cultural production is now widely accessible and available for anyone to access…so long as they have an internet connection. As Nancy Miller points out in her article “Minifesto for a New Age” as a culture today we are fixated on this notion of sampling and consuming popular culture in “…the same way we enjoy candy and chips-in conveniently packaged bite-size nuggets made to be munched easily with increased frequency and maximum speed. This is a snack culture” (Wired Magazine, Miller 2007). This is an important point to recognize, we are a culture that thrives on immediacy, simplicity and ease of availability. I feel that digital poetics clearly exemplifies these notions. As a new form of poetry that involves internet coding to produce poems through random fabrication of sentences it puts poetry on common grounds for us all.
The most important point to take away from all of this I feel is what digital poetics reveals about our culture. We ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ ideas and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing…in fact maybe we can change our mindset to think of this new form of cultural production as a ‘greener’ approach. Reduce, reuse, recycle involves more than just the physical state of our environment but the state of our intellectual culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)