OPEN SCIENCE
This week's topic is on micropolitics. Micropolitics can be defined as ideas of networks that are self sufficient, dependent, with technics that function differently from socio-cultural norms (Wikitionary 2013).
I did some research into the opinions of other past students who studied micropolitics and it interests me that their ideas aren't that far off from what has been taught now. Sapountzis (2011) believes that micropolitics has dynamic power that allows it to rework itself and the society around us in an open source democratic way. Calacouris (2011) further emphasised the inception of micropolitics as a result of the fear of government institutional power, he talks about the unequal rights to power because the government has access to our ip addresses and capable of monitoring and spying on people's actions without their consent.
Micropolitics in my opinion is quite relevant to networked internet cultures for the past few years. The empowerment of individuality seems pervasive as it gives people the ability and willpower to conceptualize their ideas into reality, share their projects and share information instantaneously and globally.
We can say that the internet is a crucible for multiple micropolitical networks to thrive and grow. There's even potential for these networks to shift transversally, vertically and horizontally with other small communities.
The example I could think of is the foundation of P2P sharing in networks. We all have electronic storage space that allows us to share information to people. The power of these networks shares power to other people and the dynamic structure of these networks.
Kickstarter, Dropbox and mobile applications are interesting examples to consider simply because it gives meaning to user generated technology. These are central to this theory of micropolitics simply because of the shift in power between client and server. We used to heavily rely on sources to gain access to certain information but because of this big change, power and rights of usage are equally shared with people on the internet.
Calacouris, G 2011, ARTS3091: Is the Internet a micropolitical network?, Blogpost, accessed 13 May 2013,
<http://gcalacouris.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/arts3091-is-the-internet-a-micropolitical-network/>
Sapountzis, F 2011, Week 9 - Social Organisation = Micropolitics, Networks, Designing for and Living in New Communities, Blogpost, accessed 13 May 2013,
<http://felicias3091.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/week-9-social-organisation.html>
Wikitionary 2013, Micropolitics, Wikitionary, accessed 13 May 2013,http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/micropolitics
Wednesday 8 May 2013
Thursday 2 May 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk8 - Politics, transparency and truths
SOCIAL ORGANISATION
Will the idea of physical boundaries, policies and other ideals of state government's die with the emergence of online media? I certainly don't think so, even if transparency becomes more pervasive.
Politics has always been quite a behind-the-scenes ideology. The only times we ever talk about politics is when leaders, politicians and other things come in to contact with news reporting media. We only ever get narrow gaps of big things that are actually happen, especially in the Australian government, we watch their televised parliamentary discussions, tune into interviews and other sources. But what actually happens behind the scenes? What actually happens when politicians are in the office, what do they actually talk about and what do they actually do? No one in the general public really knows.
Which is definitely why this debate about more political transparency is taking place. Especially in Australia, with the competence the government is showing us these days, people especially young people wonder what the 'fat cats' are really doing. One reading talks about transparency in timetable to see if the public can help make it more efficient. I argue that although I enjoy knowing what the prime minister is doing I also don't want it to be something that can be accessed that easily by the public. Much like military records, there is a reason why this stuff is a need to know basis. We keep it private so that people who might threaten us cannot cause us harm.
An example I could recall was the Mumbai Attack in 2008. Terrorists were able to co-ordinate in great succession to assassinate and carry out their attacks on innocent people and made it difficult for the Indian military to detain simply because the media was reporting live about what is happening for the terrorists to see. Sure, they were killed in the end, but the media helped undermine the operation in some respects.
The media has also helped oppose political power in a number of ways, Occupy Wall Street being one of many. It helped connect people together and this transparency has extended to connect the event to the rest of the world. This cross country, boundary-less environment created from online media public space is our greatest asset yet also a great curse. Anyone can use a computer to do this, it's quite hard to imagine having this level of power during the civil rights protests in the 60s.
Will the idea of physical boundaries, policies and other ideals of state government's die with the emergence of online media? I certainly don't think so, even if transparency becomes more pervasive.
Politics has always been quite a behind-the-scenes ideology. The only times we ever talk about politics is when leaders, politicians and other things come in to contact with news reporting media. We only ever get narrow gaps of big things that are actually happen, especially in the Australian government, we watch their televised parliamentary discussions, tune into interviews and other sources. But what actually happens behind the scenes? What actually happens when politicians are in the office, what do they actually talk about and what do they actually do? No one in the general public really knows.
Which is definitely why this debate about more political transparency is taking place. Especially in Australia, with the competence the government is showing us these days, people especially young people wonder what the 'fat cats' are really doing. One reading talks about transparency in timetable to see if the public can help make it more efficient. I argue that although I enjoy knowing what the prime minister is doing I also don't want it to be something that can be accessed that easily by the public. Much like military records, there is a reason why this stuff is a need to know basis. We keep it private so that people who might threaten us cannot cause us harm.
An example I could recall was the Mumbai Attack in 2008. Terrorists were able to co-ordinate in great succession to assassinate and carry out their attacks on innocent people and made it difficult for the Indian military to detain simply because the media was reporting live about what is happening for the terrorists to see. Sure, they were killed in the end, but the media helped undermine the operation in some respects.
The media has also helped oppose political power in a number of ways, Occupy Wall Street being one of many. It helped connect people together and this transparency has extended to connect the event to the rest of the world. This cross country, boundary-less environment created from online media public space is our greatest asset yet also a great curse. Anyone can use a computer to do this, it's quite hard to imagine having this level of power during the civil rights protests in the 60s.
Wednesday 24 April 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk7 -You can't download a wallet
TRANSVERSALLY
Music and revenue was never something that was connected from the very beginning. It's only in our commercially driven society that forced us to see music as nothing more than a product sold and distributed to the masses. Music personally is something that's nothing more than art, something that you listen to, its a side dish to lifestyle created by people who want to create a piece of art. Do people who make poems think they'll ever sell millions of copies? Music is a feeling rather than a can of coke, its abstract, it doesn't quench your thirst physically but it does mentally.
The reason I wanted to start this off to talk about transversality is because of how skewered the definition of music has become; a result of this week's news report articles about the music industry. Sure, the music industry is real, and its dying, its trying to renew itself in many different ways, but its struggling because of music piracy amongst other things. But that's what I think is the interpretation of transversality.
What used to be separate and distinct ideas which are not easily merged or discussed together has seem to have deterritorialised. New ways of doing things because of this corrosion of norms, music having the ability to reach more people than ever before because of digital media and a wide social network of people.
The music industry whines about how hardhitting internet piracy has become when what they're trying to say is that they could not cope fast and think flexibly enough to distribute their music in a number of new ways that could still help them make money.
How is it independent game developers are capable of getting money to produce entertaining and original games without the complex resource structures that big label companies or game companies have?
That's because they make use of social networking, kickstarter and word of mouth through online media to make people interested to help them produce games. For example, Homestuck.
Homestuck being a purely online web series has a large fortune from the online fan community from basically out of nothing but pure creativity. They produced t shirts, calendars and other memorabilia, they didn't have factories and wide spread resources, but what is most significant in their arsenal is online technology. Its likely one of the most successful new age media I've ever seen because of how widespread the community has become.
So why couldn't the music industry survive in the new age when other mediums can re-imaging themselves to be more like this? It seems more like stubborn corporate policies are holding the industry down and nothing else.
Music and revenue was never something that was connected from the very beginning. It's only in our commercially driven society that forced us to see music as nothing more than a product sold and distributed to the masses. Music personally is something that's nothing more than art, something that you listen to, its a side dish to lifestyle created by people who want to create a piece of art. Do people who make poems think they'll ever sell millions of copies? Music is a feeling rather than a can of coke, its abstract, it doesn't quench your thirst physically but it does mentally.
The reason I wanted to start this off to talk about transversality is because of how skewered the definition of music has become; a result of this week's news report articles about the music industry. Sure, the music industry is real, and its dying, its trying to renew itself in many different ways, but its struggling because of music piracy amongst other things. But that's what I think is the interpretation of transversality.
What used to be separate and distinct ideas which are not easily merged or discussed together has seem to have deterritorialised. New ways of doing things because of this corrosion of norms, music having the ability to reach more people than ever before because of digital media and a wide social network of people.
The music industry whines about how hardhitting internet piracy has become when what they're trying to say is that they could not cope fast and think flexibly enough to distribute their music in a number of new ways that could still help them make money.
How is it independent game developers are capable of getting money to produce entertaining and original games without the complex resource structures that big label companies or game companies have?
That's because they make use of social networking, kickstarter and word of mouth through online media to make people interested to help them produce games. For example, Homestuck.
Homestuck being a purely online web series has a large fortune from the online fan community from basically out of nothing but pure creativity. They produced t shirts, calendars and other memorabilia, they didn't have factories and wide spread resources, but what is most significant in their arsenal is online technology. Its likely one of the most successful new age media I've ever seen because of how widespread the community has become.
So why couldn't the music industry survive in the new age when other mediums can re-imaging themselves to be more like this? It seems more like stubborn corporate policies are holding the industry down and nothing else.
Saturday 20 April 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk6 - Data empowerment
DATA
What is data exactly? Data according to media analysts is a collective amount of raw unprocessed information which could be manipulated and distributed in a number of different ways depending on the coder (Business Dictionary 2013).
What's interesting about this is that this so called position as the coder, the person who uses this data to create useful tables like statistical information, charts and pictograms has shifted from an elite amount of people to virtually anyone with a working computer. Excel and other softwares and programs have allowed everyday users to wrangle data into anything they want it to be. And what's more, data has become democratised in a way that anyone can access it.
There are still many different forms of data which the public could not access and this forms of data are most likely commercially traded to other businesses such as supermarkets to create large marketing campaigns against the public. This is a form of data privacy in which the public has no control over which could basically lead on to issues like internet piracy and such.
I see data as something which is quite useful, I remember a few years ago studying about the idea of visualising information onto different platforms and modes of media. Something as similar as an excel sheet could be easily transformed into charts. Why? It gives us different perspectives about what something might look like. A glass jar of jellybeans could easily fool someone into thinking that there are maybe less than a thousand of them, likewise this also happens when we look at tiring amounts of numbers.
This week one of the readings discussed the issue of climate change and how it is often argued that it doesn't exist simply because of a clash of different data types. I personally agree that climate change is happening and the way the writer explained it does have a fair few points which further corners skeptical scientists. For one, data having been processed through different models and systems and the fact that these models and systems have the potential to change and be replaced over the years by technology. It goes to show that we cannot argue about something looking back at its history when the data used has never been standardised.
Business Dictionary 2013, What is data?, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/data.html>
What is data exactly? Data according to media analysts is a collective amount of raw unprocessed information which could be manipulated and distributed in a number of different ways depending on the coder (Business Dictionary 2013).
What's interesting about this is that this so called position as the coder, the person who uses this data to create useful tables like statistical information, charts and pictograms has shifted from an elite amount of people to virtually anyone with a working computer. Excel and other softwares and programs have allowed everyday users to wrangle data into anything they want it to be. And what's more, data has become democratised in a way that anyone can access it.
There are still many different forms of data which the public could not access and this forms of data are most likely commercially traded to other businesses such as supermarkets to create large marketing campaigns against the public. This is a form of data privacy in which the public has no control over which could basically lead on to issues like internet piracy and such.
I see data as something which is quite useful, I remember a few years ago studying about the idea of visualising information onto different platforms and modes of media. Something as similar as an excel sheet could be easily transformed into charts. Why? It gives us different perspectives about what something might look like. A glass jar of jellybeans could easily fool someone into thinking that there are maybe less than a thousand of them, likewise this also happens when we look at tiring amounts of numbers.
This week one of the readings discussed the issue of climate change and how it is often argued that it doesn't exist simply because of a clash of different data types. I personally agree that climate change is happening and the way the writer explained it does have a fair few points which further corners skeptical scientists. For one, data having been processed through different models and systems and the fact that these models and systems have the potential to change and be replaced over the years by technology. It goes to show that we cannot argue about something looking back at its history when the data used has never been standardised.
Business Dictionary 2013, What is data?, accessed 13 April 2013, <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/data.html>
Thursday 11 April 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk5 - The reality of realities
AUGMENTED
I want to spend a little bit more time talking about technological determinism and cultural materialism. Again, I see virtual reality on the side of technological determinism. It has its own set of rules and guidelines on how it works and has a strong impact on our society due to its strong ubiquitous nature. I see virtual reality as something of a computerised space that existed far before roleplaying games and web 2.0 was invented. Its existence may have shifted over the years in definition but its basically a space where people could simulate their presence on the internet, I feel that we have already been doing this ever since emails, webcams and voice chat has been invented - just that it wasn't to the level of having a physical connection to the virtual world since we were quite limited in technology over a decade ago.
In the future I see virtual reality to play a big part in our society, my experience with virtual reality connects with the classic sci-fi film Tron (1982) where it depicts a world created through computer processes and binary, through such spaces, many of readings are mixed in terms of what virtual reality could impact society but most encourage its use due to how it could benefit society. I really like the idea of having a Tron-like reality where we could render virtual shopping malls and have people set up shop there which could lower fixed costs. I personally see a lot of good in virtual reality as it is also acts as good training such as military training on driving tanks and personnel.
As for augmented reality, in contrast to virtual reality which is a simulated space with its own set of principles and a whole different plane of reality; augmented reality enhances our reality and basically assists our reality in many ways. In this regard it leans towards cultural materialism since because of its nature. I could name a few augmented reality things that are available to the public today such as the Xbox Kinect and an old augmented reality simulator game which simulates fishing and hunting dragons (Japan Trend Shop 2013).
Again I believe virtual reality and augmented reality are both things that try to tap into a higher potential of the human brain as detaches and delegates our body into useful machines.
Remember World Lens (QuestVisual 2010) a while back? Well that's also a piece of augmented reality. I like how it draws from a simple program we use regularly like google translate and shifts its gaze into enhancing our reality. This idea of extending our capabilites to machine is definitely one of the major ideas of augmented reality. Sure, it makes us redundant in the process but it makes our lives easier.
References
Japan Trend Shop 2013, Dragon Hunting Real Augmented Reality Virtual Fishing Reel, accessed 13 April 2013,
<http://www.japantrendshop.com/dragon-hunting-real-augmented-reality-virtual-fishing-reel-p-1348.html>
QuestVisual 2010, Introducing World Lens, online video, accessed 13 April 2013,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h2OfQdYrHRs>
Tron 1982, film, Buena Vista Distribution Company, United States.
I want to spend a little bit more time talking about technological determinism and cultural materialism. Again, I see virtual reality on the side of technological determinism. It has its own set of rules and guidelines on how it works and has a strong impact on our society due to its strong ubiquitous nature. I see virtual reality as something of a computerised space that existed far before roleplaying games and web 2.0 was invented. Its existence may have shifted over the years in definition but its basically a space where people could simulate their presence on the internet, I feel that we have already been doing this ever since emails, webcams and voice chat has been invented - just that it wasn't to the level of having a physical connection to the virtual world since we were quite limited in technology over a decade ago.
In the future I see virtual reality to play a big part in our society, my experience with virtual reality connects with the classic sci-fi film Tron (1982) where it depicts a world created through computer processes and binary, through such spaces, many of readings are mixed in terms of what virtual reality could impact society but most encourage its use due to how it could benefit society. I really like the idea of having a Tron-like reality where we could render virtual shopping malls and have people set up shop there which could lower fixed costs. I personally see a lot of good in virtual reality as it is also acts as good training such as military training on driving tanks and personnel.
As for augmented reality, in contrast to virtual reality which is a simulated space with its own set of principles and a whole different plane of reality; augmented reality enhances our reality and basically assists our reality in many ways. In this regard it leans towards cultural materialism since because of its nature. I could name a few augmented reality things that are available to the public today such as the Xbox Kinect and an old augmented reality simulator game which simulates fishing and hunting dragons (Japan Trend Shop 2013).
Again I believe virtual reality and augmented reality are both things that try to tap into a higher potential of the human brain as detaches and delegates our body into useful machines.
Remember World Lens (QuestVisual 2010) a while back? Well that's also a piece of augmented reality. I like how it draws from a simple program we use regularly like google translate and shifts its gaze into enhancing our reality. This idea of extending our capabilites to machine is definitely one of the major ideas of augmented reality. Sure, it makes us redundant in the process but it makes our lives easier.
References
Japan Trend Shop 2013, Dragon Hunting Real Augmented Reality Virtual Fishing Reel, accessed 13 April 2013,
<http://www.japantrendshop.com/dragon-hunting-real-augmented-reality-virtual-fishing-reel-p-1348.html>
QuestVisual 2010, Introducing World Lens, online video, accessed 13 April 2013,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h2OfQdYrHRs>
Tron 1982, film, Buena Vista Distribution Company, United States.
Friday 29 March 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk4 - The way our brain has changed
EXPERIENCE
This lecture had a basic outline of about the big question about how our brains actually work in relation to the environment around us. The brain is quite an adaptive piece of machinery, its the cross attached to the strings of a puppet, with d-pads, control buttons and triggers from all sorts of video game controllers.
Brains are quite adaptive and experiential machines. They themselves act as a storage system for our internal memory, it records information and replays them back to us in a whole different language from how it actually happend, but even so we would still understand it because its an internal language that's distinctive to and unique to our internal systems.
There are many ways to describing the brain and its relationship with the things around us. Firstly many scholars have mentioned some long standing ideas about long term, short term memories as well as retention spans. These concepts have lived with us our entire life to the point where we don't appreciate the importance of these issues and we simply let our actions speak louder to project our mind into our environment.
We often have feedback in our environment after adopting certain forms of technology and its forms such as television, telephones and now a fusion of all these older machines.
Another concept I found quite interesting in the readings this week is this idea of an extended mind. An extended mind is that our mind could be visualised as a center piece of a jigsaw puzzle. This piece often could be connected with objects and technology that could extend our cognitive function. For example the many ideas I've noticed that scholars mention are stuff like smartphone technology. We also regularly use some tools like memopads, paper, scripted stuff.
The reason I wanted to point this out is that the core theme of this week's idea of the media and the mind is based on some old media ideas by Plato who disliked the use of such external technology and we should simply reinforce our internal memory. There is some truth in this - The loss of such valuable pieces of information which is all recorded in our phones could be easily lost, distributed and sold to others. We could as easily lose our sense of identity recorded in these mediums than gain it. We could easily lose such important details like contacts, messages and valuable personal information. We can delegate tasks to the objects around us, but it has no meaning and no autonomy - which might be what people fear.
We must question whether we're our lives are being governed by such technology or are our technology the ones who are living our lives for us? Is our phones living the life for us in the Matrix or should we pull out and really experience reality? These are important questions.
References
just.Luc 2008, digital photograph, accessed 13 April 2013,
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/9619972@N08/3044490806/>
This lecture had a basic outline of about the big question about how our brains actually work in relation to the environment around us. The brain is quite an adaptive piece of machinery, its the cross attached to the strings of a puppet, with d-pads, control buttons and triggers from all sorts of video game controllers.
Brains are quite adaptive and experiential machines. They themselves act as a storage system for our internal memory, it records information and replays them back to us in a whole different language from how it actually happend, but even so we would still understand it because its an internal language that's distinctive to and unique to our internal systems.
There are many ways to describing the brain and its relationship with the things around us. Firstly many scholars have mentioned some long standing ideas about long term, short term memories as well as retention spans. These concepts have lived with us our entire life to the point where we don't appreciate the importance of these issues and we simply let our actions speak louder to project our mind into our environment.
We often have feedback in our environment after adopting certain forms of technology and its forms such as television, telephones and now a fusion of all these older machines.
Another concept I found quite interesting in the readings this week is this idea of an extended mind. An extended mind is that our mind could be visualised as a center piece of a jigsaw puzzle. This piece often could be connected with objects and technology that could extend our cognitive function. For example the many ideas I've noticed that scholars mention are stuff like smartphone technology. We also regularly use some tools like memopads, paper, scripted stuff.
The reason I wanted to point this out is that the core theme of this week's idea of the media and the mind is based on some old media ideas by Plato who disliked the use of such external technology and we should simply reinforce our internal memory. There is some truth in this - The loss of such valuable pieces of information which is all recorded in our phones could be easily lost, distributed and sold to others. We could as easily lose our sense of identity recorded in these mediums than gain it. We could easily lose such important details like contacts, messages and valuable personal information. We can delegate tasks to the objects around us, but it has no meaning and no autonomy - which might be what people fear.
We must question whether we're our lives are being governed by such technology or are our technology the ones who are living our lives for us? Is our phones living the life for us in the Matrix or should we pull out and really experience reality? These are important questions.
References
just.Luc 2008, digital photograph, accessed 13 April 2013,
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/9619972@N08/3044490806/>
Monday 25 March 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk 3 - Media Equilibrium
Metacommunications
In response to my further brain storm of technological determinism and cultural materialism, after some reconsidering - I feel that these two schools although quite different, are both part of the same process. Both need each other, on one side are technology used to govern our lives whilst the other idea is convinced that technology, man-made technology is designed because there is a need for it. We've seen around us that both sorts of technology exists in our world, some scholars focus particularly on media technology when this term technology has co-existed with humanity since the stone age.
This term media ecology represents a sort of environment, a representation of many elements, complex processes and ideas. This sees the relationship of the media with different modes of information, technics and codes of communication. Simply put, decades ago the power of the media is much stronger than what it used to be, the media forms ideas to the public and there wasn't quite as many choice of media and communication as it is now. Media ecology sees the environment as a constant balance between all these elements and forms - now with the existence of social networking, Wikileaks and the world wide web, it tips the balance of the media ecology in an extraordinary way, a new age in which the public sphere has a form of defense and critical power over what is written in the press.
But is this perhaps a good thing or a bad thing? I feel it is a good thing that the public has some form of control over ourselves as opposed to having no voice in our daily lives. But this could also mean that this power could be easily misused. Take for example the kid and his POLICE BRUTALITY during this year's Sydney Mardi Gras. The footage is raw, the media easily manipulated the footage to place blame on the police officer when in actual fact, viewing the footage raw allows the audience to form their own opinion on the issue. We trace back a few years ago and we could see that such an incident may not have such mixed opinions as we're fixed to view the situation over a few specialised outlets.
In response to my further brain storm of technological determinism and cultural materialism, after some reconsidering - I feel that these two schools although quite different, are both part of the same process. Both need each other, on one side are technology used to govern our lives whilst the other idea is convinced that technology, man-made technology is designed because there is a need for it. We've seen around us that both sorts of technology exists in our world, some scholars focus particularly on media technology when this term technology has co-existed with humanity since the stone age.
This term media ecology represents a sort of environment, a representation of many elements, complex processes and ideas. This sees the relationship of the media with different modes of information, technics and codes of communication. Simply put, decades ago the power of the media is much stronger than what it used to be, the media forms ideas to the public and there wasn't quite as many choice of media and communication as it is now. Media ecology sees the environment as a constant balance between all these elements and forms - now with the existence of social networking, Wikileaks and the world wide web, it tips the balance of the media ecology in an extraordinary way, a new age in which the public sphere has a form of defense and critical power over what is written in the press.
But is this perhaps a good thing or a bad thing? I feel it is a good thing that the public has some form of control over ourselves as opposed to having no voice in our daily lives. But this could also mean that this power could be easily misused. Take for example the kid and his POLICE BRUTALITY during this year's Sydney Mardi Gras. The footage is raw, the media easily manipulated the footage to place blame on the police officer when in actual fact, viewing the footage raw allows the audience to form their own opinion on the issue. We trace back a few years ago and we could see that such an incident may not have such mixed opinions as we're fixed to view the situation over a few specialised outlets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)