Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Possibile videos for Video Project
Playlist of videos
I'm thinking of doing a sort of dream sequence type thing with people dancing from across the globe. I may lose the dream sequence aspect of it, but I definitely want to create an amalgamation of people dancing.
I'm thinking of doing a sort of dream sequence type thing with people dancing from across the globe. I may lose the dream sequence aspect of it, but I definitely want to create an amalgamation of people dancing.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Lessig Ch. 4&5--Pirates and Piracy
It was interesting to learn about the history of media developing through "piracy"--though in some cases I feel as if Lessig may have stretched the term "piracy" to cover things that weren't technically piracy. This is especially evident with the way Lessig described the MPPC controversy; from my understanding, and through a brief bit of further research, the MPPC wasn't really trying to protect any sort of intellectual property. Instead, it was a Trust formed by motion picture associations, which in turn monopolized many of the materials, techniques, and distributions of films. For example, rather than punishing theaters for showing content that was "stolen" in any way, the MPPC was far more focused on punishing theaters for showing any content that wasn't affiliated with the MPPC. So, then, it seems to me like the MPPC wasn't so much fighting against piracy as it was trying to monopolize and regulate film.
Some of the other examples were good, though--especially the example of cable television. I had no idea that originally Cable TV basically stole content and distributed it--and to me, that's a very clear case of making money off of someone else's content. The radio example was a bit less morally clear for me--Personally I don't understand why artists aren't paid for their songs but composers are, even if I can see that they're probably positively benefited by their songs playing on the radio. I feel like if composers are paid, then artists should be paid too--or neither of them should be payed. After all, unless I'm mistaken, don't radio stations tend to not make much of a profit except for through advertising? So radio to me seems like an example of benign sharing of content--they're not making any money off of it, and they certainly aren't taking credit for artists' works. Though that does make me wonder about DJs at parties--in that case, they do get directly paid for playing songs that aren't theirs. Where do they fit?
I do have to say that I like that Lessig goes over the ways in which so-called digital piracy are actually beneficial to the producers. It gets tiring sometimes, only ever hearing people bashing digital "piracy"--when in fact it isn't even really that. Often, people aren't even making money off of this. It's basically like giving a CD to your friend for them to rip--only in this case the friend can be on the other side of the world, or even a complete stranger instead of a friend.
Final thought: I laughed at the example given over VCR recordings. It seems ridiculous that companies should throw such a fit over those recordings when, as far as I can remember, people tended to only use VCRs to record shows for themselves to watch later, not so that they could sell the copies at a later date. This might have partially been because some degree of quality was lost... but most people that I know only ever used VCRs for personal use, not profit. So the whole situation in hindsight seems pretty ridiculous.
Some of the other examples were good, though--especially the example of cable television. I had no idea that originally Cable TV basically stole content and distributed it--and to me, that's a very clear case of making money off of someone else's content. The radio example was a bit less morally clear for me--Personally I don't understand why artists aren't paid for their songs but composers are, even if I can see that they're probably positively benefited by their songs playing on the radio. I feel like if composers are paid, then artists should be paid too--or neither of them should be payed. After all, unless I'm mistaken, don't radio stations tend to not make much of a profit except for through advertising? So radio to me seems like an example of benign sharing of content--they're not making any money off of it, and they certainly aren't taking credit for artists' works. Though that does make me wonder about DJs at parties--in that case, they do get directly paid for playing songs that aren't theirs. Where do they fit?
I do have to say that I like that Lessig goes over the ways in which so-called digital piracy are actually beneficial to the producers. It gets tiring sometimes, only ever hearing people bashing digital "piracy"--when in fact it isn't even really that. Often, people aren't even making money off of this. It's basically like giving a CD to your friend for them to rip--only in this case the friend can be on the other side of the world, or even a complete stranger instead of a friend.
Final thought: I laughed at the example given over VCR recordings. It seems ridiculous that companies should throw such a fit over those recordings when, as far as I can remember, people tended to only use VCRs to record shows for themselves to watch later, not so that they could sell the copies at a later date. This might have partially been because some degree of quality was lost... but most people that I know only ever used VCRs for personal use, not profit. So the whole situation in hindsight seems pretty ridiculous.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Proposed Project 2 Timeline
Purchase webcam: Wednesday, 10/14 (Completed)
Mail Webcam to Will in Georgia: Arrival approx. Tuesday 10/20
--Plan questions/interview/dialogue: 10/13-10/19
Interview Will: 10/21
Editing: 10/21-approx. 11/8
Estimated completion: 11/9
Mail Webcam to Will in Georgia: Arrival approx. Tuesday 10/20
--Plan questions/interview/dialogue: 10/13-10/19
Interview Will: 10/21
Editing: 10/21-approx. 11/8
Estimated completion: 11/9
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Ch. 8 Response
I'm glad that the book gives such a thorough definition of the difference between Modernism and Postmodernism--both are terms I've heard used a lot, but never really defined, so it's nice to really get a definition of both. And the definitions definitely makes sense in retrospect.
I do take issue with Baudrillard's statement that "we lost sight of 'the real'"--I think that we do definitely still have a sense of what's "real" and what isn't--it's just that we have become a lot more preoccupied with using simulation technology. There's still a definite division between "real" and "not real" though--especially as simulations become more and more used. For example, people are becoming a lot more savvy and knowledgeable about spotting "fakes"--which would be impossible to do without a very clear idea of what was real.
It is interesting that postmodernity is so rooted in irony; I never would have described it as such, but it makes sense how the book described it. The level of intertextuality makes sense too, and now that it's been pointed out I can see exactly what the book meant. However, I disagree with the assertion that is then made about there being nothing new anymore. That, however, might be a new development--but I've seen a recent backlash to the idea of there being no new ideas, mostly among my peers. I believe that with the developing technology and the ever-changing, developing culture, there will constantly be new sources of inspiration, new ideas to come forth--and while some ideas may be a mish-mash of older ideas, what they create when they are put together is something new.
The section on architecture was, however, quite fascinating, especially with the description of the evolution from modernism to postmodernism. I've noticed this evolution of architecture, and having a description of why this is happening and the thought process behind it is highly interesting.
I do take issue with Baudrillard's statement that "we lost sight of 'the real'"--I think that we do definitely still have a sense of what's "real" and what isn't--it's just that we have become a lot more preoccupied with using simulation technology. There's still a definite division between "real" and "not real" though--especially as simulations become more and more used. For example, people are becoming a lot more savvy and knowledgeable about spotting "fakes"--which would be impossible to do without a very clear idea of what was real.
It is interesting that postmodernity is so rooted in irony; I never would have described it as such, but it makes sense how the book described it. The level of intertextuality makes sense too, and now that it's been pointed out I can see exactly what the book meant. However, I disagree with the assertion that is then made about there being nothing new anymore. That, however, might be a new development--but I've seen a recent backlash to the idea of there being no new ideas, mostly among my peers. I believe that with the developing technology and the ever-changing, developing culture, there will constantly be new sources of inspiration, new ideas to come forth--and while some ideas may be a mish-mash of older ideas, what they create when they are put together is something new.
The section on architecture was, however, quite fascinating, especially with the description of the evolution from modernism to postmodernism. I've noticed this evolution of architecture, and having a description of why this is happening and the thought process behind it is highly interesting.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Ch. 2 Response
It's interesting that this book chooses to focus on the singular viewer rather than the audience as a whole--this is unusual for a textbook, but I can see why this book does it.
The book does go over some things that I'm already familiar with (again)--that is, Barthes's concept of the "Death of the Author." I'm not, however, familiar with Foucault's response--and I'm not sure I agree with him. While the concept of author may not have always existed, it has become an integral part of culture, and I see no sign of it "passing out of relevance"--we as a society have become so concerned with ownership that I cannot see us giving that up any time soon. While, yes, we may continue to disregard the author's intent behind their work, we still nonetheless attribute the author's work to the author.
Clifford's Art-Culture System diagram was also rather intriguing, though a bit difficult to decipher at first. After a while of studying, however, it starts to make a certain amount of sense--some of the "opposites" presented seem a bit off. This could be simply for this particular diagram, but it seems to me that "masterpiece" and "artifact" aren't necessarily "opposites" or even mutually exclusive. I also disagree with his assertion that anything "new" is "not-culture"--perhaps a better divide would be "traditional culture vs. pop culture".
The book does go over some things that I'm already familiar with (again)--that is, Barthes's concept of the "Death of the Author." I'm not, however, familiar with Foucault's response--and I'm not sure I agree with him. While the concept of author may not have always existed, it has become an integral part of culture, and I see no sign of it "passing out of relevance"--we as a society have become so concerned with ownership that I cannot see us giving that up any time soon. While, yes, we may continue to disregard the author's intent behind their work, we still nonetheless attribute the author's work to the author.
Clifford's Art-Culture System diagram was also rather intriguing, though a bit difficult to decipher at first. After a while of studying, however, it starts to make a certain amount of sense--some of the "opposites" presented seem a bit off. This could be simply for this particular diagram, but it seems to me that "masterpiece" and "artifact" aren't necessarily "opposites" or even mutually exclusive. I also disagree with his assertion that anything "new" is "not-culture"--perhaps a better divide would be "traditional culture vs. pop culture".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)