This week’s lecture talks about the meaning of affect and to be affected, the power to affect and to be affected, and how does it work thin to the media industry or society. It is based on two parts, first is feeling/emotion- how mediation and communication makes us feel about it, second is the affecting and to be affected is larger than this and containing it, which is not only us but everything involved. I guess the reason we study about the affect and the power of affect, is trying to let us understand how does this emotion and body movement engage with media and commons, and it kindly bring back the memory of the media ecology, such us “how computer is not just computer, but people is actually running it with thinking and emotions.” The kitty video examine the audience/viewers of the feeling engagement, it is not only shows the engagement between human and animals, but also the more emotional stage behind the screen. Viewers who are interested in kitties they all kindly feel emotional attached by the video, definitely feel the cat is very lovely and intense, whoever will make the same video with their cat in order to show the emotional engagement again to show to the public. So the person who makes the video has affected to the publics or related videos, and the public whoever is being affected, will rethink and reproduce the product in order to affect others. So I guess the medial like Youtube or other media platform, has provided the larger stage for people who try to be engage with the society/community they want to belong to and this chance seems looks bigger when we have a feeling or emotions being attached to it.
Vitality Affects
People who are defiantly feelings and belong in the domain of affective experience. Vitally affects occurs in “the presence of and in the absence of categorical affects”. The example i was thinking about is the dancing movement “shuffling”.The Melbourne shuffle is a rave and club dance that originated in the late 1980s in the underground rave music in Melbourne, Australia. The basic movement in the dance are a fast-heel-and toe action with a style suitable for various types of electronic music. People who dance the shuffle are referred to cockers who love the rock music. Later, this trend quickly spread out to different Countries include Europe, American, and other asian countries via internet sources, online and offline talking and in the dance studio, etc on. People start to hold shuffle stylish competitions and have various performances or meet different nations dancers or have their shuffle teaching tutorials in different channels, such us online tute, dancing school, ect on. The “Shuffling dance”group have a smiler vitality affect that has a similar “wave” (interest) or shape through time, they share the same movement and similar rhythm in terms of experience, but they also break it up to different forms, shows different way they dance and how do they change the movement within the different music type. Their reaction might be different, or different body movement, but the wave they have is similar to others, because they are all affected by the similar wave. Like Andrew mentions in the lecture, there are might be some constant situation will change or pass between person to person or situation to situation, or people on the dance floor will feel joyful or get angry with each other. So i guess in the music platform which provided in this stage, is playing the major power of the affect, but in the affect, there are other factors are playing their role itself as well.
Competition
Everyday I’m Shuflling (Music)
The Idea
I guess the Affect and media are really trying to tell us about the media, and how our emotions and body involves tin the media and comms. Like Andrews says the transformation of affected by algorithm, interactive device, internet of things, and applications, they are connected to the media, it tells us how we think about the media and research about the media, it deeply activated in our everyday individual life and it affects us or we are affected it but in the certain way it is has it own power and we kindly affect the media as well.
References:
Video:
Readings:
ARTS3091_outline_2014_draftFeb11_2
[study kit] Massumi, Brian with Zournazi, Mary (2002) ‘Navigating Moments: A Conversation with Brian Massumi’, in Mary Zournazi (ed.) Hope: New Philosophies for Change, Sydney: Pluto Press: 210-243 [this is a longer piece but many students in the past have enjoyed reading it. Read at least the first few sections.]
This week’s lecture Andrew talks about people using media and communication to take things into their hands, like people can put their things online, to make change in the community, economy, organisation to all over the world. Media and communication methology are kindly includes: General networks, communicative possibility, for example peer to peer sharing and engagement as the basis for social change, new combination between online and offline, and use the digital media, often in the combination of the networks : 3D/4D printing. The example which was give as the Howard Rheingold on Collaboraiton, mentions about the new ways of living and use: the media involves should be easy to use, everyone an access it and rebooking the cooperation, the collective actions with the shift to the new media, printing press, politics and etc on. And when we mention about micropolitices, is something who stays between middle or small, but always can make something changes and apply or adapt something new. Micro politics is also about the social desires, that people can do something with others, enable to find the particular form and expression, it is very powerful but it can be dangers t the same time. Like last week, when we talk about the Get Up organisation, to change the basic ground level of the politics movement and social changes, it might work or does not work by itself, but it is more like sit in the middle and engage with other communities or large number of groups. The concept from the Tiziana Terrannova mentions about “Multitudes”, i guess it is more likely talk about people who share the same attitude or thinking or different than others, but try to find the certain form of expression, to express their attitude and opinion towards to the modern society. And, the media communication and technologies, has enabled that form, that people are changing the society by opening their resources, sharing the information and the data, to contribute in the community, economic system, institutions, education, technology and so on.
Opening & Sharing
Opening and sharing in the media communication are more about sharing the resources to others. Like Andrew mentions in the lecture, individual can talk about the food making procedure, the process of the own creative designs, the more information you open about, the more information you will know about it. And, peer-to- peer sharing are more about sharing the information which is opened, the closest example i can think about is about our group work in university. Group peer usually creates the Facebook group page and also Google doct. The information is being opened to selective group members( whoever in the same group) and we can read other’s information which posted on Facebook page and also Google document, we also can edit and add more information on the existing one, like the lecture says re-thinking and redesigning the information once again. And, then we started to producing the common result which being picked up by all of us and choose the best one to hand in to the tutor. This is an example of the opening and sharing information on education system, certainly moving the lecture notes from offline to online, is another form of opening and sharing the today’s media communication.
Another interesting example i was thinking about is the “online make-up tutorial video sharing”. Girls are always focus on beauty, skin care, and make up perfection. Online make up tutorial has become a massive channel to the viewers, the video creators, cosmetic brands, retailers, and other individuals to make the money from. Michelle Phan- An american make up artist who became a notable as a Youtube celebrity. Her youtube channel has over 6 million subscribers and has uploaded 300 make- up videos til today. I remember the first time when I watched her make-up tutorial, she was using basic make-up foundation product ( low-range price product), but now when i retrieve her videos, all her make up products are luxury brands and or relates to one particular brand. So, what happened? How does she make money if she just shared her make-up skills and allow everyone retrieve her information freely? subscribers watch her tutorials and start to interested in the product she is using, because they think they can make up themselves as same as what she presented in the video by using the same brand product and drawing the same way. In the online process, the information is being created and shared, but back to the physical world, fans are starting to get these kinds of products or try it on in the domestic shopping mall. Therefore, cosmetic company, for example “Lancôme” has see the potential money behind the screen, that if they take over Michelle Phan’s make up tutorial, or try to ask her to use their product in the video, their customer assumption will definitely increase because they will after the Phan’s product in any how. So Lancôme singed the contact with Phan, and ask her promote their product in the video. This, is how individual using their own knowledge and hand to change the formal manufacturing process. Opening and sharing her make up knowledge has opened the potential gate of money, and she also brought the profits to the cosmetic company and individual subscribers benefits. Now, this girl has her own fashion website, and i believe most of the fund she got from, was based on the sponsors whoever try to engage with her to promote their product. Certainly, Michelle Phan is just one of the example of the cooperation between individuals and community, and how sharing sometimes is better than competition.
Opening &sharing& Community
Cosmetic retailer: Sasa( online and also offline cosmetic retailer based in Hongkong), is trying to make their own videos by contracting with famous individual make-up artist and use / promote the product they are selling on the website, to encourage the users consume the products after they watch the tutorials. Again, cosmetics companies and retailers are sharing the money instead of not cooperating to put their product only in their official website, but more goes broadly and try to target their customers in any second chance.
Future
I guess now we under std how micro politics works together with our media and communication in today’s society. When we look at 3D/4D printing, i will think about one day can we really print out something that we can use for? Can we really live in a 3D printed house, and what is the future going to be look like? Who is controlling our future’s technology and the way we consume our media society? From the printing press to digital media, and now again re-thingking / designing the printing system or move toward to 3D printing, where is our next goal of media consumption or media technology consumption? I guess the reason we learning about this topic is about reflect ourselves as an individual to take things and make the change in the future. Not just trying to adapting or accepting the new form of technology, but also see the potential trend of them.
The definition of the government 2.0 on wikipedia was explained as ” government policies that aim to harness collaborative technologies to create an open-source computing platform in which government, citizen and innovative companies can improve transparency and efficient”. Simply, the new version of the government 2.0 has become the desire for morel pen government, open data and more open access as well. Government’s use of the new media (digital and networked media) and also the new mountains of data carries, it increase the power of established forms of government or change government in terms of giving it too much control. I guess here is more likely talk about the new media has enable the ways people can not do but now they can ,and the desires has been extended which presents in the new media. Government as well, things they could control before and they protect or “hide”before, now they are trying the new technology and collaborate with the citizens and transparent information and share their information to the publics. This is an very interesting topic that leads to the question: what kind of data should government share with the publics, how much, in what way and how do we use the data that government shares and how much power should government control on those data?
New organisation -The new form of political organisation
The lecture mentions the new organisation influence to the government, Tea partly in us ,and it certainly challenge the traditional governance in the new digital media age. Australia national broadband was an intensive topic to talk about how government use the technology to expand their idea in domestication of the mobile broadband in Australia. Telstra (Telstra coloration limited) is the Australia’s largest telecommunication and media company which builds and operates telecommunication networks and internet access. It was originally owned by Australia ferderal government which includes T1 T2 AND T3. However, between 1990- 2011, Australian government has partly sold the public, leaving the Australian government ownership 10.9% in 2011. I guess the reason why government is selling it to private, wasn’t just the profits purpose but they have seen the potential challenges of undergoing national network. Telstra was fully privatised before but now is undergoing a change program to become more sales and marketing direction. The reason of government selling to the public, is to encourage the publics use a faster and stable network within all over the county, but also they can monitor information and the data usage of the domestic users. The network allows the users to achieve more information and create more data usage, so government can collect those datas and analyse in order to control the power of the usage. Therefore, they could know where is the public interests, public’s preference, what they are looking for and what they are trying to do about it. Not just every individual citizen, but also the companies, business, universities, social changes/challenges, so government can be able to decide what kind of information or data can be released to the public. However, in today’s digital network media, is not just about government manipulate the data and information to the their own citizens or society, but now people are standing up their own right, and try to use those technologies to protect them and raise their voice in the national stage or co-operate with the government to enhance the quality of life.
Surveillance, Transparency, Privacy
Recently, The american TV series “Big bang theory” has been banned in China. You may ask why? According China national broadcasting department says the production of the “big bang theory” relates to obscenity materials and it can be not longer represented in China. People would ask does it really necessary to ban the drama nationally and so therefore no one can be influenced by this production? Does government can really stop us watching this drama in anyhow we can not “cross the wall” and access it in anyhow? These questions make me think about the lecture notes that how does government should control those datas (open datas) and the privacy issue in this case. Chinese government obviously have the particular reason to banned this drama within China, it might because it went too popular to have won the other national drama production, so they want to protect their own production instead of promoting the overseas production. So certainly, there are people observing the monitoring the data that people are trying to access everyday. So public data is no longer private, but certainly is being monitored and manipulated by the government, and government has played the role of surveillance, that they control the “opened data” to “close the data”. Even the Chinese online users are angry about the government actions, but they mentions there is nothing they can do about it, but only criticise the government by words. But I’m pretty sure government is under pressure for those online shifting as well, they certainly block the drama but other hackers are still able to access those information in anyhow. So my question is, does it really necessary to block it and this action may lead problems, such as hacker issues and privacy issue. If government really has the control of the open data, why are they so afraid of the data has been opened to the publics, and where is the limitation of the “open data”? Like China, those ultra measure really can help the citizen to avoid of “dirty production?” or it encourages the citizen to pursuit the production they want in term of legal or illegally access it?
Certainly, there are more people stand up their rights and protect themselves. Get up organisation in Australia provides a stage to the audience allows them gather their active voice in term of having different type of campaigns (online +offline) to present their ideas to the government and enforce them to make the current policy/law changes.
There are some other online users also has become the surveillance to the government. They walk and travel between the society, recording and documenting the ongoing issue of the society. So people can use the “documentary” as an evidence in order to protect themselves and enforce government to make decision that what they are going to with those datas and information.
In Conclusion, i guess the power and the scope of media has a very intensive relationship. The awareness of tight relationship between media and state politics are still growing, and government now are taking procedures to merge the movement with the society in order to catch up this trend. It is hard to manage what kind of data should be opened or less given, and in the future we do not know whether this case will be managed better or worse. I guess what is important is to know what is going on, and try to make changes of the evil side with those new media technologies, like the lecture note mentions: The new media have made more different kind of participation possible.
Three models of contemporary of media power Frames, vectores and hackers are there models of contemporary media power and practices of political and social struggle over the direction of the change. By looking at these three changes in today’s everyday life proactive, we kindly looking at what is changing within the media change, in media and communications, the changing in the media industry, in the news/ journalism industry and changes in education, and so on. After done the readings and also attended the lecture, I think we all understand why does the various industries have been pushed the way to the new models and how does it work or apply to our present everyday life practices. These three models are not just an explanation of a contemporary model, but more likely are the power to change the direction of things. To start over my understanding, i will looking at those models individually and elaborate the ideas from Wark’s reading and the lecture notes from Andrew, and some argument of contemporary models been used in journalist, education and music industry, in order to provide a better understanding of these concepts.
Frames When we firstly look at the frames, I would think about a word “structure” , we always use the frame to do thing, or the way we should or the best frame to organise things. When we speak, we use the frame to organise our words and sentence in order to speak it out to type in to make people understand us. Without applying the frame, we probably can not be understood just by using the vocabulary without a proper framing sentences. While after we use our frame, we probably can experience in different frames, in order to result in which will be the best way we present our speaking, or the way to do things in order to get the positive outcomes. So myself, as an example of using the everyday media frame. So I use my downloaded song as my alarm ringtone(because I find out I woke up easier than use the default ringtone from the phone) , and the first thing I do i touch my phone is to ‘scan’ the social network apps and then shower with my music on and then be ready to go to uni. When i get on train, i check the news via the social networking websites and reply my people whoever leave a message to me last night. Why do i do like this instead of replying on them in the morning before i leave my house? Well, I know it saves time for me so that i will be late for my tutorial or the lecture. Well, I know it sounds like a silly example of the frame I use by myself, but I guess it kindly explain the frames we use for itself, is more like in a certain way and we all kind of using it with our own habit (the way we want to use). Framing, says from the lecture that it does all three things : “selecting the things from the past, in order to make the present function a particular way and try to control the future. In the media framing of the certain way, like the Bateson stated that before, the relationship between the patterns and communication, it is a way of framing: the frame itself becomes meaningful with the activities, such as: think, say, perceive, certain kind of acts, and so on. Therefore, the framing does not just represent the structure how you do things, but also it is interactive, can be exchanged, or changed, short or long, or destroyed. Another interesting point of framing is from the Lakoff and Johnson. They mentioned that the framing is to let the human understand the reality, and those framing may be used under unconsciousness. Like we go to a restaurant, take seats, call the waitress, order food, it’s all happening in a certain structure, and when we leave the table, they know we are going to pay the bill instead of thinking we need to say goodbye to the house owner if the same situation happen in a house party. So I feel like we are actually frame ourself in somehow,and we understand the under meaning of the frame itself.
Vectors
Pathways across or between frames
Wark stated that vectors are infecting and perhaps break down given frames, experienced bodies and social forms. it is a general abstract capacity that it bring into the world and expand. For my understanding, the vectors work in the frame but also challenge and create the new frames. It has the power to expand the world, based on the traditional or the old frames. It also certainly controls the abstraction, not just in the media industry, but many other prospectives as well. Comparing between the vectors and the frames, I’m more interested in the vectors and the hackers. Guess it because this is the new challenges and the reason why our present media industry and communication has been changed so much. Certainly, without the frames, vector can not be applied or control the capitals. So let’s talk about the music industry as the example which were given in the lecture. As a consumer, we no longer go to a CD shop and purchase the latest CD album from our favourite singer. We not longer purchase the poster or calendars which has their photos on it. We are more into digital music, the music we can stored in our phone, laptop or even we can go online to search their MV via Youtube while we listening the music but also can watch their face and actions at the same time. Thinking about the traditional frame, and what we used to do? Isn’t interesting that the consumption has been played by the vectors? Because the new technologies has changed the traditional model to a broader and more free pathways, the vectors controls in the new music industry, but based on the previous frame. We still purchase the music online sometimes, but it it owned by iTunes or Android market. We download music or share files with each other, with or without the legal actions between nations to nations. We still listen music via media mediation, no longer CD player,but through our mobile phones and iPod (even it is being a bit out of dated). We probably still have the CD collection back to home, but we probably will kindly start laughing ourselves why would we spent so much on these, which does not worth any single price now? And can be still be able to find a CD store in the downtown or those CD store becomes virtual store online and we are more digitalised than before? These situations, are all based on the vectors. The vectors has changed the frames, and those frames I just exampled out, how many has been updated or even destroyed? Now What? People always argue that the traditional music industry makes more money, but now lose their property and less income. However, don’t you think our artists now are always holding “world tour concert” to make you purchase the tickets, and if you go on Ticekt.com.au you will find out the top singers ticket are increasing their ticket prices year by year. I guess the way of the music industry has been changed, but more interruption between fans and idols, and the money they made from the concert, I guess it is really hard to tell the industry has become a better way or worse.
Also, now we starting to provide our own creation of the music. People freely upload their music on Youtube, or sound cloud, sometimes you even purchase those music files. Justin Biber as a typical example, he was found by talent in terms of he uploaded his own singing on Youtube. So the opportunities in the music industry has been enlarged by the vectors, and the frame in the certain way is being expanded/ changed/destroyed as well. There is an interesting application I found on the Chinese apple store: “CHANG BA”, people use their personal detail to log in the app, and they can lively record their singing and share to the publics. People can follow you and become your fans, give you “Virtual dollars” and you can sing more songs and pick up more musics on the list. So we kindly can see the individualisation and also interaction between the individuals, and the frames from the the traditional music industry to the new model. People are no longer pursuing the particular one way, but purchasing after the new trendy style, and who knows what is going to be next? With this example, we also can talk about the hackers and copyright.
Wark stated that hackers refer to criminal use of information technology, second that on which new businesses are built. third, someone interested in the play of information and tech logy in any dimension whatever. So singing application is a perfect example of illustrating the concept of hackers. App founder does not pay the copyright to the music owner, but use the music to contribute a business model. They are getting the money from the users and create a new sense of trendy style. It is hardly to say hackers are the bad people who hack people information. I mean we are kindly hackers as well, but it depends on what levels and what is the intention we use the data and the information. We do not own what we produce, and Those data collection company include Google And Facebook, are using our provided data to monitor our interests and analyse what are we intending to do. So we probably can’t argue about the hacker systems, because we kindly suit in there as well. Also, we talking about the mobile phone here. Google Owns the android system, so does apple owns the apple IOS software. Hacker in here, can be defined as the “jail break users”. There are many videos and step procedures online to teach you how to jail break your free. I guess people who jail break their phone, is not just play the free contents which you need to pay if you did not jail break it , but also in another way to seek something new and interested in try different things new. I never jail break my iPhone, but if you asked me do I want to personally set up my “phone theme” I wouldn’t mind doing that, because that is another frame that i can apply for the way I want to. But i couldn’t bother to take hours to jail break my phone, instead of just buying an Android device so that I can apply any personalised theme I want but iPhone can not be applied. So I guess, those kind of new frames work with the vectors and the ideas of hackers may can not be judged in a good way or bad way.
There are lot of contemporary example I wish i can talk about, such as education and also journalism industry. In the coming weeks, I believe we have more further discussion in these models and we will have more fun about it. I found out this is really an interesting topic, because it is an ongoing issue but also we can kindly predict what we want and what we probably will do in the future. Anyway, it is very excited to know the models and expect to get to know more about these concepts.
References:
ARTS3091_outline_2014_draftFeb11_2
[study kit] Wark, McKenzie (2004) ‘Vector’ in A Hacker Manifesto, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: sections 313-345 (13 pages)
From this week’s lecture, we try to understand the importance of media and communication by looking at how we think about, design and work with interactions. The Dourish reading illustrates the meeting between models of media communication and models of mind and bodies in working with interactive technologies. The focus of the interaction in here is about human and computer. We say human is human, and computer is computer. But what is the interaction between these two and how does these work towards to interactions? Back to the old time, was the computer being used like now or it is being expanded? What is the future look like? Are we going to change? How are we going to apply on this new technologies or the new technologies will challenge us ?
My first impression after this week’s reading is about how we take the lecture/tutorial notes. The way we interact with our thinking and embodied movement. I remember i used to go to those glossary shops to buy the fancy pencil cases and pretty A4notebooks, and carry all the way to school and use highlight pens to highlight the key factors or main points. However, look at now? I sometimes take my pc to uni, but most of time just use the iPad to take notes. Then I started to question myself, why do I use those digital device instead of using paper and pen? The answers are: 1, i type quicker than I write, so i can mark down more important information while i’m attending the lecture or the tutorial. 2, iPad is easy to carry, and it has the same function or more function than the paper notes (e.g.: hight light function, paragraph/words formats, words correction, texting prediction,online access). So basically it does more function than a normal pen and paper. Because it represents my ideas but also extend my idea at the same time. I can access the Internet on my iPad, and look at the word which I don’t understand, in stead of just writing the words down on my paper, and review it afterwards. So what I’m trying to say in here is how my mind has been extended while I’m using those technologies, I can do so much more research on my screen, instead of looking at a piece of paper. 3, it costs nothing for me to type on the screen, instead of regularly paying for the papers and pens. So yes, the way we interact ourselves from the body to the mind, has changed. We start to change from “writing” to “typing”, change from “talking” to” texting”, “face to face” interaction to ” online-online” communication.
In my opinion, the interaction is necessity to be changed or switched in different models, in terms of how and where we going to apply it on. I mean it depends on the places where we emphasis on and how we going to use these technologies. For example, it is necessary to put more notes down than just listening what the lecturer is talking about, because we need more information to have a better understanding of the concepts from the course. For doing that, having a electronic device is better than physical writing, because it helps us to mark down more information. Then, in this case, the model of communication is representing a better result by using electronic device. However, another side of revving the notes and key points, our interface between computer and human is the screen. But, student or I personally think i memorise better to con centre more on my studies if i chose to writer down these main points on the paper while i’m reviewing my notes. So, in this case, it requires different model of interaction, instead of computing. So interaction and the usage of the technologies using, are applied or chased by the places where we use it, and the extended mind is not only about our skull or skin, but more likely the technologies/tools are considered as part of our mind as well, it is being extended by the way how we use those technologies.
The Virtual And Augmented
From my point of view:
The virtual reality (VR): the world may or may not have a relation to the regular world
The AR(augmented reality) : in the world, we are now, but the all devices allows us overlap the information all over the world, it’s an extension of the regular world.
When we talk about 3D movie, Avatar, we won’t think like one day if we became like that, the ordinary people has walked toward to different world, how we going to communicate with each other, and does our body movement or the way we live will be changed or not. In the AR theory, we kindly look at today’s invention. Such as tablets, Google Glasses, and Samsung gear watch, or even online virtual store, which just launched in South Korea Recently. In our incoming future, Will you be freak out if someone wear a glasses( whoever you can’t even see how they look like), talking to themseleves by the next to you, and ordering/ask a glass to do majorities of things for the users? From what I remember, i even freak out the people who carry a bluetooth to talk with themselves, I will think they are nerd or stupid. Will you really use a watch to check your heart rates and shop on a virtual shop and scan your mobile phone to purchase those untouchable items? I mean how can we check the food expiry dates? How can we feel the materials? Where is the interaction going to be if everyone just talk to a glass, instead of asking to a person next to you “where is George St?” Are we really going to get there, how does the future will look like, why do we need to adapt to it and how we gonna know what is the future technologies look like? Those questions are sneaking around my mind, all I know is we can’t really separate the development of technologies and society development. All we need to know the future is coming, with better or worse interaction between human to human,or human to computer, or even computer to computer. Don’t forget who we are, and instead of adapting the technologies, ensure we know what is ongoing, and using these technologies properly.
[study kit] Dourish, Paul (2004) ‘A History of Interaction’, in Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: 1-23.
(Guess that’s why we need media and communication)
After attend this week’s lecture, I felt like my major has changed from media degree to science degree. It’s kindly true that when talk about “advanced media”, it is not just talking about how media usage has related to everyday life, but more importantly we start to deeply analysis why do we use media like this? What is the reason and how functionally media impacted on us? Like Andrew mentions in the lecture, a lot of our thinking or engagement with the world is in fact modelling. Certainly, media and communication often informs of Mind. And, communication and media can not be existed without the mind processing. When we look at the media modelling, we question about what do the model do or stand for, what sense of self, cultures, societies, technologies, techniques,kinds f thinking, feeling or people do these different procudures? Like when i write this blog, what kind of structure am i using, am i modelling myself? Do i have feeling attached to it and what kind of technologies/channels/ media platform i have chose to connect to the societies and let other readers to “Decode” my information or thoughts? The interesting part is that I don’t think I’m modelling myself for writing this blog, but in somehow all of those words appear in lecture make sense, we are always living under a model, with the thinking process,and taking actions and then framed it in oder to control the context.
Mata-modelling- Main four groups of models
The definition of behaviourism is refer to reject metalism, or nor caring the mind, but experience it first. Animal examples examines the different result of conditioning, and the question was brought out, if animal could be trained, why not human? So the humans, had to be simultaneously like animals(behaving on reflex). So I start to look into the regulation of these four models, and found some interesting pictures online, and I realised we actually drew a similar mind map as the one I found.
So, what I understand about this four group of models should be like this: Behaviourism <–> Cognitivism (should be double arrow, because without consciousness / thinking process -there is no behaviour), then it towards to the actions (inputs and outputs, representation, perception and action), so the mind back to the Cognitivism. Cognitivism becomes the mind is questioning of inputs, a processing of these inputs and outputs. Andrew mentions that the processing is often thought about like a kind of processing code, r symbols or representation. So we choose the medium/ technologies to input our mind/thoughts, and then input the ideas to one or others, and then experience the same feedback or different feedback from outside of the models. So it looks like: Natural states(the behaviourism–> rational states( Cognitive/technological determinism)–> contructvism (construct our experience outside of given models or frames). The following photograph is an example of analysing a” learning framework”, the example of the leaning model applies on the four main groups of the models
Memory is/ needs to be dynamic ?
Another interesting point from this week’s reading is from Wendy Hui (2011), she argues about how new digital media and memes memory defining a role in today’s media society. She believes that digital media sometimes are highly unreliable sometimes, but human memory machine memory so well that everything becomes programmable. From her reading, I read and think more than that. She mentioned that people starts to use digital computer instead of calculator, and traditional broadcasting media, such as memorable but the new media is in the contrast of memorable, but helps users to memorise things. I mean it kindly make sense that the encourage of using digital computer or calculator, makes us forget about the mathematic formula which we used to learn when were in middle school. It is hard to say whether is a good thing or not, but it’s more like an new revolution of the new media society changes the way we used o have. Another point was mentioned in there, “future as future simple”, because the expandable memory helps people to remember the human memory. I mean who doesn’t use iPhone or other mobile phones to write down what do they need to do in the incoming days or weeks? Or we should ask who is still carrying a printed A6 notebook around and tick what they have done or what they need to do later? It’s all kindly switched to digitals, and the problem is people may reply on this without conscious. One day, people will suffer frustration if the digital media disappear. For my point of view, the memory only can be called as memory, if the human brain still remember it? my point of argument is expandable memory can help us to remember what we do not remember, it can help us to recall the memories. However, what if we do not even remember we put the “notes” on our phones, we forget we use the expandable or digital memory to help us to memorise? So the memorise does not even exist, i guess? So, I think our brain certainly work with the modelling, and the controlling of the modelling, helps us to encode our information or prepare our mind well, in order to choose the right technology to transparent the information to another side, in order to let them decode our information and understand the each side. For “moving the memory”, people are changing the way they memorise things, but certainly sometimes digital memory can not be replied on.
References:
Kyong-Chun, Wendy Hui (2011) ‘The Enduring Ephemeral, or The Future is a Memory’ in Huhtamo, Errki and Parikka, Jussi (eds.) Media Archaeology: Approaches, Applications, and Implications. Berkeley: University of California Press: 184-203
“Media ecology is the study of media as environment “(Neil,1993). Matthew mentioned that media ecology describes a kind of environmentalism: using a study of media to sustain a relatively stable notion of human culture(Matthew, 2005). And every kind of media have ecologies, and the ecologies are not only related to human but mind, nature and other relations. So i guess the reason we study about the media ecology, is to have a better understanding of how media has shaped/ influenced on human’s environment. Or my understanding will be how does this ,media environment changes our today’s society.
The Pattern That connects and The ecology of mind
Bateson’s emphases on the patterns that connects is not suit in an academic cultured based on “things”. The patterns that connects things is abstract, it is not a thing itself, but the patterns concerns the relationship between things. In another word, patterns are being used for connecting and maintaining relationships. So the patterns we looking at today within media ecology, which based on communication and meta communication are viewed as communicative patterns. When Batenson’s talked about the communicative patterns and embodiment event, it kindly mentions about Face-to-Face communication and Email to Email or text message communication. He mentions that embodiment itself was a pattern, and it patterns across difference. So I guess it tries to explain that different patterns may result the different relations and information. When I read the reading this week, I keep thinking about my own evaluation of the communicative patterns. I was sitting in the library while i was going through the readings, and replying a text message to one of my friend at the same time. I realized that i comment a “smiley face” to her without gave a actual smile on my face. So i started to question myself, do i really want to smile or it was just a way to express myself politely to my friend. Then I started to understand how different communicative patterns work together and results different information/situations. However, if my friend were front of me, she probably would read my facial expression directly and response me at the same time. So our embodiment will be different, because the communicative patterns are different.
We had a deep discussion in the tutorial about meta communication and different media environment. I remember one of my classmate mentioned about her previous boss that he always good at talking and persuading his employee by talking face to face with his body language. The young employees can’ directly say no to his face, and kindly accept the “offer” unconditionally. So she used the word “manipulating” the employees with his talking skills. I’m kindly agree with that sometimes people can express themselves better or can be understood better if they used face to face communication patterns. However, sometimes online communication patterns can be resulted to a positive situation as well. Because now days people sometimes do not need to talk face-to-face, but still maintain their relationship in some stages, or you can say it results a better relations than meet people face-to-face.
And meta-communication, is a secondary communication about how information is meant to be interpreted. For instance, the function of “emoticon”, can help us express ourselves better and the message sometimes accompanied by different meta-communication can mean something entirely different.
The importance of studying media ecology presents the different way of media usage in today’s society. And the media ecology is not only includes the media itself, but also includes the human, nature and mind. The patterns work with one and another, and it shifts if the relations changes. Or both communicator does not choose the same patterns, the relations may change better or not, but the relations has been created and involved.
References:
[study kit] Fuller, Matthew (2005) ‘Introduction: Media Ecologies’ in Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture Cambridge, MA; MIT Press: 1-7 (only although the entire chapter is in the study kit)
[study kit] Bateson, Gregory (2000) ‘A Theory of Play and Fantasy’, Steps to an Ecology of Mind Chicago: Chicago University Press: 177-183 (sections 1-11).! [study kit]
“A new technology creates a new potential and possibility for human thought, expression or activity “(2003, PP 15). I guess this is the most impression sentence that I remember from Murphie & Potts reading.Technological determinism is believed that technology is the agent of social changes. When I read out this statement, I wonder does the technology change us or the technology has been changed for adapting to us? The interesting part is, whether technology is made for improving our quality of life or we got no choice to adopt/adapt the changing of new technology?
Murphie & Potts(2003) states that the “technology as an independent factor with its own properties…, and it will generate a type of new society(2003, pp 12).” However, I’m kindly disagree with this opinion. I mean as mentioned in the earlier stage, technological determinism should be natural, it is hard to say whether technology has changed our society or another way around. Older generation does not need to adapt to the new society/technology. Some mobile phone users still use a basic Nokia device with the “snake” game on it, and the phone does not even have a colourful screen. Yes, older generation they probably don’t need a 5.0 or 8.0 mega pixel camera to take ‘selfies’ and use location service to “check-in”the location wherever they travel to. All they need is just phone calls and able to connect with families and friends. For them, I guess is more stable or suitable to stay what they know instead of going to get used to the new techonology. Yet, I’m not saying the invention of new media is a bad thing to our society. However, it has become the media power. And I believe the different society has different regulation of the technology adoption.
Media Power
Mcluhan said that “Medium is the message”, we kindly adopt what we need to accept, and our personal lives become public property. He also said that the electronic mass media has it own cultural consequences. What I believe is different society has different regulation of the technology adoption, some countries does not have Facebook or Twitter access, but they are getting information though different chanels. China is a perfect example to exam their own media society. Without Facebook access in China, Chinese internet users has their own Chinese Facebook, and also weico.com (Chinese twitter) to access varieties information/upload information. Moreover, these two media platform, has become the most popular website across all over the country. The power of media short the distance across borders, and there is another fact turns out that is cultural materialism.
Cultural materialism
Murphie& Potts mentioned that social need and political intention as significant factors involved in technological development. Mcluhan leaves out “the medium is the message” relates to social needs, economic interest, political control, specific decision-making and etc. The point of this is technology enables the fact that users can dig the truth they want to find out, or the politicians, economist, or the government can handle or take control the situation they want to have. Again, society plays a major part decided which technologies are adopted, implemented, controlled.
Why changes and adaption for the new media and technology ?
If new media is neutral,why some people are obbessed about or adapt to the new changes? I agree that technology doesn’t defend/define itself, but people does. Murphie & Potts mentioned the same matter as gun does not kill people, but people kill people. Refers to the technological phenomenon, new media adapters are addicted to try the new things or do the same as others. Because they do not want to feel “left behind” and it has become a sort of “cultural trend”. If you walked in a restaurant, you must can see some of the mobile phone users take ‘selfies’ of themselves with friend or take the food itself. Later on, you find out friend has checked-in the different restaurants and use different filters to present the “delicious food”. These, are all the power of the new technology to merge our everyday new media life. We are not sure what is going to happen in the future, or what will we use to represent ourselves or the next generation. What I believe the progress is still going on, we can’t really tell whether is a good thing or has bad influence. but we kindly can tell we need these sense of changes and we reply on those changes, because it discover ourselves deeper and the new media/technology is writing the new pages of history. So yea, why not?
References:
Murphie, Andrew and Potts, John (2003) ‘Theoretical Frameworks’ in Culture and Technology London: Palgrave Macmillan: 11-38 (ARTS3091) Study kit
Jenny 