Distribution Essay

For my digital media production, Reality Bytes, I’ve chosen to distribute it on deviantArt.com, an art-themed social networking site.  The poster strip for this series presents the main message of the series, which raises awareness on how internet-based speech and languages are starting to show their presence outside the internet.  I chose to publish Reality Bytes on deviantArt because it’s the best place available to me at this time and it’s more likely to receive views and critiques there.

The website also applies the four core attractions mentioned by Danah Boyd in her article Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media. It applies democratization in that the majority of viewers fit the demographic of my comic to the point that it will be attractive; its stimulation is everywhere, since it’s an art-themed website with a wide variety of content; it applies homophily by connecting artists to one another by means subscribers; and finally it uses power in the fact that it has become one of the most well-known art sites on the Web, and it puts more power into my hands as an artist, helping me become a member of the social network that has developed.  In other words, I’m putting my comic in a place that is filled with like-minded and open-minded people, that is popular, and that puts me in the best position to make my comic more widely known.

Some may wonder if deviantArt qualifies as Web 2.0.  According to What is Web 2.0, one trait of the concept includes going beyond simple publishing, into the ability to participate. The participatory factor in deviantArt is huge, with everyone’s art open to skepticism and critiques by any member of the site---and membership is free, so it’s not an exclusive viewer base. It allows you to create your own personality on the web, without having to design your own webpage—everything is right there, built to submit to whatever modifications you choose.

            Another argument for the idea that deviantArt qualifies as Web 2.0 comes from another article called Why Participatory Culture Is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions, by Henry Jenkins.  While at first glance it may disprove deviantArt’s claim to Web 2.0 status, it actually just confirms it in a different way.  The author describes Web 2.0 as a business model meant “to harness the creative energies of their users” (Jenkins). DeviantArt actually has become a great way for users to post their talents online for potential employers; Rufftoon is a great example! Thanks to her deviantArt comics about Avatar: The Last Airbender, she was hired on as a storyboard artist for the show.  So it definitely has its advantages business-wise as well.

            One final question that must be resolved is: does deviantArt even qualify as a social networking site?  If not, a lot of this evidence could be easily disproven. Whatissocialnetworking.com is a site that defines social networking as the “grouping of individuals into specific groups,”(“What Is Social Networking) creating online communities of user with equal interests or goals.  Isn’t deviantArt a group of artists seeking expression, and doesn’t the site itself contain a vast community of artists who can interact with each other? So it generally fits the criteria listed here. It was also reported to have been rated as a top social networking site by the UK, so it’s at least nationally recognized as one (deviantArt News).

            In light of all this, I can easily say that I chose deviantArt as my source of distribution because it is an amazing place for a fledgling artist to make a start, complete with reviews to help me improve, a wide user-base to give my comics the exposure they need to get those reviews, and all the tools at my disposal in order for me to make it into a potentially successful (and someday in the future, marketable) series.  And if you don’t believe me, take a look for yourself.

Sources (I know I was only allowed to use 2 in-class sources, but since there are several to choose from, I figured I'd use it anyway).

"deviantART Ranked in Top 10 UK Social Networks."deviantArt News (2009): 1. Web. 13 Dec 2010. <http://news.deviantart.com/article/87146/>.

Boyd, Danah. "Streams of Content, Limited Attention: The Flow of Information through Social Media."Danah. 17 Nov 2009. Web. 13 Dec 2010. <http://www.danah.org/papers/talks/Web2Expo.html>.

Jenkins, Henry. "Why Participatory Culture Is Not Web 2.0: Some Basic Distinctions." Confessions of an ACA-Fan. 24 May 2010. Web. 13 Dec 2010. <http://henryjenkins.org/2010/05/why_participatory_culture_is_n.html>.

O'Reilly, Tim. "What is Web 2.0." O'Reilly. 30 Sep 2005. Web. 13 Dec 2010. <http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html>.

Rufftoon’s Blog: http://www.drawingboard.org/blogs/Nofret/2424/Big+News!!.html

Rufftoon’s deviantArt gallery: <http://www.rufftoon.deviantart.com/>

"What Is Social Networking." What is Social Networking. N.p., 05 dec 2010. Web. 13 Dec 2010. <http://www.whatissocialnetworking.com/>.

"Dream Machines"

Dunno if I was supposed to post on this reading separately, but it pretty much reiterates what I described in my last post.

So, I'll just add one simple thing to the list I previously made: another great thing video games have brought about is the ability to play games online with your friends.  Now we can play video games with our friends who are far way at other colleges just as easily as we can play a game of basketball with our neighbor in their driveway.  And we can play with people we don't even know--while there is certainly some risk to that (and it's unavoidable), it still challenges us to seek out stronger competition and encourages us to hone skills and constantly strive to be better...a great lesson that can be applied to real life as well.

"Art Form for the Digital Age"

So the first impression I got of this article is that it wasn't recent, because it lists the Playstation 2 as the most current and innovative form of video game technology.  When, in real time, the Playstation 3 has been out for quite some time!

At the same time, this little tidbit actually confirms what the article is trying to say, which is a pretty cool thing to think about.  The article talks about how video games have increased the demand for better graphics, performance, and reliability and versatility, and this little tidbit I mentioned confirms this argument by showing how much technology is available to us present-day compared to the era of the Playstation 2. 

In fact, let's think about where this demand has taken us: we have gone from 8 bit, new-game-every-time-we-turn-on, simple games to highly detailed, graphic, cinematic games with save files, the ability to create one's own gamer profile, the ability to make choices that directly effect the game's outcome, and a greater factor of immersion, not to mention the recent technology of motion detection.  Don't even TRY to convince me that games have made us more stupid--games have provided an incentive to make us reach greater heights in technology, and those accomplishments don't have to be limited to gaming alone. 

"What is Web 2.0"

You know what?  After reading THIS article, I'd like to know myself.  It seriously does not make anything clearer as to what Web 2.0 is.  The most useful thing I found was a chart on the first page, before discovering multiple pages of what turned out to be a bunch of literary diarrhea.  Seriously, could someone make it any more  complicated?

 All it really seems to do is take the concepts described in the previous reading "Streams of Content" and breaks them down into detailed accounts.  Which, by itself, is just fine.  But on such a scale! This guy tries a little too hard.

For instance, when it talks about Wikipedia, it breaks down the concept of how ordinary users can contribute information on the internet.  Fair enough.  Then it goes on to say how this concept was an experiment in trust (a failed experiment, in my opinion, since someone decided to replace the text on Obama's Wikipedia page with OBAMA SUCKS MONKEY BALLS).  Okay, I can get that. This, by itself, is a good breakdown of a Web 2.0 example.

Now, a bad example would be the section on blogging.  Yes, I'm going to bash blogging again, on my own blog (oh, the painful irony).  It goes on to talk about how blogging has replace web pages as way of users expressing themselves.  Fair enough.  The author then says it's become a form of online diary-writing, which isn't a bad observation.  The author calls it a form of dynamic website that allows the user to connect with like-minded people.  That's good enough, no need to go into further detail.
But then the reading goes on to explain the RSS crap that once championed by hackers is now being used as a way of going beyond the internet and into blah blah blah...TMI!  Who gives a rat's ass?  How does this help define Web 2.0?  Yes, new technology goes into it,  but new technology goes into everything! in the end, he is supposed to be talking about the concept and nothing more.  Not that it isn't a good thing to know, but talking about the technology of Web 2.0 is talking about another topic entirely.  They are two separate topics, and should be discussed as such if any message wants to be clearly conveyed.

"Confessions"

So this guy takes a very long time to make some relatively simple points...I don't even get to his actual argument until halfway down the page.  Before that, everything was just senseless babble. 

So I'm GUESSING that his big argument is that the concept of Web 2.0 is over-hyped, and only provides the illusion that it is a consumer-based, participant-based system, when in reality it's still a business model and tool.  This illusion, if true, was likely developed in order to give consumers the additional illusion that they are in control, and that the internet is theirs to exploit in whatever way they see fit--thus increasing usage. In reality, beneath the veil the corporate masters are supposedly running the show.

I say "supposedly" and "if true" because after the previous readings that talk about how great and innovative the concept of Web 2.0 is, only to be directly contradicted in this reading, makes it very difficult for me to decide what to believe.  Am I a sucker for the internet? Yes, guilty as charged.  Would I be equally a sucker for it if business was truly in control of it? Probably.

I guess the best thing I can take from this, in the end, is that there are two sides to every story, and this case is no exception.  It increased my awareness, and now maybe I can be more observant of the scenario and become capable of making a decision.

"Streams of Content"

I made a lot of different connection while reading this page.  It talked about getting into "the flow" of things, which immediately reminded me of how in a video game, you get into a "zone"...things just work out by themselves and run smoothly.  I found myself calling it the Zone the entire rest of the time.

As far as how information is processed by internet users, I have to agree that stimulation is probably the biggest problem with the internet.  I myself have that very problem.  I am an internet addict, and I can sit for literally hours on the internet looking at funny videos, interesting articles, and web comics.  Hours that could have been spent learning to code, getting to know someone in real life, or even just watching a documentary video...so can stimulation be a problem? YES.  To the point where it can lead to social problems and a severe lack of productivity.

And it's a shame that we are attracted to this..because there are a lot of fantastic sources of stimulation out there that could further our knowledge and understanding of people, cultures, and current events, but are ignored simply because they do not have the right "vibe."  They aren't stimulating enough, so they are considered "boring reads" due to their outside unattraction and are, essentially, ignored.

Reality Bytes 2: Pokéwhat?

So here is the second installment in my new webcomic, called "Pokéwhat?"  It's something I've had in my head for a long time....I'm glad I can finally get out (so I can fill my head with other mindless junk).

Anyway, here you go!

The Finished Product

So I made changes to my initial draft, according to the classroom reviews.  Here is my new web comic, Reality Bytes.

 So, here it is!  Turned out well, and I'm really glad people liked it!  I've already begun work on a second one, and since this one will be more extensive it will take twice the time of this one, even with the workbench I've developed.  Still, I think the next one will be even funnier!

Comments, critiques, etc are not only welcome but ENCOURAGED.  No other way for me to improve than by getting feedback, after all.

NOTE: I still haven't decided whether to make this a weekly or bi-monthly thing...I guess it depends on how many ideas I can come up with (and the time I have to actually construct the comic).

Reviews

To make things easier, I've created a format:  

The Name
1. Purpose of production
2. One strength of production
3. One thing that can be improved

What I have

So this is my web comic...it may not look like much, but the reality is it took me a week to get this exactly the way I wanted it.

If I were to make this a series, however, it would take much less time...you see, this whole thing was made from scratch, which is why it took so long....but this also allowed me to create a palette of sorts containing all the shapes I've created, meaning I can just do a drag-and-drop job if I want to make another one (this is assuming I choose not to improve the artwork, which I probably should.

Done entirely in Illustrator.

The two most time consuming parts of this comic was

1. Developing the underlying structure, which consists of numerous layers, some locked, some visible, some hidden, which allowed me to create the borders and gutters, while keeping the position of everything consistent using a series of guides (also in their own separate layers so I could hide or reveal them as necessary, keeping my workspace from becoming cluttered and busy).  It also made it easier for me to work on one different aspect of the comic without directly effecting the rest of it, preventing any unwanted changes that would force me to redo the whole thing.

2. Developing the dialogue and speech bubbles.  Seriously, who knew it took so much work to make it look like a phrase was coming from a certain person?!  It takes a LOT of work giving speech bubbles their directional lines (EXTREME use of pen anchor tool and cutting tool), and that's after I had to find a way to make the speech bubbles VISIBLE; they had a tendency to disappear every time I used the Type in an Area Tool (that took some creative ingenuity and the exploitation of a small glitch--go me).  Also, coming up with a the dialogue itself took a lot of thinking...how could I make an EXTENDED conversation out of leet-speak, and how could I make it look like the third guy was being made fun of for his dialect and not for his choice to watch a game? Fortunately I was able to answer both with the same solution!

Web Comic Design Plan

The design plan for my comic was derived from viewing dozens of web comics, trying to pin down traits that are consistent with each one.

My web comic will be designed using Adobe Illustrator and laid out using Adobe InDesign; I chose to separate the design and layout into two separate softwares because their respective programs specialize in them; Adobe InDesign will ESPECIALLY be more useful for the speech bubbles my characters will use, because InDesign has a whole range of typeface options Illustrator cannot provide; at the same time, Illustrator has pen mark, coloring, and other illustration options that InDesign cannot offer, and that would be useful for drawing the bulk of my objects. Combined these two programs will provide me with all the tools I need to make this comic EXACTLY the way I want it.

One thing I've learned about web comics is that they are better off being short and sweet--thus, I plan on keeping the comic limited to 4 panels, 5 at the VERY most (depends on how I develop my dialog, and that still needs a ton of work), all in a single row. A network of guides, grid lines, and snap features have allowed me to create on Illustrator equally-spaced boxes and gutters, and the outer shell of the comic is already complete.

Another factor I've learned about web comics (and comics in general) is how much effort I should put into the visual, and how much to put in the message.  Since the message is more important (and because I suck at drawing anyway), I plan on keeping the characters and background objects limited to stick figures or rounded figures, at the very most--color will be kept at a minimum as well.  This will allow the audience to focus on the message without becoming distracted by the figures--they are only plot devices, after all.  It occurred to me that some of the comics I looked at were very well-drawn and detailed, but this definitely distracted me from the message, and I want to avoid this problem with my own audience.

I am uncertain whether to keep the comic black and white or to use color...if I end up using color, though, I will only be using pale and soft colors--anything bright or striking will become distracting, which once again is something I want to avoid.  If any color is used, it will ONLY be used to provide a little depth perception and a subtle influence of the mood.

I've also learned a basic order of how dialog and characters move through panel to panel in a comic, and I will be implementing this order into my own.

The dialog will be made in InDesign, and will consist of two different typefaces in order to help distinguish character roles.

Statement of Purpose REVISED

My purpose is to highlight how communication on the internet has changed, and not necessarily for the better, by developing a satirical web comic using nothing but instant messaging acronyms like "LOL" and "ORLY?".  I think that this kind of speech has evolved and expanded to the point of being ridiculous, and will continue to do so...what will come next?  While maintaining the argument that this form of speech is getting out of hand (you see it everywhere on the internet now, WTF?), I will be appealing to the humor in a context that is very common in web comics.  My overall goal is to provoke thoughts on how overused this form of speech has become and that--while useful when pressed for time--it shouldn't become the primary source of speech on the internet.  WHILE my personal view is that it's good practice to type out full sentences on a keyboard, that point is less humorous and more difficult to portray in a short, juxtaposed medium, so I will instead make the argument on how out-of-place full sentence typers like me have felt in the internet world these past years.

My audience will be my classmates, as well as anyone on the internet who can appreciate satire--my target audience will have had experience with the internet, be very internet savvy, be familiar with instant chat speech, and will most likely be in my age range (as many internet users who view comics are anonymous, who can say how old they really are?).   They should be familiar with the subject this comic will be referring to, and like me they probably enjoy making fun of themselves.

I expect the viewer to read my comic, smile, chuckle a little, and say something along the lines of, "Yeah, I can see how that's partially true." I say "partially" because for comedic purposes, and in spirit of CLASSIC satire, I''m making a gross exaggeration of what is really just a minor problem, if one at all (to anyone who's read "A Modest Proposal," you will understand what I'm talking about).  I expect this piece to provoke thought, to put in the corner of my audience's mind the idea that communication on the internet is getting a little crude and a little lazy.

So far the only remaining problems I have to resolve are in the choice of dialog (there is a LOT to work with, in order to accomplish an entire conversation) and in the fact that I simply do NOT know where I can post this comic when I'm finished with it. Beyond that, I have a clear idea of how I want to accomplish my goal, and I have a great idea for a design plan thanks to researching dozens of web comics for some basic characteristics. These details will be outline in the design plan following this post.

Wysocki_Lynch Reading

OK, so an expansive reading, and this does give me a better idea of what to do with our current assignment...but it also leaves me with specific questions in regards to the project (since I had the assignment in mind as I read this piece)..not to mention some parts of the reading reminded me of other readings as well. Anyway, questions I was left with:

1. The difference between formal and informal argument is very clear...so how much of each would be an allowable amount for our project? Where in this project should I use a formal argumentative structure, and when should I use informal?  It differs from project to project, that's why I'm asking. NOTE: My chosen media will be a web comic (argument is still being determined)

2. In my chosen form of media, how would I address an opposing argument in a way that makes my comic a clearly persuasive one? Since the reading states that all arguments must address the counter, I need to be able to express both sides, while effectively supporting one and opposing the other with evidence, all within a juxtaposed, still set of pictures. 

3. The reading talks about how I have to show modesty to my target audience no matter how strong my position is, lest I risk alienating them.  Since I plan on making a humorous comic (that's just how I roll), how do I show this modesty in my argument, while also keeping a humorous AND an argumentative side? In other words, where should I draw the line with a web comic?  It seems like with many of them, nothing is sacred, but I don't want to go too far. Then again, my target audience will be people who are interested in web comics, and probably used to reading them--they may already be desensitized to some degree, so perhaps I don't have to show as much restraint as with other forms of digital media.

4. I'm taking into consideration, also, the fact that my drawings will be reduced to stick figures...meaning the message itself will be the primary focus of the comic, since the audience certainly won't be concentrating the poorly-drawn characters themselves.  How does this change my rhetorical situation?  Will it make the audience more sensitive to what the characters actually say? Perhaps I SHOULD use more restraint in my message, if so. As the reading states, it is MY responsibility to make sure I respect my audience...I have to be very, very careful (while still having fun with it).

5. One of the big portions of the reading, the testing phase, also bothers me...I hang out with two main groups of people...and the one I have most access to and am closest to, would not make god test subjects for my comic once it's done.  My target audience is people in the classroom who love web comics...this particular group of people I have a hard tie reaching out to. Is it safer to go outside my comfort zone and test this product on them? Should I test them on my closer group of friends? Or should I even do both to make sure I know what audience I'm truly appealing to?


I know this isn't exactly a deep analysis of the reading itself..but reading it opened up a lot of subjects for me that until  now, I didn't even consider, and it has made me more wary of the assignment and what everyone's expectations are.  Will I even know what I'm doing?  This reading makes me feel like I'm out of my league...I can't put my finger on why.  Is this good or bad? I suppose things will become clearer once I actually come up with an argument...I was considering something about a comic making fun of comics...something mild enough that the argument won't sting, but interesting enough to catch the audience's attention...that way, both in media and in argument I will be staying within the topic of digital media.  Is this a good idea?  I could use some pointers here, if anyone has some.  I don't know if I should stick wit this, or else make a stronger argument...

Follow Up

Since my last post was long and whiny, I thought I'd follow up it up with a link that is related to what I talked about. Am I trying to come up with related stuff to fill up my blog? Yes. Yes I am.

Anyway, this is a little more on the light side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

Did I say light? I meant stupid. As a former member of Digg (now currently moved to Reddit), I've done a LOT of web surfing and seen, consequently, a LOT of anti-piracy and copyright videos; this in mind,  I have to say this is the most INEFFECTIVE ad against copyright I've ever seen.  I laughed, it made me want to torrent something out of spite.  "Hey hey! Let's make a catchy, FUN song about a serious situation! It'll TOTALLY work..."

What's next? Reader Rabbit Goes to Rehab? Sheesh...

Don't Copy This Shit.

So, now for my nice, honest rant about one of the most fallacious and erroneous policies on digital media: the laws of copyright. THIS WILL BE A LONG POST...sorry Prof, but I have strong feelings about this. Feel free to skip around if you like.

Perhaps the number one most controversial subject on digital media is the issue of copyright--with the digital age comes a whole new way of accessing media, and instead of requiring a copy machine, now you can just hit copy/paste in order to get something recorded.   And with limitless methods of downloading copyrighted media for free, protection of said media is virtually impossible; whenever a counter is developed for one form of copying/downloading, a new method immediately springs up.  This has given rise to an immense controversy in copyright, culminating into what could almost become a war of information ownership and protection.

Let me make something clear right now: as someone who is proud of my photography, I am all for protecting something that is your own work, and certainly wouldn't like it if someone used my photos without giving me any credit.  Does that make me selfish? Maybe.  That does NOT mean, however, that people can't enjoy my photos and using them for personal purposes...just don't use them for personal gain.  Long story short, I DON'T MIND HAVING COPYRIGHT LAWS. 

But let's face it, the existing laws suck.  They are vague, confusing in many places, and over-generalized to the point where we don't know where to draw the line....the problem is, digital media itself is so dynamic, we really NEED to know where the line is drawn.  A good example of this is academic integrity--perhaps the copyright policy I have the biggest problem with is academic integrity policies. Why?

Let me give an example.  Here's a true story: my brother is a FANTASTIC writer.  Like me, writing is in that man's blood.   After turning in a very well-written, thought-out essay in his Perspective on Inquiry class, my brother got accused of plagiarism.  The teacher's explanation?  He claimed that the writing was so damn amazing, that he was convinced there was no possible way my brother could have done it all on his own.  So instead of finding stuff that was plagiarized, looking online, or even just submitting it into ArticleChecker or any similar program, he just assumed and accused without any basis or proof.  In the end, my brother was able to prove his innocence--quite easily--but the fact remains, current copyright policies in schools require only the mere SUSPICION from teachers that plagiarism is in effect, and that is completely inappropriate.

It seems that, no matter how much we students are warned of the consequences of copyright infringement, and no matter how many times we are encouraged to avoid it, it still inevitably happens to the best of us.  Why? Are we really that stupid, or is it simply because we don't know WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE? What counts as plagiarism? What counts as infringement?  In one of the readings we went through, it was quoted as saying: "It is important to know what is allowed and what is not when utilizing the information obtained."(Copyright) But it doesn't outline what those allowances are.  Hell, did I even cite this right?  Quotes, in-text citation, is that enough? For SOME teachers it is...and for some, it isn't...you see, I don't even know how to quote this copyright information without violating copyright (and now I'm ****ing CONFUSED), because there is no universal set of rules for this practice.  Sure, there are a handful on this website I just mentioned, and yes they are pretty straightforward...but there are a lot of holes that still need patching.  And if Teachers don't know where to draw the line with copyright (refer to story above), and can we as students be expected to understand then any better?

What is wrong

I've Been Down this Road Before

I remember reading this same article by Bitzter last year in my professor's class..."The Rhetorical Situation," it was called.  One of the author's claims about the rhetorical situation was that all rhetoric is persuasive.

After one year, I still disagree.  I disagree that all rhetoric is persuasive, in the sense that there is rhetoric out there that exists solely to inform, to harm, or to heal.  These three aspects are not persuasive aspects, per say, but simple, inevitable physical reactions of the human condition.  What would be the persuasive intent of insulting someone, for instance?  Calling someone a horrible name is often used simply to hurt them, or to make you feel better about yourself...neither of these things are persuasive. Hurting someone is not persuasive--while it can lead them to do things in response, those things are not necessarily the intended outcome of your action---in order for it (or anything else to qualify as persuasion, for that matter),  I still believe that persuasion must be the underlying intent in order for the rhetoric to be persuasive.  Does that make insulting or verbally hurting someone any less a rhetorical situation? Of course not! By Bitzer's standards, a rhetorical situation changes a reality, which is still accomplished by insulting someone...so it still follows Bitzer's standards.

OK, I couldn't help it....

To follow up on my previous post, I just had to get this in as one final hurrah on the subject.

When it comes to viral marketing and copyright infringement on YouTube, I think this video speaks for itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ

Here's an interesting article

OK, since I have to post stuff beyond the assigned readings, here's one I found while conducting a boredom surf.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/05/01/analysis-what-is-the-role-of-the-artist-in-a-digital-age

I think this article raises some interesting issues and provides a very good perspective of how an artist should treat this digital age. I especially liked the bit about how viral marketing provides a great way of getting your name out into the artists' field.  I think this author is right...instead of complaining about the limitations the internet has put on music sales, artists should focus on the new possibilities the Web presents.  I completely believe that there is a way to use free music downloads to your advantage, and I'm glad the author here sees that.

I'm one of those people who really gets excited every time she sees a new way of exploiting and using the internet.  Viral marketing, for instance, is a fantastic marketing concept and it's responsible for the success of many independent artists and films.  District 9 got so many viewers due to the simple viral method of putting up NO ALIENS ALLOWED posters...and another film, Downfall (a film about Hitler's last days), has become well-known only after so many gags revolving around a memorable scene were posted on YouTube.  One of those gags can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eERaG5NXTQ

Tell me: why can't musicians and other artists exploit the internet in the same way?  To anyone who is familiar with deviantArt.com, a good example would be the cartoonist known as Rufftoon--as a fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender (the CARTOON, NOT the sucky-ass movie), I have grown to love her fancomics about the show.  Apparently, the Avatar producers found her comics as well, and now she works for them as a storyboard artist. Yet another great example of how digital media can really benefit an artist.

I think artists still have a lot to learn about the possibilities of digital media and the internet...if they can't, I can honestly assume that they simply didn't bother trying.

Palfrey and Gasser

Hrm...first thing this reading says, is that digital natives are defined here as children born after 1980.  That's a different definition from what Prensky gave me...THIS ONE makes me a digital native, since I was born in '87.

Anyway, moving on...

This reading has made me view the world in a different light.  I can see, quite clearly now, how much our world has changed from even 10 years ago when the new millennium was on its way in.  We live in a world COMPLETELY different from the '90s. 

The way we access information is different, the way we share music and information is different, and the way we interact with each other is different.  Our whole civilization has changed around.  Yet, when combining my two previous readings with this one, I gotta say, the older generation has a hard time accepting these new changes.

You know what said this the most? The whole bit about downloading music illegally.  How could something so hated and loathed by the older generation, something so illegal and SO cracked-down on, still be so prevalent in this new world we created?  Because it's a world outside the physical, and this means the laws of physical concepts do not apply.  There are now an INFINITE number of possible ways we can supply music (and other information) to one another, and this, I believe, will eventually force its way into a normal lifestyle (if it hasn't already).  I honestly do not believe music sharing on the internet will be illegal forever.  Eventually, as the old generation gives way to the new, digital one, we will have no choice but to accept it as part of our new civilization..because I believe that is exactly what we created.  A civilization with so many new possibilities, that new rules COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the old will need to be made. 

And you know what else? The old generation has no way of preventing this.  They have two choices--accept this new world we've created, or be left behind.  They can't force the old ways on this generation, because it's opened way too many doors; it's too late to close them all.

Digital Natives Part 2

Again, I did a separate post for these two parts because the matter I'm talking about here wasn't necessarily related to what I spoke of previously.

The thing that stood out most to me in this part was the bit about the attention span of digital natives.  Anyone who knows me well knows I have ADD, and this article served as a staunch reminder of how ADD children and other children who struggle with attention span can conquer it through the use of digital technology. 

I think digital media it EXTREMELY important for today's children in the school environment, because from what Prensky says, it teaches one thing that school don't typically teach: MULTITASKING.  We were NEVER allowed to multitask in public school--if we tried, we would be accused of disrupting class or not paying attention, and told to focus SPECIFICALLY on what the teacher was talking about.  Not only does multitasking keep attention spans going, but it's a practical skill that will be used in real life, and it could program the kids to retain more information at one given time.  Wanna know what I remember most from grade school?  Michigan had a fight with Ohio over the Toledo Strip."  Wanna know what I remember most from middle school? "Japan got nuked twice in WWII" 

Wanna know what I remember most about high school?  The radio station I worked at in between my classes, and numerous pranks I pulled after figuring out that quiet students never get in trouble.


College has been the ONLY PLACE that has encouraged multitasking, and even that's a stretch, because it differs from teacher to teacher.

Do I think this generation's brain has changed? Yes, I do.  Do I think the educational system needs to adapt to this change?

FUCK YES I do. 

Digital Natives, Part 1

So I just got finished reading Prensky's article about Digital Natives (I've decided to do part 2 in a separate post because it talks about a different branch that needs to be addressed separately).

I hate to admit, but I absolutely did not think of this.  It's true, there really is a communicative gap between the digital generation and the pre-digital generation.

I'm not sure which category I fall under...as I read this, I spent the whole time trying to identify if I was pre-digital or digital.  Technically, as a child I grew up with DOS computers, and was first exposed to the internet in middle school.  You would think that would make me a digital immigrant, since I wasn't exactly born into the generation...

Yet all the lingo that was described by Prensky in her article indicates that I'm more native than immigrant...I was a ravenous book reader as a child, but when video games came out I latched onto them right away, and I've absorbed the digital way of life easily and quickly into my lifestyle.  The internet became my primary source for research and information, and while I was a late bloomer I did eventually absorb the social aspects of the digital age as well.  So I ACT like a native...but my history places me as an immigrant.  This begs the question, how accurate are Prensky's standards?  What about the people who completely adopted the lifestyle halfway in, who live by it and have forgotten the old ways?  Are we still immigrants?  Is there a better way to determine who belongs to the digital age, and who belongs to the pre-digital?  IT's something to think about.

My Analysis

McKinna Meeuwsen

09/21/2010

Rhetorical Analysis FINAL

The Ballad of Magellan: An Analysis

 The Ballad of Magellan can probably be recognized by anyone who watched cartoons in the 1990s.  It is a comedic song about the voyage of Magellan and his crew, and it comes from a popular cartoon called Animaniacs; and now, it has moved out of the television and onto the internet, at youtube.com, where it has become a digital video and a throwback to the 90s.  But what makes it such a significant example of digital media?

There are two ways in which this video is significant in the digital world.  First of all, it demonstrates the usefulness of today’s technology—that something can be transferred from a television to the internet, where it becomes more available to a wide array of users, is truly invaluable.  Not only that, but instead of being available only for a certain time, a popular cartoon clip is now available on demand; you no longer have to wait until 3:30 pm to watch it, when it can now be viewed whenever you please. The second way in which this particular video is significant is that not only is it an entertaining song, but also a useful educational tool.  This information can be taken from the viewer comments that follow every YouTube video, and these details will be discussed later.

For now, what needs to be established is, does this video qualify as a form of digital media?  There are several sources that can be found that provide criteria for qualifying as digital media:  BusinessDictionary.com states that digital media is defined as being “Digitized content (text, graphics, audio, and video) that can be transmitted over internet or computer networks.”  The Ballad of Magellan, being a video uploaded by an internet user onto a website, fits this rule perfectly.  A second definition provided by The Free Dictionary (Encyclopedia2.com) reads off 3 different descriptions, two of which follow the video’s characteristics: “Any type of information stored in the computer, including data, voice and video,” is one such definition.  The other reads: “The news from a TV network, newspaper or magazine that is presented on a Web site or blog.”  All of these factors describe the video very well.

 There are other traits that make it similar to other forms of digital media—Andrew Sullivan once described the traits of blogging, calling them “spontaneous expression[s] of instant thought,” and describing the fundamental trait of a blog as being susceptible to review and criticism by anyone.  The YouTube video shares these traits as well: not only are internet videos spontaneous postings and instantly available upon the clicking of a button, but they are subject also to criticism from millions of users.  Like blogs, internet videos play in an open field—so The Ballad of Magellan fits Sullivan’s example as well.  The video also has a lot of the traits that were discussed in class—it does, in fact, consist of digitized code, and the viewer must utilize computer technology (in this case, the internet) in order to access it.  Accessibility is through a PC, and availability is virtually global. All these factors can qualify this video as digital media.

Now that I’ve established that The Ballad of Magellan is, in fact, digital media (its YouTube form, at least), I am now in a better position to discuss the video content itself, and why it has uses both as a form of entertainment as well as a form of education.  The song is sung by three characters known as the Animaniacs, and the music narrates the tale of how Magellan sailed with a small fleet of ships and circumnavigated the globe as he searched for a western passage to the East Indies.  Poking fun at the story, it describes how Magellan and his crew constantly arrive at new lands, only to experience disappointment as they turn out to be Argentina, Chile, and Guam…but never the East Indies. In the end, Magellan himself is slain by Philippine natives (off-camera), and his crew point out to his ghost where the East Indies were located.  The manner in which all of this is done is highly comedic, and the musical factor (particularly the lyrics) adds to what becomes a very humorous retelling of the famous voyage (although the story here ends at Magellan’s death).  

Entertainment aside, there is also an educational angle to this video…and this educational value can actually be confirmed by the many viewer comments that follow the video at the bottom of the page.  After scrolling through several pages of comments, I found that there were a large number of people who wrote that this video was played in their history class—some were grade school, some were middle school, and one was even in high school.  It can be speculated from this that teachers see the educational value of using a humorous song to teach children something important. This video is also an important teaching tool because, as digital media, it is widely accessible to teachers with today’s current school technology making it that much more valuable. 

As a YouTube video, The Ballad of Magellan has a huge audience available to it, but the majority of the audience likely consists of people who watched a lot of cartoons in the 90s—without a description or a detailed title, most users browsing YouTube would only click on it if they were familiar with Animaniacs.  I myself came across this video while I was searching different clips of my favorite cartoons.  It is likely that most of the video’s audience was doing the same thing.  For this reason, the range of audience itself is limited—it will not become a “viral video,” or an internet sensation…but it will remain, to its viewers, a tribute to what cartoons used to be nearly two decades ago. 

What still remains a mystery is why the YouTube member who posted it decided to upload it in the first place.  Not only is the content known to a relatively small group of viewers, but uploading an existing cartoon clip owned by a company is not permitted by YouTube and can be risky to the uploader—often, copyrighted videos are removed and the users banned if a company makes a claim.  YouTube is home to millions of videos, and while many are homemade, many others are clips of copyrighted television shows or films…you can find Scrubs clips, Samurai Jack clips, and even a ten minute clip from the movie Iron Man, all on YouTube, and this has given rise to a host of copyright issues and lawsuits.   This has become a growing issue as digital media’s influence continues to spread, and The Ballad of Magellan is no exception; there is no telling if it will stay on YouTube. The fact that it is subject to the same copyright laws as any other example of digital media is further proof of its qualification.

With all these details given, I think I can safely say I’ve managed to prove how significant a piece this video truly is.  Not only in the sense of the digital world, but also in the entertainment world and in the educational world.  As something that is both funny and educational to viewers of any age, it is a marvel that such a piece can be digitized and made available and accessible to millions of people worldwide, and on a whim.  It is truly an example of how valuable digital technology has become to our increasingly-wired world.  We can only guess how digital media and its role in this world will evolve.

REFERENCES

"Copyright Infringment Notification." YouTube.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/t/dmca_policy>.

"Digital Media Definition." BusinessDictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/digital-media.html>.

"Digital Media Definition." The Free Dictionary. The Computer Language Company Inc., 2009. Web. <http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/digital+media>.

Sullivan, Andrew. "Why I Blog." Atlantic Magazine (2008): 1. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/11/why-i-blog/7060/>.

"YouTube law fight 'threatens net'." BBC News (2008): 1. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7420955.stm>.

Word of the Year

So I decided to look up one of the insane words in last week's readings, and chose my new word of the year: imbroglio.  Yes, I chose it because it sounds funny--ridiculously funny.  What's even funnier is its definition.
From dictionary.com:

im·bro·glio

   [im-brohl-yoh]  Show IPA

–noun, plural -glios.

1.

a misunderstanding, disagreement, etc., of a complicated orbitter nature, as between persons or nations.

2.

an intricate and perplexing state of affairs; a complicated ordifficult situation.

3.

a confused heap.

Also, embroglio.

Personally, I think the 3rd description is the best....a confused heap?  Does that mean imbroglio is just a fancy word for clusterfuck? Now THAT'S an excuse not to swear!

OK...I admit I like this one...

So after being forced to pay $10 to buy a freaking book I would only be required to post on once (hooray, I've upgraded from wasting time to wasting time AND money!) and not knowing if it would have any use hereafter, I have to say I actually like the book.  Not enough that it was worth the money, I suppose, but enough that I actually can't complain too much beyond the principle of the issue, and not much for the book itself.  In fact, so much did it NOT suck, I've decided to withhold my usual rant about posting on garbage and actually talk about what I liked about this book...because I actually liked a lot of things.

First, the book's design...after pissing and moaning to myself about having to read an entire book of boring text in a matter of a day (since my book only just CAME today) I opened it and was pleasantly surprised.  The layout of text was unorthodox enough to keep my attention, and instead of being filled with text it actually contained primarily illustrations, photos, and numerous graphic designs that were left to the judgement of the reader.  The sheer randomness, yes purposeful order, of this book caught me off guard and was a breath of fresh air, especially after that last reading where the author tried to sound smart by using a shitload of big words. No, this piece didn't need special words to get its points across--the pictures do the job just as well (of course, when you reach the end, you'll also find on one of th final pages that the author's point is summed up...but I still recommend you read the entire book so you don't miss out on the quality of the substance it carries).

And that main point was how the changes in trends of media have changed the way society and culture interacts with one another...both on a micro and on a macro scale.  Books used to be a universal form of medium...the bible is a good example of this.  But then the phone, TV, and radio came around, and suddenly cultures and communities became more localized as people's attention's (and therefore, ways of life) became more focused on the micro scale as they became more aware of the current events close to them.      Now we have the internet, which has given us both worlds...involvement and awareness on both a micro AND a macro scale!  While we are now connected to the entire world (or most of it),  we also have more accessible ways of staying up to date with our local communities as well.  Facebook and email serve these purposes well, respectively.

I think the biggest thing I took from this book was the point of how different media becomes different extensions of our senses...books are an extension of the eye...the radio is an extension of the ear...the internet could be an extension of the mouth, for sure!  It makes me see different media from a whole new perspective.  That this book could make me respect digital and electronic media even more, is a great testament to how well it's written--and I have a better way, I think, of making sure I no longer take the information I receive for granted.

Here's a swing. Hope it's not a miss.

So yeah, it took awhile to figure out what this reading meant:

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html

So I'm trying to think of it in terms of digital media.  I'm just amazed I actually encountered a word I had to look up.  So, anyway, here's my attempt at an interpretation.

I can see that the author is seeing a threat with digital media becoming a new form of simulacrum, the threat being that reality itself is starting to become blurred.  Digital media, after all, is different from maps, books, or even music, in that whenever a simulation of anything real is digitally made it can be copied over and over again, remade, remastered, redone.  You can create a simulation of a simulation of a simulation.  When something is simulated so many times from the real thing, over time I can imagine that the reality itself becomes very hard to perceive--almost getting lost in all the translation.  I think Wikipedia is a good example of this--Wikipedia has become a popular source of information, even though the reality that information portrays is changing every day with different people entering different perspectives.  In the end, which part of that Wikipedia article is actually true, and which part just came from a bunch of vague sources of the information in an overly-generalized form (generalized enough that the parts of the truth are eventually lost)? I could even see Google Earth going down this path.  How many road maps on the internet do you see that are Google Earth? And some areas of Google Earth are dated, while others aren't--leading to discrepancies in the reality of the Earth's layout (my folks' house does not appear on Google Earth...nor does the field beside us.  It was woods--clearly shot before that area was developed).

For this reason, while digital media is certainly a blessing (with more and more information becoming available worldwide), it can equally become a curse if it's relied upon too much.  We must not forget the real world exists, and that some truths we can only find if we search reality for it, and not the Web.

Of course, had Magellan had Google Earth at his disposal (or even Wikipedia), this might not have happened

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pM-igYjn6E4