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.