The internet and the connections it provides have redefined the world. The traditions of the past are rendered obsolete by the technologies of the present. Members of older generations are writing emails in lieu of letters and much of the world’s youth has no recollection of a time when one could not ‘Google’ any question, term, or idea. The World Wide Web has made transfer of information effortless. One can peruse the thoughts of the ancients or family members with just a few clicks. Within this deluge of information arises one musing of Beat Generation author Henry Miller. He writes, “There is no salvation in becoming adapted to a world which is crazy” and after reading this our perspective changes. Is our society crazy? we wonder. Is our world of technology dangerous? Are we isolating ourselves from the past to too great of an extreme? These questions have been posed to the great thinkers of our society, and their overwhelming response is ‘yes.’ In their novels, scholars such as Aldous Huxley, Alan Lightman, and M.T. Anderson offer precautionary tales highlighting the potential consequences of the technological road down which our society is traveling.
In Huxley’s novel, Brave New World, Lightman’s The Diagnosis, and Anderson’s Feed, the protagonists find themselves in conflict with the technology omnipresent in society. In Brave New World, the desire to create a utopia free of war, disease, and unhappiness has led the government to mass produce its citizens in laboratories and then brain-wash them into believing that they are content all the time. An outsider named John—referred as the “savage” by the citizens of the brave new world—is introduced into this place of artificial satisfaction coming from a society in which life is not regulated by the government. In the end, this brave new world is too much for John. He longs for the highs and lows that define human experience. He pleads, “But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin." His incompatibility with the society is sealed with his suicide at the conclusion of the novel.
Much like their compatriot, John, Bill Chalmers of The Diagnosis and Violet of Feed are outsiders in their societies of ubiquitous technology. Bill begins as a regular upper-middle class man with a sixty-hour-per-week job, a family, a mortgage, and a cell phone and ends paralyzed and without most of his eyesight studying the nuances of the shadow cast by a leaf on his bedroom floor. In Bill’s case, his rapid deterioration was not caused by his lack of desire to adapt to the technological world but his over zealous embrace of it. And death is the price he pays for his choices.
Violet lives in a world in which citizens are controlled by a “feed” planted in their brains to keep them constantly connected to the internet but also to advertisements and propaganda. She is unique because she has made it through most of her life without such a chip. Societal pressures eventually force her into having the surgery to implant the feed—an operation that eventually takes her freedom and her life. All of the protagonists are victims of societies that are obsessed with technology and the false promises of contentment and control it offers.
The intellectuals of society all seem to be saying the same thing; they recognize the power and potential for good in the technologies that surround us but they also see the potential for abuse that comes hand in hand with the advances. Are we crazy to follow the internet blindly into the future? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The Authentic Website
The Authentic Website
While studying what factors make art authentic, I began wondering to myself if there were such things as “authentic web pages” as well. I decided to use the definition of “authentic” that Walter Benjamin defined. He described an authentic artwork to be an artwork bound by space and time. After much analysis, I concluded that there indeed are such things as authentic and inauthentic web pages. Later in this paper I will tell you why knowing the authenticity of a page is actually is very useful knowledge to have.
Let’s study each factor that determines authenticity for a web page: space and time. Authentic artworks are bound by space, whether it be the museum they are exhibited or in a gallery of some sort. Likewise, authentic web pages are also bound by space, only they are bound within cyberspace. The interesting thing about web pages is that they each have a very specific location in the cyberspace world. This “location” is the URL address of the web page. Since all web pages have different URL addresses, all web pages are “authentic” in the sense that they are all bound by space (or cyberspace.) However, authenticity also requires that something be bound by time, and this is what segregates the authentic web pages from the inauthentic.
Facebook, Xanga, email, forums, online news– What do these all have in common? They are all bound by time. They are all examples of authentic web pages! Facebook records the exact time and date someone comments on someone else’s wall. Blogs and emails are by definition, messages sent out with honestly recorded times. Online news would be useless if it were not bound by time. What would be point of reporting “The Red Sox won today” if no one knew if the article was posted today, last week, or last year? Understanding the time in which a web page is updated or posted is so crucial for understanding the content of the page itself. This is exactly how understanding the time period an artwork was created in is crucial for understanding an artwork. Because emails are bound by time, email users can recognize how far in advance someone has called for a meeting, at what time someone has obtained certain information, and other useful information. Since Weather.com also announces the time in which its contents were published, web browsers can read through the content and judge its credibility based off of how recent the last weather update was published.
For an authentic web page to announce its time of publicity is very important not only because it provides context for which the content was updated, but it also is a statement saying that the content of the web page does not need to necessarily hold true for any given time after the posted time and date of publicity. Weather.com can boldly proclaim that the five-day forecast will be all sunny days and then change the forecast to all cloudy days, since people realize that as time progresses, the forecast becomes clearer. Bloggers can also state that they hate something, and then in a later post state that they love something, since it is understood that people’s feeling can change at different times. This is where I agree with Jaron Lanier, that blogs are an honest collection of people’s inputs. However, unlike Lanier, I would still consider Wikipedia.com authentic since it always posts the time of the last edit. Because of this post, readers recognize that the content of the site was approved by another Wikipedia user at a certain time. From that, readers can gauge how much they want to rely on the information given, depending on how long ago the last edit was and so forth.
What are some inauthentic web pages? Well, there are tons of web pages that do not post the times of their last updates. Dictionary.com is a good example. When one looks up a word, one will find that the web page gives several definitions for a word, but one cannot find when these definitions were last updated. Maybe a new definition for a word has formulated since the last time someone updated the website. Unfortunately there is no way for readers to gauge if Dicitonary.com has become obsolete or not. It is situations like these that make authenticity in websites very much appreciated.
My hope for anyone who ever decides to make a web page is that he will make his web page authentic, just like how any artist in the old days would have wanted their masterpieces to be authentic. Name the URL. Post the time and date. Give context for others’ understanding.
Quentin Smith - Intangible Property
Nicholas Negroponte’s “The DNA of Information” introduces an interesting concept. The bits that comprise digital information are far more valuable than the atoms on which they are stored. He values his PowerBook at $2 million, even though its physical atoms are only worth $2,000. In the information age, intangible “data” can have incredible value. Historically, traditional property law has been applied to information. However, there is an obvious problem with this application of property law: matter cannot be created or destroyed, but bits can be duplicated ad infinitum. Bits can be copied with no loss of quality and no detriment to the original owner. It is this ability to copy bits in the information age that has led to all the trouble surrounding P2P file sharing.
“Stealing” is the traditional term for property that is unlawfully taken from one person by another. Stealing implies that the original owner no longer has ownership of the property. The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America use the term “stealing” when they talk about peer-to-peer file sharing. The, they calculate inflated amounts of lost money based on the value of their intangible property, and they use that calculation to prosecute people under traditional property laws. These traditional property laws should not apply when there are no atoms being stolen.
The associations’ idea of prosecuting users for copying (not “stealing”) data is drawn from some faulty assumptions. The first assumption is that a user who downloads an album or movie would have purchased that song if they had not been able to obtain it for free. There is no evidence that this is not the case; in fact, there is empirical evidence to the contrary. People are more likely to download media they are unsure of than to purchase that media. Thus, users are exposed to more artists and given more opportunities to purchase media than they would without free access to media.
Another faulty assumption is that users always prefer to download for free instead of purchasing a legitimate copy. The success of stores like the iTunes Store has shown that to be false. If users are given a reasonable alternative, they are perfectly willing to pay for their media.
As a result of being scared of losing their revenue from traditional, physical distribution of CDs and DVDs, the media industry has been afraid to embrace technology. It is now costing them dearly, as other companies and groups are stepping in to provide the services that take advantage of the ability of bits to be copied with no loss to the original owner.
Microsoft – maybe – gets it with its new Zune media player. The Zune includes wireless networking, which allows users to transfer media to another person’s device. But Microsoft then crippled its player by encrypting transferred media and only allowing the recipient to view it three times. There is no way for a user to override these restrictions, for instance, in the case of public domain music or music by sharing-friendly artists. Technology companies are intentionally crippling technology to preserve the outdated idea of bits as property.
Simulation versus Representation
Gonzalo Frasca’s thesis on simulation versus representation contends that video games and other sorts of simulation are not comparable to other more traditional types of narrative medias such as videos and books. According to him, “simulation is the act of modeling a system A by a less complex system B, which retains some of A’s original behavior.”(pg. 3) This means that simulation is good for testing outcomes, but poor for attempting to represent the entire flavor of reality. Recreating reality is a job best left to representation which although will always lack some characteristics of reality, can come very close to exemplifying what it is trying to represent.(pg.1)
So if one desired to know the plot of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six they should read the book or watch the movie if it existed. But don’t the exact same things happen in the video game? Why not just experience the story of Rainbow Six by becoming a character and living the story through the video game? This is where Conzalo Frasca comes swooping in with his bold yet truthful thesis. It is correct to note that as a player, one could run through all of the same rooms as Ding Chavez (the Rainbow Six team leader) in the same order and dish out the same lethal smack down with the same gun to the same bad guys in the same order. However that is just one possible outcome when the game is played. In the video game ding could just as well turn left instead of right at some point and the story could be changed. Or maybe in the book Rainbow Six a terrorist was sneezing when he should have been standing guard at a door, but that sort of thing can’t be represented in the simulation because it is a less complex version of the story confined by algorithms that dictate the outcomes a player experiences while playing the game.
I found myself coming to the same sort conclusion when comparing the two versions of the Bjork’s All is Full of Love video. As far as narrating the story of a robot being blessed with the gift of human life, there was a definite hierarchy in the versions’ abilities to communicate the same story. The filmed version had more room for smaller and more powerful details such as the white mechanical fluid and closer looks at the operation of the robot that made it feel more robotic to viewers than just an animation of a robot. Just as Magritte implies with her famous paintin La Trahison Des Images (The treachery images) (pg.1), some interpretations of an object bring you closer to the object than others. The intimacy with the viewer and the realistic robotic interpretation of Bjork makes the narration very real and moving to some. Conversely, the animated version is a joke. When an emotionally complex situation is simplified to fit into a less complex and more narrationally challenged media such as the Sim City simulation it becomes painful to watch. The loving caresses from the animated robot made me think, “This is not what this sort of technology is for. This is ridiculous.” Without knowing it I was agreeing whole-heartedly with Gonzalo Frasca; simulations just can’t narrate stories that even approach the complexity of the reality.
So if one desired to know the plot of Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six they should read the book or watch the movie if it existed. But don’t the exact same things happen in the video game? Why not just experience the story of Rainbow Six by becoming a character and living the story through the video game? This is where Conzalo Frasca comes swooping in with his bold yet truthful thesis. It is correct to note that as a player, one could run through all of the same rooms as Ding Chavez (the Rainbow Six team leader) in the same order and dish out the same lethal smack down with the same gun to the same bad guys in the same order. However that is just one possible outcome when the game is played. In the video game ding could just as well turn left instead of right at some point and the story could be changed. Or maybe in the book Rainbow Six a terrorist was sneezing when he should have been standing guard at a door, but that sort of thing can’t be represented in the simulation because it is a less complex version of the story confined by algorithms that dictate the outcomes a player experiences while playing the game.
I found myself coming to the same sort conclusion when comparing the two versions of the Bjork’s All is Full of Love video. As far as narrating the story of a robot being blessed with the gift of human life, there was a definite hierarchy in the versions’ abilities to communicate the same story. The filmed version had more room for smaller and more powerful details such as the white mechanical fluid and closer looks at the operation of the robot that made it feel more robotic to viewers than just an animation of a robot. Just as Magritte implies with her famous paintin La Trahison Des Images (The treachery images) (pg.1), some interpretations of an object bring you closer to the object than others. The intimacy with the viewer and the realistic robotic interpretation of Bjork makes the narration very real and moving to some. Conversely, the animated version is a joke. When an emotionally complex situation is simplified to fit into a less complex and more narrationally challenged media such as the Sim City simulation it becomes painful to watch. The loving caresses from the animated robot made me think, “This is not what this sort of technology is for. This is ridiculous.” Without knowing it I was agreeing whole-heartedly with Gonzalo Frasca; simulations just can’t narrate stories that even approach the complexity of the reality.
Getting the Facts Straight
I am a Wikipedia apologist. Thus, I feel honor-bound to defend the user-edited encyclopedia against at least some of the criticisms of Jaron Lanier. However, due to length and time restrictions, I will start simply by investigating his factual claims about Wikipedia and correcting misleading statements. Discussing the greater implications of digital Maoism will have to wait.
In the opening paragraph, Mr. Lanier complains that Wikipedia identifies him as a filmmaker. This is much ado about nothing, if you’ll excuse the cliché. It is true that the article’s first describes him as, “an artist, musician, inventor, virtual reality developer, film director, public speaker, and member of the Global Business Network.” Filmmaking is not mentioned again. Mr. Lanier’s attempt at making a short film may have been to minor to be included about the list, but this seems more like a small error in judgment that the catastrophe he makes it out to be. Mr. Lanier should at least be happy he has a Wikipedia article. As far as I can tell, Britannica online has no page on Mr. Lanier, and his name only appears twice on other pages. In contrast, Mr. Lanier’s Wikipedia currently article spans 450 words (800 including links and sources) and contains over 20 incoming links from other articles mentioning him.
Mr. Lanier’s more pointed claim is a clueless collective constantly reverted re-added the word “filmmaker” whenever he tried to delete it. Fortunately, Wikipedia records all changes made to articles, and the edit history tells a more complete story, which I will investigate in detail.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaron_Lanier&diff=53931333&oldid=53617698)
On May 18, 2006, user identified only as IP address 65.37.147.131 deleted the entire text of the article “Jaron Lanier” and replaced it with a poorly formatted copy of the biography on his website. The actual text was preceded with a caustic, capitalization-deprived explanation signed “thanks, a pissed-off jaron lanier”.
Let’s count how many things Mr. Lanier did wrong:
1) Deleting and replacing article, instead of modifying existing material or discussing such a drastic change with other editors
2) Failing to add links from the article to relevant Wikipedia pages
3) Taking an entire article from a single source, instead of compiling it from multiple sources
4) Using a firsthand, non-encyclopedic source as the main source
5) Taking the entire text from his web biography without giving a source.
6) Adding a justification to the article instead of to the discussion page.
Three other factors contributed to Mr. Lanier’s changes being reverted
1) Editing anonymously from an IP address rather than getting a free account, a process that only involves specifying a login address an a password.
2) Not giving any proof that he is Jaron Lanier.
3) Not using capitalization and using phrases such “pissed-off”, contrary to what someone of his caliber would be expected to write
Deleting entire articles, copying unsourced material, editing anonymously, claiming to be famous personages, and using poor grammar are hallmarks of malicious vandals. Thus, it is easy to understand why Mr. Lanier might have been misinterpreted as such.
Furthermore, without permission or even citation, the text copied from Mr. Lanier’s website was potentially both plagiarism and copyright violation. Even though it was his own text, from a legal standpoint, Wikipedia had no written permission to use the text and there was no proof that the anonymous editor who claimed that he was “jaron lanier” after his message was the person he claimed to be. Jaron Lanier would have to give written permission for a substantial amount of his text to be used in the article, although paraphrasing and using small, relevant quotes from the text would be preferred. Thus, vandalism issues aside, the text was on legally shady ground, making a reversion all the more reasonable.
The editor who reverted Mr. Lanier’s changes should have attempted to confirm the editor’s identity and explained to him why his edits were not accepted. However, the editor made a reasonable choice to revert an edit that did not add to the article, contradicted policy on copyright, and bore a remarkable similarity to vandalism. Had Mr. Lanier taken fifteen minutes to learn the editing process, he could have deleted the word “filmmaker” and made any reasonable modifications to his biography without any problems. It seems that at least part of what he blames on Wikipedia’s “hive mind” and Maoist attitude can be attributed to his own cluelessness about the project. I do not dispute that the fact that groupthink and truth by consensus are problems on Wikipedia. However, I question how without the understanding of how the collective editing process actually works, or the willingness to find out how, can be qualified to criticize the way information conglomerates in the project.
As a side note, after poring through Wikipedia revisions, I noticed a sentence (unfortunately lacking form the current revision) stating that Mr. Lanier writes a column titled “Jaron’s World” in Discover Magazine. My family subscribed to Discover until sweeping editorial changes dumbed down the formerly solid science into a heap of sensationalist speculation and cool-sounding lingo. I particularly disliked two new feature columns, one of which was “Jaron’s World”. I remember my frustration with the column. I wondered how someone could stuff so many non-sequiturs and baseless assertions into two pages of allotted space – it may have been material for a newspaper editorial, but not a science magazine. How pleasant it is to know that two writers I have grudges against are one and the same.
Digital Maoism
As I was reading "Digital Maoism," I wanted to disagree with Lanier. I know that Wikipedia is a great resource for me and has amazing potential. I was also put off by his writing style. It seemed as if he was writing a blog post and not a well-researched article. Lanier often gave me the feeling that he did not have a true understanding of many of the sites he criticized. An example of this is in his discussion of "popurls." He uses a very specific example taken out of context as an argument against the value of the site: "In the last few days an experimental approach to diabetes management has been announced that might prevent nerve damage. That's huge news for tens of millions of Americans. It is not mentioned on popurls. Popurls does clue us in to this news: 'Student sets simultaneous world ice cream-eating record, worst ever ice cream headache.'" Popurls displays hundreds of links on the front page and Lanier decided to discuss one news story that wasn't on the site and one pointless story that was. Today, September 20th, 2006, I see stories such as "Hilarious IRC Quotes,"(and they are hilarious) and "15 Ugliest Hockey Logos Ever." However, fluff stories are the minority. There are also very important and interesting stories such as "Chavez calls Bush 'the devil' At U.N.," "Inflation Fears Ease," "Chat Bot: Computer Program Smart Enough to Carry on Conversation," "Atomic Arabs: A Nuclear Dawn in the Gulf?" and "Tanks appear in Bangkok. Thailand calls state of emergency." The range of stories on this page is very similar to that of a television news program. There are often many more fluff stories on television news programs, but at least you don't have to watch the news anchors pretend to be interested.
Even though I don't agree with the way Lanier supported his point, he is ultimately correct. Wikipedia is not the ultimate source for facts; Popurls is not the best place to find daily news; John Lennon would have never made it to the finals of American Idol. The collective approach is not always the best approach. It works extremely well in certain situations and horribly in other situations. We have to find the problems that the collective mind does well and open source those, but also find the problems that the collective mind cannot solve and find another way to solve them. This is my interpretation of Lanier's essay, and even though I don't agree with many of the individual points he makes, I find his overall ideas to be very accurate and important.
However, Lanier misjudges the severity of the situation. When I look at a wikipedia entry, I'm aware that the information on that page has the potential of being biased or simply false. I don't use Wikipedia for in depth research or as a base of all of my information. I use Wikipedia as a way to get some simple information very quickly and as I'm reading the entry, I decide whether or not I trust it. In this way, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. I don't know if other people are unable to evaluate entries well, but I don't see the collective mind leading to the downfall of intelligence as Lanier seems to.
Even though I don't agree with the way Lanier supported his point, he is ultimately correct. Wikipedia is not the ultimate source for facts; Popurls is not the best place to find daily news; John Lennon would have never made it to the finals of American Idol. The collective approach is not always the best approach. It works extremely well in certain situations and horribly in other situations. We have to find the problems that the collective mind does well and open source those, but also find the problems that the collective mind cannot solve and find another way to solve them. This is my interpretation of Lanier's essay, and even though I don't agree with many of the individual points he makes, I find his overall ideas to be very accurate and important.
However, Lanier misjudges the severity of the situation. When I look at a wikipedia entry, I'm aware that the information on that page has the potential of being biased or simply false. I don't use Wikipedia for in depth research or as a base of all of my information. I use Wikipedia as a way to get some simple information very quickly and as I'm reading the entry, I decide whether or not I trust it. In this way, Wikipedia is an amazing resource. I don't know if other people are unable to evaluate entries well, but I don't see the collective mind leading to the downfall of intelligence as Lanier seems to.
On Collectivism
In the beginning of his article, Digital Maoism, Jaron Lanier comments on his experience with the collective entity that is Wikipedia. Lainer explains that, at one point in his life, he decided to try film. It didn't work out. Yet, anyone interested in his life would learn (incorrectly) from Wikipedia that he is a film director. He could not, despite his efforts, correct this misnomer, the label kept reappearing. Lanier uses this to launch into something of a warning about the dangers of the collective mind. The fact is, the collective has always been there. While it may seem terrifying that the public is doting over Wikipedia, this fad is no different from any other; the collective has always been interesting to people, and people have always made use of it.
In class, we discussed whether the author or the audience ultimately decides the true meaning and value of a piece. What interests me about the question are the people involved. Everyday, people are grouped into units: the masses, the American public, Democrats, teenagers. This happens for a good reason: categories of individuals share similar traits that can be isolated by the label given to the group in question. I make this observation only to shine light on the collectives that already exist; collectives that we give such importance already.
The only difference between the collective of Wikipedia and any other in history is its sheer size. With the Internet, more and more people can choose to be a part of the group. This development is new and probably threatening to the old. For example: speech on the Internet tends to be informal, laced with misspellings and bad grammar, but very few people really care. The Internet connects information with people and people with other people, not properly written documents for academic purposes. The writer of a grammar book I read in high school did not seem to understand this and railed on this for a good 10 pages. Extend this to the collective model that Wikipedia has become, and it is clear: the only reason a thing like Wikipedia exists is because a collective, formed of Internet users, wants it there. The collective existed before the wiki.
While I don't think that humanity's obsession with the collective is anything new or surprising--or perhaps even dangerous, since we've had to deal with it since time immemorial--I do think that Lanier is very right about 'the idea that the collective is all-wise' (Lanier). This is clearly a lie. I have seen and--embarrassingly--have been in groups where everyone thought everyone else knew where the group was going, but in reality no one knew. Proof enough that not everything is greater than the sum of its parts.
In the end, I am convinced that there really isn't anything wrong with with Wikipedia (except perhaps the false information) as what it was meant to be: a user generated, self-correcting, collective document. There are disadvantages to the system, as Lanier points out, but the system is not surprising, and its importance is not unusual or terrifying. Besides, regardless of how often the world is warned about the dangers of the collective, humanity is a collective, and we wouldn't want to erase ourselves, now would we?
Works Cited: Lanier, Jaron. “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of Online Collectivism” Edge. 30 May 2006. Accessed: 17 September 2006.
In class, we discussed whether the author or the audience ultimately decides the true meaning and value of a piece. What interests me about the question are the people involved. Everyday, people are grouped into units: the masses, the American public, Democrats, teenagers. This happens for a good reason: categories of individuals share similar traits that can be isolated by the label given to the group in question. I make this observation only to shine light on the collectives that already exist; collectives that we give such importance already.
The only difference between the collective of Wikipedia and any other in history is its sheer size. With the Internet, more and more people can choose to be a part of the group. This development is new and probably threatening to the old. For example: speech on the Internet tends to be informal, laced with misspellings and bad grammar, but very few people really care. The Internet connects information with people and people with other people, not properly written documents for academic purposes. The writer of a grammar book I read in high school did not seem to understand this and railed on this for a good 10 pages. Extend this to the collective model that Wikipedia has become, and it is clear: the only reason a thing like Wikipedia exists is because a collective, formed of Internet users, wants it there. The collective existed before the wiki.
While I don't think that humanity's obsession with the collective is anything new or surprising--or perhaps even dangerous, since we've had to deal with it since time immemorial--I do think that Lanier is very right about 'the idea that the collective is all-wise' (Lanier). This is clearly a lie. I have seen and--embarrassingly--have been in groups where everyone thought everyone else knew where the group was going, but in reality no one knew. Proof enough that not everything is greater than the sum of its parts.
In the end, I am convinced that there really isn't anything wrong with with Wikipedia (except perhaps the false information) as what it was meant to be: a user generated, self-correcting, collective document. There are disadvantages to the system, as Lanier points out, but the system is not surprising, and its importance is not unusual or terrifying. Besides, regardless of how often the world is warned about the dangers of the collective, humanity is a collective, and we wouldn't want to erase ourselves, now would we?
Works Cited: Lanier, Jaron. “Digital Maoism: The Hazards of Online Collectivism” Edge. 30 May 2006. Accessed: 17 September 2006.
-Digital Maoism-
Jaron Lanier raises an interesting issue in his discussion of the evolving online collectivism of today. I concur to a large degree with his stance on not allowing the hive-mind to gain too much influence and importance in the scope of the acquisition of knowledge. The way in which he relates this trend to a form of Maoism is rather genius, and would be relatively accurate if such a trend existed. If the online collectivism operated and controlled the realm of knowledge in the manner in which Lanier describes, then he would indeed be right on course in his accusations. However, this is where my agreement with Lanier’s article stops.
The manner in which Lanier introduces Wikipedia as his fundamental backing for the argument against online collectivism is rash and slightly inaccurate. He defines his concern as “not [with] the Wikipedia in itself…the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it’s been elevated to such importance so quickly.” It’s nearly impossible to argue against the point that Wikipedia has become a widely used resource, that’s simply fact. Thinking back, I know that I’ve used Wikipedia on numerous occasions throughout the past week to look up some common fundamentals of chemistry that I had forgotten and needed to know for class. The information I received from Wikipedia on this subject was, as most would come to expect, highly accurate and richly detailed. This case is reinforced by the comparison of Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned in the article, in which the results show Wikipedia prevailing as a viable resource on topics of Science. Lanier attacks these results by stating that it is only in certain situations as these that Wikipedia can become viable. He reinforces this finding in his statement that “the collective is more likely to be smart when it isn’t defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result,” as is the case with most knowledge in the world of concrete science and math. In that sense, he is completely accurate in his assumption. However, I think this is the whole point of the matter. He compares Wikipedia to the Britannica as if they are similar, when in reality they are not, nor should they be. The Britannica is meant to be a highly authoritative and totalitarian resource compiled by an elite academic. Wikipedia is expansive, spontaneous, and compiled by involved media elite. They serve two distinct purposes in the acquisition of viable knowledge, and therefore have equal value as academic resources. In no way does this hint towards a sense of digital Maoism, it is simply a balancing of influences between two separate and distinct elites.
What I found interesting was that Lanier actually enforced and supported much of the argument I just gave against his initial claim that online collectivism is becoming a form of Maoism. Therefore, I find his article to be somewhat contradictory in its focal points and statements. This makes his article as a whole appear to be rather fuzzy and unclear in it’s connecting of our current state of online collectivism to that of Maoism, which I see to be a rash and unjustified accusation.
The manner in which Lanier introduces Wikipedia as his fundamental backing for the argument against online collectivism is rash and slightly inaccurate. He defines his concern as “not [with] the Wikipedia in itself…the problem is in the way the Wikipedia has come to be regarded and used; how it’s been elevated to such importance so quickly.” It’s nearly impossible to argue against the point that Wikipedia has become a widely used resource, that’s simply fact. Thinking back, I know that I’ve used Wikipedia on numerous occasions throughout the past week to look up some common fundamentals of chemistry that I had forgotten and needed to know for class. The information I received from Wikipedia on this subject was, as most would come to expect, highly accurate and richly detailed. This case is reinforced by the comparison of Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica mentioned in the article, in which the results show Wikipedia prevailing as a viable resource on topics of Science. Lanier attacks these results by stating that it is only in certain situations as these that Wikipedia can become viable. He reinforces this finding in his statement that “the collective is more likely to be smart when it isn’t defining its own questions, when the goodness of an answer can be evaluated by a simple result,” as is the case with most knowledge in the world of concrete science and math. In that sense, he is completely accurate in his assumption. However, I think this is the whole point of the matter. He compares Wikipedia to the Britannica as if they are similar, when in reality they are not, nor should they be. The Britannica is meant to be a highly authoritative and totalitarian resource compiled by an elite academic. Wikipedia is expansive, spontaneous, and compiled by involved media elite. They serve two distinct purposes in the acquisition of viable knowledge, and therefore have equal value as academic resources. In no way does this hint towards a sense of digital Maoism, it is simply a balancing of influences between two separate and distinct elites.
What I found interesting was that Lanier actually enforced and supported much of the argument I just gave against his initial claim that online collectivism is becoming a form of Maoism. Therefore, I find his article to be somewhat contradictory in its focal points and statements. This makes his article as a whole appear to be rather fuzzy and unclear in it’s connecting of our current state of online collectivism to that of Maoism, which I see to be a rash and unjustified accusation.
Lanier doesn't know (anything!)
Commentary on Lanier’s essay
Jaron Lanier is completely off base in his criticism of the collective “hive-mind” that makes up websites such as Wikipedia. His misunderstanding of the uses and importance of Wikipedia in our society along with his personal bias against his Wikipedia article, lead him on this directionless rant about collectivity.
Wikipedia’s purpose has never been and will never be to provide the most complete or verifiable information. It’s never going to delve into exact details and it’s never going to list hundreds of viewpoints on controversial subjects. The website is an easy to access collective of internet information. If I want to find basic information on a subject, instead of scanning through ten web pages of questionable authenticity, Wikipedia sums it up in an easy to manage package.
Lanier criticizes Wikipedia’s lack of voice, saying “A voice should be sensed as a whole,” not as a collective of information. This just evidences that Lanier doesn’t understand Wikipedia. Why does an article need a “tone” when it’s supposed to be an unbiased source of information? I never looked for underlying currents in the paragraphs of my high school history textbooks; they were straight-forward, with no underlying tones making up an “editorial voice.”
He goes on to complain about the deterioration of higher media because of the collection, insulting the New York Times for publishing an editorial opinion piece supporting intelligent design. This example illustrates his lack of understanding of anything – an opinion piece isn’t supposed to represent news; the paper published it to illustrate the viewpoint of the millions of individuals who support the teaching of Intelligent Design in school. Lanier doesn’t grasp the concept and reasoning behind anything; his thought processes are tantamount with a child’s - all on a surface level.
Wikipedia was designed as a hub to share information. You could add information about topics you knew about and learn about topics you weren’t familiar with from other people’s contributions. It was not designed as a replacement for actual reference books, which come complete with cites and legitimate sources. While Wikipedia has improved in quality during the past few years (it now has articles which are frequently backed up with clear cites from research papers), it’s still a jumble of information which has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Lanier’s best suggestion regarding a general knowledge solution better that Wikipedia seems to be Google searching countless web pages until you get all the information you want. Instead of having information brought together by people on the internet, he wants to leave it scattered and random. Just like the article he wrote. Until Jaron Lanier can write a cohesive article that doesn’t meander around random invalid points, he should probably stay off of Wikipedia (and stick to directing movies).
Digital Maoism Response
"Digital Maoism" – the phrase conjures fear and instability with every contortion of the lips required to speak the words. The deprivation of those very rights that Americans treasure above all others (life, liberty, and property) is associated with Maoism. When Jaron Lanier titles his tirade "Digital Maoism," he attempts to trick his readers into thinking that a readily exportable form of terror, that is, death digitized, threatens humankind. However, this initial deception does not last long once the reader realizes that Lanier’s essay is filled with hyperboles and fallacious reasoning.
Lanier’s inability to change history has apparently made him bitter. He accuses the "Wikipedia goblins" of not letting him renounce his position as a movie director in this "alternate universe." He claims that to stop being a director is simple in real life, but impossibly difficult in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Lanier does not realize that to stop being a director in Wikipedia, he would have to go back in time and never have been a director at all (this is understandably a very difficult task). Lanier would be content to write the history books and keep only those details that suit his reputation. The writer of an encyclopedic article, whether a single person or group, is rarely the subject matter of the work; Lanier is no exception to this convention.
Upon looking at Lanier’s Wikipedia entry today, one will notice that Lanier’s career is hardly described as that of a film director; for example, his wiki page contains information pertaining to his technological and philosophical ideas. Apparently, Wikipedia has improved considerably in just the few months that have transpired since "Digital Maoism" was written. The reader will be further surprised to discover that the malicious "Wikipedia goblins" have done nothing to malign Lanier (despite the vendetta that Lanier seems to have against them). Those Wikipedia articles that do not meet certain standards of objectivity are labeled "biased" and are soon after corrected.
The never-ending revision process makes Wikipedia more encompassing and up-to-date than traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Finding information on the
"philosophical beliefs of Jeron Lanier" in such a traditional encyclopedia would be highly improbable; however, Wikipedia provides ready access to such diverse topics in a single, centralized database. Lanier states that although Wikipedia is good at giving information on topics such as the "kinetic isotope theory," no one would ever care to read about such information. While such articles do not make good general reading, they do serve as a tractable introduction to more advanced concepts in specialized fields. For example, Wikipedia articles on Dilworth’s and Helly’s theorem constitute the most lucid treatments of the topics on the web .
Lanier dislikes Wikipedia, artificial intelligence, and the desire to be the most "meta" because he feels that such entities are diminishing the value of individual’s human personality. For example, he states that Wikipedia articles contain the voices of various anonymous authors. However, the existence of multiple voices might be desirable in something such as encyclopedic entry; a single voice or style of writing might be an indication of bias. In African culture, the griot kept historical information in the form of stories. Stories that were passed from one griot to another slowly evolved in style. This is similar to the stylistic development of Wikipedia pages.
Although Wikipedia articles are not necessarily literary masterpieces, they often do provide correct information about countless diverse topics. If Wikipedia articles are treated as introductions to topics, rather than definitive sources of information, then Wikipedia can be considered a helpful, readily available tool.
Lanier’s inability to change history has apparently made him bitter. He accuses the "Wikipedia goblins" of not letting him renounce his position as a movie director in this "alternate universe." He claims that to stop being a director is simple in real life, but impossibly difficult in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Lanier does not realize that to stop being a director in Wikipedia, he would have to go back in time and never have been a director at all (this is understandably a very difficult task). Lanier would be content to write the history books and keep only those details that suit his reputation. The writer of an encyclopedic article, whether a single person or group, is rarely the subject matter of the work; Lanier is no exception to this convention.
Upon looking at Lanier’s Wikipedia entry today, one will notice that Lanier’s career is hardly described as that of a film director; for example, his wiki page contains information pertaining to his technological and philosophical ideas. Apparently, Wikipedia has improved considerably in just the few months that have transpired since "Digital Maoism" was written. The reader will be further surprised to discover that the malicious "Wikipedia goblins" have done nothing to malign Lanier (despite the vendetta that Lanier seems to have against them). Those Wikipedia articles that do not meet certain standards of objectivity are labeled "biased" and are soon after corrected.
The never-ending revision process makes Wikipedia more encompassing and up-to-date than traditional encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Finding information on the
"philosophical beliefs of Jeron Lanier" in such a traditional encyclopedia would be highly improbable; however, Wikipedia provides ready access to such diverse topics in a single, centralized database. Lanier states that although Wikipedia is good at giving information on topics such as the "kinetic isotope theory," no one would ever care to read about such information. While such articles do not make good general reading, they do serve as a tractable introduction to more advanced concepts in specialized fields. For example, Wikipedia articles on Dilworth’s and Helly’s theorem constitute the most lucid treatments of the topics on the web .
Lanier dislikes Wikipedia, artificial intelligence, and the desire to be the most "meta" because he feels that such entities are diminishing the value of individual’s human personality. For example, he states that Wikipedia articles contain the voices of various anonymous authors. However, the existence of multiple voices might be desirable in something such as encyclopedic entry; a single voice or style of writing might be an indication of bias. In African culture, the griot kept historical information in the form of stories. Stories that were passed from one griot to another slowly evolved in style. This is similar to the stylistic development of Wikipedia pages.
Although Wikipedia articles are not necessarily literary masterpieces, they often do provide correct information about countless diverse topics. If Wikipedia articles are treated as introductions to topics, rather than definitive sources of information, then Wikipedia can be considered a helpful, readily available tool.
Digital Democracy
In “Digital Maoism,” Jaron Lanier claims that trends in Internet technology are rasing the status of the “hive mind” in favor of individual, accreditted human beings. He argues, by looking at Wikipedia articles and comments on Digg, that the thoughts of the collective are empty and devoid of content. Lanier acknowledges that occaisionally, the collective is efficient at solving hard problems, such as setting a fair price for market goods. Generally, however, he believes that the collective must be lead or directed by powerful personalities, as has been done consistently in the pre-Internet age of free and independent press. However, I don't think that we've lost that ethic in our new Internet age news aggregation sites.
Most community aggregation sites today rely heavily on dedicated content authors who are not simply part of the collective. Slashdot, a news aggregation site with a technical slant, has paid editors who determine which user submitted stories make it to the front page. Wikipedia, an online community maintained encyclopedia, relies mostly on a core set of individuals, wikipedians, to maintain the quality of their content. That quality is being called into question now, and Wikipedia is taking measures to prevent renegade vandalism. On Digg, a general aggregation site for articles, it is estimated that one out of thirty readers of an article will “digg” the article, meaning they find it interesting. In short, the “collective” that these sites call on are not the general populace, but a small subset of enthusiasts who, surprisingly, are reliably intelligent and interesting.
As the Internet grows, however, it loses its elite status and becomes accessible to everyone. As this happens, it will become more necessary for these sites to filter out senseless drivel and establish a system for evaluating the credibility of their members. These systems are already falling into place. On Slashdot, there is a notion of Karma, or what the general quality of the user's comments is. Wikipedia is now adopting protection policies to block completely anonymous editting of touchy articles. I predict that as we enter the Internet age, we will continue our tradition of creditted peer review, only through a more open process that anyone can enter. It's easy to imagine a system where paid editors of Wikipedia or Digg distribute status to a set of users based on their contributions, who in turn can assign a smaller quantity of status to other users. I see no reason why in harnessing the collective, the brightest minds on the Internet will abandon the fundamentals of valuing the individual.
Response to Jaron Lanier
Although Jaron Lanier makes many sweeping statements about the disadvantages of online collectivism, he does raise many good points as well. Many websites that try to offer a wide breadth of information often come up short because they do not describe the background of the facts sufficiently well. Lanier discusses this concept in some detail, and I tend to agree with his points about online collectivism in general and Wikipedia specifically.
In high school, one of the main concepts that all of my teachers stressed was the necessity to think critically: to decide for yourself what was important to take away from a reading or a lesson. Because I went to a Catholic school, I had a theology class every day. It became especially important to think about the biases of the authors of position papers regarding moral issues because many people speak from their own experiences or discuss their own beliefs. In these cases, it is important to decide whether or not these authors can back up their seemingly extreme claims with evidence. One of the biggest disadvantages of Wikipedia or other similar sites is that the reader cannot easily learn more about the author of these articles. In many cases, this is not a big problem because the material is fairly straightforward and is not open to much interpretation. In some cases however, it is a serious disadvantage not to be able to find out more about an author. In these instances, it is hard to know what, if any, evidence supports certain claims.
One other important point that Lanier raises is the fact that the information loses its narrative voice when many people string bits and pieces of information together. He points out that “Even Britannica has an editorial voice, which some people have criticized as being vaguely too ‘Dead White Men’”. He then goes on to say that online collectivism destroys this editorial voice because, for all intents and purposes, there is no editor to create an overriding voice. Lanier argues that a “desirable text is more than a collection of accurate references,” but rather it expresses something about the qualities of the author. Online collectivism, in driving out any editorial voice, also removes these expressions of character, and it follows, according to Lanier, that online collectivism is weaker for it. I agree that the character of the author is very important to understanding the work as a whole. As we learn more about the author’s background and hear the voice that the author chooses to share with us, we can get a better feel for what importance the information has for the author. I find that when I try to decide how accurate information is, the voice that the author has plays an important role in the final decision.
Jaron Lanier raises several very strong points. That said, Wikipedia and other forms of online collectivism are here to stay: they are unrivaled when it comes to convenience in research. The fact that some of the background information is sacrificed is overcome by the sheer volume of information that can be quickly presented to the reader. Overall, Lanier points out the biggest flaws with online collectivism, but his objections, while valid, do not outweigh the fact that Wikipedia is one of the easiest ways to get information quickly.
A new Media User
A few days ago, I had to get an MRI of my knee after a soccer accident. I made my way to Lechmere where the company that the MIT medical center contracts for MRIs was located. Their office was situated in a building in right the middle of a construction area where a squadron of men wearing orange hats was actively working, where an army of trucks and bulldozers drove back and forth, where the noise of clinging metal, rowing engines was unbearable. I could not believe that an MRI center was located in such a place. I found it funny and at the same time sketchy. My first reflex was to pull out my smart phone, take pictures, write a short accompanying message, and share my interesting experience with my friends using MMS. This is a succinct example of how media and the new communication technologies now integrate in my daily life.
However, this is a recent change in my life. Thinking about sending picture in SMSs would have been and is still a dream for a person living in Kenya. Therefore, my coming to America was a turning point in the relation I have with media. Besides the cultural shock phenomenon, it was also about becoming digital or at least becoming more digital.
The first stage of this process was to adjust to the new dimension of email communication. Before coming to the USA, the only reason I would use email was to communicate with my family living in Europe, as a telephone call would have been too expensive otherwise. This contrast significantly with the use I make of email today. The email is omnipresent in my college life and is involved in a broad range of my daily activities. These can be academic, like requesting a meeting with my advisor, or professional, like asking for a job interview, or social, like forwarding one of those chain messages to a friend. I cannot imagine a day without writing an email or at least without checking my inbox. Furthermore, these tasks have become almost automatic and are deeply inscribed in my routine. The first thing I do when I wake up is turn on the computer and open my email client the same steps invariably repeat when I come back from classes.
Another factor that largely contributed to the shift in my use of media is the Internet. Not to say that the Internet was inexistent in Kenya but the difference in speed, ease of access or price was so important that I had the feeling of discovering something new. There was simply no comparison. Ten times faster, wirelessly accessible from anywhere, and free, the Internet literally opened a window to an unforeseen realm of possibilities: video streaming, multi-player gaming, file sharing, and much more. I remember that the first thing I did when I got access to MITnet was to download the playable demo of Half-Life 2.It was something I had dreamt of for a long time but had never dared to do. I remember seating there in front of the computer screen, gazing amazed at the progress bar flashing across the screen. Since then I have learned to use and enjoy the new power of the Internet. I spend a great deal of my time online. In average, I spend between 30% and 40% of my life connected to the internet. Out of this, I would say I waste 60% playing online multiplayer games, 20% instant messaging , 10% social networks website, 5% “googling”, and 5% file sharing.
Overall, since I came to America, most of my media use gravitates around the Internet and this at the cost of traditional mean of communication. Honestly, I would be unable to say when the last time I wrote a letter was.
However, this is a recent change in my life. Thinking about sending picture in SMSs would have been and is still a dream for a person living in Kenya. Therefore, my coming to America was a turning point in the relation I have with media. Besides the cultural shock phenomenon, it was also about becoming digital or at least becoming more digital.
The first stage of this process was to adjust to the new dimension of email communication. Before coming to the USA, the only reason I would use email was to communicate with my family living in Europe, as a telephone call would have been too expensive otherwise. This contrast significantly with the use I make of email today. The email is omnipresent in my college life and is involved in a broad range of my daily activities. These can be academic, like requesting a meeting with my advisor, or professional, like asking for a job interview, or social, like forwarding one of those chain messages to a friend. I cannot imagine a day without writing an email or at least without checking my inbox. Furthermore, these tasks have become almost automatic and are deeply inscribed in my routine. The first thing I do when I wake up is turn on the computer and open my email client the same steps invariably repeat when I come back from classes.
Another factor that largely contributed to the shift in my use of media is the Internet. Not to say that the Internet was inexistent in Kenya but the difference in speed, ease of access or price was so important that I had the feeling of discovering something new. There was simply no comparison. Ten times faster, wirelessly accessible from anywhere, and free, the Internet literally opened a window to an unforeseen realm of possibilities: video streaming, multi-player gaming, file sharing, and much more. I remember that the first thing I did when I got access to MITnet was to download the playable demo of Half-Life 2.It was something I had dreamt of for a long time but had never dared to do. I remember seating there in front of the computer screen, gazing amazed at the progress bar flashing across the screen. Since then I have learned to use and enjoy the new power of the Internet. I spend a great deal of my time online. In average, I spend between 30% and 40% of my life connected to the internet. Out of this, I would say I waste 60% playing online multiplayer games, 20% instant messaging , 10% social networks website, 5% “googling”, and 5% file sharing.
Overall, since I came to America, most of my media use gravitates around the Internet and this at the cost of traditional mean of communication. Honestly, I would be unable to say when the last time I wrote a letter was.
Reflection on Walter Benjamin’s Essay
In order to understand fully the content of his work and completely grasp the point of view Walter Benjamin defends in his essay, one has to go back a few decades and look at the historical context he lived in the and socio-political background he came from. Therefore, some biographical information on the man is important. Benjamin was born into a Jewish family in Berlin in 1892. He was known during his life as an essayist, translator, and literary critic. As a sociological and cultural critic Benjamin combined ideas of Jewish mysticism with historical materialsim in a body of work which was an entirely novel contribution to Marxist philosophy and aesthetic theory.
This piece of information enables us to isolate the geographical and historical context this essay was written in so we can pursue a more relevant analysis. The essay was produced in the middle of the mechanical and industrial revolution when concepts like mass-production or mechanical reproduction were starting to make their way. Futhermore, this piece at hand was written in Germany were communism and fascism were starting their dissemination and their everlasting confrontation. In this period of changes where traditions are, being profoundly redifined the question that Benjamin asks is most relevant: “What is the status of the art work?”
Before the industrial age and before mechanical reproduction, a piece of art was a hand made artifact. Each one was unique; each one has its own story, its own fascinating mysteries. The wonders of technology changed all of that work of arts are merely mass produced copies; all identical, all share the same mundane story. Benjamin outputs a contrary analysis of the situation. For him creativity, genius, eternal value, mystery are just outmoded for the better by mechanical reproduction. The one on one relationship with art (only reserved to the elite) is now history: Uniqueness is replaced buy ubiquity. Art is disseminated and accessible to all the layers of society. Benjamin establishes here a keystone in the Marxist aesthetic theory. In this sense, a Chaplin film fits perfectly the Marxists artistic considerations while a piece of artwork from Picasso is merely waste of talent. While one can agree with the idea of art democratization and all its benefits for a society, one can strongly disapprove of his position regarding the fate of creativity and genius. Creativity is this irreproducible quality of a genius that makes the essence and the uniqueness of his work. In this sense, the artwork is just the concrete expression of this unique work, and as such, it is merely a media that the artist uses to share with the rest of the world his genius (in a unique and characteristic way). Therefore, only the artwork is reproducible while the work of the artist i.e. his creativity and genius will eternally stay authentic. No one or nothing will ever paint exactly like Monet, write like Moliere, or compose music like Mozart.
This piece of information enables us to isolate the geographical and historical context this essay was written in so we can pursue a more relevant analysis. The essay was produced in the middle of the mechanical and industrial revolution when concepts like mass-production or mechanical reproduction were starting to make their way. Futhermore, this piece at hand was written in Germany were communism and fascism were starting their dissemination and their everlasting confrontation. In this period of changes where traditions are, being profoundly redifined the question that Benjamin asks is most relevant: “What is the status of the art work?”
Before the industrial age and before mechanical reproduction, a piece of art was a hand made artifact. Each one was unique; each one has its own story, its own fascinating mysteries. The wonders of technology changed all of that work of arts are merely mass produced copies; all identical, all share the same mundane story. Benjamin outputs a contrary analysis of the situation. For him creativity, genius, eternal value, mystery are just outmoded for the better by mechanical reproduction. The one on one relationship with art (only reserved to the elite) is now history: Uniqueness is replaced buy ubiquity. Art is disseminated and accessible to all the layers of society. Benjamin establishes here a keystone in the Marxist aesthetic theory. In this sense, a Chaplin film fits perfectly the Marxists artistic considerations while a piece of artwork from Picasso is merely waste of talent. While one can agree with the idea of art democratization and all its benefits for a society, one can strongly disapprove of his position regarding the fate of creativity and genius. Creativity is this irreproducible quality of a genius that makes the essence and the uniqueness of his work. In this sense, the artwork is just the concrete expression of this unique work, and as such, it is merely a media that the artist uses to share with the rest of the world his genius (in a unique and characteristic way). Therefore, only the artwork is reproducible while the work of the artist i.e. his creativity and genius will eternally stay authentic. No one or nothing will ever paint exactly like Monet, write like Moliere, or compose music like Mozart.
Reflection on Walter Benjamin’s Essay
In order to understand fully the content of his work and completely grasp the point of view Walter Benjamin defends in his essay, one has to go back a few decades and look at the historical context he lived in the and socio-political background he came from. Therefore, some biographical information on the man is important. Benjamin was born into a Jewish family in Berlin in 1892. He was known during his life as an essayist, translator, and literary critic. As a sociological and cultural critic Benjamin combined ideas of Jewish mysticism with historical materialsim in a body of work which was an entirely novel contribution to Marxist philosophy and aesthetic theory.
This piece of information enables us to isolate the geographical and historical context this essay was written in so we can pursue a more relevant analysis. The essay was produced in the middle of the mechanical and industrial revolution when concepts like mass-production or mechanical reproduction were starting to make their way. Futhermore, this piece at hand was written in Germany were communism and fascism were starting their dissemination and their everlasting confrontation. In this period of changes where traditions are, being profoundly redifined the question that Benjamin asks is most relevant: “What is the status of the art work?”
Before the industrial age and before mechanical reproduction, a piece of art was a hand made artifact. Each one was unique; each one has its own story, its own fascinating mysteries. The wonders of technology changed all of that work of arts are merely mass produced copies; all identical, all share the same mundane story. Benjamin outputs a contrary analysis of the situation. For him creativity, genius, eternal value, mystery are just outmoded for the better by mechanical reproduction. The one on one relationship with art (only reserved to the elite) is now history: Uniqueness is replaced buy ubiquity. Art is disseminated and accessible to all the layers of society. Benjamin establishes here a keystone in the Marxist aesthetic theory. In this sense, a Chaplin film fits perfectly the Marxists artistic considerations while a piece of artwork from Picasso is merely waste of talent. While one can agree with the idea of art democratization and all its benefits for a society, one can strongly disapprove of his position regarding the fate of creativity and genius. Creativity is this irreproducible quality of a genius that makes the essence and the uniqueness of his work. In this sense, the artwork is just the concrete expression of this unique work, and as such, it is merely a media that the artist uses to share with the rest of the world his genius (in a unique and characteristic way). Therefore, only the artwork is reproducible while the work of the artist i.e. his creativity and genius will eternally stay authentic. No one or nothing will ever paint exactly like Monet, write like Moliere, or compose music like Mozart.
This piece of information enables us to isolate the geographical and historical context this essay was written in so we can pursue a more relevant analysis. The essay was produced in the middle of the mechanical and industrial revolution when concepts like mass-production or mechanical reproduction were starting to make their way. Futhermore, this piece at hand was written in Germany were communism and fascism were starting their dissemination and their everlasting confrontation. In this period of changes where traditions are, being profoundly redifined the question that Benjamin asks is most relevant: “What is the status of the art work?”
Before the industrial age and before mechanical reproduction, a piece of art was a hand made artifact. Each one was unique; each one has its own story, its own fascinating mysteries. The wonders of technology changed all of that work of arts are merely mass produced copies; all identical, all share the same mundane story. Benjamin outputs a contrary analysis of the situation. For him creativity, genius, eternal value, mystery are just outmoded for the better by mechanical reproduction. The one on one relationship with art (only reserved to the elite) is now history: Uniqueness is replaced buy ubiquity. Art is disseminated and accessible to all the layers of society. Benjamin establishes here a keystone in the Marxist aesthetic theory. In this sense, a Chaplin film fits perfectly the Marxists artistic considerations while a piece of artwork from Picasso is merely waste of talent. While one can agree with the idea of art democratization and all its benefits for a society, one can strongly disapprove of his position regarding the fate of creativity and genius. Creativity is this irreproducible quality of a genius that makes the essence and the uniqueness of his work. In this sense, the artwork is just the concrete expression of this unique work, and as such, it is merely a media that the artist uses to share with the rest of the world his genius (in a unique and characteristic way). Therefore, only the artwork is reproducible while the work of the artist i.e. his creativity and genius will eternally stay authentic. No one or nothing will ever paint exactly like Monet, write like Moliere, or compose music like Mozart.
My Response to Digital Maoism
Jaron Lanier makes some excellent points in his argument against established businesses in Central Cambridge. His arguments center on the idea that aggregate sources of information are presently, and will always be inferior to reading or seeing information in its proper context. He says, “These Web-based designs assumed that value would flow from people.” This seemed to be a correct assumption, as people still are the sole input for aggregate programs or ‘hive minds’. In fact, at one point it was still clear that the Web was made of people and that ultimately value always came from connecting with real humans. However, in recent history, the aim of some programs has been “to remove the scent of people, as if it were speaking to us as a supernatural oracle. This is where the use of the Internet crosses the line into delusion.” Is that a true statement? Have people invested their trust and surrendered their disbelief? My answer would be maybe; almost certainly in some cases. I have seen classmates, at MIT no less, form paper topics and theses based on a wiki search of a subject. Of course, every person who tried this was berated by his or her teacher, but still, it shows the blind trust that some people have shown in this aggregate, all-knowing, being known as wikipedia.
Is our pursuit for knowledge any different than it always has been? Lanier talks of scholars, whom are essentially believed when they publish a paper or journal article. In days before the internet, everyone got their information from the newspapers and the TV news. This of course, was regulated by the government and as a result, when it was beneficial to our country, we would see or read what they wanted us to read.
I do agree with Lanier on many aspects of his arguments, but I could be assuming all of his ‘empirical data’ about this subject is true. Does that make me any different than the person who wrote his thesis with wikipedia? Well, sort of, but it’s definitely in the same ballpark. The actual reason I agree with Lanier on many of his points is because I have seen the same results from collectivism that he has. The public is stupid; I have no doubt in that. Public masses of people can cause mass hysteria or even riots based on collective stupidity. This is why it’s illegal to yell, “FIRE!” in a crowded building without due cause, not necessarily because you would be making a false statement, but because the 100 people next to you, instead of looking around and saying to themselves, “Hmm, I don’t see a fire,” would panic and flood the exits assuming the building is actually on fire. One area I slightly disagree with Lanier on is that I believe the person, in general, is pretty smart. I do, however, completely agree that the public is stupid.
American Idol…as a singer and human being I can’t even begin to express my shear hatred of this show. It was formed under a great idea, ‘to find the best singer in America and give them a record deal.’ The only real problem with the process is that they let the people decide. This was possibly the music industry’s biggest mistake, because before A.I. (coincidence?), the music companies told us who was cool or which album we should buy/download. Now, there’s no doubt people were left behind in the system of old, but for the most part, we had some pretty good music. But, look at what happens now that we let the public preemptively decide who should be famous…If you have anymore doubts about public stupidity, I have two words for you…William Hung.
Is our pursuit for knowledge any different than it always has been? Lanier talks of scholars, whom are essentially believed when they publish a paper or journal article. In days before the internet, everyone got their information from the newspapers and the TV news. This of course, was regulated by the government and as a result, when it was beneficial to our country, we would see or read what they wanted us to read.
I do agree with Lanier on many aspects of his arguments, but I could be assuming all of his ‘empirical data’ about this subject is true. Does that make me any different than the person who wrote his thesis with wikipedia? Well, sort of, but it’s definitely in the same ballpark. The actual reason I agree with Lanier on many of his points is because I have seen the same results from collectivism that he has. The public is stupid; I have no doubt in that. Public masses of people can cause mass hysteria or even riots based on collective stupidity. This is why it’s illegal to yell, “FIRE!” in a crowded building without due cause, not necessarily because you would be making a false statement, but because the 100 people next to you, instead of looking around and saying to themselves, “Hmm, I don’t see a fire,” would panic and flood the exits assuming the building is actually on fire. One area I slightly disagree with Lanier on is that I believe the person, in general, is pretty smart. I do, however, completely agree that the public is stupid.
American Idol…as a singer and human being I can’t even begin to express my shear hatred of this show. It was formed under a great idea, ‘to find the best singer in America and give them a record deal.’ The only real problem with the process is that they let the people decide. This was possibly the music industry’s biggest mistake, because before A.I. (coincidence?), the music companies told us who was cool or which album we should buy/download. Now, there’s no doubt people were left behind in the system of old, but for the most part, we had some pretty good music. But, look at what happens now that we let the public preemptively decide who should be famous…If you have anymore doubts about public stupidity, I have two words for you…William Hung.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Portrait
Portrait of Me as a Media User
Of course, it is impossible for me to pigeonhole myself with a quantitative or even mostly objective qualitative analysis of my media usage, simply due to my closeness with the subject at hand. However, a fair bit of introspection has revealed that my electronic life is filled with mostly paradoxes and antitheses. This is best characterized by my relationship with my cell phone. As with most people, I have an intrinsic appreciation of the sleek and the new. The cell phone is the epitome of this exultation: so tiny, yet so versatile. I love to carry around, to play games, to take photos, despite the puzzling fact that I loathe to talk on it. For me, something fundamental is lost when one converses on the phone or types out a text message. We lose a metaphysical aspect of our interpersonal relations through abbreviation; the intangible connection to the person which we undergo when we interact face-to-face is destroyed by the synthesized, processed sound of their voice in the receiver. I love to wear my cell phone because of the versatility and ubiquity it represents, but hate that the price we pay for such a tiny, versatile tool is a fundamental part of the collective human experience.
Quite the opposite can be said of my relationship with the computer. The facets of a persona forged through blogs,1 MySpace,2 and Facebook3 sometimes bring you closer to an individual than a face-to-face meeting ever could, and countless other sources bring a whirlwind of information whose sheer volume is overwhelming. When I log on, I am reminded of the reflection of the sun in a clear pool of water. As I dive in, trying to grab one of the ethereal dancing lights, a hundred others surround me, shifting and changing as if to remind me that they could form and hold more patterns than I could ever comprehend in a thousand lifetimes. I sometimes dream of what it would be like to know all there is to know, but every Google4 search shows me the futility of such idle fantasies. And yet, I do not hate the computer as I hate the cell phone, for it allows me the chance to experience millions of different voices and opinions at the touch of a button, creating globalization at a scale never before accomplished.
Music and film form the last, and perhaps most vital, part of my digital world. If I were merely subject to my tortured relationships with the computer and cell phone, then insanity would have overtaken me long ago. Music and film are my reprieve from the pressures of social digital existence. I watch and listen merely to enjoy. From dashing special effects to poignant love stories, upbeat techno to pensive emotional punk, mass media inspires and sustains me
In a way, the digital world is comprised of both the ultimate balance and paradox. We created information sharing devices to satiate our natural curiosity to learn more, a continual process and an impossible goal. However, the same devices which may have brought us to the brink of madness and beyond also created untold opportunity for us to disseminate our opinions and artwork as never before, keeping us sane through the conundrum of our daily existence and ultimate purpose.
1A website on which people post thoughts on daily events and their personal lives
2A social network on which individuals can browse for information about others in a virtually unrestricted manner
3A social network which is more restricted than MySpace, allowing only those which people which an individual “friends” to see his or her personal information
4A search engine which currently dominates the market of web searches
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Nimish's Digital Portrait
Rembrandt, Van Gogh, and Da Vinci – these great painters almost certainly began their portraits with a sketch. To follow in their footsteps, I too will initiate the portrayal of myself as a media user in a particularly “sketchy” manner. I admit that I relish impersonating fourteen year old girls and twenty-four year old men on my MySpace account. It is true that I have attempted to consume MIT’s massive bandwidth by creating a voracious torrent swarm. However, these actions do not make me some malicious miscreant meandering around the internet. Instead, they show that I am the typical media user who simply wants to extract all possible uses out of technology, communication, and social networking.
MySpace affords users more than just a daily journal and a social network. Through the construction of fake accounts, it gives people the ability to test the fidelity of a boyfriend or girlfriend. Perhaps a more fun application is uncovering a younger sibling’s “dirty little secrets,” which can then be used as blackmail when chores are to be done.
When it comes to downloading, I have the utmost regard for copyright laws. Yet, I still find myself downloading the Windows 2003 operating system and leaked music albums which are to be released next week. Repeated abuse of technologies such as BitTorrent and LimeWire is perhaps the most effective way to persuade businesses to increase allocation of resources for the research and development of encryption and security measures that would protect intellectual property. I would like to see the day when all media is safe and protected; to this end, I have become interested in seemingly science fictional ideas such as unbreakable quantum cryptography and virus protection algorithms based on the biological immune system.
While I am not trying to solve these problems of the universe, I can probably be found in my room, hunched over a computer, with a bluetooth headset in one ear and ipod headphones in the other. Chances are I would be playing some computer game such as StarCraft. Here I can escape the troubles of the real life and immerse myself in a fantasy world where I have an army of zealots, dragoons, and carriers at my command. It is my task to defeat the Zerg race, commanded by some randomly selected foreign aggressor who resides on the other side of battlenet, and thus possibly the other side of the world.
Disillusioned upon return to the real world, I turn to Wikipedia8 for comfort; here I name myself commander of some battalion in the Peloponnesian War. I instant message my friend and tell him to check out the change I made. However, by then the change has been corrected, and I must content myself by contributing some arcane detail to some esoteric topic.
Meanwhile, the high frequency waves from my bluetooth head set have continued to lightly singe my neurons. In an effort to restrengthen my synaptic junctions, I check out the news feeds from websites such as BBC. Or if I desire a lighter read, I head over to digg.com and “digg” any technology, sports, or entertainment articles that I find particularly interesting. After receiving my dose of current affairs, I proceed to the Art of Problem Solving math forums where mathematicians from all over the globe discuss challenging math problems and advanced techniques of solution.
Now in a more productive mood, I turn to my ongoing website development project which I am coding in ASP.NET using C#. Finally, when I can procrastinate no longer, I complete my half-started problem sets, scan the solutions, and save them on the 2GB memory stick which I always carry on my key ring. I finally make time for my HASS homework; however, the distractions posed by iTunes and streaming music videos on Yahoo Launch cause the assignment to take an exorbitant amount of time.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Sandy's Media Use!
Me as a Media User
I used to read the newspaper simply for the comics; now I don’t read it at all. In recent years, and even more since I arrived here at MIT, I’ve gotten all of my news off of the internet. The internet is so available, convenient and constantly updated it can and has completely taken over the role of the conventional media. The internet connects me to the world around me. It’s my main source of news and multimedia and also doubles as a convenient educational tool.
The New York Times headlines are the centerpiece of my personalized Google homepage. The online version of this print media is easy to access, free, and, unlike the publication, updated throughout the course of the day. With my 24/7 accessibility to the internet, it is my best source of news and information. Stocks can be updated to the minute and headlines can be up less than thirty minutes after news is made. Otherwise, my day to day contact with mass media is incredibly limited. I don’t listen to the radio or watch television news. Instead I use distributable media.
Like most college students, my computer is filled with endless gigabytes of music and video files. My media is digital. However much I appreciate analog’s aura of popping records and static filled tape, the convenience and practicality of completely digital media for storing and transporting files can’t be ignored. The media I keep on my computer matters to me. I listen and watch it for my own enjoyment. Music I love; TV show’s that I’m crazy about…but I watch and listen to it on my own schedule. I don’t need the shows fed to me in weekly doses by corporate media giants; I don’t need to hear a new song on the radio because the record company is pushing an agenda. I download and listen to what I want; the internet has made this share of media possible. Instead of getting our songs and TV through traditional sources, people now can watch their favorite shows or hear their favorite songs online. Programs like iTunes, with songs, TV shows, and movies available for online distribution allow people to have control over their exposure to media of their choice, and not the other way around.
I’ve taken full advantage of such advancements, completely buying into the new distribution methods. However, there are some things for which I’m forced to revert to old print media, such as my education. Although PowerPoint presentations are now a classroom staple, most of my classes are still grounded in old fashioned media. I learn from books and lectures. I’ll research topics on the internet for my own enjoyment, but my actual institutionalized learning is on print media.
The internet defines my experience with media. It’s the source of every type of media that I seek out. It’s a hub of knowledge and entertainment; it’s my hub of knowledge and entertainment.
Barnett as a media user
I use many forms of media in my everyday life. There are two forms of media that I use the most, television and the internet. Since I am a big fan of sports, ESPN, a mainly sports and games news company, is usually what is on my television or web browser. ESPN is the sports page of the digital media world. The company has expanded rapidly. It started off as only a television channel then created ESPN.com, the official website of ESPN, with the dot com boom. Now they have multiple channels, the website, a radio station, a magazine, and even a cell phone service all dedicated to sports news both in the past and the present. I am seriously thinking about subscribing to ESPN mobile, ESPN’s cell phone service, since my current cell phone has been out of commission recently. It would make it easier for me to keep up in the sports world when I would have to miss games. ESPN mobile has a feature where I could see live game updates and scores. It may be the perfect media device for the on the go sports fan.
Video games are another media which I often use. The current video game system I use is the new XBox 360, Microsoft’s new gaming console. I commonly play two games on this console;
Other media that I use but are currently lower on my list of important media are music, movies, and Facebook.com. I usually listen to music in the mp3 format because of the accessibility of retrieving a desired song at almost anytime. I have an Ipod shuffle which is convenient when I am not sitting near my computer or a radio. The Ipod shuffle is a small Mp3 playing device made by Apple. I mostly listen to hip hop, rap, and some other artist from different genres, which catch my interest. Southern rap has taken over my play list in recent after I learned my uncle is a producer under some big names in the southern music industry. I still keep to my roots as a northeast kid and listen to artist which I call old school such as Notorious BIG.
Movies and Facebook.com are just media that I use when I want to fill up time while I am in a lazy mood. Watching a movie or going on Facebook.com can both be mindless activities which are perfect when I am feeling lazy. Facebook.com take up five minute gaps while movies take up two hours at a time.
I use many of these media everyday. My uses of media occur between studying, practicing for basketball, class and other daily non media related activities. Using media gives me information about my world and enjoyment in my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)