I thought the text was rather interesting, actually, considering me as a socio-phobic (at least, to some extent, hehe).
Wearable computers at this time and age seems like, not perhaps sci-fi, but at least like a pretty excentric idea. (Note: I remember that Levi's or Diesel had some special jacket in a very limited edition, where all kinds of music players and stuff were integrated. This was around the early 2000's definitely, and I haven't heard of it since.)
It's hard not to agree that the cell phone revolution definitely has given birth to a whole new way of opening up informational networking and open communication. Personally I don't use my cell phone very often (I don't have a home phone, so it does take it's place but nevertheless I don't have to use it that much) but I sure am relying on the fact that I can have it with me anywhere, which basically is the reason I don't have a "land phone" at home.
Regarding the meeting appliances developed for mobile phones, I personally, feel neglected, kind of. I feels strange having a phone, which is made for communication purposes, and not being UTTERLY dependent on it, but it feels worse seeing how social exhibitionism has turned out to not only be marketable, but a "necessity", of sorts, for this generation. Rant. Ignore if you must.
In many senses the concept of the mobile "phone" isn't at all relevant in this text since Rheingold relies on its (in some cases, possible) application(s), and not on its function (as a simple communications device). And that's what so fascinating about mobile phones, they do everything except ring people (because then you get cancer and die. sry, late.)
Do I think the "mobile revolution" is good or bad? Well, diplomatic as I am, I will just say that everything gets the purpose which we apply on this certain object, and as such the cell phone has, for now, proven to be a low-tech but socially interesting phenomena, which definitely has a chance to change our notion of communications as well as social structures.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Wikipedia
Wikipedia and the traditional encyclopedia
After some moments of thought I decided to make my search query "HDTV" as it is a technical term which has some relevance to me personally, but also being interesting to see how deep these encyclopedias go. The "opponent" is Encyclopedia.com which does its searches on multiple sources/encyclopedias.
The first thing I noticed, and I've seen this many times over by this stage, is that the Wiki article was literally enormous compared to the quite meager description given to me by the multiple result search on Encyclopedia.com. The Oxford Pocket Dictionarys article was only one short sentecne. This could of course be explained be the fact that it is a POCKET dictionary, but the World Encyclopedia and Britannica Concise Enc. was not very helpful either. Also, I noted some marginal occurences of "faulty" language, where small portions of text/words would be plain bad.
There is some difference in how they present their information, also. In traditional encyclopedias (at least in EB in their television article) the information is presented linearly (not unexpected, of course) and as a narrative story. A standard (longer) article is presented in an index, which often contains many viewpoints on a certain topic, much thanks to the fact that many types of people contribute to the site.
Seen as a collective experience, Wikipedia could be said to promote action and cooperation instead of passive information gathering (although I haven't done any contribution to Wikipedia myself). In regards to the nationalist statement on the blog, I personally have a really hard time seeing Wikipedia as something nationally closed. Except the fact that the Wiki is translated into many languages, the fact still remains that English, which is the most commonly used language of the Wikipedias, has authors and contributors from all around the world adding to the knowledge base as opposed to more "nationally bound" cultures, such as icelandic, which is hardly talked anywhere except in Iceland.
Culturally, Wiki has a slight tradition of being quick to embrace pop culture phenomena which is also felt when comparing my chosen query, HDTV, with a traditional encyclopedia. Not perhaps in the regard that HDTV is something very "new" (it's been around as a term since the 80's, and been practically used since the early 90's) but it has had a "techie" stamp since HDTV's have been released on a more massive scale these last few years. It has had an appeal to the common man, or the nerd, and not the academic in particular.
Also, the biggest flaw with Wikipedia has been its lack of dedicated higher-educated professors, the ones doing the traditional encyclopedias. Wiki has had great success in attaining a wide "normal" user-base, which indeed has proven quite skillful in uploading often-times very good information, but the lack of experts could possibly be a setback.
Wiki as a temporal experience is also of some interest. Just as the corrections in daily papers, which "no one" reads, misinformation can be devastating as it is further carried out in information networks, discussions, media, other articles on Wikipedia etc. The lack of a "completed" article lays bare this very notion which makes Web 2.0 and immediately accessible information lucrative but also potentially dangerous. At the same time, the immediate-ness of Wiki (and other Web 2.0 applications/sites) is its strenght. By being able to provide information as it is happening/unfolding it becomes a sort of (hopefully, and in its best possible case) an objective lens through which users can understand current situations. The downside of this is obvious though; In most cases (if you're not actually at the place which you report on) you have only second-hand information, which could possible (and according to some, is always) biased or ready-made for a certain audience which gives you as a Wiki editor rather limited information to give out in the article.
And yes, even if it's always a little nervy to say it, I think Wikipedia is a great site. As long as you are aware about what Wiki is, I think that the site does what it is intended to.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=hdtv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv
After some moments of thought I decided to make my search query "HDTV" as it is a technical term which has some relevance to me personally, but also being interesting to see how deep these encyclopedias go. The "opponent" is Encyclopedia.com which does its searches on multiple sources/encyclopedias.
The first thing I noticed, and I've seen this many times over by this stage, is that the Wiki article was literally enormous compared to the quite meager description given to me by the multiple result search on Encyclopedia.com. The Oxford Pocket Dictionarys article was only one short sentecne. This could of course be explained be the fact that it is a POCKET dictionary, but the World Encyclopedia and Britannica Concise Enc. was not very helpful either. Also, I noted some marginal occurences of "faulty" language, where small portions of text/words would be plain bad.
There is some difference in how they present their information, also. In traditional encyclopedias (at least in EB in their television article) the information is presented linearly (not unexpected, of course) and as a narrative story. A standard (longer) article is presented in an index, which often contains many viewpoints on a certain topic, much thanks to the fact that many types of people contribute to the site.
Seen as a collective experience, Wikipedia could be said to promote action and cooperation instead of passive information gathering (although I haven't done any contribution to Wikipedia myself). In regards to the nationalist statement on the blog, I personally have a really hard time seeing Wikipedia as something nationally closed. Except the fact that the Wiki is translated into many languages, the fact still remains that English, which is the most commonly used language of the Wikipedias, has authors and contributors from all around the world adding to the knowledge base as opposed to more "nationally bound" cultures, such as icelandic, which is hardly talked anywhere except in Iceland.
Culturally, Wiki has a slight tradition of being quick to embrace pop culture phenomena which is also felt when comparing my chosen query, HDTV, with a traditional encyclopedia. Not perhaps in the regard that HDTV is something very "new" (it's been around as a term since the 80's, and been practically used since the early 90's) but it has had a "techie" stamp since HDTV's have been released on a more massive scale these last few years. It has had an appeal to the common man, or the nerd, and not the academic in particular.
Also, the biggest flaw with Wikipedia has been its lack of dedicated higher-educated professors, the ones doing the traditional encyclopedias. Wiki has had great success in attaining a wide "normal" user-base, which indeed has proven quite skillful in uploading often-times very good information, but the lack of experts could possibly be a setback.
Wiki as a temporal experience is also of some interest. Just as the corrections in daily papers, which "no one" reads, misinformation can be devastating as it is further carried out in information networks, discussions, media, other articles on Wikipedia etc. The lack of a "completed" article lays bare this very notion which makes Web 2.0 and immediately accessible information lucrative but also potentially dangerous. At the same time, the immediate-ness of Wiki (and other Web 2.0 applications/sites) is its strenght. By being able to provide information as it is happening/unfolding it becomes a sort of (hopefully, and in its best possible case) an objective lens through which users can understand current situations. The downside of this is obvious though; In most cases (if you're not actually at the place which you report on) you have only second-hand information, which could possible (and according to some, is always) biased or ready-made for a certain audience which gives you as a Wiki editor rather limited information to give out in the article.
And yes, even if it's always a little nervy to say it, I think Wikipedia is a great site. As long as you are aware about what Wiki is, I think that the site does what it is intended to.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=hdtv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
DigArt and DigLit
Rhizome and ArtPort are pages that aim to promote artists in digital arts (as a broader expression); Rhizome being an independent site and ArtPort being part of the Whitney Museum. ArtPort supports DigArt and NetArt and Rhizome focuses on New Media Art. Rhizome seems like a pretty stiff place to get posted on, but I might be wrong, especially considering that the Whitney ArtPort has some kind of fixation on commissioned works, like any ordinary museum.
Ilovebees was an ARG (Alternate Reality Game) played in 2004. An ARG is a more sophisticated version of a LARP, since the veil of illusion is more or less shattered by the fact that people don't roleplay: they are themselves. An ARG can take place in many spaces and settings since it is just a concept, and therefore there are no clear rules to as how it should be played (just like an RPG is just a WAY to play).
Implementation
...was a text written on multiple stickers. The project was inspired by several ideas; particularly of the situationist theater and the "underground" practices of mail/sticker art in public spaces. What makes Implementation really exciting is how everything is dependant on the multiple roles that must work together to make this a coherent experience, putting more focus on the social practices of creating the work than on the technical side, looking at it just as a publically placed hypertext.
Wiki
- Digital art
Art manipulated/created in computer software. Examples range from photo-editing to 3D models and special effects.
- Internet art
Art created for presentation purely on the web. Often called netart (net.art)
- New media art
Art combining or using "new media" formats/media (computer hardware/software, video games, biotechnology etc.) for their creation. They often adress issues directly relating to their composing media.
Ilovebees was an ARG (Alternate Reality Game) played in 2004. An ARG is a more sophisticated version of a LARP, since the veil of illusion is more or less shattered by the fact that people don't roleplay: they are themselves. An ARG can take place in many spaces and settings since it is just a concept, and therefore there are no clear rules to as how it should be played (just like an RPG is just a WAY to play).
Implementation
...was a text written on multiple stickers. The project was inspired by several ideas; particularly of the situationist theater and the "underground" practices of mail/sticker art in public spaces. What makes Implementation really exciting is how everything is dependant on the multiple roles that must work together to make this a coherent experience, putting more focus on the social practices of creating the work than on the technical side, looking at it just as a publically placed hypertext.
Wiki
- Digital art
Art manipulated/created in computer software. Examples range from photo-editing to 3D models and special effects.
- Internet art
Art created for presentation purely on the web. Often called netart (net.art)
- New media art
Art combining or using "new media" formats/media (computer hardware/software, video games, biotechnology etc.) for their creation. They often adress issues directly relating to their composing media.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Essay topic
(Working) Name of the essay will be "My best friend might as well be an NPC". In the essay I will form some thoughts on character-character relationships within games, offline as well as online. Many a researcher has done extensive digging in the online communities of games, but I want to add some flavor by inserting the question "How do I play my game; on what premises and for what purpose?" thus involving BOTH social sides of the topic as well as describing how immersion lets the player experience non-player characters and drama (or not). Hopefully this will shed a small light on a topic hitherto mostly concerned with social exhibitionists. (This will probably get to the question of how games build on character/objective "relationships")
Blog genres
In regards to the genres of blogs, you could easily say there ought to be one for every kind of person you could think of.
In a somewhat easier, more discriminating categorization, I see these "genres":
Professional blogs (Political, Work... anything that ties your "character" into an established role)
Personal blogs (The counter-part of the professional blog)
Blogs part of a "context" (When the blog is used as an intermediary, ex. as part of art, or when it is self-reflective)
A blog is most definitely a remediation or recreation of traditional literary genres, and so it becomes heavily laden with preconceptions from traditional print culture, therefore taking with it many of the subgenres and stylistics found in print. My "taxonomy" of these blogs is in regards to what role the "author" has, not the stylistic approach or based on their informational matter.
I personally don't follow any blog, except perhaps feber.se which is much more of a blog-shaped news site. As a literary phenomenon I see blogs as an interesting thing, but I can't help but feel dually uninterested since the more common, non-artsy, non-academic blog, is all too often centred on topics so personal that they become almost inaccessible to anyone outside the span of the author/blogger.
In a somewhat easier, more discriminating categorization, I see these "genres":
Professional blogs (Political, Work... anything that ties your "character" into an established role)
Personal blogs (The counter-part of the professional blog)
Blogs part of a "context" (When the blog is used as an intermediary, ex. as part of art, or when it is self-reflective)
A blog is most definitely a remediation or recreation of traditional literary genres, and so it becomes heavily laden with preconceptions from traditional print culture, therefore taking with it many of the subgenres and stylistics found in print. My "taxonomy" of these blogs is in regards to what role the "author" has, not the stylistic approach or based on their informational matter.
I personally don't follow any blog, except perhaps feber.se which is much more of a blog-shaped news site. As a literary phenomenon I see blogs as an interesting thing, but I can't help but feel dually uninterested since the more common, non-artsy, non-academic blog, is all too often centred on topics so personal that they become almost inaccessible to anyone outside the span of the author/blogger.
Folksonomies
I don't use that many sites based on folksonomies, except Wikipedia (using folksonomies?!). The idea of letting people input
and create content is a direct democratic implementation of technologies, but this is, just like democracy, prone to be backstabbed by its own good sides; the ease of modification, and the risk of giving equal rights to people misusing them could in a worst-case scenario become its own fall. Evil clairvoyance set aside, letting users form paths and content based on patterns less linear than the traditional "easy-to-follow" guide lines has proven to work as a more flexible, living way to "bump into" information, instead of merely tracking it down (this is more in regards of sites like Youtube and Flickr).
As my own example of a page I use, I (unsurprisingly) wish to choose Wikipedia. Wikipedias core is its decentralized structure, based upon direct user contribution. It has managed to thrive due to the fact that people have taken seriously on their commitment to the information provided on the site.
and create content is a direct democratic implementation of technologies, but this is, just like democracy, prone to be backstabbed by its own good sides; the ease of modification, and the risk of giving equal rights to people misusing them could in a worst-case scenario become its own fall. Evil clairvoyance set aside, letting users form paths and content based on patterns less linear than the traditional "easy-to-follow" guide lines has proven to work as a more flexible, living way to "bump into" information, instead of merely tracking it down (this is more in regards of sites like Youtube and Flickr).
As my own example of a page I use, I (unsurprisingly) wish to choose Wikipedia. Wikipedias core is its decentralized structure, based upon direct user contribution. It has managed to thrive due to the fact that people have taken seriously on their commitment to the information provided on the site.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)