Questions from Burnett

Two questions come immediately to mind:

1. The first one comes from the P2P chapter. Like Burnett, I would posit the the dilemma facing current/coming generations concerns the accessing and ordering of information. With this in mind, I focus our attention to the following questions:

"How can information be transformed from data to intelligence? Or is all of this activity evidence for the degree to which the internet has become a repository of collective intelligence, which means that very different principles of collection and retrival are needed." (152)

I would comment that the internet is becoming a repository, but certainly the problem (always) already existed. How much information lies "dead" in HSSE? How many intelligent films, to refer back to Geoff's contribution a few weeks ago, lie outside of retrival (and if it is outside, is it trivial)? Will the internet signal a shift from collection to organization? (Hint: this year's CCCC conference is organized around "access," not excess)

2. This question comes from his section on video games:

"But how does that structure make it "feel" as if the screen were a useful and exciting place to create and sustain the intense relationships of a game?...These are crucial questions that require further research into the ways computer games have evolved and the synergies that have been created between images and playing." (195)

I think Burnett places too much emphasis on the image. While video game playing is visual, it is also auditory. Moreover, controllers do much to create and sustain relationships--especially since the creation of vibration functions and analogue sticks (emphasis: feel).

Random links for 02-10-05

Courtesy of A Whole Lotta Nothing:
BetterSearch--a Firefox extension for enhancing search engines
Flickr Graph--a social network visualization
Google Maps--self explanatory
INdTV--Independent, citizen television

Cameras--and sight--everywhere

This email came over the nettime list the other day:

"Hello, I am Laura, a security guard at the Vancouver Art Gallery. Through work, I have access to a lot of security cameras. I hacked a way to put one of these online on my Website so you can see it and control it. I love surveillance and keep a web journal or blog of what I see and put up video and images of things that happen."

http://eyesoflaura.org

Eyes of Laura is a stylized version of a relatively new phenomenon: viewing surveillance camera feeds via the web. About a month ago, sites like Boing Boing and Metafilter reported that a simple keyword search on Google could result in links to tons of unsecured webcams. Some even allow pan and zoom controls.

This phenomenon doesn't even get into traffic camera sites, like this one from Georgia's Department of Transportation, which are intended to be publicly viewable.

Projects such as the NYC Surveillance Camera Project attempt to intervene into surveillance culture by posting the addresses of all surveillance cameras in New York City. They explain,

"The intent of this website is to raise awareness of the prevalence of video surveillance cameras in New York City, explain the threat they pose to our individual freedom, begin a long overdue, much needed dialogue on the topic and recommend ways to curb cameras infringement on our right of anonymity and to move and associate freely."

I think many of us would welcome such a site to our localities in order to protect our privacy.

But then, what do we make of something like Amazon's A9 visual yellow pages project, which seems benign, and yet also operates on the same logic of sight? One guy already found his whole family in one of the A9 photos.

Observations? Comments? Connections to our readings or to other relevant theories of new media?

Searching as a form of thinking

My new favorite blog for researching new media info is Clive Thompson’s “Collision Detection.” In "search me" (http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/001110.html) Thompson discusses his reliance on search engines and even goes as far to refer to search engines as “part of [his] basic thought processes.” He cites Steven Johnson’s article “Tool for Thought,” explores the ways he searches for information. He believes that using search engines feels like thinking. Different search results trigger new ideas for him that he may not have come up with on his own. I find this concept fascinating. I guess you could call me “old school” because I still enjoy going to the library and browsing through books. This physical act of browsing helps me trigger new ideas, although it may take a little longer. However, I am becoming more reliant on the internet for research…at least initial research. I think my biggest problem with searching the internet is the over abundance of information. I think I simply get too overwhelmed and don’t know what to do with it. Ideas trigger here and there but don’t fully develop. I find myself bookmarking something, thinking “oh this is important. I’ll read it later.” I find comfort knowing that I don’t necessarily need to take in the information; I can easily pull up the page when I need it. It’s the same with cell phones. I no longer have phone numbers memorized. When I lost my cell phone over the summer, I felt so unconnected. I had to somehow recover all my lost contacts. Thus, it seems as if the information at our fingertips makes us somewhat (for lack of a better term) lazy. Or maybe these memorization / memory retention skills have shifted to new ways of thinking. What they are? Not sure; I haven’t figured it out yet.

New media and reality

The Onion

This seems a little unrealistic, but of course people have videotaped suicide notes. And let us not forget Brandon Vedas, who typed away in a chat room in front of his webcam as he overdosed:

Wikipedia

Vedas's last words, typed in IRC, were: "I told u I was hardcore." Stated Vedas' brother, regarding the chatroom: "It seems like the group mentality really contributed to it. These people treat it like somehow it's not the real world. They forget it's not just words on a screen."

I certainly won't play reactionary and blame the medium. People killed themselves long before IM. However, the "unreal" aspect mentioned above seems interesting. Does the medium insulate the user from reality? What then is reality?

Food for thought. Enjoy your Wednesday.

The camera's eye and physical reality

http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/11/2082

Make certain to click on the video links on the right side of the page. Notice also that these films are from the turn of last century.

Expandable blog posts in the works

I just stumbled across this information on How to make expanable blog posts in blogger. I'll be implementing this on our site shortly. So, this means you can compose longer posts, and they won't interfere with the readability of the site.

Leisuretown

Below is a link to one of the real treasures of the internet:

Leisuretown (adult themes and language, blah, blah, blah)

Leisuretown is basically a web comic, although it is applicable to this class because of the techniques used in its production. I won't go too deeply into it here (although I'll be happy to wax on and on if you're curious), but basically the author takes real snapshots of areas around San Francisco and then overlays shots of the bendable figurines that constitute the cast. Then he adds props and text. Obviously, this method takes exceedingly long and requires considerable digital photoediting skills. Or at least it did. The site has been offline for a few years now. What you're looking at is an archive.

Think about how tricky things like shadows are using this method, and look at how well they are pulled off. Also, notice that the characters have only one facial expression, and none of them has a name, so the artist has to find other ways to communicate emotion.

The pick of the litter, and one of the most dense works I have seen in a long time (and I spend most of my hours trolling the internet looking), is Q.A. Confidential. The work has an almost Joyceian amount of cultural reference in it, but you needn't know the whole rhizome to enjoy the misanthropy. Take some time looking at the panels, not just ripping through them. They are dense with detail and reference. You want new media? This is it.

Yes, they are chock full o' curious sexuality, homophobia, racism, and such and such. You can detach yourself and have a discussion about the obligation of art to be moral and hurf burf useful liberal arts degree, or you could just experience them. Here are some reviews:

Bob's Comic Reviews (bottom of the page)
USS Catastrophe

And here's an interview with the elusive and suicidal creator Tristan A. Farnon:

The Comics Journal

It includes jems like these: "Didn't Dan Clowes talk about how we live in a society where nothing is considered 'real' until it's turned into a movie? If your images are dancing around or making noise, you're not doing comics. You're involved in some kind of techno-riffic multimedia nonsense. [. . .] Don't yank my focus away from the narrative and onto your dopey cleverness. Why not just do a fucking Terry Gilliam deal and make your character's mouth flap open and shut next to a word balloon? Enough already, just stop it. [. . .] I've worked at Apple, Adobe, Netscape, Macromedia - each at a time when Internet content tools were empowering young people to focus their energy into hideous, noisy creations that went nowhere. Dumb animation, or glorified movie credits. [. . .] In many ways, I'm ashamed to have been part of these companies. I feel like a Nazi doctor hiding his past."