Monday, 4 January 2010

WEEK 3: Manovich essay discussion

In response to a discussion about Lev Manovich's essay about
The Practice of Everyday (media) Life:

It would be safe to state that there is a lot one can say about only one aspect of the internet. The compelling nature of the discussion we had in class lies in the impact digital environments has had and is having on our actual lives. The internet having been introduced and shuffled in to public domains throughout the last 25 years. Generations of the future will be born into an era where the internet is in use and used across the world. It has shifted from being an area used for publication to a realm of communication, which is very significant fluctuation. The internet content is increasingly produced by amateurs and this has particular consequence as it is an example that many more people are becoming able to express them selves and communicate in a creative way exploiting digital environments. Every continent is in some way on line, all countries and potentially all people could communicate with each other. Through out the discussion, questions emerged that challenged how this effects our lives. 

Here is lecture expressing a positive assessment of the facilities available to us through internet communication and the implication it can have on physical relationships.

The first part of the essay has lots of statistics about media use, can you add any personal experiences to support or contradict these facts? One example of misguided internet statistics lies in the fact that users are continually shifting how, when and where they communicate. With the increasing use of mobile technology and mobile internet, some people today can be 'online' all day long with out much inconvenience to their lives or routines. The internet is a fluid field (or pool) of data with users logging in and out all the time, individuals signing up to news letters, remaining logged on to sites for days, having their emails added to databases and so on and so fourth. Manovich's statistics were perhaps completely true at one point in time, 2008 is recent history. The fact that this essay was written in 2008 and the internet has since then already changed dramatically makes it easy to disagree with their certitude. 
One example of change being the increase in users of twitter. As long  users continue using, digital social migrations will continue to spread in to a variety of new and already existing networks. By writing about change there is an indication that such things are inevitable. 
I will use myself as an example: I have not used my my-space account for a long time (over half a year perhaps). Statistically, because I am still registered I am still a user. As Manovich states himself, ‘The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of Web 2.0 culture – its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.’? So perhaps the methods we exploit to gather and analyse data will bustle into methods that integrate the mappability of web 2.0 and real time analysis with be more capable and/or these methods will be more adaptive or general terms that firmly refer or anchor themselves to the particular point time. 
Indicates, 25.6 % of the population of the world having used the internet for September 30, 2009. The deomographic numbers are based on data gathered by the US census beuro. This graph might be out dated in a only a few months. (Please click for greater detail or follow the link to to see how they are changing)

Manovich suggests the merging and even reversing of De Certeau’s categories of ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, do you agree with this point? Is there a democraticing of media or is it still in the hands of ‘big business’

Like the many other millions of internet users, I get sent adverts (or spam) to my inbox, with out fail these messages either go to junk, which is seldom checked and always deleted (a method employed by many of the receivers of such information). Its a very interesting time for business because it is so competitive and people are very sensitive to information privacy, making them perhaps doubtful of intrusive spam.  EBAY is one significant development in terms of trading. Users can be sellers and reach potential buyers. The advertising partly takes place in the searching process as all things are categorised. Reputation, nonetheless does NOT cease to be of importance, people like to have a reason to trust whoever they are buying from.
Adverts appear when I access my facebook account but considering all the information in the 'about me' section of my profile is utter nonsense its very unlikely any advertisers with be able to get through to me. The only extent to which advertising on Facebook has directly effected my existence is when I have been made aware of a particular event which has appeared interesting to me and brought to my attention by someone I know. So the element of a person interacting with you still seems to be very important in a successful internet commerce. 
I think the influence of the internet becoming more democratic and is slipping out of the hands of big businesses into the hands of people for example who that are happy to promote ideas or events for free and out of interest. This signifies an interesting view of the future for modern economics (which is quite difficult for me to get my head around.) There will always be a demand for something, and somewhere some one will always be willing to provide a solution to for fill it. So there will always be opportunity for business, but not in a conventional hierarchical way.

Takes for example the success of WIKIPEDIA, which is free and exists as verified user generated content in comparison to to the diminishing ENCATRA, which you had to pay for. Similarly the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE (is also user generated).

There certainly exists a strategy and tactic in the way the internet is shuffled between users when money is involved. The goal to materialise revenue via a far reaching medium- the internet, cheaper that any other kind of media and user friendly, it could potentially develop a massive clientele. Some of whom may without the use of internet may never be made aware of your services and how they can benefit them from the comfort of their own homes. This concept is extremely attractive to business. Even when primarily there is no financial transition being made from a network or database, the database in use will still certainly have value because of its potential commercial value. People often discuss their concerns about social websites such as facebook, twitter, my-space and to a greater extent second life. Concerned because of privacy issues that are embroiled in the fact that their personal information could fabricate revenue for someone. Another concern is the influence that online socialising has on relationships because a broad physical experience of the world (socially, objectively, personally, etc) is much better for us in comparison to residing within one or few realms which do in-fact mute some of the greatest aspects of being human e.g: regardless of how far interactive technologies could go, optically or haptically there is nothing quite as good as a REAL breath of fresh air. Surely? 
Questions concerning the ownership of data on facebook for example yields intrigue from users. The answer is that the data provides revenue for some one or some group of peoples somewhere beyond the internet. Facebook make it impossible for you to completely shut down/erase your profile, you can merely suspend or freeze it. Only recently did this enterprise hold the rights over all things published and posted, and the content on Facebook is only vaguely real considering it goes through such a rigorous selection process by the individual. Leading me to assume that as there is no real, informative meaning to the information on facebook (although it can be at times entertaining) this however is that the trivial pool provided by facebook has value. It seems that it can be a target indicator to advertisers, and the persistence of internet advertising directs me to conclude that SOME revenue is actually made. Facebook can only really indicate some facts concerning peoples lifestyles e.g. photos may reveal what people get up to on the weekend which may (or may not) be of importance to employers when selecting employees.  It is interesting that people are selective of the information they post or allow to be posted about them selves despite this fact. I like to contemplate who they are trying to appeal too if such is the case. It is easy to be skeptical of such networks internet, although it is an unavoidable response to how it has changed our time. Perhaps its only a matter of time before big businesses will have no choice but to adopt the role of the average user to be successful. Like many wolves in sheeps clothing.

What do you make of Manovich’s statement, ‘ it is only a matter of time before constant broadcasting of one’s live becomes as common as email’? It is already possible to continually broadcast one's life, regarding you have continual internet connection and some mobile devise with a camera that allows you to do so. The benefit of continual broad casting being as common as email is hard for me to understand, its seems like it would be really boring and unnecessary to watch (unless perhaps for vital research or art? This idea reminds me a bit of the film The Trueman Show). 
Nonetheless, twitter is extremely popular and concerns itself with thousands of one sentence 'broad cast' from thousands of contributers.

Here is a link to interesting, paradoxical and rather sad counters comparing internet activity to child death's related to hunger:

No comments:

Post a Comment