A video about www spin off 'the grid'. For sharing processing and storage space between researchers.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Monday, 1 February 2010
Friday, 8 January 2010
WEEK 9: I was in Paris however.......
I was absent for WEEK 9, having a smashing time in Paris working and playing and blah blah. What I can gather took place using the WIKI concerning week 9 is that there were more interesting discussions. The WIKI states the following:
The session started with the following statement:
digital environments create the possibility for . . .
everyone was asked to consider what they might add to this statement and we looked at in again after watching each talk.
talk 1: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
talk 2: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/clay_shirky_how_cellphones_twitter_facebook_can_make_history.html
Further notes and video: http://zx31.com/elective/
These are very interesting and relevant to my post: Who or WHAT is Rupert Murdoch http://positivenonpositive.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-or-what-is-rupert-murdoch.html
These are the responses people in the group came up with concerning the following statement:
digital environments create the possibility for . . .
1) Increasing the impact of the individual voice
2) Mass action
3) Less institutionalised, professionaly driven world moving towards one that is more socially driven.
4) Breakdown of institutional hierarchy.
5) The human archetype.
6) Equality for expression, instability of information access (loss of history).
7) Having a choice to find the right answer.
8) Freedom of expression.
9) Powerful, global group influence.
10) Mass collaboration of individuals.
11) Access to hi-technology (rejection?)
12) Bitesize media consumption.
13) Less linear and geographic based communication/societies/communities.
14) A more level playing field, producers and consumers are one.
15) Complete exposure.
16) Diluted power structures.
17) Positive and negative.
18) Ease?
19) Escape from reality?
20) Triangular to circular (reference to 4. Breakdown of institutional hierarchy.)
It is difficult to understand the precise meaning of these points. From what I can make out they all hold validity. The individual is certainly able to make an impact (in support of 1) although not often on their own. Amidst the immense noise that constitutes the internet or perhaps the "the vast ocean of trivial musings and mind-scat wedged in the intellectual sewage pipe" (To quote from Jack Sharp 's interesting commentary again) it is not all that clear how to filter the voice of an individual or how to understand their message or their needs. Referring to the comments about mass collaboration and action (2 and 10) it is these that enable the exposure of a powerful, global group influence (9). Weather the influence is conscious (e.g. planned group action) or not is not always clear however it is not always necessary to clarify this. In the example of the 2009 earthquake in China, the masses of people who were uploading information about it said something very clear about it because it was such a dramatic event. The nature of the event was violent, unexpected and was effecting real life instantly. It was worth talking about it, it effected so many people who all had the means to share information concerning how it effected them at the same instant that it was happening, be it a photo up load or on twitter etc. Similarly it was something people outside China were very interested in. The so called great firewall of China could not predict such a surge of information, similarly it could not predict an earthquake. This indicates none other than the obvious; that massive Earthquakes, events and dramatic events are a big deal when they happen, of great public interest for the clear fact that they effect people so much and that such things are definitely worth preparing for.
The internet leads us to assume it encourages freedom of expression (8) because with out the additions by people the internet would not be as immense, far reaching or as diverse as it is. Also, almost anyone and every one can and could start some kind of blog or join some kind of network from which they can personally express some kind of opinion and/or add some kind of information (no matter how trivial, meaning full or relevant that information might be). Which is the opportunity digital software's use to be made user friendly- and democratic in reference to 4.
Take two examples of 3D software as an example: MAYA- A 'professional' 3D software which is quite expensive, complicated to learn and immensely capable of highly meticulous operations Vs. Google 3D, which is free for everyone, fairly self explanatory and still yields some of the greatness achievable with MAYA but never to such degrees of accuracy. If I wanted to make something simple, like a ball with in a ball, I may as well use the free-ware.
The internet almost teases out new technologies from individuals and demands they be democratised. Probably a result of the high volume of internet users and their human desire and nature to respond, e.g with the creation of interactive websites, animations and games etc and how people in-turn create a reply to these ideas.
The digital environment it one that is generative and so simplistic in its most basic form, which in principal is packet switching. This is an idea as clear as day yet it's applications are potentially infinitely complicated. The fact that this form of communication is based on sharing a circuit is as symbolic as it is practical.
The internet leads us to assume it encourages freedom of expression (8) because with out the additions by people the internet would not be as immense, far reaching or as diverse as it is. Also, almost anyone and every one can and could start some kind of blog or join some kind of network from which they can personally express some kind of opinion and/or add some kind of information (no matter how trivial, meaning full or relevant that information might be). Which is the opportunity digital software's use to be made user friendly- and democratic in reference to 4.
Take two examples of 3D software as an example: MAYA- A 'professional' 3D software which is quite expensive, complicated to learn and immensely capable of highly meticulous operations Vs. Google 3D, which is free for everyone, fairly self explanatory and still yields some of the greatness achievable with MAYA but never to such degrees of accuracy. If I wanted to make something simple, like a ball with in a ball, I may as well use the free-ware.
The internet almost teases out new technologies from individuals and demands they be democratised. Probably a result of the high volume of internet users and their human desire and nature to respond, e.g with the creation of interactive websites, animations and games etc and how people in-turn create a reply to these ideas.
The digital environment it one that is generative and so simplistic in its most basic form, which in principal is packet switching. This is an idea as clear as day yet it's applications are potentially infinitely complicated. The fact that this form of communication is based on sharing a circuit is as symbolic as it is practical.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
More tasks for WEEK 7: Murdoch (again)
With reference to the following article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/10/newpaper-internet-paywall-murdoch-live
There is something quite unfortunate about the article. I do not usually purchase newspapers, I tend to read either on those the internet of the ones that come across my path on public transport, in a cafe, library or read those that others have bought (which is a bit cheeky perhaps). These days there is always a lone newspaper flapping about somewhere, waiting to be saved from the rain, recycled or something. And although I enjoy of the physical aesthetics of publication and print I rarely feel the desire to own my own newspaper. The most convincing and moving stories are those devised with a creative, diverse, rousing and/or amusing use of language. Peoples opinions are valid and can take into consideration factual information about an event or idea but can rarely represent it, so I am therefore naturally skeptical about some of the claims newspapers make.
One daunting thing about Rupert's move is that it might encourage others to charge for information, I agree that 'everything comes at a price' but I disagree that it is helpful to builds barriers around internet access to information, especially when those publications are basically editorials. Its a bit ridiculous I think. An almost cartoon-like, condescending slap in the face from Rupert's lucrative white glove of profit-making. Economic means 'pertaining to the production and use of income' and economical is 'avoiding waste, being careful of resources'. Rupert is taking that concept against how it relates to modern communication and there is little proof that the production of income under his rule is being used in a most effective way, its like he is wiggling down a narrow road. Social enterprise could to be the way to enhance content in the best interest of the public.
One daunting thing about Rupert's move is that it might encourage others to charge for information, I agree that 'everything comes at a price' but I disagree that it is helpful to builds barriers around internet access to information, especially when those publications are basically editorials. Its a bit ridiculous I think. An almost cartoon-like, condescending slap in the face from Rupert's lucrative white glove of profit-making. Economic means 'pertaining to the production and use of income' and economical is 'avoiding waste, being careful of resources'. Rupert is taking that concept against how it relates to modern communication and there is little proof that the production of income under his rule is being used in a most effective way, its like he is wiggling down a narrow road. Social enterprise could to be the way to enhance content in the best interest of the public.
QUESTIONS:
2. Is Rupert Murdock correct in saying that there is not enough advertising revenue to go round, therefore news papers and other news providers will have to charge for their content?
Rupert Murdoch has now declared the free ride over. His titles – the Times, Sunday Times and others – will be obtainable in some shape or form online only through a credit card number. Such charges are already levied for the nether regions of the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. But attempts to put mainline news and comment behind a "paywall" have in the past foundered, because of the ease of circumvention and the bruised egos of writers suddenly denied the bulk of their "market".Murdoch's move is comparable to his attack on union-led newspaper costs when he moved his British titles to Wapping in 1985. Then the rest of the industry jeered and rushed to undermine him, while privately praying for him to succeed. When he did they rushed to imitate him. Britain's newspapers enjoyed two decades of prosperity and choice unparalleled in the western world. Now Murdoch wants to transform not costs but revenues. Getting history to repeat itself will not be easy. The bogus idea that "news is free information" has captivated a generation of media managers. It is like saying fruit is free food or wind is free energy. As James Harkin, the author of Cyburbia, wrote in the Guardian last week, newspapers were "seduced by the evangelical gee-whizzery of the electro-hippies". Editorial machismo was boosted by multimillion "unique hits". The truth was that online newspapers were free-sheets for slow learners.
Note: A very big priority to any newspapers is to fill pages, so that they have something to sell- I would like to say a little bit about free news papers. They are free, sustained by advertising revenue but upon reading any free paper it becomes clear that quality had been compromised for its freeness. In my opinion the metro is rubbish, lets be honest and the london evening standard is no better, if I want to read one, Ill pick one up, but I do not take these sources as anything more than editorials and I would much rather read them on line. Online newspapers generally contain diluted versions of their printed counterparts. The sense of obligation to charge for this superficial, edited content, seems a bit odd, perhaps that is all people what to read in which case perhaps the use revenue earned from charging could change this. But this is mere assumption, and regardless of this the content would only account for a fraction of available information.
Concerning "not enough advertising revenue to go round", I assume that this refers to all the small departments that contribute to the production, distribution, proofing, broadcasting, management and creation of news and advertising. Alot of people work in this area and alot of people need to be payed for their work, but this is seems to be within an aging framework. Having sympathised, I am curious to know about the state and location of internet advertising revenue that is made by being online? There is something in Rupert's motive that is not entirely clear to me and the kind of revenue Rupert Murdoch is talking about appears to be from a time who's end is drawing nigh. Short term solutions that profit a minority leads to an influx, imbalance and collapse in the long term.
Rupert charges people to watch sport, news and all sorts of programs on Sky and then collects the advertising revenue. TV is not my concern although mentioning it shows that he believes it is correct to charge for information. Television can not reach as far and it is a one way form of communication, it talks and the viewer sits and listens. This will inevitably be replaced but something more interesting in the future. Its unnecessary to simply start charging for content. Rupert's enterprises already build up huge fractions of economy, by all means I am not an economist, so I could be utterly wrong but I just dont understand how these enterprises are distributing their income when they say there is not enough to go round, this seems inefficient.
This presentation illustrates a relevant point regarding business.
Here are two comments from the page under the article:
10 Aug 2009, 10:54PM
"I purchase several newspapers everyday, local, national, and international. The online experience so far is superficial for content and also behind the speed with which I can assimilate what I need from a newspaper. When I have been away from an internet connection for a while, I read a book- a -day. Recently, on holiday away from the internet I realised what I was missing ( or not missing) and will continue to be a print junkie thanks."
ThomasReturns
10 Aug 2009, 10:56PM
"I'm more concerned about the disappearing virtual rain forests! The mountains of virtual sawdust being pulped through the relentless virtual paper mills. And of course, the real power stations polluting the real atmosphere to fire up all those naughty Guardian readers' computers. In any case, the internet is more like a giant reference library than a news-agent. That's why Murdoch will surely fail. But he'll probably bring down the Times in the process."
Rupert's got too much money to fail hasn't he? Maybe some one else will fail, get fired or perhaps this moneywall will only be temporary?
ThomasReturns
10 Aug 2009, 10:56PM
"I'm more concerned about the disappearing virtual rain forests! The mountains of virtual sawdust being pulped through the relentless virtual paper mills. And of course, the real power stations polluting the real atmosphere to fire up all those naughty Guardian readers' computers. In any case, the internet is more like a giant reference library than a news-agent. That's why Murdoch will surely fail. But he'll probably bring down the Times in the process."
Rupert's got too much money to fail hasn't he? Maybe some one else will fail, get fired or perhaps this moneywall will only be temporary?
3. What do you think a Murdock shaped internet would look like in the future if his ideas were successful?
If Rupert's plans succeed then they could be capable of making the internet less exciting and have inhibiting results on our access to information on a larger scale. Then again for every action there is a reaction and so one certain thing is that the way in which people spread and read content will take new forms that will flitter around Murdoch's plans even though parts of the internet will be segregated, but there will be very little he can do about people overlooking regulations like this. Attempting to apply a hierarchical structure on the internet might have little effect on the overall shape of the internet, it would be like trying to put a triangle shaped block into the circular hole of a jigsaw- it will not fit well. It cant really work, the web's volume is predominantly built by user content so people could (for example) write about content that must be payed for to be seem and there is no rule/law that states this is illegal because everyone is entitled to their view and the internet is a medium through which this can propagate. What it represents is one man's financial empire desperately trying to expand their territory in to a virtual realm in which so many average people can and will contribute what they can to reach out to one another. To deprive them of the freedom to do this would be illegal and an infringement of their basic human rights. Not everyone can make a TV channel or mass produce printed media but all people who can use the internet are capable of spreading information and getting attention. There are greater threats to professional journalists, photographers etc but I don't think they can be shut down so easily, professionals can and will have to devise alternative strategies available to them in order to work and get payed.
WEEK 7: A web of opinions (more discussions- Different points of view)
INFORMATION FROM THE WIKI PAGE: We looked at 5 views of the internet as outlined by Charles Leadbeater.
1. Just a tool
3. big but BAD: There are 3 reasons why some people see the internet as bad:
4. big and getting bigger FAST: For those holding this view, they see the internet as mainly good but there are different views as to why it is good:
a. more diversity, choice, frictionless markets, free stuff, choice, capitalist cornucopia, long tail
b. community & collaboration, commons production, peer to peer, non market, non hierarchical, open source, wikipedia, we think, communitarian utopia.
c. different options for organising ourselves, get the things that matter done, innovation & knowledge sharing, collaboration, professionals & amateurs (but will all this social networking, new conversations, actually help in tackling major issues like environmental problems?)
5. big, good - could become badgrowth of the internet = pollution in the internet
spam, malware, surveillance, invasion of privacy, trivia, chaos, abuse of net = clogged up
This view sees the current self-organisation as only a passing phase, it needs traditional control someone to organise it - this leads to paid for access the internet needs someone, business or maybe governments to regulate it, clean it up, build areas of easy quick access, free from spam, trivia etc paid for access would of course mean that not everyone would have the same access. It is interesting that we talk about THE internet, one internet. It wasn't always like that, for example Compuserve and AOL started as walled off parts of the world wide web.
Implications
It is important to be aware of these different views so that as you walk into this new and ever expanding world, you have your eyes wide open and are able to see the implications for your own creative practice.
Matt is a 32-year-old deadbeat from Connecticut who used to think that all he ever wanted to do in life was make and play videogames. Matt achieved this goal pretty early and enjoyed it for a while, but eventually realized there might be other stuff he was missing out on. In February of 2003, he quit his job in Brisbane, Australia and used the money he'd saved to wander around Asia until it ran out. He made this site so he could keep his family and friends updated about where he is. A few months into his trip, a travel buddy gave Matt an idea. They were standing around taking pictures in Hanoi, and his friend said "Hey, why don't you stand over there and do that dance. I'll record it." He was referring to a particular dance Matt does. It's actually the only dance Matt does. He does it badly. Anyway, this turned out to be a very good idea. A couple years later, someone found the video online and passed it to someone else, who passed it to someone else, and so on. Now Matt is quasi-famous as "That guy who dances on the internet. No, not that guy. The other one. No, not him either. I'll send you the link. It's funny."
1. Just a tool
the importance of the internet is overblown it's the same as we have always done
- just quicker, bigger audience eg. ebay is just a large and convenient flea market.
2. big but becoming dull: dull = integrated into everyday life. Big changes can lead to big gains but only after the technological changes have become integrated but it's a long time before we really see what impact the internet will have, if any. Saying Big changes can lead to big gains but only after the technological changes have become integrated contradicts big but becoming dull. It doesn't consider time, that the internet will continue long after all the living of this generation die, nor does it consider the acceleration of technological developments or what it might be like for someone in the world who is just learning for the first time about the internet. Digital environments allow us to create new ways of using the internet, and people will always be renewing and adding modified updated content.
2. big but becoming dull: dull = integrated into everyday life. Big changes can lead to big gains but only after the technological changes have become integrated but it's a long time before we really see what impact the internet will have, if any. Saying Big changes can lead to big gains but only after the technological changes have become integrated contradicts big but becoming dull. It doesn't consider time, that the internet will continue long after all the living of this generation die, nor does it consider the acceleration of technological developments or what it might be like for someone in the world who is just learning for the first time about the internet. Digital environments allow us to create new ways of using the internet, and people will always be renewing and adding modified updated content.
3. big but BAD: There are 3 reasons why some people see the internet as bad:
1. killing experts & professionals - mass amateurism
2. dependency on web - eroding independent thought - dumbing down
3. eroding privacy & identity4. big and getting bigger FAST: For those holding this view, they see the internet as mainly good but there are different views as to why it is good:
a. more diversity, choice, frictionless markets, free stuff, choice, capitalist cornucopia, long tail
b. community & collaboration, commons production, peer to peer, non market, non hierarchical, open source, wikipedia, we think, communitarian utopia.
c. different options for organising ourselves, get the things that matter done, innovation & knowledge sharing, collaboration, professionals & amateurs (but will all this social networking, new conversations, actually help in tackling major issues like environmental problems?)
5. big, good - could become bad
spam, malware, surveillance, invasion of privacy, trivia, chaos, abuse of net = clogged up
This view sees the current self-organisation as only a passing phase, it needs traditional control someone to organise it - this leads to paid for access the internet needs someone, business or maybe governments to regulate it, clean it up, build areas of easy quick access, free from spam, trivia etc paid for access would of course mean that not everyone would have the same access. It is interesting that we talk about THE internet, one internet. It wasn't always like that, for example Compuserve and AOL started as walled off parts of the world wide web.
It is important to be aware of these different views so that as you walk into this new and ever expanding world, you have your eyes wide open and are able to see the implications for your own creative practice.
* Traditional control/organisation is not versatile in a virtual environment such as the internet which is ever changing and ever growing. It thus follows that the way we use, view, organise, control and influence this environment must be adaptable to the substance in question. There is an ever increasing abundance of information that can not traditionally be dealt with. This is what's exciting about technology today and change will make the best of it. The internet IS a tool, I agree with this, but the fact that it is such a diverse and effective one means that what it is used to do sometimes has implications on people that really effects how they feel, what they know and what they want to do, so its probably a little bit more than 'just' a tool. Just like how the printing press was more than a tool. All grand technological and cultural advances have a good side and a bad side. The good (in my opinion) always overrides that bad, mainly because things like photosynthesis astound me to such an extent that I oblivious to overriding negativity, although not totally ignorant in being aware of negative things like manipulation, fraud, theft and abuse that would take place with or with out the internet.
NOTE and question: Ebay is not a flea market at all, its an auction. There is no haggling on ebay, only bidding perhaps an element of betting. Its not comparable to a flea market at all because the whole point of a flea market if the physical experience of the masses of old junk you can find- this aesthetic is integral to the purpose of the flea market, even though there is loads of junk on ebay too. Similarly one could probably sell a broken glass in a wet cardboard box for 2p at a flea market, or at least try but its highly unlikely that anyone would do this on ebay (not impossible though of course). For starters this is not cost effective on a pay account. Its notable the impact of the revenue of ebay and paypal the impact of this on modern economics and our relation ship with it and things like online banking, shopping etc.
NOTE and question: Ebay is not a flea market at all, its an auction. There is no haggling on ebay, only bidding perhaps an element of betting. Its not comparable to a flea market at all because the whole point of a flea market if the physical experience of the masses of old junk you can find- this aesthetic is integral to the purpose of the flea market, even though there is loads of junk on ebay too. Similarly one could probably sell a broken glass in a wet cardboard box for 2p at a flea market, or at least try but its highly unlikely that anyone would do this on ebay (not impossible though of course). For starters this is not cost effective on a pay account. Its notable the impact of the revenue of ebay and paypal the impact of this on modern economics and our relation ship with it and things like online banking, shopping etc.
This stance neglects that SELF ORGANISATION automatically takes the most effective route. Education and awareness through the internet concerning dangers and forums where people can discuss this is definitely favorable over 'traditional control/organisation/leadership'. What is exactly meant by this anyway? It does not make sense to me, he could mean a feudal system equivalent for all I know. Governance and leadership should always be a response to what is needed, be adaptable and relative to its time. Else any possible regulation processes could threaten progress by being outdated.
QUOTE: Self-organization is a process of attraction and repulsion in which the internal organization of a system, normally an open system, increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source. Self-organizing systems typically (but not always) display emergent properties.
Here is video from http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/. Below is an extract from his website that is an excellent example of the collaborative nature of the internet and what that nature can lead too and how it connects to physical environments all over the world.
Matt is a 32-year-old deadbeat from Connecticut who used to think that all he ever wanted to do in life was make and play videogames. Matt achieved this goal pretty early and enjoyed it for a while, but eventually realized there might be other stuff he was missing out on. In February of 2003, he quit his job in Brisbane, Australia and used the money he'd saved to wander around Asia until it ran out. He made this site so he could keep his family and friends updated about where he is. A few months into his trip, a travel buddy gave Matt an idea. They were standing around taking pictures in Hanoi, and his friend said "Hey, why don't you stand over there and do that dance. I'll record it." He was referring to a particular dance Matt does. It's actually the only dance Matt does. He does it badly. Anyway, this turned out to be a very good idea. A couple years later, someone found the video online and passed it to someone else, who passed it to someone else, and so on. Now Matt is quasi-famous as "That guy who dances on the internet. No, not that guy. The other one. No, not him either. I'll send you the link. It's funny."
The response to the first video brought Matt to the attention of the nice people at Stride gum. They asked Matt if he'd be interested in taking another trip around the world to make a new video. Matt asked if they'd be paying for it. They said yes. Matt thought this sounded like another very good idea.
In 2006, Matt took a 6 month trip through 39 countries on all 7 continents. In that time, he danced a great deal.
The second video made Matt even more quasi-famous. In fact, for a brief period in July, he was semi-famous.
Things settled down again, and then in 2007 Matt went back to Stride with another idea. He realized his bad dancing wasn't actually all that interesting, and that other people were much better at being bad at it. He showed them his inbox, which, as a result of his semi-famousness, was overflowing with emails from all over the planet. He told them he wanted to travel around the world one more time and invite the people who'd written him to come out and dance too.
The intro of this presentation in 2008 will give you a summary of Matt's dancing all over the world followed by a lecture by Dr. Jeff Sutherland about how high performance depends on the self-organizing capability of teams.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
WEEK 4: Video responses
Here are some interesting video responses about how the world is changing because of digital environments becoming more assessable to people.
There exists a paradox in the fact that digital environments can resemble a more humane and diverse way to manage, communicate, share, create and govern in contrast to cases of individual users who devote the majority of their time to online socialising in opposed to physical socialising. Maybe to the detriment of their physical health? I don't know, but I say this because we have bodies to use them to express and move ourselves. Having said this, thanks to mobile technologies it is easier now than ever before for us to be online all while your moving and do so all day with out must physical hindrance.
We are able to make independent rational decisions about our future and the internet offers us more access to one another and to old or new information. We invented the internet and it is by nature generative and based on sharing circuits and data so it goes with out saying that 'the machine' to some extent is us and that we are it.
The user interface (also known as human computer interface or man-machine interface (MMI)) is the aggregate of means by which people—the users—interact with thesystem—a particular machine, device, computer program or other complex tool. The user interface provides means of:
There exists a paradox in the fact that digital environments can resemble a more humane and diverse way to manage, communicate, share, create and govern in contrast to cases of individual users who devote the majority of their time to online socialising in opposed to physical socialising. Maybe to the detriment of their physical health? I don't know, but I say this because we have bodies to use them to express and move ourselves. Having said this, thanks to mobile technologies it is easier now than ever before for us to be online all while your moving and do so all day with out must physical hindrance.
We are able to make independent rational decisions about our future and the internet offers us more access to one another and to old or new information. We invented the internet and it is by nature generative and based on sharing circuits and data so it goes with out saying that 'the machine' to some extent is us and that we are it.
The user interface (also known as human computer interface or man-machine interface (MMI)) is the aggregate of means by which people—the users—interact with thesystem—a particular machine, device, computer program or other complex tool. The user interface provides means of:
Here is an extract from his homepage:
"IDEAS IN PROGRESS
Why relationships are central to innovative public services solutions: a state of relationships
The Art of With : draft of my essay for Cornerhouse, Manchester can be downloaded here
The Art of With is about whether the web is creating a more open, participative and collaborative approach to culture and art, and whether that is a good thing.
You can also download the essay, comment on the draft and make your own point at the Cornerhouse site - www.cornerhouse.org/theartofwith
My long draft response to the British government's Digital Britain report can be downloaded here
The Search for a New Capitalism: a speculative essay for The Spectator, can be found here"
There is no stopping internet use, or preventing the encouragement for more participants to use it. I think it definitely is an open, participative and collaborative approach to culture and art. People are curious about each other and the internet allows them to discover more about what was previously inaccessible. It has physically effected more people than any other medium and some of the innovations people have created on it are extremely clever, interactive and fun to use. I do not consider it the MOST OPEN participative and collaborative approach to culture and art, for starters one needs a means to be online (but this can be done through an affordable hand-held devise). I consider it rivaled by real-life physical interactive events and arts. These may not summon the same audiences that are online (due to the sheer volume of that audience) nor does live physical work need the same type of cunning required to make the most the diverse digital medium, but live physical collaborative events are very important as they demand a tactile, tangible, 3-Dimensional dexterity that only yields rewards upon physical experiences of such concrete things.
Of course these two combined, the internet allowing a means to spread real-life events is currently the whole point. Recorded online broadcasts of important events or collaborative arts are one of the great attractions the internet offers us, and is one of the reasons why we turn to it. Its ability to facilitate communication and the variety of ways in which we can do this makes it collaborative and participative.
http://www.everyoneforever.com/
Of course these two combined, the internet allowing a means to spread real-life events is currently the whole point. Recorded online broadcasts of important events or collaborative arts are one of the great attractions the internet offers us, and is one of the reasons why we turn to it. Its ability to facilitate communication and the variety of ways in which we can do this makes it collaborative and participative.
http://www.everyoneforever.com/
Whether the internet's influence is a good thing or not is an important to consider. In essence it is and was designed to enable the transfer on information (e.g. data or ideas) and it one we should definitely endeavor to improve and maintain. The information we share (e.g. Ideas) has however more profound implications on individuals now than because of their meaning. As people grow closer to the internet and its use spreads further and faster this is increasingly the case. What ever your view on the matter may be, the fact is that this technology will not cease to grow. People want to use it because we want to know about the other things people are doing, be it art, events, organisations, trivia or an important discovery. A good out come would work in our favor, so its in our best interest to encourage open and positive use.
Saturday, 14 November 2009
Interactive internet stuff: FOLDIT and Richard's Loops
I found this performance on youtube using an MPC 1000 and recorded samples of Mozart's 'Ronda Alla Turca': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gN4H1vRsw7Y
Its shows some more extent to which the digital environment can expand our creative capacities. I though this was an excellent example because you can clearly see and hear exactly how and how well this MCP has exploited a digitised performance of Mozart's piece, a basic drum loop and some good timing. It introduces potential in a really clear way. (Listen to Ronda Alla Turca if you do not already know it).
I found Richard Houghton's youtube channel and then his website. An interesting feature of his website is that it allows you to mix loops he has made. Making it whoely interactive and dependent on the internet for its success. It allows many different combinations through use of his website on the internet, perhaps an infinitely large number of combinations (in theory) of 9 simple looped sounds.
A very large volume of combinations is only possible through using the internet. Have a look at his website: http://www.richardhoughten.com/
FOLDIT (Online problem solving game)
Similarly: http://fold.it/portal/
and wiki page: http://foldit.wikia.com/wiki/FoldIt_Wiki
This experiment depends on internet interaction to for fill its intentions. 'FoldIt' is an online game in which humans try to solve one of the hardest computational problems in biophysics: protein folding. Almost like trial and improvement the success of its interactive nature is due to the fact that the more people try/build/make/fold/etc different varieties the more likely the program is able to find a solution to a protein folding problem testing the limits of the game with existing problems with known solutions.
FROM PHYSICS WORLD Volume 22 Number 7 July 2009: "FOLDIT draws on the idle hours of several thousand data-crunchers for help in solving scientific puzzles. FOLDIT is all about biophysics. The project's goal is to understand how proteins- the chains of amino acids that drive processes inside living cells- fold themselves into a myriad of different shapes. But the most striking difference is that FOLDIT's protein folding operators are actual human beings, and the datasets they are sifting are disguised as an amazingly addictive computer game."
Its educational, user friendly, Tetris-like by nature and takes advantage of the human penchant for pattern spotting. It outsources these problems to any one with a computer and spare time, seeing what the game is capable of telling us about interactive problem solving in the hope that human players can one day tackle protein-folding problems that have no current solution.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
WEEK 1
WEEK 1's introduction to the Digital Environment elective drew my attention to the different between the things we learn about the world that are objective, real and in clear existence just waiting to be understood against the aesthetics humans so infamously create and construct. That we can all say (when speaking of a certain bird that can fly e.g. pigeon) 'That bird can fly' but we will not all say 'that bird is beautiful'- Aesthetics are constructed, and subjective. They depend on your preferences and ideas, which develop depending on upbringing, culture, environment, personal choice and many other derivatives of the nurture and nature of individuals.
Here are four videos from you-tube:
1) Demonstration early digital music technology
1) Demonstration early digital music technology
The Fairlight CMI (Computer Musical Instrument) was the first polyphonic digital sampling synthesizer. It was designed in 1979 by the founders of Fairlight, Peter Vogel and Kim Ryrie, and based on a dual-6800 microprocessor computer designed by Tony Furse in Sydney, Australia.[1][2] It rose to prominence in the early 1980s and competed in the market with the Synclavier from New England Digital. Both instruments would be put through their paces by famed producer Trevor Horn, much to the chagrin of rival Martin Hannett (who left Factory Records after the company refused to subsidize his purchase of a Series IIx model mere months before Horn's production of "Relax" hit the airwaves).
2 ) This is an example of the improvements of the applications of the digital in more recent times (Wii Hacking http://johnnylee.net/projects/wii/) by taking advantage of infrared technology using infrared camera in a Wii remote.
3) Johnny Harcastel's video to his 1981 composition 'King Tut'.
4) This is a video from "bionicTechnophobe's" you-tube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/bionicTechnophobe#p/u/0/nRNkJnxUa4o
Using the 8x8 LED matrix of the Meggy Jr as a low resolution video display. The video is captured with the built-in iSight camera of a MacBook Pro using Processing. The image is formatted specially for the Meggy then sent via serial. The refresh rate is certainly acceptable, although there needs to be more error checking with the video sync.
FUTURE SHOCK is documentary from 1972 reaches into some interesting topics. Its based on the book written by the sociologist and futurologist Alvin Toffler in 1970 and contemplates ways in which technology might change the future. It is suggestive of disposable, temporary life styles and distant relationships through computers. These examples are now quite real e.g. fast food, Primark, Ikea, face-book etc. Some people live in knowledge that fast food is bad for you and still eat it. That physical encounters with our environment are currently unrivaled health wise and in terms of experience by anything networking sites can offer and still spend hours on end on them. Some also speculate that primark clothes are inexpensive because they are made in sweatshops and still shop there. Needless to say encouraging wasteful/spoilt behavior through the fact that things are so easily replaced and produced reduces reasons for purchase to something very decadent and pointless. This particular episode seems try expose potential dangers of technology. I cant take it seriously but Id like to read the book.
I have added this video predominantly for aesthetics. I think technology is overwhelming- predominantly a good and wonderful thing. Concerning disposable lifestyle and the current state of the environment this era of wastefulness will inevitably have to end, our environment does after all contains us so we must keep it livable in one way or another.
DIGRESSION: Newton's laws of motion.
I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Here is a link to and interactive learning website which includes some Java applets on Physics so you can play around with that. Java is a digital environment. http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
