So, what is New Media?

New media is a direct manifestation of the introduction of computer technology in the media landscape.

The digital age has brought about a transition from the old to the new in rapid succession in recent years. One of the prominent changes within this is the alteration of the term new media. As stated, new media relates to how technology has permeated the media landscape and how it is altering it. This involves many elements, ones that will be discussed in this entry.

Within my article, Defining New Media, I go into detail regarding Lev Manovich and his 8 propositions on defining what new media is. One such proposition states,

“.. the mix between existing cultural conventions and the conventions of software.”

In other words, conventions of old are mixing with the conventions of the new to create something entirely different. While looking at the new media landscape, we must consider old versus new and how they integrate in today’s world. We must always consider that all ‘new technology’ has a basis within the past and is built upon it.

However, one of the most profound statements is through Marshall McLuhan, known for Understanding Media. It is through his “medium is the message” that we understand that it is not the message that matters, but the container that holds the message. Technology is a meta container, one that contains containers within it. Once this is understood, we can predict how technology will modify not only new media, but our society as well.

I delve into this within Foundational and Transitional Thinking, which is based on the origins of computer technology and the direction early thinkers thought technology would take us.

J. C. R. Licklider’s work, Man-Computer Symbiosis is an excellent example of this. Within it, he explains the relationship between ourselves and computers and the future revolving around it. One of his conclusions delves into how the machine’s cognition would both surpass and become independent of humankind.

This all relates back to how new media has been altered today, with much of our society integrating technology as though it was a third hand.

Within Thinking, I also discuss Turing, Engelbart, Zuse and Babbage and how they are credited with many influential notions in the computer’s creation. Babbage’s analytical engine is one key element of this discussion. Without his proposed work, the computer of today would not be the same.

While discussing these early creators, it is also important to discuss the advancement today. Tesla’s self driving cars are an excellent example of this and how the integration of technology is affecting our daily lives today.

I question this idea within my article titled Being Digital, delving into the Digital Revolution and the positives and negatives that go along with it. Within this, Negroponte and his book Being Digital must be mentioned, where he discusses the many ideas of where the world is heading with the digital revolution and more. One of his key points states,

“The medium is not the message in a digital world.” (71)

Playing with McLuhan’s idea of the medium being the message, Negroponte points out that when dealing with bits rather than atoms, the medium becomes largely meaningless. What matters then is how that data is viewed not how it is carried.

An example of this is hypertext and how it alters the way we receive and understand information. My article Digital Influence delves deep into this, discussing both the definition of hypertext and its interactive nature. Ted Nelson must be mentioned within this topic, after all, he coined the term and created Xanadu (the first hypertext project).

The age old argument of books versus hypertext has come up many times. The limitations of the book are apparent, yet the book has persisted since civilization’s existence.

Robert Coover discusses this within his article, The End of Books. He talks about books dying off because of how advanced hypertext is. Hypertext and its interactive nature has a place within our digital world, but books do not seem to be going anywhere anytime soon.

In fact, Langdon Winner, within Mythinformation, goes into detail about how the way our world is changing may not be necessarily changing for the better.

All of this is still tied into what new media is, simply due to the transformation new media is undergoing in today’s digital age.

What could be discussed then is how we can better understand technology and how it may affect generations to come. To do this, open source, free and proprietary software must be considered.

After all, the open source movement is a direct example of new media as people are using computers to share and collectively produce new works.

This is all discussed in my article Open Source, Free, Proprietary.

Linus Torvald’s Linux is a prime example within this. Open source revolves around a publicly accessible design that is free to edit and share. However, Open source does not mean free. With proprietary software, free or otherwise, there is always a notion of control.

Bill Gates and Microsoft must be mentioned as well, with a majority of their work under lock and key. Linus believes this lock should be broken, thus is work on communities as well.

Communities are one of the most important notions within this, as communities are the lifeblood of open source, without them there is no feasible way open source software could survive. But, isn’t this true for most of society?

Human beings are extremely community based, so of course advancement will come from the formation of them.

Thus we have the creation of cyberculture and cyberspace. This is a topic that is heavily discussed within my article (likely titled) Cyberspace and Cyberculture. The networking of computers themselves has created a new environment in which people are able to work, communicate, and form communities.

Revolving around the evolution of the Internet and how its influence has impacted our view of society, it could be argued that Cyberculture is a culture that persists through online communications.

Not only are there technological advancements from communities, but it is also changing the way we view relationships as well.

Unfortunately, this new way of communication has also impacted cybercrime and the idea of anonymity. Cyberbullying is a large issue in today’s online word — something that has led to real world consequences.

So perhaps we should ask ourselves what should be done to both sustain our freedom while also keeping people safe. Should we look into new forms of control?

Within Creativity vs. Copyright, this notion has been explored. Computer technology and the participatory culture that has formed from improvements in communication technology has changed how we look at intellectual property. Control via copyright is an issue that has been argued many times.

Most of it deals with plagiarism, stealing others work. Though, when does being creative turn illegal? Lawrence Lessig discusses the idea of “choking our creativity” and how detrimental it is to our lives. He goes into much detail of this new generation using old things and remixing them into something new.

This delves into criminalization of our children for unjust reasons. Regardless of the notions behind it, this quote from Lessig is rather profound on the topic,

“There is no plausible argument that allowing kids to remix music is going to hurt anyone. Until someone can show that it will, the law [Copyright] should get out of the way. We need to decriminalize creativity before we further criminalize a generation of our kids.”

To switch topics to another type of technological advancement, let us look into storytelling for a moment. Within A New Way of Storytelling, I breach the surface on how storytelling is changing. Computers open up a whole new world of possibilities in the realm of storytelling.

Storytelling has existed since man first evolved on this Earth — something that we can truly say belongs to us. But in this digital age, will storytelling suffer?

It all ties back into the original question of what is new media. Looking at storytelling, something profound in our culture, we can better see how our society is changing. (For better or worse.)

Janet H. Murray discusses this within Hamlet on the Holodeck, going on about how there has yet to be a new way of storytelling through computers. In other words, digital advancement is not complete.

She also discusses how we are no longer a passive audience when it comes to our daily lives. We aren’t the couch potatos of yesterday, instead we are becoming active in our opinions and how things attempt to control us.

Within A New Way, narrative versus ludology is also discussed. Here the idea of gameplay and storytelling is explored and expounded on in detail. Through the change in narrative, we can explore the future as human beings.

Technology is changing us to the degree where it leads to the question of what does it mean to be human and at what point are we no longer human. I delve into this idea of being human and the notions of cyborgism and transhumanism within Cyber Organisms: Fact or Fiction?

The advancement of technology has reached a point where we can now replace limbs and improve ourselves beyond what was once thought possible. Only time will tell where this advancement will go — but we must also understand how far it goes as well.

Losing our humanity is a real issue when it comes to cyborgism. No longer are things drenched in sci-fi or fantasy, we have a real outcome of changing what the word human means. Within Fact or Fiction, the notion of a technological apocalypse is also considered. After all, what would happen if technology was gone?

It is here that we come full circle with the question of what is new media. New media delves deep into the introduction of computer technology and how it impacts the new media landscape, as well as ourselves. All of these topics bring us to the conclusion that our way of life is changing and we must be sure to understand exactly where it is going.

While I may not be alive to see the day of full integration of technology, the taste of it with the change of new media has shown that we are rapidly approaching a new era. I can only look forward to what the future holds and how new media will continue to change in today’s Digital Age.

Thank you for reading. If you are further interested within the topics discussed here, below is a playlist of all podcasts surrounding these topics and more.

New Media Revisited was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Captain Picard steps forth from the ship, wires and servos attached to his face. A Borg; the true definition of man and machine combined.

An image to behold surely, though only through fiction, right? Wrong. While Patrick Stewart’s role in Star Trek as a cyborg may have been limited, this notion has transcended into the real world today.

No — there is no hive mind controlling a real life cyborg, but the advances technology has undergone no longer make this a fantasy. Now, cyborg itself simply means a cybernetic organism, that is, humans merching with technology to advance or be advanced. There are many examples of it today, however I wish to delve into a bit of history when it comes to the idea of transhumanism and cyborgology.

The term cyborg was coined by Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline, both highly respected in their own fields. The notion of cyborgs have been around well before World War II, however it has only been in recent years that the boom for man-machine hybrids have become popular amongst common folk.

While it is difficult to track down the first physical cyborg, humans have been experimenting with the idea for many decades. The first official person to be recognized by a government is Neil Harbisson. With his vision technology, and born only able to see black and white, he hears color rather than sees.

This is a prime example of how technology aids us in our endeavours, especially if we are born lacking daily functionality. People who have lost their limbs, such as Jesse Sullivan, have begun to experience life in a whole new way with these technological advancements. Jesse, who lost his limbs through electrocution, uses nerve-based prosthetics to retain his lifestyle. An article on Wired discusses Jesse’s abilities,

“This form of “bionic medicine” involved taking nerves that originally ran to Sullivan’s arm, and connecting them to muscles in his chest. When he thinks about lifting an arm, for example, certain muscles in his chest contract instead of muscles in his original arm, and the prosthetic replacement interprets this contraction as an instruction to move in a certain way.”

Amazing, truly. The advancement of technology will only aid in people like Jesse, Neil and many others to come. People have already began to expand on the notion of cyborgism, using tech to even mind control cockroaches. Personally, I have a strong ethical issue with this, but advancement is advancement. In the end, it can only help save and enhance lives.

Elizabeth Dwoskin even goes into detail within a Washington Post article that discusses the progress on a chip called Kernal, she states;

“ [Kernal] can be implanted in the brain to help people suffering from neurological damage caused by strokes, Alzheimer’s or concussions. Top neuroscientists who are building the chip — they call it a neuroprosthetic — hope that in the longer term, it will be able to boost intelligence, memory and other cognitive tasks.”

From neurological issues to even paralyzation, cyborgism is already a reality that is expanding more and more as the years go on. The point here is that it is not a matter of if anymore, it is a matter of when. To quote from a famous TV show, Six Million Dollar Man,

“ We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.”

Yes, we can. We can do so much. But, at what point is “so much” too much? Is it ethical for us to do these kind of advancements on ourselves? One question I feel must be answered, and I will in a later entry, is when do we pass the boundaries of humanity. It has been posed many times in the past and certainly will continue to come up in the future as well.

To quote from an article within The Telegraph,

“ Human greed, selfish interest, lack of planning and myopic vision has all led to the abuse of science and technology.”

So, with this let us take a moment to look at the risks of cyborgism. I will stick to a very simplistic notion; hacking.

A video I always think of when this topic comes about is Sight; a masterpiece on the future and the risks involved with technology. Much like the video goes into detail about, being able to delve into technology is not always the best of abilities.

Imagine something connected to your brain so much that the moment you are hacked, you cease to exist. Terrifying, right? Well, for now, this is only within fiction, but as technology continues to grow, it may be prudent for us to look into a new form of security for ourselves.

This discussion will certainly be continued within a future entry, however I wish to end this here on two quotes that should certainly be thought about for not only ourselves, but our future with technology.

“The real danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers.” Sydney J. Harris

“One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.” Elbert Hubbard

{4/10/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

___________________________________________________________________

Cybernetical Humanity

When is Human not Human?

Humanity. A word thrown around left and right, but what is the true definition of it? It is merely being human that makes us have it? All of these questions seem to have recent importance with the advancement in technology. Of course, I speak of cyborgism, which I discuss in an earlier entry. Within this discussion, I explored the notion of cyborgs and how far they have come over the years.

But, what does this have to do with humanity? In my opinion, everything. To begin, let us define exactly what the term humanity means. According to Merriam-Webster,

“ The quality or state of being human joined together by their common humanity.”

There is the word again; humanity. Human — ity. By definition alone, you must be human to have humanity. But what about cyborgs? Certainly it just sounds silly to say cyborgity, right? The point here is to ask ourselves, once we are all fully augmented and altered to our liking with servos sticking everywhere, when are we not human?

To quote from The Huffington Post,

“Evolution is natural state of society and, from an optimistic standpoint, as computers to date do not have the capacity to be emotional or social, not only can we can learn and evolve with them but we also have the advantage of our brains evolving and adding humanness into our lives and work.”

This points to the notion that technology and humans co-existing is not wrong, which it isn’t. Humans are meant to evolve, it is who we are — as every other animal out there. It is merely that, as a species, we have moved onto the technological train and are speeding ahead with no thought to stopping.

But are we going to lose our humanity in the process of advancement?

The discussion of immortality has come up many times in recent years — perhaps spawned by our own versions of thanatophobia. But does the ability for humans to die give us humanity? Of course not — everything dies. No, I feel as though it is our awareness of death that contributes to our humanity.

As we grow older, our body begins to shut down to the point it can no longer function. It is not our mind, the soul, that breaks down, it is the physical components making it up, as well as the rest of our bodies. So, what happens when we replace these “broken” pieces with new, mechanical ones. While the technology is still in development for much of our bodies, already we have conquered replacement of specific parts. To quote from The Telegraph,

“ Transhumanism aims to alter the human condition for the better by using technology (as well as genetic engineering, life extension science and synthetic biology) to make us more intelligent, healthier and live longer than has ever been possible — eventually transforming humanity so much it becomes “post-human”.”

They even go on to list specific parts of the human body that can (currently) be altered.

1: Brain implants augment memory and provide access to the internet

2 : Wearable exoskeleton boosts strength and endurance

3: Internet-connected spinal implant stimulates genitals for long-distance sex

4: Interchangeable limbs match capabilities to tasks

5: Access-control chips replace keys and passwords

Perhaps another question that should be asked is if this kind of progress, human augmentation, is actual progress. Strictly speaking, once we gain technology based parts, we are cyborg and not human. Is this wrong?

Let us look at some examples, or one that I personally enjoy. It is an anime, or japanese animation, but it applies. Ghost in the Shell is set in a futuristic world where cybernetic augmentation is commonplace. We follow the main character Major, who is the first full cybernetic being with a human brain. However, many others have selected only partial augmentation. Within the anime, they deal with the real aspects of cyber hacking and how it could affect a fully digitized world.

The point is that we must recall that our future is at stake when it comes to the choices we make now. If we continue on our current path, does it void our humanity?

Or, perhaps an even larger notion — will we create something new. Will our species fundamentally change so much that we become a new, more advanced species that is no longer considered human?

An idea for the record books, surely. These are all things to think about as the years and advancement on technology progress. Are we willing to lose what makes us.. us? Or is this just another step in our evolution. Whatever the case, the next couple hundred years, barring an untimely end, will certainly be one to explore. Let's hope those ideas of immortality pay off, right?

{4/18/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

___________________________________________________________________

Technological Apocalypse

Can We Live Without Technology?

Apocalypse. The end of the world. Sci-Fi, right? What about a technological apocalypse? Stick with me, just for a moment. Sure, we read about these stories of going back to the cave man era, but what if it actually happened? What if technology was gone. Not just gone — but gone.

Lets ignore the how for a moment and let us explore the repercussions. Sure, we can state that humankind will just regress backwards, but how far would be go? Could we recover? I would surmise that answer is based on the how, not the if. Right?

The point is — we have become so dependent on technology that it may be too late to go back. Now, this brings up the question if we want to (and surely the answer for me would be no). But — perhaps the entire thought here is to have the age old notion of a ‘backup plan’. Advancing in technology is wonderful, it's expected, as discussed earlier, it is our future. But what happens if that future is altered?

Perhaps this is relatable to a scene from Day After Tomorrow, or any other apocalyptic text, but it truly is a bit different than that. Perhaps it may be easier to recover from World War 3 than a loss of technology. Or are those one in the same? Many different questions must be answered with this idea. My mind runs wild with all of these possibilities — these devastating notions.

I mean, think about it. Imagine a world with no technology — no, not JUST internet, but no TECHNOLOGY. No phone. No car. Nothing. The basic light bulb has been put to shame. We have entered an era where every achievement is made or based around that one word; technology. So, when it is gone, what will mankind do? Could we even do anything?

Would mankind die off without technology?

That is a loaded question, isn’t it? The answer is yes and no, if you think about it. No, the entirety of humankind would not just be wiped off the earth, but a good percentage of people would certainly die off. A simple Google comes up with some very valid discussions, especially one from WorldBuilding.com. It states,

“If we’re unable to get up a running industry to make a very, very large amount of tools we wouldn’t even be able to harvest the existing ripe crops.”

“That magnitude of death will not happen easily or peacefully — it means that immediate survival will be a complete priority and preservation of long-term knowledge (as well as anything long-term) will be an unaffordable luxury.”

In other words, yes we may be able to go back on our own knowledge base, but because of a lack of mass production, we would effectively be screwed. But this brings up something rather important; knowledge. Our knowledge will still be retained even if all of the computers and hard drives are gone — right? Well, yes. But understand this as well — without technology, communication is severely limited. We can no longer reach out to people across the world, which means knowledge is limited to specific areas.

Now, this may not be an issue for those who already do not use technology on a day to day basis. Remember those ‘3rd world countries’? Yep, they are leading the pack now. But, this is, of course a hypothetical situation and many different scenarios could occur.

Now, let us (just briefly) forget about the catastrophic chaos that would ensue with government and everything else along those lines.

Communication alone would create a massive backlash of problems — from the ones stated above to the simple notion of emotional instability. In other words — I fully believe that if we lost technology, we would lose ourselves in the process.

But what of the people who are anti-technology and state it only breeds problems? Well, perhaps this would be good for them, in the end.

Back to the original topic, however. Technological Apocalypse. Even if we were able to survive, perhaps we should consider if we recover. After figuring out life without technology, would we be able to get it back? Well — that depends on my hypothetical situation, I suppose. Let us say it is possible. How long would that take?

Based on our current rate of advancement in technology, some may say not very long. Certainly current knowledge of technology would help, but what if those people died off because of the food situation? Hah, perhaps I am making things a bit complex here. Apologies.

In the end, there really is no way to tell how long it would take us to recover from such a catastrophic event. After all, it has not happened yet. What is understood is that many things would change — and have to change rapidly. Pen and paper, the book, everything would be suddenly very rare and very important. No longer would our heads be shoved into a computer, we would actually have to de-advance to advance.

But is going back to books so bad? I discussed that earlier.

To end this discussion, or perhaps to begin it, I will end on a quote by Aldous Huxley, a famous writer and philosopher of the Arts.

“Technological progress has merely provided us with a more efficient means for going backwards.”

{4/24/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

Cyber Organisms: Fact or Fiction? was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Advancement. It’s a discussion that continues in today’s digital age. Surely advancement is nothing but positive, right? Unfortunately, there is always a downside to every good thing.

But, let us delve into what is now considered old tech — books for example. What happens to them in this digital age? I have already discussed books vs technology, but here I wish to discuss not the container — but the message itself. Books contain words, which contain thousands upon thousands of visual images. Stories, if you will.

Storytelling has existed since man first evolved on this Earth — something that we can truly say belongs to us. But in this digital age, will storytelling suffer?

Everything is changing, evolving itself for the better or worse. When it comes to computers, they are a container that holds containers — a meta container. So, can computers hold stories as well?

The short answer is, well, yes. They can hold — but they can’t truly create. Within Hamlet on the Holodeck, Janet Murray discusses the notion that there has yet to be a new way of storytelling, one the computer excels at. In other words, cyberdrama.

She also goes on to discuss, on page 110 of the Hamlet on the Holodeck, that we are no longer a passive audience when it comes to discussions and more. There is almost a feedback loop at this point — where participants can and will go out and change how things are.

An example of this could be the use of Twitter and the quick response that is available through them. People can even alter history, as with Obama’s Presidential Election. But, I digress.

The point here is that we need to keep in mind our old ways as we continue to advance further. But, at the same time, we must use what we have to it's full potential. Much like Murray discusses, I look forward to seeing what technology can bring to the table when it comes to storytelling.

While looking at storytelling, there are many elements that must be discussed. However, they all follow under specific arcs that follow a particular path. In an article on MIT Tech Review, it delves into just some of these arcs. To quote,

A steady, ongoing rise in emotional valence, as in a rags-to-riches story such as Alice’s Adventures Underground by Lewis Carroll. A steady ongoing fall in emotional valence, as in a tragedy such as Romeo and Juliet. A fall then a rise, such as the man-in-a-hole story, discussed by Vonnegut. A rise then a fall, such as the Greek myth of Icarus. Rise-fall-rise, such as Cinderella. Fall-rise-fall, such as Oedipus.

Each arc has its own elements, its own story that must end a different way. Perhaps the question to ask here is what can the computer bring to the table? Will it involve these many arcs, or will it branch off into its own type of story. Or, even, is the point not the message but the container itself? All of these are questions that must be answered.

This is a topic that will be revisited in a future entry, though perhaps there will never be enough said about cyberdrama and the notions that involve it.

{4/02/17}

-Joanna Shea Powell

___________________________________________________________________

Video Games and Cyberdrama

A Brief Look Into Interactive Drama and More

Let us return to this idea of cyberdrama and what is considered Interactive Drama. It all revolves around a type of ludology, or the study of games.

Interactive Drama simply means an interactive story, one that can be altered based on the choices given or many other factors. Video games are a prime example of this — especially if they have non-linear paths where the outcome can be change completely.

Janet Murray discusses this somewhat in Hamlet in the Holodeck, where she mentions the idea of a new kind of storytelling from computers. The question is, are video games the answer?

In the digital age, there is always an idea of communication, especially when it comes to using the Internet. If people are not happy with the outcome of a game, they will complain. A prime example of this was Mass Effect 3 and its ending. Such an uproar (negative feedback) was given that a new ending was tacked on to appease players.

My point is that, much like Murray discusses, we are in a new era that has not reached its full potential. Perhaps, using videogames as an example, we can use the interactivity of the digital age to our advantage.

While thinking on this topic, I would like to delve just a bit into ludology. Narrative versus Gameplay. Gameplay is based completely on the technicalities of the game, where narrative is focused solely on the story within it. The question is — which is more important? Which should we base games off of?

Stories are obviously what humankind is build off of, it is something that (as discussed previously) has persisted for millennia. So what happens when it enters a new container such as video games? The rules change. People get upset — they don’t want to believe something so sacred has been vandalized so. But what people don’t realize is that, instead of destroying, video games are only evolving to fit our lifestyles.

Humans need stories — they are what attract us, make us feel alive and even help us escape the real world. Video games are doing the same — they help us focus on things that only expand our mind and imagination. However, not everyone plays video games for the story.

Stuart Moulthrop discusses this through Murray in his article, From Work to Play;

.. The story of gaming may not be so simple even when games are mistaken for stories. Murray herself recognizes that those engaged with electronic texts sometimes fail to read for the plot; indeed, sometimes they cease to be readers and turn into players.

So, then what are people playing the games for? The gameplay. They are using the game as another form of escapism — not through the storytelling, but the game itself. In no way is this an issue, but it does bring back the argument of what should we base video games off of; gameplay or storytelling.

Within the same article by Moulthrop, Murray states the following;

Eventually all successful storytelling technologies become “transparent”: we lose consciousness of the medium and see neither print nor film but only the power of the story itself.

It is this level of storytelling that we must achieve — one where it does not matter what the container is, but the message itself.

However, some games have no narrative to them — and Henry Jenkins discusses this with Game Design as a Narrative. He states,

“ To understand [games without narrative], we need other terms and concepts beyond narrative, including interface design and expressive movement for starters.”

In other words — gameplay. So, does this bring into question if BOTH gameplay and narrative matter?

Jenkins goes on to state the following,

If some games tell stories, they are unlikely to tell them in the same ways that other media tell stories.

They are selective, specific even, about what is told. Video games are a different medium altogether and they tell stories much differently than books. Understanding this is perhaps what helps answer the original question of gameplay vs narrative.

In conclusion, it seems as though there truly is not an answer to the question of narrative and gameplay. Looking at it from an outside perspective makes me question if it really matters in the end. Games are games. People go to video games for a very different reason than books. However, this is only one of the many topics that has come up with our digital advancement.

I look forward to exploring this topic in the future and the notions behind it.

{04/12/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

A New Way of Storytelling was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Creativity — some may say this is what makes us who we are. Since the beginning of time, humankind has stood out with their creative minds. Ancient cave paintings depict some of the earliest artworks, but even those were just the beginning. The use of tools and the advancement that followed were all due to our creative nature. It is through this that we continue to seek out knowledge, adapt to the world around us and grow as human beings.

Edward de Bono, author of The Mechanism of Mind, has stated this about creativity and its importance in our lives:

“There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress and we would be forever repeating the same patterns.”

So, what happens when this creativity is stunted?

Copyright. A term we all know quite well — and if we don’t, most of us understand the limitations it presents. For this article, we shall use the following definition for copyright:

“The exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same.”

There has always been turmoil when it comes to intermingling copyright and creativity. Most of it deals with plagiarism, stealing others work. But when is that line crossed? When does being creative turn illegal? These are only a few questions we must ask ourselves in this digital age.

Because of the Internet, our many notions of copyright have been altered to some degree. Attaining things is a lot easier than it once was, after all, with the digitalization of many things, near everything is at our fingertips. Music? Online. Movies? Online. Books? Online. But, what does this have to do with creativity and it being stunted? Wouldn’t the Internet only aid people’s creative abilities? Yes and no.

Unfortunately, the Internet has introduced many “new ideas” when it comes to creativity. People are taking other’s work and twisting it, making new creations from it. However, this is where copyright law and creativity clash. Is something new that uses old works considered illegal?

There is also the notion of parody, where the imitation of an original work is seen as a violation of copyright as well. Despite the entire work being quite varied, the simple fact it follows the same rules make it an issue. Famous parody-er, Weird Al Yankovic, has even come under fire for his many parodies of famous works. An article on Weird Al and his pension for defying copyright states,

“Weird Al’s substantial market success is responsible for the willingness of copyright owners to grant him permission to parody their musical compositions, and has made it possible for Yankovic to bargain for a lucrative share in the copyright of the parody version of the song.”

So, even Weird Al must first jump through hoops and sign legal agreements just to post his own content. While there have been many controversies with Weird Al, perhaps the most famous is with Coolio and Amish Paradise. Do to a misunderstanding, the 1996 smash hit was almost canceled. In the end, an agreement was worked out, however it is these copyright laws that dictate the creative works of many.

Within Lawrence Lessig’s TedTalk, he discusses the idea of “choking our creativity” and how detrimental this is to us. He goes into much detail of this new generation using old things and remixing them into something new. This “new creation” is considered illegal by copyright standards. But why? He even mentions a less-than-famous Youtube Channel, amvhell. This is a channel that I personally have watched since I was in high school (2010) and even before then they have been under fire of copyright infringement. They create many videos that mash together anime and various audio clips to create wonderful (and hilarious) works of art.

The one that gained the most popularity was AMV Hell 3 — The Motion Picture. Now, if you go to this video, you will notice (as of 3/19/2017) that it has been muted due to copyright. Why? Why take down this wonderful work of art only meant to make people laugh? Amvhell even goes out of their way to credit every single work, every single song used. But this is not enough, no. The question to ask is why this is being done and the answer to that is simple.

Money.

Now, many argue that it infringes on the rights of those who created the original works. What do I say? Excuse my language, but bullshit. It is because the original owners cannot gain money from the use of amvhell’s works.

So, as Lessig says, our creativity is certainly being choked. Looking around at the many ways we are able to create things and get it out to the world, it is a shame we are all being stunted. In the end it is about money and control. Because the Internet has opened up so many possibilities, those who create content the old way have begun to fear this new medium. So, I say we all fight these attempts at control. Let us show that the old ways are gone and they can be remembered by the many remixes, parodies and other creative works out there.

To end on a quote from Lessig himself,

“Creativity and innovation always builds on the past. The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it. Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past. Ours is less and less a free society.”

-Joanna Shea Powell

{3/18/2017}

___________________________________________________________________

A New Generation of Criminals

A Brief Look Into Damaging Our Children in A Copyright Ridden Culture

Criminals. Hardened ruffians with tattoos and a bleak outlook on life. Right? No, a 12 year old kid. A child who thought it was “fun” to download music. Did the child commit mass murder? No, she wanted some music to listen to. The 12 year old, Brianna is quoted stating,

“Out of all people, why did they pick me?”

Yes, Brianna — why you? Why a child? In today’s culture we are criminalizing our children before they are even teenagers. This then falls onto their parents, who half the time have no idea what has happened to begin with.

Are companies so shrewd they would criminalize children just to make a point? To make a profit? Yes. Now, in Brianna’s case, companies argue they do not know the demographics behind who they charge with these crimes. To quote from Cary Sherman, the RIAA president,

“When your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action.”

So, let us go after a 12 year old girl, right? Now, I understand that illegal actions should be punished — but why not teach our children? Just explain to them, once they are caught doing illegal things, that this is wrong and explain the repercussions. If these actions are continued, then bring down the banhammer, so to speak.

But, as I discuss in an earlier entry, our children are being criminalized for being creative as well. No longer is it limited to doing illegal notions. Copyright has come under fire many times, but especially so when remixes are being discussed.

Yet, the point is still there. Lawrence Lessig goes into detail on this with his book Remix.

“There is no plausible argument that allowing kids to remix music is going to hurt anyone. Until someone can show that it will, the law [Copyright] should get out of the way. We need to decriminalize creativity before we further criminalize a generation of our kids.”

So — perhaps we should focus more on teaching our children what is right and wrong, rather than branding them as criminals before they even truly know themselves.

At the end of the day, our children will one day be the generation that is making rules for their own kids. So, what happens to our society when we are effectively damaging our children with old notions that could now be considered obsolete.

We have a dilemma, one that needs to be remedied before it is too late. To end and quote from Lessig himself,

“.. Until a new form of creativity comes along that they try to stop. We all become our parents.”

-Joanna Shea Powell

{3/28/2017}

Creativity vs. Copyright was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“In the era of cyberculture, all the plows pull themselves and the fried chickens fly right onto our plates.” -A.M. Hilton

It is through cyberculture that new bonds have formed in ways that no one once thought possible. Today communication is at an all time high and we are able to reach people thousands of miles across the world. But, this communication is not limited to calling someone on the phone or sending emails. No, we have entered an era where a whole new world has been created right before our eyes.

I speak of cyberspace, a world that exists but doesn’t exist at the same time. We look at the world and what it is made up of it, but it was only recently that we began to expand beyond that. Today some people try to live their entire lives online, meeting others and expanding beyond what they could do in the real world. To explore this in depth, let us first define what exactly cyberspace is and what is meant by cyberculture as a whole.

According to Technopedia, cyberspace is defined as;

“An electronic medium used to form a global computer network to facilitate online communication. Cyberspace’s core feature is an interactive and virtual environment for a broad range of participants.”

With this definition, it explains how cyberspace enables not only online communication, but so much more. The evolution of the Internet is something that fits into this, but perhaps the better terminology here would be cyberculture. Cyberculture is a culture that persists through online communications. It encompasses much of the online world today, from gaming, social media, mobile apps, texting and even augmented reality.

Dabbling into this ‘new world’ myself, it could certainly be said that much of what we used to consider an online community has been turned on its head. Gone are the days of simple email exchange, and even now we look at the idea of chatrooms as old. So how did cyberculture come together? How does something so complex appear out of nothing but 1s and 0s?

Embedded deep within human nature there is always and always will be an element of social integration. We want to ‘fit in’, we want to communicate. Online technology has only advanced this. In fact, it has advanced to the point where there is even a Declaration of Independence for cyberspace itself.

It states,

“Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.”

A mighty statement, if there is one. Cyberspace sees itself different from the real world, it is a community, an ever growing and ever changing one. Many argue the restrictions that should be in place for such a community, but others say nay. Why should there be? Why should something so different and not yet fully understood be regulated and ruled? It is my firm assessment that much of the world is full of terrified people too scared of the unknown.

To grow, to advance further, we must take risks. Cyberspace, and cyberculture, is only the first steps in the advancement of not only technology, but ourselves.

{3/3/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

Cyberculture, Gaming & Relationships

A Discussion on Personal Interactions Within the Cybernetic world.

Cyberspace. Cyberculture. All a means to an end, one of great communication between others. Focusing more on my personal experience within this cybernetic world, I wish to touch on a few subjects at hand.

How the world views gaming is a very controversial topic within itself and there have always been very negative thoughts on gaming in general. But what of online gaming? What about forming real bonds with people halfway across the world through games? Many studies point toward console gaming, mostly multiplayer games that involve shooting each other over and over for fun (Call of Duty for example).

But there are many people in games that form such strong bonds online friends that they care more for them than their real life counterparts.

This is a rather long winded way of stating that the way we see online games has changed. No longer are we just there to get entertainment and move on. People are forming strong bonds that have broken many boundaries once thought unbreakable. My own experience speaks for itself, having spent the better part of my life, over 16 years, online. As with many people, there was a few years of just pure addiction. Being a 14 year old kid online for the first time, it can get very addicting (and overwelming).

Some argue that may be a bit too young for online communication, but in this day and age, children have facebook accounts before they are even born! [As a side note to this, I found this article here very intriguing on this very topic.] But, returning to my own experience. Most of my life has been online gaming, from MUDs to strict MMORPGS to many other adventurous endeavors. While I will not say I have experienced every game, I have a good idea of what qualities an online game should have.

So why would this matter? Games are games right? Incorrect. The past relationships I have ever been in over my life have been online, ones that have transcended past the online world. Each relationship ended with a real life one, us meeting and planning for the future. Respectively, that is over a decade of time put toward something more than just online communication.

Perhaps this is too personal or too rambly for some, but the main point is this; everyone of those people I met in an online game. Many friends I have had online have since done the same. They met their significant others ‘in real life’ and many of them have gotten married with children!

There are even many studies that show that online dating is changing, that gaming is evolving beyond what it once was. This all fits into the notion of cyberculture and how cyberspace as a whole is changing our daily lives. We can’t continue to view the Internet as something as a tool — it is much more than that. It is even another life for some people.

So, as the advancement of online communities continue, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we should take advantage of this natural evolution of the Internet. To not do so may even be a simply foolish. I look forward to a day where cyberculture has integrated completely within our society. After all, it has already begun.

{3/7/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

Cybercrime

The Good, The Bad, and The Cybernetic Attacks on Our Society.

Crime. A word that instantly brings up very specific images to our minds. But what if this embedded itself within our cybernetic world? Sadly, it already has. For many years now — if not since the start of the Internet itself. Cybercrimes could even be considered easier to accomplish within the virtual world due to the notion of anonymity.

Within the online world, there is a misconception that you can do whatever you want, whenever you want. The idea of anonymity are so prevalent in the cybernetic world that it creates a discourse that is impossible to control. This eventually leads to the many cybercrimes we have today, from simple harassment to hackers delving into the information of others.

To start, cyberbullying is something that has come up quite recently in the news. This doesn’t mean it hasn’t been going on for years, but it is only when the public gets word of it does it become an issue. There has and always will be bullying of some sort, it is just the negative side of humanity. People have problems they throw at others and blame them for their existence. The online world is no different.

With this new trend of younger and younger people attaining access to the Internet, it is no surprise we have swaddled babies textually attacking others and then crying to their mommies when they get reprimanded. But, I digress. The main question and problem here is actually just that. There is no one online to control these people. There isn’t someone telling you what is right and what is wrong; there is only the online community.

This is how we get trolls and general nasty people in the online world. We created them, or if not, at least gave them a place to thrive. A place with no rules? No one to give them a slap on the hand when they do something wrong? Cyberbullying may seem like a very small problem of ‘kids being kids, but it has led to some serious issues, from sexual harassment to the suicide of some unfortunate ones.

Unfortunately, there are many sources dedicated to anonymity. These are sometimes used in tandem with other programs to make tracking those who abuse the system virtually impossible. Many articles have been written about this notion, though nothing is truly being done about it.

So what happens when these cybercrimes only increase in severity, if that is even possible. (How can you get worse than making someone kill themselves?) Hackers exploit the system many times over, doing everything in their power to get what they want. There are many out there that consider themselves ‘good’, but they are still doing illegal things to achieve goals. I have mixed feelings on this and simply prefer to stay on neutral ground on the topic. After all, who would want to invoke the wrath of a hacker? But again, I digress once more.

It all returns to the idea that there is no control within the online world, but this is what makes it so wonderful at the same time. People have freedom online. There is no control, but again, this has its positives and negatives. In this world, online or otherwise, it is a balancing act between the good and the bad. Cybercrimes only continue to grow with the advancement of technology and the evolution of cyberspace. So perhaps we should ask ourselves what should be done to both sustain our freedom while also keeping people safe.

{3/11/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

Cyberspace and Cyberculture was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

To Open Source or Not to Open Source?

Whether loved or hated, the idea and technical achievement of open source has continued to survive despite controversies over the years. Looking back on what proprietary companies consider a sin, it could be stated that open source software is here to stay. By definition, open source revolves around a publicly accessible design that is free to edit and share. Perhaps the most famous open source software is Linux, created by Linus Torvalds.

So, if Linux and other open source software are surviving, what is the point of discussing them? Well, the simple fact they are surviving is the answer to that. While looking at many proprietary software, perhaps the first one that comes to mind is Microsoft, created by Bill Gates. Being proprietary, obviously the software has a rightful owner and is marketed as such. The key word here is marketed. You cannot go out and modify Microsoft legally, nor get it for free.

Let us make a distinction here, however. Open source does not mean free. A free software does not let you modify the source code like open source does. Yet, a free program can be proprietary. This can be a bit confusing at first, but when it comes down to it, open source can actually have more freedom than a free software. This is the true distinction — free versus freedom.

With proprietary software, free or otherwise, there is always a notion of control. Companies who are trying to make a profit love control, since they can dictate what is and what isn’t. This is why open source has come under such heavy fire over the years. Linus created Linux for his own purpose, not to make a profit. Microsoft, on the other hand, is based around true commercialism.

However, there are some situations where open source software has become free, an example could be ZDaemon, which moved to proprietary due to many issues with cheaters. It doesn’t have to be cheaters though, the simple notion of not being able to support open source is also viable. With open source, there is no profit. Everything is community driven and community done. Some say this is open source’s death, since without money involved, you cannot get proper support for the software itself.

The other hand of this is pressure from large companies that find open source to be a nuisance. Bill Gates responded to many hobbyists within his famous message, An Open Letter to Hobbyists. But, there is always a flipside to this. Personally, it seems as Gates’ anger is moreso at his own incompetence at not being able to cope with open source. Obviously, within 2017, Gates has come a very far ways. Yet, during this statement, the open source community would have none of this. Many responses were filed against Gates, but perhaps this one was the most impactful of them all.

Mike Hayes, the author of this letter, discusses how Gates gave away his work, no one stole it. To quote him,

“If $2/hr is all you got for your efforts, then $2/hr is what they’re worth on the free market. You should either change your product or change your way of selling it.”

I do wonder if Hayes now realizes how far Gates has come. But his thought still stands — if proprietary companies want to complain so much about open source, then why don’t they make their products more desirable than open source itself? This is certainly a question I want to explore more. For now though, we must remember that, regardless of profit or not, understanding all of these ideas will only help us understand ourselves and where technology is taking us.

{2/17/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

__________________________________________________________________

Communities

“A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attitudes, interests, and goals.”

The definition of a community, according to the Oxford Dictionary. But what exactly is meant by it? How does it form? How long does it last? What are the boundaries of it? All of these questions have had to be answered by those looking to create an open source community. To begin looking at this topic, it is best broken down and explained a bit more precisely. It is also important to keep in mind the ultimate question; How are open source communities formed and how do they survive today?

______

• What is an open source community?

Communities are the lifeblood of open source, without them there is no feasible way open source software could survive. It is through the coordination of many that open source software thrives despite the lack of funds it receives. This coordination is aided by the many rules that are in place for a program to be considered open source. Some of these include:

Free Redistribution: The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor.

Of course, there are many others, but it is these that stand out the most. Through keeping everything free and “keeping everyone happy”, it allows for unhindered creative use that can only advance software, not harm it. It is through this that defines what an open source community is.

______

• How does an open source community form?

Like many communities, they normally form around a common goal. With Linux, it was formed based on the needs of many. How these communities grow and spread out is a different story, however. Now a days social media and forums have a huge part in bringing people together. Yet, 20 or so years ago, communities could not rely as much on technology as they can today.

When the need for something is great enough, people will go out of their way to find a way to get it done. This is only amplified when multiple people want to aid in these endeavors. In fact, virtual communities have almost become commonplace within our society today. One such community is Stack Overflow, an online community that aids budding programmers who want to get their work out into the world. This can lead to real world communities that form over common goals, such as Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter.

In fact, it is almost impossible not to include some online element within many communities today. Open source has only benefited from the advancement of technology over the years.

______

• How long can an open source community last?

Open source communities tend to last as long as they are needed. While looking into how open source communities form, we must also understand how they disband. Many communities fall apart over time, but this can be done for various reasons. Some communities have separated because the software that was working on has become obsolete over time, or the original leader has retired. However, that does not make them any less important. According to oss-watch,

In order to be considered healthy, open source communities must have the capacity to outlive their founder’s original interest in them. If they rely heavily on a dictator, they risk fragmenting and falling apart when their leaders move on or retire.

So it is healthy communities that last the longest — and Linux could be considered a testament to this. It is a project that has been ongoing for over 25 years now. Of course, Linux has gained a lot of popularity and continues to bring in more people. But, we must remember that without a community, there is no project at hand. Thus is the ever ending and starting of new projects that only bring in more creativity and advancement as the years go on.

______

There are many other questions that can be answered, though it is important to keep in mind the reason for asking these questions in the first place. By better understanding how communities are formed and what they entail, we can also understand how open source has lasted as long as it has. Perhaps keeping these in mind will enable us to see how the New Media environment has expanded the horizons for hobbyists and budding entrepreneurs alike. To quote from Linus Torvalds himself,

“In real open source, you have the right to control your own destiny.”

So, perhaps it is time for us to control our own destinies and open source and the freedom that comes with it can only aid us in this.

{2/19/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

__________________________________________________________________

Revisiting Open Source

I felt not enough justification was given to open source in the first entry, so I’d like to touch on it in greater detail. In this entry I’ll focus on how it impacts our society today. Besides controversies and negativity, let us delve a bit deeper in what open source does and what we must understand about it.

Open source changes our perspective on software without us realizing it. It could be said there is an ever present monopoly on software in general, especially concerning proprietary software (i.e. Microsoft). But with the presence of open source, it enables us to consider other, free, possibilities. We, as creators, are also not constricted by what major companies want us to create. This leads to greater inventions and further enhancement of our knowledge.

Open source is also much more cost efficient than proprietary software. Quoting from business2community,

“To put it simply, propriety software, must be purchased. In addition, it cannot be modified to fit a particular developer’s or business’s needs without absorbing more vendor-specific costs brought on by additional hardware or software.”

In other words, open source is nearly free compared to proprietary software. This can have both positive and negative effects on the economy, since revenue is a large part of software in general. However, paid or unpaid, the effect on our economy is definitely felt.

Perhaps a more positive way open source affects us is how communities are formed. As I mentioned it in the previous entry, open source is largely based around communities. With the advancement of open source, as well as other programs, people are coming together more frequently to aid one another.

No longer constrained by larger companies, we have almost evolved our own ‘know how’ for certain situations. This is not limited to open source, however. As we learn about communities and joining together for a common cause, we are coming outside the online and open source worlds. (Occupy Wall Street was an excellent example of this, previously.)

The Open Source Movement (OSM), under Open Collaboration, is a result of these community driven efforts. It deals with many elements of open collaboration that details innovation in various elements. This includes Wikipedia, Internet forums and of course, open source. Without movements like this, innovation itself would be much slower and lacking greatly. To quote from the details of the OSM,

These goals promote the production of “high quality programs” as well as “working cooperatively with other similarly minded people” to improve open-source technology.

As stated, this advancement can only aid us in our future endeavors. While this only delves into the start of open source, it certainly spreads some light on the possibilities we have with such software existing. I do look forward to seeing how open source grows in our ever advancing technological world today.

{2/22/2017}

• Joanna Shea Powell

Open Source, Free, Proprietary was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Hypertext

The word hypertext can bring up many visualizations, though some may be a bit more outlandish than others. Perhaps the best way of approaching this word is to first define it. Yet, there are many definitions of it as well, so which could be considered the most reliable? Well, according to Dictionary.com, the definition is,

A method of storing data through a computer program that allows a user to create and link fields of information at will and to retrieve the data non sequentially.

In other words, it is text (or graphics, videos, ect) that is on a display device that is interactive. In fact, the word itself translates “beyond text”, or text that has went beyond the limitations of ordinary text. It could be asked then what would be considered ordinary text, to which the answer here would be a book or non-digital print. Hypertext in itself has existed for the last 50 years or so, advancing as the years progress.

Some of the early contributors to hypertext include Ted Nelson, who coined the term hypertext and created Xanadu, the first hypertext project. It would only be later (1983) that Nelson would create the Xanadu Operating Company to expand on the project. Other contributors include Engelbart, who began working on his NLS system — the first implementation of hypertext as we know it. Of course, these are not the only ones who aided this project, as it is still being advanced on today, many decades later.

Now, what makes hypertext so important? What makes it ‘greater’ than original text? The interactivity is certainly a positive, since there is no feasible way to play a video or hyperlink something within a book. A book also has many other limitations around how it is distributed and attained. But the better question to ask is if these things are necessarily bad.

Personally, a book has many advantages that otherwise may be forgotten. With a book, there isn’t much distraction within the medium itself. I do not mean the barking dog next door, nor that annoying baby crying. No, I mean the book itself. With hypertext there are many distractions with the graphics and videos and many other elements that make it up. One moment you could be researching the meaning of life, the next you are suddenly staring at a cat playing with yarn. Now this isn’t to say this will always happen, but there is just nothing like sitting in a quiet room and pulling out a book to read.

So, perhaps it could be based on preference which is enjoyed more, hypertext or original text, but the. thing to note is knowing what is beneficial and detrimental to both of these mediums. Learning more about hypertext and its origins can only aid in our knowledge, especially if the book becomes obsolete and forgotten.

{2/15/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

___________________________________________________________________

It’s the End of Books as We Know It

Books. The word brings about vivid images of adventure and excitement, or long hours staying up for that test you forgot to study the next day. But despite this, books are and always have been important in our culture. Many religions base their ideas on books, even cultures today were formed by the book. We have to give credit to the book for our knowledge, for almost everything we know today. So what wouldhappen if the book vanished?

Robert Coover discusses this within his article, The End of Books. He talks about books dying off because of how advanced hypertext is. While hypertext certainly has is advantages, would it truly mean the end of the book as we know it? I think not. Coover’s writing was back in 1992, a good 20+ years ago. His prediction still has yet to come to pass, despite all of this time.

Now have books begun to turn obsolete? Possibly. But they will never fully disappear. Books are simply too important for us to lose them. Through the use of hypertext, things have become more interactive and digital based, but we still continue to use books today despite this. In fact, all digital knowledge is based on books (to some degree). Within the education system books are still used, but it must be noted that even schools are going as digital as time goes on.

But to answer Coover’s unspoken question if we are going to lose books forever, I certainly would say no.

{2/16/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

___________________________________________________________________

Human/Computer Connections

Some people might say the computer is making us “dumber”, whatever that means. Through many historical moments of our lives, we have encountered new technology that has always been controversial. The age old notion is computers make things “too easy”. How idiotic does that sound? What the computer does for us only furthers our knowledge, aiding us by not getting bogged down in the smaller details. Doing complex math for example is a lot easier (and faster!) if a computer does it for us. This does not mean we should not learn how to do math, it advances us as well. Math could be considered the precursor to many things, much like the computer is.

This rambling all leads to the one idea of computers and people. Tristan Harris discusses a notion regarding how we are being fooled into being unaware of what is actually in front of us. Within How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds — from a Magician and Google’s Design Ethicist, his main question is ‘Where does technology exploit our minds’ weakness?’

This is an excellent thought, especially when it comes to how technology affects us as a whole. The examples used include menu prices, from what is actually not on the menu versus what is. As he states, “Why am I being given these options and not others?” This answer is simple; control. This control is formulated by those who wish to divert out attention to specific things. Technology can only help in this, just as the math problem previously — computers makes things faster and easier. So why not take advantage of the technology given to push someone toward a specific idea or, better yet, to spend money.

Websites like Yelp, Expedia and even Google are excellent examples of this. These places aggregate specific information, but who is to say that information given wasn’t paid for to show up above others? It all returns to this element of control — to push us in a specific direction. We must all look past what is put in front of us to truly get the deeper meaning behind it. Harris continues to explore this idea with his thoughts towards both the idea of missing something important and social approval.

We wake up and the first thing that usually occurs is reaching for technology. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as our phones are excellent devices for aggregating information. But what happens if we lose our phones, or better yet, lose our connection to technology. Will we miss something? Will this be that big of an issue? This even stops me, someone who gave up social media, from completely deactivating many social media sites. There is a fear of missing something important, despite not visiting these platforms in months, even years. In fact, The Washington Post even did a study regarding this very idea. It even goes as far to state,

“Research suggests FOMO can take a negative toll on psychological health. Constant fear of missing events can cause anxiety and depression, especially for young people.”

Anxiety? Depression? All from missing that update about the latest friend’s breakup. Some might say this is ridiculous, but (unfortunately) this is what our society deems important. It goes hand and hand with Harris’ idea of social approval. There are many studies that dictate humankind care about fitting in. This social discourse can also lead to bullying in school, something many of us have went through in our younger lives.

So is all of this caused by technology? Certainly not. Some may like to blame the current technology for many issues, but we must remember what is behind that technology; people. Patrick Goss thinks technology is as evil as humanity, which certainly holds merit. After all, didn’t humans create technology? So aren’t we to blame for what happens with it? The Pew Research Center did a study about science in the next 50 years and found this true,

“A majority of Americans envision a future made better by advancements in technology.”

So, in the end, technology can be seen as both good and bad, depending on which side is taken. But how does this all relate back to how we interact with computers today? It is here that I wish to delve just a bit into Langdon Winner and his article, Mythinformation.

Winner states,

“Mythinformation (n.): The almost religious conviction that a widespread adoption of computers and communications systems, along with broad access to electronic information, will automatically produce a better world for humanity.”

His entire idea is that while computers and all the technology surrounding them are changing our world in many different ways, they are not necessarily changing it for the better as many people believe. Many people point out how freeing and democratizing the internet and computers are, but Winner responds with:

“The computer savants correctly notice that computerization alters relationships of social power and control; however, the most obvious beneficiaries of this change are large transnational business corporations.”

This just goes right back to the earlier question of control. Who controls the information we are presented with and what motivates them to gives us certain bits of information rather than others. In the end, perhaps the best thing we can do is simply further our knowledge about technology and how it affects us daily.

It is through human/computer interactions that we advance ourselves toward the future, even if there is controversy surrounding it. I look forward to a day when we stop focusing on what is in front of us and look beyond it. Imagine using technology to its full potential — a potential not yet realized. Truly, the possibilities are limitless.

{2/18/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

Digital Influence was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Digitalization. Positive or Negative? A debate that continues today. It was within the late 1950s that a shift began to occur in the way we view the world today. At first, these changes were mostly found within the academic and business communities. Mainframe computers allowed complex problems to be solved more quickly and for large sets of data to be more easily compared. In was with the start of miniaturization that computing began to enter the average person’s daily life and true digitalization could begin. This was most well known as the Digital Revolution.

There have been many advancements in today’s technology, some that have pushed the boundaries further than we could ever think possible. However, the question still stands. Are these changes good or bad? What are the repercussions of them? What are the advantages of them? In an earlier entry, Foundational and Transitional Thinking, the story of self driving cars was brought up. These advancements, this ability for a car to almost predict the future based on variables, is something that was a fantasy 50 or so years ago. It brings up the question where our future is taking us and how technology as a whole is going to progress this.

Many have discussed the negatives of the digital era, especially concerning what would happen if a cataclysmic event occurred. When concerning the internet specifically, CNN discusses things from cyberwarfare to something as basic as ‘cable cutting’. But are things like this really that easily done? If the internet can be shut down, wouldn’t every aspect of our digital lives go down with it? (There are even political notions that put our internet at risk today!) Imagine if we were finally able to digitize every book — every event in our history. The next day? Gone.

However, what about the positives of our technological advancement? Ignoring the repercussions, at least for now, what can come from this idea of digitalization?

Digital companies like Uber are able to disrupt deeply entrenched industries and change the way we look at basic services like taxis.

“Riders also get more choices and they get to control how they contact their potential drivers.”

This very idea is a major game changer and shows that the digital revolution can even affect areas that seem outside its normal scope. It’s success has been so great that most new companies strive to be the Uber of any given industry.

Another area where technology has had many positive implication is television. As little as a few years ago, watching television programing required signing up with cable or satellite providers. This usually cost quite a bit and left you with a lot of stations you weren’t necessarily interested in watching. With the digitalization of much of this programing (cord-cutting), however, a person can easily sign up for specific packages through online services that allow them to watch what they want when they want.

The digital revolution has also affected the way we find and read books. Gone are the days of scouring the library for a hard to find volume. Now most books are available from numerous sources (Kindle, Nook, Google Books) in a variety of digital formats. This has made it much easier to new authors to make their way into the marketplace. At the same time, it has made many hard to books (especially rare old books) available at the touch of a button.

Of course, there are many other ways in which our world is growing more digital. The list goes on, with more and more advancements being made everyday. But with these advancements we must also remember that becoming digital is only the first step in our own advancement. Imagine the possibilities of the future and the endless amount of knowledge already available at our fingertips. One day we may even see holodecks of Star Trek become real.

{2/2/2017}

• Joanna Shea Powell

___________________________________________________________________

A Thought Into Negroponte

“Like air and drinking water, being digital will be noticed only by its absence, not its presence.”

A fascinating quote from Negroponte himself — one that must be discussed. These days it’s hard to imagine a world without our digital devices. After all, when we need to know something, what do we reach for first? The answer may have once been a book or encyclopedia, but these days it is certainly a phone to search the internet. Our own personal digital devices are such a part of our lives that most people’s first instinct upon experiencing an event is to take a selfie or ‘tweet’ about it — thus sharing it with as many people as possible.

Nicholas Negroponte had many revolutionary ideas that subsequently came into being. As a founder of the MIT Media Lab, he has been on the cutting edge of the convergence of technology and human existence for some time. Since leaving the lab, Negroponte has continued his work with the One Laptop Per Child organization, which strives to create an inexpensive computer to provide to children in impoverished areas of the world.

Negroponte’s book Being Digital, discusses many of his ideas about where the world is heading with the digital revolution. He describes how many people early on had the wrong idea about what could be done with new computer technology. Instead of just trying the improve the capabilities of existing technology and media, he explores many outside the box notions of how computers could change our lives. His example of High Definition television defines this very thought. For Negroponte, High definition television is a just more of the same. Instead he wants to explore all the different ways technology can affect the mundane programing of television.

However, perhaps a better way of exploring Negroponte’s ideas is not to delve so specific as TV programming. To quote from his book, Being Digital, he states,

“The medium is not the message in a digital world.” (71)

Playing with McLuhan’s idea of the medium being the message, Negroponte points out that when dealing with bits rather than atoms, the medium becomes largely meaningless. Instead of being held in a book, CD, or any other physical container, information is simply data in a digital stream. What matters then is how that data is viewed not how it is carried. As Negroponte says, the same data stream can lead to vastly different results based on how it is viewed.

In the end, Negroponte’s book is filled with his far reaching vision of the future. These visions are not science fiction either, many have come to be. In the mid 90s, when the book was written, the idea of a digital butler (141) would have still called up visions of The Jetsons. In today’s world, they are just another fact of life, with digital assistants like Siri that live in our devices and are used daily.

Negroponte’s take on becoming digital has informed many within the New Media landscape and those throughout the world. It is through his visions that we have shaped our digital lives. He has predicted many things that have come to pass, from Netflix to e-books and even touch screens. Just as we continue to develop these technologies, we will surely continue to evolve in our new digital lives.

{2/4/2017}

-Joanna Shea Powell

Being Digital was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In the previous entry, we discussed what New Media was and is today, as well as how it has changed over time. As we explored, New Media itself is tied very closely with computer technology and the digital revolution. Delving into this notion, we must further ask ourselves how this connection affects us today. New Media, as we know it, wouldn’t exist without this technology, thus, to fully understand it, we must first delve into the origin of the computer. This will enable us to understand how we have shaped this technology and how these digital marvels have shaped us in turn.

It was a famous computer scientist, J. C. R. Licklider that once stated the following,

“We need to substitute for the book a device that will make it easy to transmit information without transporting material.”

It is this thought, among many others, that helped forge what is now known as the digital age. It is the constant growth of technology, on a day to day basis, that enables us to create what was once thought impossible. The way we live, the way we attain information, as all changed over the last 50 years. Understanding more about technology and it first started is the key into understand our past, present and even future as a whole. How was the computer first realized? Who was the one who thought of using technology in the way we do now? Is it even possible for us to comprehend how far this technology can take us? It is all of these questions and more that must be answered to fully comprehend where technology is heading and where this digital age is taking us.

Licklider is only one who has impacted how we view technology and it’s effect on human thinking. It is through his work, Man-Computer Symbiosis that he explains the relationship between ourselves and computers. It was his hope, in a future time, that the machine’s cognition would both surpass and become independent of humankind as a stage within our own evolution. He opens up his discussion telling the tale of the fig tree and the insect Blastophaga grossorun and how they live in a symbiotic relationship. This can be compared to our own existence and the existence of the technology, in this case the computer, that we have created.

In trying to describe his Man-Computer Symbiosis, Licklider explains the roles as follows,

“Men will set the goals and supply the motivations, of course, at least in the early years. They will formulate hypotheses. They will ask questions.”

“The equipment will answer questions. It will simulate the mechanisms and models, carry out the procedures, and display the results to the operator.”

Within these quotes, an important notion to keep in mind, was that each partner (ie. computer and human) shared an equally important role in the process of thought. In other words, man asks the questions while the computer answers. With this in mind, we must remember that a symbiotic relationship between two ‘individuals’ is mutual and cooperative, not one sided. Therefore, machines would never overtake all the roles of man like many science fiction movies portray. (This is not a case of I, Robot!) At the same time, computers would go beyond simply extending human ability.

Looking at Licklider and his notion of Human-Computer Symbiosis, we can look strictly at the advancement we have had in technology as a whole. We did not have this kind of tech 20 or 30 years ago, in fact, our ideas of technology were completely and utterly different. Yes, there was some aspect that we would advance the computer and what could be done with it, but the full scope of our current abilities could not be predicted.

Within this same line of thought and pertaining to New Media, it is important to consider the effects technology has on art. This is an idea that was explored by Walter Benjamin, a german philosopher, in his work, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It is within this work that Benjamin states,

“During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence.”

As media changes and how we perceive things changes, life itself changes. While Benjamin was specifically referencing the explosive growth a picture magazines and cinema, the idea of media affecting human life fits well with New Media. Computers change not only how we perceive the world around us, but how we interact with it and other people. No longer do we even need physical reproductions to bring our hearts desire into our grasp.

It is through these digital representations that we continue to grow and adapt to the world around us. The digital era enables us to understand much more in greater detail with less limitations than ever. Benjamin goes on to discuss, with this quote,

“…the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character.”

This is another central idea within New Media. Here he is referencing how the expansion of publishing, in the age of mechanical reproduction, allowed anyone with the means and opportunity to put out works of art. This idea, along with many others, is what lies at the core of New Media. Computers have simply amplified this idea, as potential authors no longer need a physical container to write. Anyone, anywhere, can become an author and easily publish (and distribute) their works in this digital age.

It is all of these notions that come together to help us understand where technology is heading and where this digital age is taking us. There are many others that can be referenced when it comes to this thought process, but those can be explored in further entries. As we continue to develop and thrive in this digital age, it is important to remember where we began on this journey into the future.

{1/20/2017}

-Joanna S Powell

The creation of the computer was certainly a major revolution in humankind’s history. It is through this technology that we have accomplished much of what we once thought was impossible. At the same time it is important to look back at the origins of this staple of our daily lives. However, who is credited with creating the technology that ‘started it all’? This question is not easily answered. The technology being referenced is, of course, the common computer. While there were many inventions that were credited with being landmarks in history, it was only in the last 50 or so years that we advanced much faster than previous eras.

That still leaves us with the question of who created the computer. Unfortunately, there really was no ‘one person’ who created it. The computer itself is not a singular machine or process, but rather an array of many different components. Each of these parts and functions needed labor,or many people with a great deal of time, to come into being. Some of these people include Turing, Engelbart, Zuse and Babbage. This is certainly not the complete list, but it is Babbage who is credited most with the creation of the computer. With his Analytical Engine, he paved the way for the future of computer technology. However, it is to be noted that the Analytical Engine was actually never completed. Given the limitations of technology at the time and shear cost of resources the Analytical Engine was a dream Babbage could not see finished. What is important with the engine, however, is not a final product, but rather the device it described and the scientific and mathematical ideas that were developed to give it life. When computers were eventually developed in the next century, they may have used electricity rather than mechanical means to perform their tasks, but Babbage would have easily been able to recognize his Analytical Engine within them.

Babbage, of course, has laid his claim when it comes to the advancement of computer technology, but another stands out as well — Alan Turing. During and after the Second World War, people including Turing pioneered many of the technologies that would be the modern computer. Turing’s work at Bletchley Park during World War II using his Bomba, an electromechanical machine that used computer like logic to break the Nazi Enigma code, truly helped turn the tide of the war. He is best known, however, for the Imitation Game, or Turing Test. The test itself was a means to check whether or not someone could tell the difference between a person and a computer pretending to be a person. This test has had and continues to have a major effect on the world of computing as it truly opened the door to what computers might be able to become.

Comparing both these famous people would not be complete without discussing some of the current advancements that have occurred thanks to them. Currently there are many inventions that have pushed our boundaries and created technology that would put others to shame. Some of these include recent advancements in 3D technology and the idea of touch-free devices. Apple, with its new Airpods bring a revolution to earbuds and becoming truly wireless. But, this is not all Apple’s device does, no, it integrates this notion of voice-commanded software. At a simple command the Airpods bring the world to your finger tips using Siri, Apple’s “Intelligent Assistant.” (To note: Apple was not the first with this tech, only one of the first to make it ubiquitous.) This could be compared to Google’s ‘Google Glass’, which unfortunately fell through due to many issues with privacy and regulations. However, even technology that is considered a failure can pave the way for new innovation. (After all, if not for a ‘failure’ to clean properly, penicillin may have never been created!)

However, something that has appeared in the market recently is Virtual Reality, or VR for short. These systems completely change the way we experience and interact with media. Using advanced hardware and groundbreaking software, Virtual Reality systems are able to transport the user fully into what they are viewing. Whether it’s on the stage of a concert, deep in the jungle, or flying through space, VR lets a person truly feel like they’re there. Much in the way television brought the outside world into the home, Virtual Reality brings people to places they would otherwise never experience in a jaw dropping manner. Without the advancement in technology that we have today, this concept would be impossible.

All of this revolves around Licklider’s notion of Human-Computer Symbiosis. Yet, it wasn’t until recently that a news article discussing self-driving cars caught my attention. With the advancement of technology, thanks to people like Babbage and Turing, we have now come to a century in which technology is helping us in more ways than ever. This includes making our lives easier, but also much safer. The idea of self-driving cars, when done correctly, could save thousands upon thousands of lives. It was within this article, found here, that a Tesla self-driving car predicted a crash before it happened, applying emergency brakes and saving those inside it. This ability to predict the future before it happens is the first step in advancing ourselves — something that technology can only help with in the future and fits with one of the goals of Licklider’s Symbiosis,

“It is to bring computing machines effectively into processes of thinking that must go on in ‘real time.’”

Through Tesla’s car we have learned that technology that we create can, and has, surpassed the creator. This is not something that I believe should be viewed with negativity, in fact, it should be considered extremely positive in nature. Imagine the possibilities with the technology we create, from using better systems to cut down on car emissions (thus saving our environment), to truly exploring man’s final frontier.

It is through the many creators of our time that have enabled these wonders of technology. Through hard work, dedication and lots of research, things have been done that once were simply impossible to even think of. Through people from the past, including Babbage and others, we look toward the future for further advancement. If humankind continues to push itself and the technology created, there may be one day where the ideas of tomorrow are today.

{1/23/2017}

-Joanna S Powell

Foundational and Transitional Thinking was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

New Media. Words that conjure up many different images at once. But what exactly is New Media? How is it defined? Why do we need to define it? Perhaps the answers to these questions are not as simple as they may seem. New Media impacts us on a day to day basis, molding the way we see the world and how we react to it. There have been many attempts at defining New Media, however it seems as though we are still at a loss as to what exactly New Media is and how important it is to our society.

Before going into the importance of New Media, let us first break it down and discuss some of the definitions people, over the years, have given it. The Cambridge Dictionary defines New Media as the following:

“ .. products and services that provide information or entertainment using computer or the internet, and not by the traditional methods such as television and newspapers.”

So, by that definition, New Media is composed of only the online side of the spectrum, which has valid logic. In this new “digital age” almost anything online is considered to be “new”, at least compared to the recent 50 years or so. But, could New Media mean more than this? Why are mediums like television and newspaper excluded? To answer this, we must first look at the phrase “atoms to bits” and what exactly is meant by this. Dr. Lucas, a professor at Middle Georgia State University goes into excellent detail with his quote,

“ No longer are the products of professional culture married to their physical containers; the new media are bits: free of atoms that seek to control their dissemination. ”

In other words, there are no physical containers to hold new media. The entire idea of atoms to bits simply means that everything is transforming to digital. No longer are we restricted to this notion of ‘only the experts know’, we can now become experts ourselves with all of the knowledge available to us. Forbes, with its article on this very topic states the following:

“ .. work previously done by human beings in physical space has been transformed into coded instructions executed by a digital machine. ”

Indeed, it seems as though a lot of work done previously by humankind has been digitized into a more free and less abrasive format. Many do not realize they hold more power in their hand than we had only a few decades ago. The argument is brought up that people only use this technology to search the internet for cat videos, but I must disagree. What are students now doing in the classroom? How is the classroom itself changing? All of this goes back to the idea of “atoms into bits” and how life is changing whether we like it or not. Students are now picking up their phones in classrooms and questioning things their professors are saying. This is not out of disrespect, but it is this idea that we can now question our experts. Some classrooms have even acknowledged this and began to integrate technology into the classroom, allowing the students to teach themselves and further their knowledge accordingly. It is all of these notions that we must look forward to as time advances.

Now, to return to the topic at hand and how we define media, there are many writers that attempt to explain this wholeheartedly. Lev Manovich, known for his book The Language of New Media, is one of the more well known writers of our time. It is within Manovich’s introduction to The New Media Reader, New Media from Borges to HTML, that he discusses eight propositions which are considered to be the more profound definitions of New Media. Quoting from the book, we have:

New Media versus Cyberculture

New Media as Computer Technology Used as a Distribution Platform

New Media as Digital Data Controlled by Software

New Media as the Mix Between Existing Cultural Conventions and the Conventions of Software

New Media as the Aesthetics that Accompanies the Early Stage of Every New Modern Media and Communication Technology

New Media as Faster Execution of Algorithms Previously Executed Manually or through Other Technologies

New Media as the Encoding of Modernist Avant-Garde; New Media as Metamedia

New Media as Parallel Articulation of Similar Ideas in Post-WWII Art and Modern Computing

Each one discusses its own notions when defining this expressive topic. As this article continues, many of these propositions will be referenced. But, to start with, let us breach the subject of Cyberculture versus New Media. To answer this, we must first understand exactly how Manovich defines Cyberculture. Within Borges to HTML, it states,

“ .. the study of various social phenomena associated with Internet and other new forms of network communication. ”

By contrast, New Media is less focused on the direct social aspects of networks than the technology and cultural paradigms that allow these social interactions to take place. For example, Cyberculture would study the interactions of people on Facebook, whereas New Media would focus on social media as a platform and the effects such platforms have on culture as a whole.

Manovich’s fourth proposition is especially impactful to our understanding of New Media as it states,

“..the Mix Between Existing Cultural Conventions and the Conventions of Software.”

This means that while computer technology has become more and more important to media, many old ways of thought still persist. The example Manovich gives in Borges about film holds true. Yes computer technology is critical to the production of movies, and platforms such as Netflix have had an enormous impact on how they are distributed, but much of the production process has remained unchanged. Humans are still the primary drivers of the creative process, leaving the computer to remain mere “technicians.”

It is this idea of new versus old that will be discussed in more detail. Many of Manovich’s other propositions will be spoken about later as well. Perhaps a question that should be asked is if writers like Manovich are correct in their assumptions. After all, isn’t Manovich an expert? It is this process of ‘questioning the experts’ that is such a part of today’s digital world. New Media is a very important topic that, as a society, we must continue to study and discuss. Only by looking through the research done before us can we come to the proper conclusions and learn from it.

{1/12/17}

-Joanna S Powell

___________________________________________________________________

New vs. Old

The idea of new versus old is a topic that has come up many times within today’s digital world. There have been many discussions about this subject, some more fruitful than others. However, before this topic can truly be explored, we must first look into why, as a society, we still need these old techniques and technologies.

This conflict of old and new media can be seen within a Startribune article which discusses why many people have not given up traditional cable TV for streaming services. They state,

“ Most people consider the hassle of cord cutting to be too great. ”

Even with the constant, rapid advancement of technology, old media remains a great and critical element in the daily lives of a large segment of the population. Why is this? Why can society not displace itself from our past and focus on our future as a whole? This is a topic that has been brought up many times within history, but perhaps not as much as in the here and now. The answer to this is a very complicated one, one which has not been found yet. So many arguments have stemmed from the idea of completely tossing out the old and starting fresh. But the question is why hasn’t it been done yet and is it the correct thing to do?

Perhaps the best way to answer this is to first define what media actually is and how it can become outdated. Media, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as the following:

“ The main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the Internet) regarded collectively. ”

Even this definition relies heavily on older notions. Given the changes in the media landscape it may be simpler to think of media itself as a container for ideas. The means through which these ideas are created, distributed, and consumed brings the distinction between old and new media. Vin Crosbie, in What is New Media?, breaks media into three distinct forms of communication: interpersonal, mass, and new.

Interpersonal media allows content to be easily individualized and gives all participants equal control, but has a very limited scope. Mass media on the other hand addresses the issue of scope by distributing content to an infinitely wide audience. This audience, however, has very limited ability to control this content as said content cannot be fully individualized. These two forms lead directly into New media which,

“..has the advantages of both the Interpersonal and the Mass media, but without their complementary disadvantages.”

Each of these three forms of media still center around the notion of communicating ideas. Thus media can be thought of as a container for ideas. As media has evolved the shape and form of these containers has changed greatly to the point where these containers no longer even require physical form to be distributed.

More discussion on this topic will be further explored in future entries.

{1/14/17}

-Joanna S Powell

To continue this topic, one question that could be asked is when what happens when New Media becomes old. Is there a set time frame for when we say ‘oh, that is old now, time to move on’. Or does it occur when new things are invented and naturally take the place of the old? According to Manovich’s fifth proposition, this is somewhat true. Quoting from the introduction once more,

“ ..some authors have suggested that every modern media and telecommunication technology passes through its ‘new media stage.’ In other words, at some point photography, telephone, cinema, television each were ‘new media.’ ”

This implies that there is a cycle that new media follows into old media. There have been many revolutionary inventions that could be considered new media, however we have ‘outgrown’ them. That is not to say they are considered useless now, no, technology has only advanced them to the point we do not need the original anymore.

Manovich’s definition discusses a change in immediacy and access to what could not be represented beforehand. His example revolves around film and the use of direct cinema, which can be considered a ‘revolt’ toward what was considered main stream at the time. However, this only brings in the notion of immediacy once again, where things are changing to either counter the current container, or modify it to be better (unknowingly or not). When people were using this direct cinema, or cinema verite as it is also called, they did not realize their ‘revolting’ would change how we view some films today.

This could offer an answer towards when we transition from new media to old. It offers many notions that open up new possibilities for creators and consumers of media alike. This could pose the question what makes New Media new in the first place. It is through the changing of media, through using old techniques and technologies and advancing on them that makes them new. In fact, New Media could not be considered new without the old media to compare it to. Manovich has something to say about this as well with his sixth proposition on the definition of New Media. It states,

New Media as Faster Execution of Algorithms Previously Executed Manually or through Other Technologies

As Manovich puts it, a ‘digital computer is a programmable machine’. But, for a machine to be programmed, a human must first understand what is being programmed and how to program it into the computer. In other words, and using a simple example, for a computer to be able to add 2+2, a human must first understand how to do it beforehand. This is a rather round-about way of saying that we still need previous, old, methods (and technologies) to advance ourselves. It continues to rev0lve around this notion of immediacy and how quickly we can get things done. Understanding the idea of old versus new only helps us in the end.

The PewResearchCenter did a study on blogs and how social media relate and differ from traditional press. Within their findings, they state that

“ ..most original reporting still comes from traditional journalists, but technology makes it increasingly possible for the actions of citizens to influence a story’s impact. “

So this leads us into another idea toward new versus old, the feedback loop. With old media it was almost impossible to get feedback on certain topics within a reasonable amount of time. Even with the use of mail, it was rather difficult to get feedback on time. The advancement of email certainly helped, but even email seems to be going the way of old media now. It is social media that is taking its place. With things like Twitter, Facebook and even Youtube, stories are getting out much quicker with even quicker responses. Something posted on Twitter can immediately get a reply and be discussed accordingly.

So, with this new immediacy spectrum, is the argument of old versus new still valid? Certainly more research is needed to answer this question alone, plus the many others that revolve around it.

{1/15/17}

-Joanna S Powell

___________________________________________________________________

“The Medium is the Message.”

Famous words by a famous man — Marshall McLuhan. McLuhan is best known for writing Understanding Media and being a pioneer in the New Media landscape. His entire idea of the medium being the message is a profound notion that has changed the way we see New Media as a whole. His idea revolves around the concept that how things are conveyed is just as important as what is being portrayed. If anything, the content is secondhand to the container. For example, when we see a wine glass, the content itself does not really matter, even if is assumed to be wine. It is the container that has meaning and that conveys its own message. To quote Dr. Lucas from his Intro to New Media lecture,

“What's inside doesn’t matter.”

Containers can change and influence what is contained within them. Much like a fluid, content will tend to conform to the container it is placed within.

Marshall McLuhan pointed out that focusing only or even mostly on the content of a medium misses much of the effect any medium has on ourselves and society as a whole. There are many instances in which content has driven a major societal change, but the medium that content is contained within can be just as important. For example, the Bible has had many tidal effects on society as a whole but it was the introduction of the printing press and its mass production that helped lead to events like the protestant reformation.

Another quote by McLuhan, perhaps even better illustrating his idea of the medium is the message is,

“the “content” of a medium as a juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.”

The juicy meat works very well to distract the watchdog, but does not change the fact that the house is getting robbed. In the same way, if we focus on the content of a medium we can miss the greater implications of what is happening. An expansion of this idea may be that, the watchdog should be focused on the burglar, not wondering what cut or type of meat is being delivered.

It is all of these elements and notions that form the entirety of what McLuhan put forth. The idea of the container being more important than the content is crucial to our understanding of new media as a whole. It is also important to note that all of these ideas will continue to be explored and further explained as our society grows and advances further in this digital realm.

{1/16/17}

-Joanna S Powell

What is New Media? was originally published in Senior Seminar on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.