Main Points

Throughout the chapter, Lister emphasizes that as our world progresses, there is less and less of a difference between our lives and media–quite literally, media shapes them. Our routines–check e-mail, etc.–are no heavily entrenched in new media practices. And so, with that in mind, cyberspace has become the new frontier. The possibilities from a technological stance are endless, but new media also affects our social lives. At home, computers become communal, as family members engage with each other as much through the Internet and e-mail as they do through actual verbal actions. In a more general sense, though cyberspace provides a forum through which we can reinvent ourselves (anonymity plays a major role in ensuring this)–thus begins the formation of a new society dictated entirely by what we do through different media. There are varying views on the appropriateness of this extension of media into our lives: some see it as an affront to the home and personal lives, as people are now almost obligated to interact through different media (negatively called “business as usual”). Others see it as a liberating way to experience the world (affectionately called “cyberculture”). Either way, Lister points out, this culture promotes consumerism–most of what we buy and use we find through media. For companies, expansion across multiple platforms becomes key to further success. This also extends into the classroom through a process Lister calls “edutainment.” Education and entertainment are fused together to perform a new way for students to learn, one that is more multimodial in nature and encourages communication amongst different forms of media. Students can learn through images and videos instead of just text–there is a debate about whether this dilutes education and weakens our children. But this same debate is the one raging throughout society: is our dependence on new media setting us up for failure, as we begin to use only technology whose capabilities–both positive and negative–have yet to be fully understood?

Commentary

While I agree with Lister about most of his points, I don’t believe that we are necessarily becoming a more consumer-dependent culture. Before, we would look at magazines and catalogs and pick out the products we wanted. We’d go to the mall and go store-to-store and window shop. It was time consuming, but we did it nonetheless. Now, we can increase efficiency by shopping through online vendors. As Tajai said, we may buy music off iTunes, but in the old days, you had to go to the music store every week. This is, of course, a very literal interpretation of consumerism–Lister is most likely referring to the different devices through which we use media (computer, phone, MP3 player, etc.). But the correlation works–we are more efficient in the way we shop, watch videos, send mail, etc. But that doesn’t mean we do it more than we used to, just at a faster rate.

I agree with Lister on the role of media in family life. To be blunt, I hate it. I feel that it detracts from meaningful conversation. I know that if my mom is in the next room and needs to ask me a question, she won’t shout my name or come into my room–she’ll send me an e-mail. And then, dutifully, I’ll respond. But in the same way that I feel that someone texting on their phone while I’m in the middle of a conversation with them is rude, I think that new media can sometimes be a detriment to the way we interact with others. We are becoming less personal and less involved. We are concerning ourselves with short “LOL” messages and not spending enough time with one another. Sure, media is a great tool when we are far apart. But when we are close, why must we rely on it? I don’t understand this, but I wish I could eradicate it. We need media to survive in our modern world, I understand that. But at some point, we need to put aside the iPhones and Blackberrys and pay attention to those around us. The person we’re texting isn’t there–they are words on a screen. And we are choosing them over meaningful human interaction. This isn’t right.

Main Ideas

Kress’s overall point is that in the modern world, we interact with media in more ways than one–for example, text has taken on visual forms, which means that we have enact more than one of our senses to interact with it. This is called multimodality. We are inherently multimodial, since we use a number of different senses to interact with the world–if you eat a hotdog, you will not only taste it, but smell it, feel it and see it as well. In a similar fashion, media can be represented in a number of ways, and we have to adapt to each one. We read, we watch, we listen and, above all, we interact. Even when we talk, we use hand gestures to demonstrate our points. However, Kress also states that there is sometimes a divide between art and communication–the two, as dictated by society, will not always go together. And what results is a dumbing down of sorts of modern media: we are inherently handicapped in our perception of the world because we choose to isolate two things that are, in the end, very similar. If we can’t communicate through art, then we lose one of our most viable ways of interacting with one another. And if we do this, then we aren’t being multimodial–but in our modern world, we have to be. We can’t be “2D,” and focus only on one aspect of media (only language, as opposed to art, or both)–if we are, then we run the risk of having misinterpretations of media, and by extension, the information it is trying to convey.

Commentary

I agree with Kress–everything today is multimodial. In all our interactions, we are doing multiple things, whether we are conscious of it or not. I think his example of speech (how we have a certain beat/pattern, as well as variance in tone and volume) shows just how complex our everyday actions are. Especially in a world where technology is ever-improving, we must stay true to our multimodial selves. Now, instead of just using our senses to say, eat a hotdog, we use them to interpret media. I can read an article on paper while listening to a podcast on the same subject as a video on the event is playing on my screen. I also like his point about art–that it enhances our multimodial experience and that without it, our communication ability is hindered. I would have liked him to explore this point a bit further than he did–he spends a lot of time explaining multimodality, but I felt a further discussion into the importance of art would have been interesting. Why is it so important to our understanding of media? He states that it is, and we accept that point since we know it’s true, but what triggers our reactions? Does art lead to more user friendliness? I wish these questions had been answered–maybe another time.

Sin City

I was most struck by the use of color in Sin City. We are focused on a black and white film for much of the movie, but at appropriate times, we are hit with dabs of red, blue and yellow. They accentuate key aspects of characters that make them memorable to the viewer. We remember Goldie’s hair, Kevin’s blue eyes, the Yellow Bastard’s yellow blood. The way the filmmakers crafted the three story lines was multimodial in nature–we had to pay attention to the most minute of details to see how they all fit together. Everything was in play, and the film represented a cohesive production of many different parts, much like Kress’s speech example. In addition, Sin City represents a new frontier in film making. The movie, shot entirely on blue screen, gave way to another Frank Miller film, 300, which was shot in a similar fashion. The cartoonish portrayal of characters (especially the blood!) serves as a predecessor to movies such a Beowulf, which was effectively shot in a sort of live-action cartoon.

“Writers’ strike: As reruns take over television, eyes shift to new media.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20071203/ts_csm/awinners

This is an unusually made movie–it’s shot documentary style, so there will surely be a lot of tracking shots, and it’s viral promotion has been pretty spectacular. Essentially, there is a monster attacking NYC, but we, the audience, have no idea what the monster is, what it looks like, or if there is more than one. All we know is that it’s attacking. And we follow the protagonists as they film the event.

Here’s a trailer.

And here’s the Wikipedia entry on the marketing campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloverfield#Marketing

Ito 2002

• Mobile Phones allow you to be socially “co-present.” That is, you can interact with different friends in different locations at the same time. While members of older generations see using a cell phone amongst friends as distracting from the present social scene, it is, in reality, enhancing it–teens can use mobiles to bring in friends who were unable to make it to the day’s gathering. They can also use phones to access information to enhance their discussions.
• Instead on deciding on an exact time and place to meet, teens can pick more general times and locations and use messaging to find each other. Lateness is more acceptable, as long as you keep other informed. Older generations see this as an attack on manners–younger generations see it as flexibility.
• Mobile phones are seen as a social accessory, and can be used in the midst of other friends without being seen as rude.
• Phones help people who are just out of “visual range” find their companions–i.e. where a friend is sitting in a lecture hall.
• After they part, people can continue their discussions through mobile phone usage.
• The urban environment becomes more user friendly–people can be in contact with others, even when they are alone.

Ito 2005

• Since the invention of camera phones, users have been experimenting with different ways to share pictures and visual media. However, much of the social practice behind camera phones are still unknown.
• Camera phones are a new way to be socially co-present.
• People only e-mail pictures they take with their camera phones if they are “newsworthy.” The sender generally adds some of their own flair to make the image more appealing. Text messaging, another way to be socially co-present, does not need to be newsworthy to be interesting. Emailed pictures are more heavily scrutinized before their sending, and the recipients are generally only family and loved ones.
• By using online photo sharing sites, people can have others view their photos on their own times, which means the timeliness of the affair goes down. Photos uploaded to these sites don’t need to be newsworthy.
• However, these sites and other media spaces are tied to computers, which are better for optimal viewing and are sometimes mandatory. Media companies have begun trying to relay the internet experience into handheld devices
• In an experiment conducted by Ito, she found that couples uploaded more pictures to a personal “moblog” on their cell phones, which they then used for their own pleasure or for wider sharing. Couples were able to share in this co-presence, but there is rarely a sense of urgency. The newsworthiness goes down, as the pictures are more casual.
• The exchange of these pictures is intimate, even though they don’t take place in real time, and the couples may be miles apart.
• Visuals can lessen the need for text messages.
• As the technology for moblogs and camera phones expand, so too will the social uses of them, and eventually, they may revolutionize communication in the same way that text messaging once did.

Trinh

Trinh’s main point in her two chapters is that minorities, who are most open to oppression, must make attempts to use media to shed light to their situation and perhaps help it. Nearly everything in the media–visual, text, etc.–can be political. Thus, they can be used for resistance. Trinh identifies minority groups as “The Other,” saying that, because they are different, they are always oppressed in some way, even when they feel like they’re not. And so, “The Other” can use their own writings–she speaks a lot of autobiography–to help their cause. These texts are instruments of change. They can have an effect in various ways: they can displace old ideas, or simply drown them out. If they are constantly passed around, then their effect will be greater–television, for example, has the ability to completely brainwash its audience. And art, which previously just had artistic value, can now be used toward revolution. Trinh writes, “The questions of art continue to be called on to open up the boundaries of philosophy and politics.” Trinh also writes that the minority must watch all over media with a critical eye–they must be able to discern between that which will affect them negatively and that which will help them–”anti intellectualism” must not be allowed to reign. So in this way, through this form of positive censorship, the minority can have some dominance. And indeed, in order to improve their situation, the minority must be dominant in all facets of the media.

Commentary

I don’t really agree with Ito’s views on mobiles being an extension of social settings. To me, cell phones detract, not add, to the time I spend with friends. In fact, I find it quite annoying–some people have the habit of putting their phones on a table when we’re speaking. That’s one of my biggest pet peeves, and so I regularly take the phone and put it in my pocket, politely reminding my companion that I’m holding onto it for them so they don’t lose it. To me, you are social in the moment–it detracts from the atmosphere if you are texting friends while you’re with other peers.

I also find myself nostalgic for the days before cell phones. To me, they are a necessary nuisance, but a nuisance none the less. I hate the idea of being tied down, and that people can reach me no matter what. But, in our digital and fast-paced world, we have to be ready to communicate at a moment’s notice. However, when I travel out of cell phone range, it’s nice, because I feel free of my constraints. The teenagers Ito describes would never, ever be seen without their mobile. I find that I differ from this model. This is a present, and future of new media that I’m not particularly fond of.

I do agree with Ito re: camera phones. I find that the pictures I send via a photo message are only those which are most important, or will get a rise out of people immediately. If I need an opinion on something visual, I will photo message it to them. I will dump the rest of my photos onto Facebook or Photobucket, and then people can get to and comment on them on their own time. Of course, as time progresses, we will stop doing things on “our own time.” Our world is constantly getting faster, and the way in which we share visual aids will surely develop as well.

Trinh raises some interesting points, many of which I found similar to Friere’s. If media is already being used toward revolutions, then it surely will continue to. But unlike Friere, Trinh emphasizes a positive censorship, in that minority groups, in the process of improving their own way of life, will help weed out falsehoods in the media. However, I find it a bit unbelievable that minorities, or “The Other,” can ever get to a point where they truly dominate the media. Surely, through media like our New Media projects, they can find a niche where they can demonstrate influence. However, is this true dominance or merely a small cog of a larger media machine? At this point in time, I say the latter. But that’s not to say that it couldn’t change in the future–indeed, as we progress as a people and become less homogeneous, minority groups could have greater control over the content we see everyday. And if that is true, then they can in turn control political and societal discourse as well.

I’m reverting back to bullet points this week…

Main Ideas in Hobbs

• Teenagers spend an average of eight hours a day connected to a “screen,” be it a computer, television, or something else.
• In today’s world, children must be taught symbolic systems as a new form of communication–it is yet another foreign language.
• Mass digital media is the primary source for news and entertainment worldwide.
• The definition of literacy has been expanded to include visual, digital and electronic meanings.
• Everyone–business leaders, teachers, society–has a stake in teaching students how view and create their own media literacy.
• Visual literacy: Aesthetics of an image provoke different emotional responses from the viewer; education about the art begets a higher appreciation for it.
• Information literacy: “Set of abilities required to recognize when information is needed and the ability to locate and evaluate it”; emphasizes critical thinking.
• Digital literacy: Ability to understand information in many formats; meta-competency, or how people recognize their need for information.
• Media literacy: “Ability to access, analyze, evaluate and communicate messages in a wide variety of forms”; electronic messages are specifically crafted to get a point across and evoke an emotional response–there are motives behind each message; stresses a participatory style; More than 40 states now have media literacy programs in their schools.
• Critical literacy: Reading is not only usurping information, but analyzing it and finding deeper meaning–this emphasizes context and identity relations; is not a code to be broken, but something to be understood and interpreted; People can control their own literacy experiences.
• “Visual, electronic and digital media are reshaping the knowledge, skills and competencies required for full participation in contemporary society.”
• Literacy is a form of social power.
• The process behind the construction of text is as compelling as the text itself
• “There are disjunctures among new literacies that reflect important differences in emphasis, pedagogy and ideology.”
• Multiple surveys have been taken in an array of countries to determine the extent of students’ new literacy skills.
• There are many schools of thought on new literacies, which, on the one hand, is good because there are more forums for more ideas, but, on the other hand, is bad because of the contention between them.
• “Central objective of media education: the ability to apply knowledge and skills learned in a classroom to the world of everyday life.”

Commentary

In our digital age, it is necessary for us to develop a deeper understanding of new media practices. Hobbs takes a practical stance: we need to learn and educate about new literacies in order to stay ahead in the modern world. Society, which relies almost entirely on digital technology, demands it. It is up to educators, then, to teach the skills that students most need. In class, we discussed how much of our own media education came independently of school–we mainly taught ourselves. But children ten years our younger are apparently learning the skills in an academic setting. Much like we learned how to type in elementary school while our parents had to learn how to do it independently, our younger counterparts have a head start on interacting in the “real world.” I wonder, though, if they break down their media literacy education in the same way Hobbs does–I certainly don’t think about my new media literacy as a composition of many components (visual, digital, etc.). I’ve always focused on the cohesive body, and how it can be best manipulated to fit particular circumstances. I’ve never broken it down to say, “Here is my visual literacy and here is my digital literacy, and here is how they work together, are independent, etc.” I don’t see a particular benefit to this method if the ultimate goal is learning how to use media–it seems unnecessary. A nice, extra explanation, but nothing more.

Crash

Crash is an innovative film that examines the hypertextuality of life. In viewing it, we are relying highly on visual and information literacy–namely, as the individual story lines evolve, we have to trust our interpretations of the images and speech to help us understand the story. But our thoughts about each story line vary with the characters–the film does a good job of differentiating between the black, Asian, Hispanic and white experience. Our thoughts on the scenes with Ludacris vary greatly with those on the scenes with Sandra Bullock. Our goal is to build an overall thought about the movie, but our emotions fluctuate so much (anger at Ryan Phillipe in one instance, followed by pity for Don Cheadle in the next, etc.) that it may not be possible. After viewing Crash, we aren’t left with a cohesive idea or conclusion about the movie; instead, we only have our interpretations of each individual character and story. But although Crash may not come together at the end, its hypertextuality makes it an interesting, and indeed, important film (and it is done well, better than that of Babel, which takes a similar route but doesn’t give each story enoughs screen time for them all to be relevant).

Since we didn’t get to listen in class, I felt I’d post it here. Unfortunately, WordPress doesn’t allow you to post MP3 files, so I used iMovie to make it a video file. I just added some pictures of me and Cameron, who I interview, and threw on the MP3 file.

The Facts

In the two chapters we read by Jenkins, he focuses his attention on the idea that media has converged and is now fairly consolidated. The hypertextuality of media has thus grown–people can get their fill of information from one place. But in our world, people don’t simply read web pages. They also produce their own material–writings, audio, video and everything in between can be uploaded and accessed from a single platform. And this hypertextuality, this multimodial lifestyle, has become normal and almost assumed. This convergance, then, makes it easier to distribute, add to and discuss news and other topics. There is an inverse reaction, here, though: while companies will try and dissiminate information from the top down, using established links to reach the masses, the consumer will try to be recognized starting at the bottom and going up in a way that would resemble a grass roots political movement. And while it may be difficult to make people read our writings and other productions, it is fairly easy to make it public. And these publicized works–be they even just a single line–can affect public opinion. Generally, Jenkins says, this is how it works: members of different websites eventually form online communities, who can sway discourse. Through their “collective intelligence,” as Jenkins calls it, these groups can frame information–which, in theory, they can not physically change–to alter its perception by the masses. This can be used as an anti-corporation technique–Jenkins calls it the battle between prohibitionists and collaborationists. In fact, going back to the grassroots political movement example, online communities can completely alter political discourse, through both their own informations and misinformation. News is now analyzed by the common man on his blog–we no longer need Dan Rather. It is interactive, rather than just dictated, and participation is expected and key to new media. Instead of media becoming more exclusive, it has become more welcoming, as social networks have evolved as a result of online communities.

Jenkins continues this discussion in his sixth chapter, where he says that new media is not on television or radio, but online, where it can be transfered, assessed and commented on instantly. He raises three main points: new media makes it easier to archive and retransmit media; there has been a rush of “do it yourself” media production, where people are encouraged to participate in online communities and do so through their webcams, podcasts, blogs, etc.; and trends in the economy that encourage the rapid flow of pictures, ideas and literature. He goes further into the idea that online communities are created to distribute information–however, unlike our real life communities, we can jump from one online society to another. We don’t have to be loyal, and are thus free to explore other parts of the web. Finally, Jenkins brings up the idea that the web empowers consumers. Unlike previous decades, advertisers must now cater to the wants of their consumers–before, you could only get information from the TV, radio, or newspaper, so advertisers knew where they could broadcast to you. Now, because of billions upon trillions of web pages, advertisers, in order to turn a profit, have to take into consideration the wants of the consumer–otherwise, they’ll go somewhere else. Jenkins calls this “relationship marketing.”

Comments

Jenkins does an excellent job of describing our modern, technologically-dependent world. I particularly enjoyed his last point on “relationship marketing,” or “viral marketing.” How do you get people interested in your product? How do you bring attention to yourself, for the better? I’ve spent a lot of time in academics, extra-curriculars and jobs trying to tackle these questions. This summer, I worked on a presidential campaign, and my team and I were trying to figure out how to attract the youth vote. We toyed with the idea of a “Online Campus,” where people could interact with each other over topics related to the candidate, post videos and write blogs. But even that site–which would be the epitome of Jenkins’ convergence of culture–would be risky. There are no guarantees in this world of new media, so while it becomes easier for consumers to get information, it becomes increasingly harder for corporations to ensure that people read it. Now, there are millions of alternatives, whereas before, there were only a handful.

I also liked Jenkins ideas on blogs and their power. Certainly, we live in an age where the publics’ opinion can be swayed by your average Joe behind his computer. We no longer listen to expert opinion on war from generals, but rather to those of people who may never step foot on a battlefield. The chance for misinformation, then, is quite prevalent, as is the opportunity to spin stories to your liking. What is truth anymore? Are there any truly non-partisan media outlets? Even though we can get our information from more sources, we have a harder time determining if these facts are true. Everyone has the ability to mold stories to their liking. Jenkins doesn’t seem particularly concerned with this–he’s more fascinated with the results than the potential harm they could cause. While it is certainly interesting, exciting and compelling, new media can also be dangerous, and has an equal opportunity to be used for both harm and for good. This shouldn’t ever be forgotten.

I’ve decided to vary my style. I didn’t really like the way bulletpoints were working out, so I think I’ll do some summary paragraphs instead.

The Facts

Luke & Freebody’s main point is that reading, writing and literacy as a whole are social activities. They are rarely used solely for personal benefit–they are generally used to convey a message. If you write a newspaper article, you are producing literature for others, who will read it and thus interact with it. Reading and writing become a medium through which we can interact with others. Because reading and writing are so closely tied to how we interact with others, we internalize their meanings and provide our own analysis. Thus, as Luke and Freebody point out, we can not look at literacy objectively–everything is taken from one stance or another. We politicize everything and take positions on everything we read. Our reading of text is not neutral, and neither is our writing of text. And because of this, text varies per person. While society can help us along the way, our learning and interpretation of texts will eventually have to be developed from the inside, like many of our other ideas. No one has the exact same ideologies; likewise, no two people can have the same interpretation of literacy. Along with all of this is how we look at text: Luke & Freebody emphasize that text must be looked at from an analytical perspective, not merely an entertainment one. This move has been many years in the making, and reading and writing have gone from merely tools to build knowledge and use data, but ways with which to educate people. Literacy can be used a form of “cultural education.” That is, it’s hypertextual nature allows the reader/writer to transcend so many subjects that it builds their knowledge of society and the cultures that inhabit it. And in that way, it is able to avoid cultural differences to bring readers and writers of all different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds together. Luke and Freebody constantly emphasize that literacy must be used, in the modern age, not merely as a theoretical way to examine our world, but as a way to affect it. New media, they say, can help us in this cause.

Friere begins by sayings that when he reflects on his childhood in Brazil and thinks of how he became literate, he sees words, writing and reading as incarnated in many things in his environment. He was surrounded by literacy. The more things he experienced, the more literate he became. He would literally “read his world.” When he started to write, the world was “his chalkboard.” He became truly literate in secondary school, but he learned critical thinking abilities not from his teachers, but from his and his peers’ exploration of texts on their own. Teachers presented materials, but it was up to the student to use them to the best of their abilities–here was where the true learning took place. But reading is not merely “decoding” the world–it is interpreting it and understanding it. It’s the ability to think critically about your surroundings so that perhaps you can change them.

The Commentary

A lot of what Luke & Freebody and Friere say relates to last week’s readings on Multimodality. Literacy comes from all directions–a forest, as Friere describes–and we internalize it, only to reciprocate with our own output of literacy that also comes from many parts of us. I love the idea that literacy is social, that we are not reading and writing in a vacuum, but rather, for others. Media, in this way, earns its title–it is the go-between for many, the way in which we interact. It’s hypertextuality–that it is found throughout our lives in many different forms–only reinforces this belief. We are born into a world that crafts our literacy for us–as Friere points out, our interpretation of writing and reading is very much affected by our environment. To me, this is some of the most interesting aspects of media and new literacies. I’ve spent a lot of time in journalism, writing for web sites, newspapers, TV shows or just for my family. Every time, although the writing begins with my thoughts, it ends in someone else’s. It is social. Additionally, I determine what I write in part because of what I’ve grown to believe–certainly, my environment effects me in this way. I would also agree that we are no completely unbiased in anything–even when I write news articles, I have to fight myself to not put in my opinion. My fingers, on the keypad, yearn to write what I believe, and the process of stifling them is not an easy one.

This was an excellent film, and the unusual camera work–a component of new media–was especially effective in relaying the emotion behind the movie. For example, the quick cut-scenes within a scene compounded the drama already taking place. This is shown particularly well in Maggie Cheung’s first spot, when she first enters Andy Lau’s apartment–as she moves, the camera switches angles to show the way in which she walks, falls, talks, etc. Additionally, the filmmakers make use of zoomed-in shots to show the emotion of different characters. After “little brother” is beaten up initially, Lau hunts down his attackers. When they meet and battle, the camera focuses on Lau’s face, and his determination is realized. Perhaps the most dramatic and forceful shot of the movie is that of Lau’s stern expression with a line of blood dripping down the front of his face.

In terms of the movie’s content, the story is spun brilliantly, though I did think it was a bit odd that not much mind was paid to the fact that Lau and Cheung are cousins and lovers. But I felt that Lau’s progression throughout the film from aggressor to lover to aggressor was fantastic–you could genuinely see a shift in his emotional makeup. I took exception to the ending of the film, though: it was a little too Martin Scorsese-esque. I think the filmmaker’s point–that Lau is trapped in a cycle of violence that, despite his best efforts, he can not escape–could have been made without him ultimately perishing. The death of little brother more than makes that point.

Final point: The English in the subtitles is poor. Tenses, grammar, plurality and entire words are wrong. The filmmakers or DVD producers must have had spell-checkers of some sort. So this begs the question: Are the inaccuracies intentional, and if so, why?