04/08/04 - Self-Evaluation by Luke Quin 04/08/04 - Self-Evaluation by Emilie Wapnick 04/06/04 -Collage Art by Luke Quin 04/05/04 -Old and New Media by Luke Quin 04/04/04 - Culture Jamming and Hypercommercialism by Emilie Wapnick 03/25/04 - Computerizing Voting Software by Emilie Wapnick 03/21/04 - Digital Revolution in a 3rd World Country by Emilie Wapnick 03/14/04 -Public Memory of the Holocaust through Films by Luke Quin 03/12/04 -Public Memory by Luke Quin 03/10/04 - Independent Musicians in a Digital Age - Part 2 by Emilie Wapnick 03/07/04 - Independent Musicians in a Digital Age - Part 1 by Emilie Wapnick 03/01/04 -Usability Review - Internet Movie Database by Luke Quin 02/29/04 - Pollstar -- The Concert Hotwire: A Usability Review by Emilie Wapnick 02/26/04 - In Response to Stephen E. Weil's "Fair Use and the Visual Arts" by Luke Quin 02/22/04 -Factor Four of Section 107 of the Copyright Act by Luke Quin 02/19/04 - Photoshop Art: More than a Click by Emilie Wapnick 02/12/04 -My Photoshop Experience by Luke Quin 02/11/04 -Usability by 02/05/04 -Aura and Music by Luke Quin 02/03/04 -Emilie's Digital Self Portrait 02/03/04 -Luke's Digital Self Portrait 02/01/04 -Megalomaniac by 01/30/04 - Bush in 30 Seconds by Luke Quin 01/25/04 -
MAC vs PC
by |
Hello,
|
||||||
| Thursday, April 8, 2004 - Self-Evaluation My
feeling towards blogging is one of approval. I feel it's a great
way to express myself.
The most
interesting
thing i find about blogging is best reflected in what Matt Soar said
on day one: "Think of blogging as a personal diary for everyone to read".
On the one hand I feel very comfortable and intimate with my thoughts
as I write them, but at the same time they are there for all to see and
read. My favorite weblog in the class (although I can't claim to have read them all) is definitely Digital Downpour. These two girls know how to write really well! My favorite entry of my own (they're all my babies) would have to be "Aura and music". I'm a music enthusiast and I get excited any time I get to write about what I know. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Thursday, April 8, 2004 - Self-Evaluation Looking back on my weblog, I don’t think my entries have changed all that much. After I received feedback from Eric at mid semester, I made an effort to write in a more formal tone. Perhaps my entries have become a little more relevant to the class/readings as well. But in general I don’t think they have changed that much. I did enjoy writing in this weblog. However, near the end of the semester, the workload in my other classes began to pile up and I found myself dragging a little. I had to make more of an effort to keep writing an entry each week. My view towards weblogs is definitely a positive one. I think they are great tools for expression and creativity because they allow you to incorporate text with different forms of media (most notably graphics.) At first I was a little skeptical about whether a blog could actually be used in an academic context (since most of the ones I’ve seen are very personal) but now I realize that this is not an issue at all and they can be used for even the most formal text. My favorite entry is probably the two-part entry I wrote
entitled “Independent
Musicians in a Digital Age”. If I were to start another weblog,
the only thing I would do differently is manage my time better
so as to not
fall behind on my entries. I enjoyed a lot of my classmates blogs,
but my favorite is probably Brooke’s “Interreaction”.
It has a great tone and Brooke has interesting opinions which are
especially
well written. It is also very creative in its design. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
| Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - Collage Art I found the Cease and desist article
very fascinating. I especially like the Negatively story. It wasn't
the first time I had heard it, and it seems to have really gone done
in history.
Obviously these characters were alittle undeserving of their harsh punishment,
but the debate with regards to their art form continues. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Monday, April 5, 2004 - Old and New Media This is one of my final entries, and I want to address
a topic that has reoccurred in our class discussion throughout the
semester. It's about that term "New Media", and how it will
always be ambiguous. The argument is as follows, every medium was new
at some point, and becomes not new at a later point. Therefore what "New
Media" refers to is ever changing. Perhaps one might even say that New media are just new ways of representing old media. For example an old medium might be a traditional Japanese Tyco drum, and the new media involve the latest ways of recording and processing the sound of that drum. Basically, for me, the terms old and new media seem unsettling and unfitting to describe the arts. I am still lost in their ambiguity. Luke |
|||||||
Sunday, April 4, 2004 - Culture Jamming and Hypercommercialism The Internet has become a space in which you can sell anything, no matter how absurd. On Ebay you can buy pretty much anything from an Atari console to Enrique Iglesias’ mole. In the spam we receive daily in our inboxes, they advertise everything from prescription drugs to university diplomas to bodily enhancements. Many people find this hypercommercialism a little ridiculous. E-commerce has therefore become a major target for culture jammers. A few days ago I stumbled upon a site called betterdogfood.com. This site was put together by a group of web artists (http://www.media.org) as a spoof of corporate e-commerce websites. Their slogan is: “We give you the dog and the sell you the dog food.” Basically, you fill out a form stating the desired traits you would like your dog to have (Frisbee-Enabled, Target IQ, etc.), you download this “dog” and then you buy the food from them. The funny part is that when the site came out in 2000, a lot of people thought it was a fantastic idea. We have become so accustom to seeing preposterous products being sold online that we no longer question whether they are even legitimate (except perhaps in the case of junk mail). If a website looks professional, we tend to automatically assume that it is genuine. This false sense of trust can be easily taken advantage of by scammers. It is also precisely what web jammers such as the artists at media.org are trying to bring to our attention. When the term “culture jamming” is used, one usually thinks of Ad Busters. Their goal is to get people to question the “truth” that is being shown to us in advertising. In the same way, the goal of these spoof sites is to get people to question this so-called “truth” that the internet provides. Being critical of the internet is as important as being critical of any other form of media. However it tends to get overlooked because it is such a new medium and is often presented to us primarily as a source of information. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
| Thursday, March 25, 2004 - Computerized Voting Software In Kembrew McLeod’s article entitled “Cease and Desist: Freedom of Expression® in the Age of Intellectual Property", McLeod writes about the electronic voting systems that are currently being used in American elections. Diebold, the company that builds these machines, does not allow access to their code. It is therefore difficult to know whether they are functioning correctly. In fact looking at the code is a direct copyright violation. Because there is no backup paper trail documenting each vote, we are completely reliant on these electronic voting machines. Diebold also happens to be big Republican supporter and it is their machines which created the recount confusion in the state of Florida during the last election. A company called VoteHere recently created a piece of software for use in voting machines. For the first time ever, they made the decision to provide free access to their source code. This is a pretty revolutionary idea for a society that is so concerned/obsessed with protecting copyright laws. However I believe that in order to make a system truly secure, the code must be available to the public. If there is a flaw in the code, then there is more of a chance for it to be discovered since people are allowed access to it. Instead of focusing on not letting people discover flaws in a code, one should allow people to discover these flaws so that they can then be repaired. Most importantly, voters will feel more secure about the democratic process if they know exactly how the votes are tabulated. Unfortunately I doubt that open source software will be used in the 2004 election. It seems a little too radical right now especially since the republicans are in power and if anything, these Diebold systems tend to work in their favor. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Sunday, March 21, 2004 - Digital Revolution in a 3rd World Country This year I spent reading week in Mexico. I stayed at a B&B in a small town called San Miguel. San Miguel is one of the most prosperous towns in Mexico. Though it is by no means wealthy, you do not see the kind of poverty that you might in other parts of the country. It is a charming city with cobblestone streets, beautiful architecture and craft stores galore. Tourism is a big source of income for San Miguel. Roughly 20% of the people I saw walking down the street appeared to be Caucasian. One thing I found very interesting is that there are internet cafés scattered all over the city, most of which cater entirely to the tourists. These cafes used high speed connections and the prices are about 30 pesos/hour (the equivalent of around $4.50/hr.) I think the reason there are few Mexicans in these cafes has to do with the cost. By Mexican standards, 30 pesos is a lot of money. However, high school students in San Miguel do have access to the internet through their schools and public libraries. In fact, they use it extensively for educational purposes. In contrast, their parents have never had access to the internet. This creates a significant digital divide between the new and older generations within Mexico, thus causing a large generation gap. I think Mexico is an interesting case because it is considered a 3rd world country, yet it is so close to the United States that it has access to a lot of American products and technologies. It will be interesting to see how this fast rising use of technologies affects Mexican culture and society in the long run. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Saturday, March 14, 2004 - Public Memory of the Holocaust through Film I began by trying to delve into my brain to see what images form my "memory" of the Holocaust. The images that seemed to return over and over were from the movie Shindler's List by steven Spielberg. While I have read history text books and several articles on the Holocaust, the most profound imprints come from a Hollywood film. This was not surprising as I have come to learn that Hollywood has a tremendous impact on people's knowledge and perceptions of events and history. I decided to look up some articles on Shindler's List and the Holocaust. It seems that many feel Shindler's List may be factually inaccurate in certain respects, but the main consensus was that no matter how much the film maker paid attention to historical detail, by virtue of being a Hollywood film it was inaccurate. It provided a Hollywood ending to a tragic event and therefore makes a false imprint on the mind of the viewer. Claude Lanzmann is a director that subscribes to this position. He has many interesting and even radical thoughts about public memory of the Holocaust. He is the maker of a ten hour documentary on the Holocaust entitled Shoah. He believes that the Holocaust was so horrendous that our memory of it should be left only to our imagination. This is why his documentary only includes interviews and footage of the sites as they appear today. He did not use a single piece of archival footage of concentration camps. He felt that the Holocaust was beyond history, and that any media attempt to portray it only decreased the event's gravity. I would be interested to know how he feels about digital media in museums. It seems to me that digital media is a good attempt at preserving the severity of this event. Often times, in my own experiences, media can have an effect of jolting one's perception of something and drive even stronger emotions. I also agree it is important to continually evaluate people's interactions with digital media in order to determine whether the desired result is in fact taking place. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Thursday, March 12, 2004 - Public Memory The other day I was working in my father's health food store (Source Aliments Naturels) and was catching up on my digital communications readings. An older customer entered the store and came to the cash to pay for is items. He asked me if i was reading an article for University. I said yes, to which he added "thought so, only in University would a term like "Public memory" exist". I told him it was an article on how the public collectively remember events in history. He strongly argued that memory is a human function and cannot be excercised by a public. I defended the article by expanding the definition of memory to include the public. He said that there was already a perfectly good definition of memory and that there was no need to go changing it. He didn't wish to discuss the matter any further and made some general criticisms of universities and the material studied in them. The is article in particular was about the use of interactive digital media in Holocaust museums. This conversation led me to ponder public memory to which I concluded was individual memories added together. This article was interesting because it tackled a specific event, and how society remembers that event. There are few individuals who truly remember the event, as most of those who lived through it have now passed away. So how does a society actually "remember" history. Well first of all stories are passed down aurally. In addition there is every form of media which represents the event in some fashion. From these sources the invidual compiles a general image or idea of what occurred. This image is accurate to either lesser or greater degrees, but never fully accurate. In my next entry I will discuss the public's memory of the Holocaust not through digital media, but rather through film. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - Independent Musicians in a Digital Age - Part 2 (Cont’d from previous entry) With this digital revolution comes certain perks. For one, recording technology is cheaper than it has ever been. It is very easy to produce a professional-sounding CD right in your bed room. This means that selling CDs is even more profitable since you don’t necessarily have to pay for a sound engineer and studio time. With the internet, it is extremely easy to promote yourself and increase your fan base (thus generating more CD sales). If recording and distribution are so affordable, why would anyone need a major record label in the first place? Also, since everything is cheaper and easier to do, you can charge less for the final product. An inexpensive CD is very appealing and you will most likely sell more. Most true artists know that the real money is in the live shows. You sell CDs (or they are downloaded) and you promote yourself, people come to the show and buy more CDs and other merchandise. The reason this does not work for major label artists such as Britney Spears is she is not a performance-based artist. She does not play a lot of shows and when she does, they are huge ordeals which cost so much to put on that she probably gets very little profit anyway. I completely understand why record label executives are pulling out their hair. All this technology is making their services obsolete. Their archaic ways of running the industry is getting them nowhere. The truth is, the labels can sue all the teenagers they like but they are not going to be able to stop this digital revolution and recoup their losses. At some point the labels will just have to stop and face the music. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Sunday, March 7, 2004 - Independant Musicians in a Digital Age - Part 1 Last class we watched an interesting documentary on the state of the music industry. It explored the ways in which the five major record labels maintain ownership of nearly every source for mainstream music worldwide. It’s no secret that the music business is a dirty one where record labels and lawyers try to squeeze every penny out of an artist. However, I think it’s finally beginning to catch up with the record labels due to file-sharing. The labels are trying desperately to salvage their precious system as each day another fifteen year old is sued and one more record label executive quits his job. The industry is on a downward spiral. The file-sharing phenomena challenges everything upon which the music industry is based. Record label’s inability to grasp this, embrace it and use it to their benefit is what is destroying them. Not that this destruction is a bad thing by any means. My only question is: how does file-sharing affect independent artists? I think the free distribution of music can contribute greatly to an independent musician’s career. For one thing, selling a CD without the help of a record label means you get all of the profit (compared to about a dollar per CD which ends up going to the label anyway until the initial “advance” (usually about $500, 000) is paid off.) So lets say you’re not the next Britney Spears (as most “true” musicians would probably claim) and there’s no chance of you selling a million records and making any profit on record sales, it makes way more sense to sell albums independently. Even selling one CD independently generates more profit than selling 50,000 through a label. The truth is, even with free downloads, people are still buying CDs. So even if you were to sell 50% less than you would have before file-sharing, you’d still make a profit. Jason Mraz, a singer songwriter who is now signed with Elektra (a branch off the massive “AOL Times Warner” tree) has both an independent album and an album that he made through the label. The former is only available at his concerts and online while the latter can be bought in stores as well. They can both however be downloaded for free off the internet. Mraz has sold thousands of copies of both and while the major label release is probably not generating any income for him, the independent album, of which he has sold tens of thousands is making him bundles! (Cont’d in next entry) Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Monday, March 1, 2004 - Usability Review - Internet Movie Database The Internet Movie Database is one of the most definitive archives of movie titles I am aware of. I use it quite often to find whatever pertinent information I need regarding a certain film (i.e. directors, actors, cinematographers, composers…etc.). It is a free site, used for promotional purposes. You can register if you like in order to take advantage of some extra features which include chatting with other movie lovers and posting your own comments and ratings. As I said the database has a huge wealth of information, but its strong point is how this information is organized and how one can access it. If you were to go to a video store you would find that films are usually catalogued by genre. The advantage of finding titles on the Internet Movie Database is that you search by any category you like (genre director…etc.). Supposing I attended Mat Soar’s 2nd lecture this semester and saw the clip he played from Blade Runner. I was intrigued by the film but unfortunately didn’t remember the title or the director, or any of the actors for that matter. The best way to search on the imdb is using the key word search that is located in the top left hand corner of every single page on the site. I just need to remember any small fact about the film and type it in. In this case, I happen to recall someone saying that Vangelis scored the music to Blade Runner, so I type in his name. First thing that appears is the list of matches. This is very significant, because the imdb never assumes to know exactly what you’re looking for. For example when I type in Chaplin, I could be looking for the film with this title or I could be looking for Charlie Chaplin as a director. Also, you will find that there are often entirely different films that share the same name. So when the match list is displayed I click on the match that applies to me. The next thing that appears is a picture and short bio of Vangelis. For every person that the imdb has on record, they always display the information in the same format. Whether it’s John Williams or my old music teacher from high school (who has scored some films), the photo is in the same place (if they don’t have a picture on record, they still put a blank box where the photo would normally be). There are tons of links on every page of the imdb. I click the one that lists all the films he has worked on. I still can’t decide exactly what the title was, I’m choosing between Chariots of Fire and Blade Runner. I click on Chariots of Fire which brings me to the page for that film. Movie pages have a similar format as pages for people do. Where the person’s photograph would be there is now a picture of the movie box and instead of a short bio it gives the tagline of the movie. British Olympic athletes of the 1920’s doesn’t sound like film I’m looking for. This is where I catch myself using the back function, in order to get back to the list of Vangelis films. I’m still not sure how else I would do this command. So this time I choose Blade Runner, and I have at my disposal just about any significant (and insignificant) information I could possibly want about the film. To get back to the home page, you must scroll to the very bottom of the page and click on HOME. This is not obvious, I found myself often using my BACK function. But I must add that I can’t think of any reason you would want to go “home” on the imdb, unless you wanted to read a little article on the oscars, or the latest review of “The Passion of the Christ”. Every page on the imdb (there must be tens of thousands) is always set up the same way. You have your search engine, along with a google search engine, as well as a search engine on the right hand side for Amazon. So the imdb is very conscious of truly trying to help people with their search. I find navigating on this site very enjoyable because it really feel like your navigating. There is an endless amount of links that send you exactly where you were initially looking to go as well as leading all sorts of other relevant things that you weren’t previously aware of. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Sunday, Ferbruary 29, 2004 - Pollstar -- The Concert Hotwire: A Usability Review Pollstar.com is widely regarded as one of the most accurate and up-to-date sources for concert information worldwide. It gets millions of hits each day and caters to the general public. The site therefore needs to be quite “usable” in its design. Upon drilling down into the site, I discovered that in general it was rather simple to navigate however there were a few small problems that I encountered. There is a navigation bar at the top of each page which includes: Home, Marketplace, Store, Photos, Notify and Premium. It shows you which of these pages you are currently on and allows you to change sections or return to the front page very easily. However, one thing I found confusing is that when I use the search function, the page changes however the navigation bar still shows that I am “Home”. This is obviously not accurate since clicking on “Home” actually does bring me back to the front page. The search function was a little tricky to use. I tried looking for upcoming concerts in New York City (probably a commonly performed search). When I typed in “New York” I had no problem. But when I typed in “New York City”, “NY” or “NYC”, I was bombarded with options. Do I want “New York City Swing Band” “NYC Smoke” or the “New York City Opera National Company”? I assumed this meant that it was searching for artist’s names and not location (even though the type of search was not specified). So I clicked on the drag-down search menu and changed it from “Tours” to “City Schedule”. I typed in “NYC” and all I got was “Stony Creek, CT”. Searching for “New York City” and “NY” got me a list of all the states in America. Once again the only way to retrieve the desired information was to type in “New York”. Even searching “Manhattan” gave me 0 results. This seems like unnecessary frustration for someone who does not instinctively type in “New York” in the search field. Pollstar.com has changed a lot over time. The first listing of it on archive.org is from 1996. At that time the design was much more simple and had less options and buttons on the front page. Since then, the front page has become increasingly more “busy”. This may simply be because the site has expanded from a simple concert listing site to a site that has everything from a store to a “premium members” section. These fancy options are probably used by some people but for the majority of users who simply want to check if their favorite band is coming to town, all of the options only cause confusion. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Thursday, February 26, 2004 - In Response to Stephen E. Weil's "Fair Use and the Visual Arts" I found Weil's article on Fair Use extremely insightful. In this entry i would like to expand on some of the points he raised. As i understand it, the crux of Weil's argument could be summarized as: Artists represent the environment around them. This environment, to a large degree, now consists of copywrighted material. Therefore copyright restrictions should be eased when an artist creates something worthwhile witch uses of already existing material. The issue i wish to raise, is concerning the grey area of how one determines whether a new piece of art, that "borrows" from existing works, is in fact a noble work in its own right, or if it's just a rip off. The only instance where Weil makes mention of this point is towards the end where he writes that fair Use permits the artist to poach "so long as something with a value beyond that of the original is thereby made available to everybody else." My question is who determines the value of a work of art and exactly who is Weil referring to when he says "everybody else". A classic example of poaching, with innovative intentions,
is Mozart's use of lullaby melodies as the basis for large orchestral
works.
This is an example
where the subsequent work clearly has much greater value beyond the material
which it poaches. There are several examples of this nature. However, in more
modern terms, it becomes harder to determine whether the subsequent work has
sufficient value beyond the one it poaches from. After all, it is widely accepted
that a work of art must stand the test of time before it can be appropriately
judged. Take the example of Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup labels, which are now
widely admired, but not forty years ago were seen by many as simply an enlarged
replica of of a soup label, and nothing more. Weil promotes fair use with an optimism I share, but still see flaws in. "A clearing in the woods for Robin Hood" does not translate into an effective law. It seems to me that most cases will still be judged on a case by case basis, which is not a desirable situation. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Sunday, February 22, 2004 - Factor Four of Section 107 of the Copyright Act In Weil's article on Fair Use he presents the
business models of how two different artists disseminate and market their work.
He uses these two
examples to show how factor 4 of section 107 of the Copyright Act pertains
differently to the two models. The other business model was that of the British artist
Leucian Freud who sells his originals for upwards of 2 million each. My feeling is that we should not distinguish between these two artists. How they choose to disseminate their material is their choice. Just because Freud goes the traditional route doesn't mean that museums (or anyone for that matter), are free to make coffee cups and t-shirts of his art without even any authorization. Freud should be given autonomy on how his work is represented commercially. Furthermore, determining if something does or doesn't
have educational value can be very difficult. My feeling is that
when companies
produce t-shirts, mugs, postcards, posters, calendars, their
primary intentions
are not to enrich the public but rather to exploit whatever
profit can be made from the image displayed on the gimmick. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Thursday, February 19, 2004 - Photoshop Art: More than a Click The digital self portrait assignment was an interesting experience for me. I have been using Photoshop for several years now and am relatively comfortable with the program. Photoshop is not a difficult program to use. As Luke mentioned in his last entry, its functions allow for the simplification of the artistic process. Basically once you figure out what the buttons do, you just click and it’s only a matter of trial and error before you reach something aesthetically pleasing. Though most of us seem to use some variation of this method to get the job done, there are those who go beyond it and use Photoshop as a tool to express their creative visions. Yes, I believe this is possible. Lets say you wanted to create a flyer for an upcoming concert. I suppose you could just throw a bunch of colors down on the page in Photoshop, add in some images and photographs and cut and paste them. Then scroll down the “filter” list, trying different effects and eventually put the text information on top. In this case it is true that photoshop is doing most of the work for you. However, another option might be to start with a creative idea and see in what ways Photoshop can help you to express it. A friend of mine is studying “Image Arts - New Media” at Ryerson University. Her name is Alice Phieu and she has designed some of the most imaginative concert flyers I’ve ever seen. Yet they are all very simple. Here’s an example that will help illustrate my point:
This image clearly began with a concept/vision: A broken CD. All
of the important information about the concert is there. However,
the
way she
communicates this information is what makes it interesting.
Yet again, a creative idea used to communicate simple information. Perhaps Photoshop helped to blur the texture of the scarf or to turn a photo of a jacket into what appears to be a sketch of a jacket. But the concept is what the viewer focuses on. Not the process in which this concept was realized. Creating good digital artwork is not simply a product of multiple clicks on a mouse. The tools in Photoshop should be used when they are warranted. It is therefore important to learn their functions (this being, what I believe the purpose of our exercise was). Once you understand what Photoshop is capable of, you can use it to strengthen the original concept, not define it. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Thursday, February 12, 2004 - My Photoshop Experience Working with Photoshop was a new and exhilarating experience for me. At first I was a bit shy and intimidated with all the functions, but soon enough I became a pro. As I worked, I became aware of certain advantages (and disadvantages) that working with a digital imaging program offers. To begin with, Photoshop allows for endless experimentation with little sacrifice of time or energy. When I began my assignment, I had literally no vision what so ever as to what my final outcome would look like. I simply began randomly trying different available features to see what I could do with my scanned objects. This step was pivotal in determining my final image. Prior to a program such as Photoshop, i suspect it would have been unfeasible for an artist to begin working on a project without actually having some kind of "vision" in mind. Photoshop affords a relaxing approach whereby there is little to no pressure on the user to have a defined vision. I would go as far as saying that Photoshop reverses the artistic process. This experimentation is also possible with little sacrifice of time and obviously no sacrifice of materials. Therefore the artistic process is infinitely faster, and without boundaries. This is very comfortable for the user. But truthfully, how accurate am I in saying that Photoshop allows the artistic process to flow without boundaries? In fact, it can be argued that the opposite is true, for the artist is limited to his abilities within the realm of Photoshop. He can only do what the functions allow him to do. What's more when a digital function of some sort is used, it can lose its originality because the viewer (who is knowledeble of Photoshop) can identify the function and no longer sees the image for its artistic value, but rather dissects it into a series of Photoshop tools used to make the outcome. Earlier I spoke of the comfort of not having to have a precise vision with Photoshop, but this could be interpreted as laziness that discourages imagination. Rather than going through the exercise of envisioning what my mind can produce on its own, I am drawn to see what Photoshop can do and i work around that. The end result is that Photoshop does most of the work and therefore my image says Photoshop all over it rather than originality. These are the two sides of the digital debate as I have experienced them. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - Usability Upon further reflection, I’ve decided that the entry I wrote a few weeks ago entitled “MAC VS PC” has a lot to do with “usability” (and lack thereof). The main issue I have with PCs and that PC users have with Macs is an inability to use them properly with ease, thus resulting in severe frustration. But how can this be prevented? Is the design of these machines really that atrocious? Should we just water down every piece of technology so that it is %100 user friendly and any fool can use it? Is this really all that important? In the article “The psychology of everyday things”, Norman states that an increasing amount of functions are being added to devices (such as multiple alarms on digital watches) and the more that are added, the harder it is to use. However, he ignores the fact that though some digital watches are becoming more advanced, there are still simple models and standard (windup) watches which are availible for less technologically-savvy individuals. In the same way, someone who is not technologically inclined can choose to use AOL while a programming connoisseur may opt for the Linux system. Just because the latter lacks a certain degree of “usability” does not mean it should be disregarded. It has it’s proper function and I think it is important to challenge those who want to be challenged. The user should have the option to think and learn for himself if he so wishes. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Thursday, February 5th, 2004 - Aura and Music This monday I went to the screening of the DVD release of the Beatles "First American Tour" with my friend Trevor, who is CHOM's resident Beatles expert. This week marks the fourtieth anniversary the fab four first came to America. Watching this documentary made me ponder Benjamin Walter's notions of "aura" as they may apply to music. As a starting point I asked myself what exactly is the "original" as it pertains to music. In the case of the Beatles, we might say the originals are the mastertapes they recorded directly onto in the studio during the sixties. For Beethoven, the "original" might be the hand written scores he made for his symphonies? Or for John Coltrane, the original might be the live performance of an improvised composition? I found myself going in circles, for music is an abstract art unlike painting or sculpture where the original is physically tangible. This distinction between music and the other arts led me to think of J.P. Sartre's character in his short play "Nausea". The character becomes obsessed with a piece of jazz music because he feels he can rip up the score, or smash the record, but the piece of music will still always exist. A piece of music has no original and is therefore undistructible. So maybe the idea of "aura" doesn't really apply to music? The problem with this idea is that, as a music lover, I can definatly say that I would feel a sense of "aura" should I come into contact with the original score of Beethoven's third symphony (originally with a dedication to Napolean but then crossed out by Beethoven), or if I walked into Abey road studios and played an original Beatles mastertape. The explanation for this, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the arts. but man's natural facination with rarety and authenticity. It seems to me that "aura" can be described as the excitement one feels when they come into contact with an artifact or relic that makes them feel closer to a great event, time, place, or person in history. A mechanical reproduction can't produce this effect as well because it's not a true testemony of time and place like an "original" is. Why do so many people still collect vinyl? It's because of the nostalgic effect vinyl offers. One who admires the Beatles may feel closer to their music by owning a vinyl copy of the white album (issued in the sixties), more so than a compact disc reproduction made thirty years later (despite the fact that the CD may sound "truer" to what the Beatles originally played). So in conclusion, i suppose I feel that "aura" has less to with actual artistic brilliance of an original, and really just a way of expressing the apeal orginals have as they are a physical link between the viewer and the artisits who they admire. Luke Quin |
|||||||
Emilie's Digital Self Portrait
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
Sunday, February 1, 2004 - Megalomaniac Last week’s class in which we discussed the manipulation of images in the media really got me thinking. Images are quite clearly being manipulated to fuel various social beliefs/myths by affecting our subconscious. However there are also instances when this manipulation of images is done in an overt and obvious way in order to make a point. A good example of this is the new music video by the rock band Incubus. I saw the video a few weeks ago and though I am not by any means a big fan of their music, I was thoroughly impressed by the video. The song alone is very political. It is called “Megalomaniac” and features the lyrics: Hey megalomaniac The video is comprised of images of a flying Hitler intercut with shots of a dictator who has an uncanny resemblance to George Bush. There are shots of protesters being ignored and abused. At the end of the video the Bush look-a-like turns into a giant eagle and tries to eat the sea of fish in front of him but there are too many fish. They attack the eagle and he falls down. There is a shot of a family who are feeding their baby manikin from a canister of oil as well as shots of lines such as: “Operation Freedom Control” and “Ye Holy Buy Bull”. “Megalomaniac” is by no means the first political music video (see Rage Against the Machine). However it is one of the most powerful and explicit videos I’ve seen. I think the most interesting thing about it is the fact that Incubus is a very mainstream rock band with a massive fan base. This song is getting airplay on MTV and more importantly, the Clear Channel stations. Clear Channel owns 60% of all rock programming in America. But the truth is, they simply cannot afford to pull another “Dixie Chicks” stunt. Incubus is just so popular that Clear Channel, regardless of its political agenda, has no choice but to play the song. Seeing a mainstream rock band willing to defy the corporations on which they rely is what impresses me the most. Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Friday, January 30, 2004 - Bush in 30 Seconds At the last Concordia debate club meeting, I prepared a case opposing CBS' decision not to air a political ad paid for by the online organization MoveOn.org (wed Jan 27th) during the Super Bowl this Sunday (Feb 1st). CBS made this decision based on the grounds that the content of the ad was too "controversial" and that they didn't want to take political sides. CBS is the only network broadcasting the super bowl, the most watched event in the world, and with the most expensive commercial space. MoveOn.org is a non-profit organization which opposes governments who don't represent the needs of the average citizen. They have hundreds of thousands of on-line members, and recently their focus has been on the policies of the Bush administration. They decided to purchase a 30 sec. spot during the Super Bowl which was to be filled by the winner of a competition they called Bush in thirty seconds. The money for the spot was raised by on-line donations, and the submissions were judged by a large panel including Michael Moore. The winning ad was entitled "child's pay" and depicted young children working in jobs far beyond their years. A caption at the end of the ad reads "Guess who's going to pay Bush's trillion dollar deficit?" CBS' decision not to run the ad in order to "not take political sides" struck me as contradictory, seeing as not airing the ad means inadvertently taking an even greater political stance. It is now evident that CBS supports Bush, which is not surprising considering that the Bush administration has recently implemented a bill which will allow CBS to commercially expand beyond what prior laws permitted. In light of this news, I prepared a debate case opposing CBS' decision. My arguments centered around the threat posed to democracy by the marriage of government and the media. However, this was a debate I was doomed to lose... My opposition argued that throughout democratic history Media sources have often been partisan. In addition, CBS is a private corporation that is at liberty to do as they please, to force them to air a commercial is an even greater threat to democracy. I suppose the point I was trying to make (but didn't do successfully) was that we are reaching an unprecedented time in history where our political and corporate masters are allying to support their own interests, and because of this the spectrum for receiving different opinions is narrowing. However, on a more promising note, I did hear that CNN has agreed to take up the ad. They are even playing advertisements saying "tune in for the commercial CBS refused to air". Perhaps all this controversy has been to the benefit of Moveon.org? Luke Quin |
|||||||
Sunday, January 25, 2004 - MAC vs PC Last weekend I judged the North American Women’s Open debating tournament at Concordia. It was very interesting for someone with virtually no debating experience. During one of the breaks I was hanging around in the hall with some people who were discussing their various university programs. One guy asked a girl what kind of computers they used at her school. She responded with two simple letters: “PC”. I tried to hold back a look of disgust and kept my mouth shut. After all, I was the outsider here and I didn’t want to be rejected from their debating world. But then as several of the other debaters nodded in agreement and said “good”, I knew I had to say something. So I said: “I disagree, but whatever…” An obvious “computer connoisseur” responded with “How do you figure?” But I knew there was no use arguing with a bunch of debaters and PC nerds about the merits of the Mac operating system. So I said: “Forget it. I don’t want to get in to this now.” And thus, the conversation ended. So here is the reason that Macs are so obviously the better choice. PCs are machines. They are boxy grey obtrusive machines which “compute”. Macintoshes, on the other hand, can be likened to a friend. They can be read with ease. They are graceful and slick in their design and they are very friendly and interactive, which is apparent as “Agnes” tells you that it is “not her fault”. The Macintosh is constantly the forerunner of digital technology, as it has created such gadgets as the iSight (a real-time webcam with sound) and OS X. The Mac goes out of its way to create an easy and enjoyable environment (try hitting F9-F11 keys on a Mac running OS 10.3) for its users. Basically it just has more soul than any Dell or IBM and it is way more personal than any so-called “personal computer.” Emilie Wapnick |
|||||||
Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - Introductory Article I would like to begin my weblog entry by apologizing for any advertisements you may encounter while visiting this site. Please do your best to pay no attention to them, even though (as I have learned) they may be strategically located in certain regions of the screen where your retinas are more likely to wander... Yes, this is a free site. But it's not really free. The way I see it there's an equal exchange taking place. Myself and my partner Emilie have been given (courtesy of geocities) our very own space on the world wide web (our grain of sand on the beech if you will...), and in return our thoughts and ideas serve as a vehicle for pop up advertisements. I suppose it's a fair exchange, as long as Matt and Eric haven't stopped reading at this point in order to go check out sexy singles at Lavalife.com! In this day and age, advertising has become so complex and subliminal. In my father's time it was far more straight forward: the doctor came on the commercial and said that smoking was beneficial for your health, and that was enough to get you hooked. Nowadays we have things like product placement, pop up adds, and even (as Mcchesney suggested in his article) philanthropy. Just this evening I heard more about the Bill Gates foundation and the more than generous contributions they make to schools all across north america. They provide needy schools with computers, while ensuring customers for life. What are the ethical issues surrounding this phenomenon? I say, if voltzwagon wants to give me a jetta, I don't mind buying diesel. So i guess my response is that its morally OK to accept sponsorship that may encourage future buying from that source. On the other hand, i am opposed to schools accepting sponsorship from companies like coke or pepsi. That's because there is a whole health issue concerning those companies. In addition, i think most would agree that computers are a positive and essential tool for young kids' education, whereas coke causes obesity and hyperactivity. In conclusion, i say microsoft equipped computers in the classroom, and out with pepsi and coke. Luke Quin |
|||||||
| Sunday,
January 18, 2004 - Why Radio Sucks
While reading the texts for this week’s class, I was reminded of one of my favorite topics: bashing the horrendous corporation that is Clear Channel. Last year the Dixie Chicks were “condemned” for expressing their disgust towards George Bush on a British radio program. The chicks were banned from radio across the United States, supposedly due to listener complaints. However, according to Howie Klein, former president of Warner Music, these so-called “complaints” were seriously over-exaggerated. In fact, the Dixie Chicks’ CD sales remained in the top position in stores. It just so happens that all of the radio stations which banned the Chicks are owned by Clear Channel. It also happens that the president of Clear Channel is Lowry Mays, an oil hound from Texas who has strong ties with the Bush family. In addition, the vice-chair is a man named Steven Hicks. He’s another guy from Texas who helped George Bush make millions by buying the Texas Rangers in 1999. Once Bush became governor, Hicks became chair of the UT Investment Management Co. Clear Channel also spent a lot of money organizing pro-war rallies for Iraq. But all of these Republican viewpoints/Bush connections could surely just be a coincidence right? Sure! Sort of in the same way that rolling in poison ivy and getting a nasty rash could be a coincidence… According to clearchannelsucks.org,
a non-profit free speech organization, Clear Channel currently owns
over 1,200 radio stations and 37 television stations, with investments
in 240 radio stations globally. Radio programmers are no longer needed
because the stations all broadcast the same music (corporate music
which has the bucks to “payola” it’s way onto the
play list) from a central location in a non-so nearby big city. Because
of this, thousands of jobs have been lost. Not to mention, the American
public only gets to hear generic mainstream pop music. http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml Till next time, |
|||||||
