Terranova VS. Anderson

For some reason,  I was in a quandary state in trying to figure out if I sided more with Terranova's view or Anderson's view. At first, I was completely lost with Terranova's view until after today's class when I understood that "free labour" consists of providing labor or input that is not being compensated for, and also has an impact on the capitalist economy, where others make a profit from that input.

What I did confidently grasp from Terranova's standpoint, however, was how the digital economy is divided into older and newer media, where there is a significant difference between work structure in internet and TV. I agree with how TV labor has a more structured, dire force, whereas in the digital network, everyone basically does segments of everything. What I am still unsure of is this collective knowledge, where there is a general standard of intellect that everyone is aware of, but how does this aspect become a part of the capitalist economy? 

While reading Anderson's article, the main thoughts that went through my mind involved the role of several free file-sharing sites such as Limewire (although it may be shut down.) I feel the user always had the option to purchase Limewire Pro, but never did because we did not want to have to purchase a premium version of a file sharing program that would eventually give us viruses or slow down our computer. Maybe Anderson's saying everything should be free, but I feel that it is unfair how the individuals who have the higher positions claim to make the most profit, while everyone else suffers. Maybe I just had a hard time understanding this chapter overall, but please try to help me clarify these views if I seem entirely off track. 

Network Culture - Chapter 2

Now that I have gained Terranova's perspective about how information stands out from noise and how its importance lies within the multiple channels that it passes through rather than what is entered in the channel, this chapter was a bit more coherent; It presented many views involving issues of internet duration, and how there is this idea of a "grid" that is "modified and differentiated" through several domains becasue it is more dynamic. I agree with what Terranova states about how the network is becoming less of a specific system because of the various, multidimensional formations, and through these different media networks connecting from a point-to-point basis, there is arguably a lost sense of individuality.

When Terranova talks about Lovink's idea of a "spaceless, virtual time standard", I automatically think not only about the time zones, but also about the communication networks such as Skype. I believe global communication has taken on a much wider approach due to technologies such as Skype and Oovoo. What also comes to mind is that the internet can be a representative medium that is relative to the process of globalization, simply because without these technologies that are utilized, there would not be the constant expansion and transcending of global communication.

I finally grasped the idea of a global culture being split between the homogeneous, meaning the global, and the heterogeneous, which is known as the local sphere. I really like the idea that was expressed about "mutant cultural forms", which reminded me of the famous "American Idol" being the pseudo-individuation of "The X-Factor" or vice-versa, along with "Britain's Got Talent" and "America's Got Talent." I also feel that limiting the distant locations would pose a threat to global acceleration and transformation in the culture, seeing that we are not able to move forward if our linkage is limited. 

Overall, I feel that this global internet culture had allowed communication to be consistent through the essence of time, which is not completely removed, but has become more abstract through the development of web networks that provide face-to-face contact with the other user. 

 

Tizianna Terranova - Network Culture

I don't know if it's just me, but I think this author has the most awesome name ever (sounds like a follow up to a Maserati)! While attempting to analyze this chapter, I was hoping to grasp the most vital points that Terranova was explaining, and what I grasped was that she demonstrates two insights that describe our contemporary culture of network communications, and how it is influenced and distracted by "white noise" rather than information. I also agree that this idea of noise is overshadowing information that is being sent through different channels, and that the noise is prohibiting or delaying the sending of messages.

I liked the statement Terranova stated about how contemporary culture is like a kaleidoscope where each segment is this culture presents differences within the culture that has its own specific reflection. I also found interesting how there are different types of information, specifically two types of information that are known as material, and immaterial, which I am inferencing is more abstract than material information.

The last point that I was able to comprehend was that information is content of our communication. To me, that means without information, we are unable to communicate; information affects the ways in which we send, receive, and process messages to each other, and noise becomes a concern for allowing us to communicate through networks.

Digital Networks: Response to Comments

Sorry I haven't gotten to respond to comments on my blog, but I have tried my best in answering questions in a clear, coherent manner. Here it goes:

“Lanier (137) "Numerical popularity doesn't correlate with intensity of connection in the cloud." How do you respond?”

I am honestly going to try my best to fixate my mind into the days of Lanier, and attempt to analyze this quote.

I feel that Lanier is implying that the number of people that has viewed your content network does not amount to how strong your connection is with the people in that network. That is a really strong quote because many people think just because you have, for example, 100, 000 of views on youtube, that you have a strong connection with ALL 100,000 of those viewers/subscribers.  When Lanier discusses “lack of expression” when anonymous people make mash-ups of recorded music, I concur with his point that the original artist’s music becomes a “statistical distribution” when blended with other presentations, but just as long as the original artist’s work is shown and promoted first, shouldn’t that be enough? Besides, he should also consider that there are still 3^rd party copyright infringements that still lie within these networks. Lanier may have to consider that there is actually expression still involved in the artist’s original recorded music, but I feel this is where “power laws” steps in, creating the whole ranking process.

“how do you think Lanier would respond to your point that musicians have no choice but to submit to lock-in?”

He would probably say something in the lines of lock-in is allowing our creativity to diminish in this industry, and that we need to be able to break out of this “lock-in” system of technology that has bounded us, making us incapable of thinking for ourselves and doing what we love without technology.

“your points on human identity in the first paragraph are interesting. they seem to me to expose a potential problem in Lanier's thinking, namely, too strong an opposition between what is human and what is technological. If our technologies are extensions of and supplements to who we are, then can we really think of who we are without them?”

I believe that we as people can ponder once in a while about not having our technologies present in our lives to truly recognize what we are grateful for having, but by doing so, we can bring ourselves back to the times, when, technology was not as prevalent in our lives as it is today. For instance, a few days ago, my friend had written a card for her boyfriend, and had trouble writing the mailing information (i.e. return address, stamp, etc. ) She asked for my assistance while stating, “Writing an e-mail is not this difficult, why is doing this so difficult?” I responded, “Well, when the soldiers during the wars had to write letters to their loved ones, did they feel it was so difficult?” I feel that although technologies are extensions of ourselves and our interests (iPod Touch for me ^_^), we should not neglect all that we have learned  and accomplished without the usage of technology.

"Is a commercial internet in everyone's interest? Or, is it user interest and satisfaction that drives the technologies?"

 I believe that it is in the interest and demands of users and consumers that drives these technologies, If technologies weren’t made to accommodate people’s interest, why buy them? If some of these technologies did not have a purpose and were just useless, who would consider them?

"lyndastarr do you want computers to "shop for us" in the future?

If you are implying computers giving us options about what to purchase, along with special online deals that spark our interests and guilty shopping pleasures, then yes. If you are suggesting humans having no input whatsoever in what they purchase along with the limitations that follow, then no.

"I like the way your personalized the post with an anecdote; what's your take as an artist on file sharing, RIAA, lawsuits, and things of that nature? I recently read a critique of commercial filmmaking by Francis Ford Coppola of all people and am always interested on where people stand on these issues."

I think file sharing along with leaking are HARMFUL  detriments  to artistry and craft, and it has contributed to the diminishing advancement of record companies and artist’s careers. I view file-sharing as The Grinch Who Stole Royalties. However, some budding and established artists still have hope with the likes of RealPlayer, Yahoo, and the top-dog of legal music downloading, iTunes.

As for the RIAA, I understand that utilizing copyrighted content is wrong and all, but sending individual letters like this:

 

Are just pushing it.

Here’s their Goal:

Our goal with all these anti-piracy efforts is to protect the ability of the recording industry to invest in new bands and new music and, in the digital space, to give legal online services a chance to flourish.

I feel legal online services as I aforementioned have already flourished. There’s still people out there who don’t know what torrents are (which I consider the Grim Reaper of entertainment in its entirety but I am still a guilty victim of it) But speaking as an unsigned artist, I can say that file sharing has allowed many underground artists who are not signed to a label to have their music heard, even if it’s just through Mediafire , Frostwire, or other file-sharing sites. Speaking as an established artist possibly in the future, it has hurt many careers, but has allowed the development of free mixtapes to arise that the labels don’t necessarily release (and most of those that are put out actually sound better than the actual albums). Even Drake has been lenient with his music being leaked. 

Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality

Ahh, how it feels great to actually comprehend and have information actually proccessed in my brain from a short, concise reading with clarity. I have really come to an understanding while reading these numerous articles that technology does in fact influence who we are and who we have become as people. Blogging has become something almost renowned in our society, especially in entertainment and pop culture. Had it not been for blogs, many celebrity socialites may not have gained as much internet exposure as they have. Also, many celeb gossipers may would not even have jobs had it not been for blogging.

I agree with the quote regarding diversity and freedom creating inequality, and I also admit it is true that there is a positive correlation with increasing diversity and inequality. I just feel that it is not fair that through this ranking process, power laws are being enforced, yet there are millions of bloggers out there who do not get ranked. Nevertheless, I constantly remind myself that society is basically a popularity contest in most aspects, so even if some bloggers possess quality over quantity in their content, what is most valued is how many people are linked to certain blogs due to popularity, or even through methods or marketing. After all, we still have this idea of "open culture" that remains in technology, so of course there's going to be a trafficking of views, ideas, and blog posts.

I also agree that as time and technology progress, it will become much more difficult to even have blogs seen as the blogging population grows, and it may cause some bloggers, who strive to have their opinions heard and viewed, to lose hope. It is all about preference, and preference allows the top blogs to be ranked, and the rest of the anonymous blogs can just add to the traffic.

Some questions that often cross my mind are, "If there were a fee for blogging, how drastic would the threshold be affected?"

The Last of Lanier: Parts 4/5

What I have grasped from the last 2 parts of "You Are Not A Gadget" are views that have been so paradoxical that my brain has gone into a "Lanier Overload" about 5 times. The main views that Lanier discusses towards the end of the book are the different types of "flavors" that contribute to the idea of computationalism, which in my mind represents the culture of how computers have evolved to the point of analyzing and interpreting human behavior. There are even some examples of meta-commentary that I have noticed while reading when Lanier states that he is contradicting himself, and is playing different roles at the same time while trying to explicate a point.

While attempting to decompose each of these "flavors" of computationalism, I found that in the first flavor, most or all of the qualities that may be found in humans might willingly be prevalent in computers, and possibly one day, computers will be able to assess our behavior, leading to the next "flavor". As Lanier further discusses the thought of a computer having a specific design comparable to a human, I also find it interesting that software that contains a "strange loop" is identifiable with human consciousness. I agree with this statement because there is a point in human cognition where there is a labyrinth of thoughts that emerge in our minds, and some thoughts that reoccur might as well have been repressed.  I also feel that the awareness of consciousness lies in the individual, and depends on how that individual thinks and speaks. I did not quite fully understand the last flavor that included an info structure appearing to be human actually being human. If it is mostly a subconscious idea (which I think it is), then maybe the info structure that is actually present could possibly be a human, since human created it. You tell me.

The fact that Lanier often contradicted himself while trying to explain his views made the reading more difficult and perplexed to comprehend. For instance, while discussing the second flavor, Lanier claims it is not "helpful", but "fascinating and clever". If it's "fascinating and clever", how come it cannot be helpful? What is the missing factor that the second flavor is missing? Is it the many circular references that he makes? Or is it the idea of self-representation that is not being followed through?

Lastly, in the third flavor, Lanier argues that people can make themselves believe in all of these fictional beings, but there is a breaking point that allows us to change ourselves through allowing these fictional ideas to be part of our reality and in our daily regime. I can agree with this idea to the extent of these fictional ideas being dull. For instance, I am unsure if this example fully represents my point, but I feel that for me it is the most relevant. When I play the game It Girl online, the game gives me this idea of a "strange loop" that consists of different levels that invoke my interest in shopping. I can concur with Lanier that these fictional ideas have slightly changed ourselves in many ways, but it surely does not make us dull - We don't necessarily have to completely change ourselves. As I discussed in my previous blog, this idea of a dual-standard identity is reinforced, where our human identity is integrated into our virtual identity. But is Lanier implying that our virtual identity is livelier than our human identity? That may be the case for some, but not for all. It may be more accessible to to purchase apparel or find a mate through this and other similar games in the virtual world, but maybe one is trying to experience other things. Or, maybe the person who is playing the game is actually a small town girl living in a lonely world, but we don't stop believing.

You Are Not A Gadget: A Musical/Monetary Continuation

The expansion of wealth through technology has really shaped the way big businesses can sell their products and expand their companies. From what I gained from Parts 2/3 of You Are Not A Gadget, Lanier takes a highly intriguing approach how money in today's society is critically affecting artists, musicians and journalists, implying that since money is mostly going to advertising, where is the future for all of these starving workers? He also states that our culture will entirely be "nothing but advertising", yet I see it differently. Without advertising, through a musician's viewpoint, artists who are signed to labels may not have as much success in promoting their albums/tours/appearances without the means of Facebook/Google/Myspace Ads, along with television ads and radio ads that are in heavy rotation (see: Diddy). The entertainment market is highly based on advertisement, and as a result of it, an abundance of new products have become available. I also see advertising as a positive structure, seeing the amount of job opportunities it has produced through many companies over the years. I often think about what would happen had there not been any advertising departments in radio stations, film, and music companies?

So, yes, advertising has played a major role in our "open culture", aiding established artists, and hungry, unsigned artists alike. Through sites including Reverb Nation, artists and producers are able to have the option to promote for free, or, through paid services (amazon, iTunes, etc.)  To comment on Lanier's bullet point regarding the "aggregator", this idea of aggregating music for hundreds and thousands to hear online has become a phenomenon. Even for some artists, just to have the ability to have their voice heard through their music on the net, instead of waiting around to get signed at a gas station or local club, is phenomenal.

There is also another thought-provoking statement that Lanier makes, claiming that things that are "non-digital related" will not work for artists, musicians, and filmmakers due to "digital idealism". I highly disagree with this statement because there are plenty of artists and musicians who sell merchandise outside of the digital and still make a profit, primarily through t-shirts, buttons, posters, scrapbooks, and even special-edition bracelets and other apparel. It may not be as effective as say, deluxe album releases though iTunes/Amazon, or bonus DVD's, but hey, this method still works to this day.

Another thought-provoking statement Lanier makes is if a new army of artists who sell their own CD's are starting to appear. I say ABSOLUTELY. How? One Word: Mixtapes. Mixtapes, mainly prevalent in the Hip-Hop & R&B community, has allowed a plethora of underground singers, rappers, DJ's and producers to express their creativity through their content, but it has already expanded throughout the pop culture.

Lanier also expresses his concern about the idea of the "hive mind", where this "hive ideology" continuously robs musicians and other creative people of the ability to "influence context within which their expressions are perceived." While interpreting this "hive mind" idea, I realized that through these several musical networks, we as artists, musicians and other creative people, are in many ways our own communities where we share our creative ideas and circumstances through our musical content, and also find ways to promote it and advertise it to the world, solely for exposure, but later for monetary purposes; we learn and grow through the process of hearing new content. Even through YouTube, we are sharing our resources and knowledge globally, but is that really a bad thing?

You Are Not A Gadget: A Musical Perspective

After reading Part 1 of "You Are Not a Gadget", it really had me thinking about how much the internet has really changed our identities. We live in a world where our identity has become a dual-standard, meaning that we not only have a "human" identity, but also a "virtual" identity. Our "human" identity defines who we are as people and how we interact with one another in our daily lives, and our "virtual" identity involves how we communicate with one another via social networks and through other forms of media.


Lanier discusses this idea of changing technology that changes people when he states, "Our identities can be shifted by quirks or gadgets." I feel that instead of our identities being "shifted", our human identity has been integrated into our "virtual" identity, instead of being replaced.  In addition, these technologies, including mobile phones and gadgets, have made us become even more dependent on them as they change, so I agree with Lanier when he states that altering something on the web changes an individual's behavioral patterns.   


Another idea that I found interesting about Part 1 was this process of MIDI. Of course, with me being a Music major and all, it was a must to have reflected my ideas about this development. I agree with Lanier about MIDI being a breakthrough in musical expression, and that the musical note had transformed from a "bottomless idea" to a "mandatory structure". However, to answer his question about digital artists accepting this finite idea of a MIDI note, I don't believe digital artists really have a choice to not give in to"lock-in". In today's society, the main way to for an artist to actually progress in this industry is to submit to this idea of "lock-in", due to digital purchasing of music, along with the development of new musical software programs that are designed to work with MIDI. 


Lanier's other question that I would like to take a stab at is when he asks how can a musician appreciate the "broader, less-defined" concept of a note that came before MIDI, although we use MIDI in our everyday lives and interactions. I feel that a true musician should appreciate all types of musical concepts, but never forget where the idea of MIDI came from: the original notes and scales from a piano. And yes, MIDI has allowed musicians without any prior engineering or production training to create their own music, but at the same time, we cannot simply neglect what has set the standard for developing music. Similarly, we cannot neglect our "human" identity, and trade it in for our "virtual" identity.