Working out what I'm going to teach this term to do with identity and the online age (media studies), I thought I might look at ideas of hegemony, social control and Foucault around Facebook. I googled Foucault and Facebook, et voila:
http://veronicawaisberg.blogspot.com/2008/10/week-7.html
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/post/foucaults-facebook/
http://criticaltheoryforum.blogspot.com/2007/05/foucault-versus-facebook.html
http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/facebook-is-the-new-panopticon/
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Twitter and Online Communications
Here's a diagram I found about the continuum of online communication, from dictatorial to conversational.
The link is here.
There are also some interesting articles here:
http://wp.nmc.org/communication/section/reading/
The link is here.There are also some interesting articles here:
http://wp.nmc.org/communication/section/reading/
Tuesday, 18 August 2009
Sport and Space
Maybe this is a departure from our usual subjects. Maybe it's just part of a conversation we thought we'd finished many years ago...
A wise friend of mine once mentioned a wise friend of his who 'thought about football in a really interesting way'. From hazy memories of what may have been a hazy drunken conversation in a hazy pub in my hazy youth, the idea was to consider football in terms of space. We discussed how our thoughts on chess/ go/ othello were about controlling space, not about controlling the individual 'players' on the 'pitch'.
These thoughts came back to me whilst playing my recent purchase of the computer game "Pro Evolution Soccer 2008" for the Nintendo Wii. The way in which the gamer controls the game is totally different to all other football games I've ever played. Traditionally, playing a football computer game means controlling the individual players on the pitch, making them pass or dribble or shoot or tackle. You can pass in a particular direction, but can't control the space, only the players. In this new Wii game, the gamer controls the space. Say your midfielder has the ball: firstly you point somewhere that you want him to dribble to. At the same time, however, you tell your other players where to run (e.g. run into space on the wing, or run wide to draw the defender with you to create a new space for the midfielder to run into). When defending, you do not control one individual player, but rather allocate man-marking or zonal/ space marking by directing players. This may not sound it, but it's potentially revolutionary.
I will say that this way of controlling the space rather than the players. I've repeatedly said that you direct individual players where to go, and in taht way control the space. In this way, the game seems more like the chess/ go/ othello analogy I mentioned in the first paragraph: we are using the pieces to control and command the space.
Needless to say, I am crap at this new game.
This got me to thinking about other sports and space. Football (the real game, not computer game versions of the sport) is never discussed as being about space, but rather about how players find space/ pass into space/ run into space. which got me thinking about other sports and spaces.
How would a sport use space more than players? To return to the chess/ go/ othello idea, space needs to be understood in terms of hot/ cold spaces; or busy/ quiet; fast/ slow... This binary is the basis of what I mean. Then there's the tensions between these spaces, their independence and interdependence.
So which sports are more about space and less about players?
Hockey - Is all about the players and the speed of the connections between them. It's not spatial: it doesn't use cold spaces, although (as a team-formation sport, there is a certain degress of tension, independency and interdepency between areas and space across the pitch). On a scale of 1-10, this sport is a 3.
Rugby - I think may be more spatial than I first realised. Yes, it is the players who are the agents and who control the space, but it uses space in a weird way: thinking in terms of scrums, passing down the line, and line-outs/ throw-ins/ whatever they're called, the players all seek to create spaces that they can then command. Kicking into touch brings in to play ideas of using cold spaces to change pace and change attacking tactics. Plus, like Go, the game is about lines, control, and the gaps between the individual components. 8/10 (it would score more, but I'm not sure the players are self-aware enough to warrant more).
Cricket - Is entirely about space. Teams play areas as quiet spaces, busier spaces, faster spaces etc. The scoring system itself defines the game as spatial. 9/10
Tennis - This seems to be a spatial game (t's all about exploiting areas of weakness and capitalising on empty spaces) but I don't think it fits the criteria of using cold spaces (altlough it does change pace and rhythm, I'm not sure it uses space so much as speed to do this). 4/10
Curling - The sport of the gods. I love the way that, once the 'bowler' has released the stone, the two sweepers play the space, directing the stone as a devastating and destructive force, or using it to build the next bowl, or using it as a blocker. Some shots are played to keep the stone in the area, whilst others are intended to go out of the area. I can see this as highly spatial in every way - 10/10 (high score bolstered by coolness)
This is not a very insightful post, nor particuarly intellectual or academic. Plus our blog seems to have been established on topics around the digital. However, I wonder if this blog should extend to wider issues? Your thoughts, as ever, will be gratefully received.
A wise friend of mine once mentioned a wise friend of his who 'thought about football in a really interesting way'. From hazy memories of what may have been a hazy drunken conversation in a hazy pub in my hazy youth, the idea was to consider football in terms of space. We discussed how our thoughts on chess/ go/ othello were about controlling space, not about controlling the individual 'players' on the 'pitch'.
These thoughts came back to me whilst playing my recent purchase of the computer game "Pro Evolution Soccer 2008" for the Nintendo Wii. The way in which the gamer controls the game is totally different to all other football games I've ever played. Traditionally, playing a football computer game means controlling the individual players on the pitch, making them pass or dribble or shoot or tackle. You can pass in a particular direction, but can't control the space, only the players. In this new Wii game, the gamer controls the space. Say your midfielder has the ball: firstly you point somewhere that you want him to dribble to. At the same time, however, you tell your other players where to run (e.g. run into space on the wing, or run wide to draw the defender with you to create a new space for the midfielder to run into). When defending, you do not control one individual player, but rather allocate man-marking or zonal/ space marking by directing players. This may not sound it, but it's potentially revolutionary.
I will say that this way of controlling the space rather than the players. I've repeatedly said that you direct individual players where to go, and in taht way control the space. In this way, the game seems more like the chess/ go/ othello analogy I mentioned in the first paragraph: we are using the pieces to control and command the space.
Needless to say, I am crap at this new game.
This got me to thinking about other sports and space. Football (the real game, not computer game versions of the sport) is never discussed as being about space, but rather about how players find space/ pass into space/ run into space. which got me thinking about other sports and spaces.
How would a sport use space more than players? To return to the chess/ go/ othello idea, space needs to be understood in terms of hot/ cold spaces; or busy/ quiet; fast/ slow... This binary is the basis of what I mean. Then there's the tensions between these spaces, their independence and interdependence.
So which sports are more about space and less about players?
Hockey - Is all about the players and the speed of the connections between them. It's not spatial: it doesn't use cold spaces, although (as a team-formation sport, there is a certain degress of tension, independency and interdepency between areas and space across the pitch). On a scale of 1-10, this sport is a 3.
Rugby - I think may be more spatial than I first realised. Yes, it is the players who are the agents and who control the space, but it uses space in a weird way: thinking in terms of scrums, passing down the line, and line-outs/ throw-ins/ whatever they're called, the players all seek to create spaces that they can then command. Kicking into touch brings in to play ideas of using cold spaces to change pace and change attacking tactics. Plus, like Go, the game is about lines, control, and the gaps between the individual components. 8/10 (it would score more, but I'm not sure the players are self-aware enough to warrant more).
Cricket - Is entirely about space. Teams play areas as quiet spaces, busier spaces, faster spaces etc. The scoring system itself defines the game as spatial. 9/10
Tennis - This seems to be a spatial game (t's all about exploiting areas of weakness and capitalising on empty spaces) but I don't think it fits the criteria of using cold spaces (altlough it does change pace and rhythm, I'm not sure it uses space so much as speed to do this). 4/10
Curling - The sport of the gods. I love the way that, once the 'bowler' has released the stone, the two sweepers play the space, directing the stone as a devastating and destructive force, or using it to build the next bowl, or using it as a blocker. Some shots are played to keep the stone in the area, whilst others are intended to go out of the area. I can see this as highly spatial in every way - 10/10 (high score bolstered by coolness)
This is not a very insightful post, nor particuarly intellectual or academic. Plus our blog seems to have been established on topics around the digital. However, I wonder if this blog should extend to wider issues? Your thoughts, as ever, will be gratefully received.
Sunday, 16 August 2009
an embodiment or personification, as of a principle, attitude, or view of life.
Wow, i seem to have hit your overdrive button! [Edit: Having now finished my post i take this back and apologise if you took offence as i appear to have written just as much if not more, and i am just as surprised! However, i will not apologise for the length of post as this sort of behaviour could result in creating short posts for no good reason accept laziness and not wanting to waste each others time. And, if you feel that way about my writing then we might as well end this whole thing right now! I am proud i have just spent 2 hours writing this!]
You have covered so much ground so quickly i do not know where to start!
Okay, firstly, i was quite drunk when i wrote that text and i think what i was trying to write was 'Are avatars starting to look more like people or are people starting to look more like avatars?'.
I was at a rock/goth/alt pub having a cigarette outside (such a great opportunity to observe!). I have been noticing how style is changing in all social groups, moving towards a more manicured, well groomed styling. Even groups who wish to appear subversive are starting to look so carefully created. Grunge is dead. In the Nineties we would let it all hang out, long hair, ripped jeans etc. I guess this can be traced back to the late 60's and seventies when being a 'long haired hippie' was a direct way to rebel against the conformity of the Fifties where everyone seemed to where a shirt and tie. Of course it can be argued that the affectation of the 'natural' is still just a style.
But anyway, i digress. I can not help but wonder whether this move towards precision styling for both men and women is somehow inspired by or at least related to the emergence of the virtual avatar - to the accuracy of the digital (binary) ones and zeros as opposed to analogue vaguity. Maybe i am over-observing a shift that is simply rebelling against the last fashion cycle. However, as more and more people - especially a younger generation who were born around the same time as the digital world - have become so used to looking at carefully constructed digital worlds, characters and even narratives. It seems like a natural move to express that aesthetically. Just as the textual language of the internet, 'LOL', 'RFOL' etc becomes part of everyday speech why not the visual language too?
I can not help but think of the PUA or Pick Up Artist phenomenon. A network of males who initially make contact online but then meet up and swap ideas about attracting the opposite sex. In the more extreme cases this is done by encouraging young, socially awkward males to create a 'handle'(or user name) for themselves. They are then encouraged to develop there own 'avatar' in the way they dress, act and speak. A more cohesive and yet exaggerated expression of their identity that is one step removed from themselves. As i see it the idea is to fictionalise part of there personality in order to make social interaction more easy. Maybe this is simply consciously going through a process that we all do anyway but the use of the very term 'avatar' to describe a real life person shows the way the virtual world can come to influence the way we think.
On a darker note, the Columbine killings were inspired by the Matrix on a very artificial level. They created a virtual world from the real. Literally recreating their school within a virtual reality program before the two came together with disastrous consequences. There is no doubt that the avatar in both the real and non-real worlds can be empowering. It derives this power by reducing everything to language but i can not help but wonder whether this process can be wholly positive. And here we find Baufrillard. I want to do the 'Baudrillard and Avatars' post but the words are so charged that i can only talk around it. Plus i feel that he has said it all already. Everything he says on simulation applies here. [Try these: 1 2 3 4]
I can not help but feel that in a world that seems ever more unstable with the perceived threats of ecological and financial meltdown along with the new hidden threat of terrorism that some comfort can be gained from appearing in the 'real' world as a character. The virtual world can feel more comforting because you are just an avatar, your true self is concealed unless you want to show it. It can feel lighter - its just words not me! To take this feeling in to the 'real world' could be very comforting, could take the pressure off, or put another layer of protection between you and the world. Instead of swords, metal armour and banners we have slick hair, perfect makeup and skin, fantastical clothing.
Either way, it is an important, if not the most important field for the contemporary exploration of self. Whether you participate in a virtual culture yourself or not the influence of the ideas used there will become more and more central to our notion of self. Mainly i say this because everyone who does enter one of these worlds is forced to think of themselves as a language. They must go through the process of thinking about themselves as a language. They must attempt to express some part of themselves - be it idealised or not - in a place where expression is not limited by circumstance or culture. A coming to terms with the language of the real in the realm of the personal - the notions of real and unreal/non-real/virtual are almost irrelevant here.
Zizek and avatars
I think Slavoj Zizek on the avatar is essential. As he says in A Perverts Guide to Cinema: 'I want a third pill'. It is not as simple as one world being 'real' and the other being 'fake'. The Second World requires 'real' structures in order to exist. Consumerism, social etiquette etc are all rules participated in by users of virtual worlds in order to create communication. There must be some kind of structure in order to be able to make sense to one an other, just like in the real world. Therefore, the real is an integral part of the 'virtual' so called fictional worlds that have sprung up on the internet. The virtual world is real because we invest in it as we would the real world. We can laugh, cry, love hate etc.
Conversely, It is just as easy to turn the real world in to a fantasy to make it work. Zizek explores this idea in terms of the Matrix, power structures and relationships between the 2 sexes but it applies to the avatar and the virtual world too. The idea of identity in the real world is becoming more and more complex (maybe that is the wrong word) it is becoming more blurred. Male, female, straight, gay, black and white. On a physical level it is easier to change your outward appearance than ever before. Plastic surgery and operations like laser eye treatment are becoming more and more common place. Cheap clothing is everywhere. It is becoming easier to see a world in which we can go shopping for a 'real world' appearance as it is to in the 'virtual world'. I carefully choose not to use the word identity in place of appearance because there is a whole argument already in place about whether appearance equals identity already.
So we see the that we are already avatars and avatars are us. The virtual and real worlds just accentuate this relationship.
Avatars and capitalism
As far as i can tell consumer culture sells to the avatar (to the user) using the same structure as the real world: aspiration. In worlds such as Second Life the basics are given to the 'noob' in order that they can enter the world. But in order to appear 'cool' or 'individual' one must buy new clothes, skin etc using real money. The exact same can be said of the real world! And also, within the rules of consumer culture, you may find that your peers will comment on the fact that they do not appreciate your look etc. in other words they willingly perpetuate the system.
Whether the things we are encouraged to buy in the Second World are directly branded with a Nike Swoosh or are non-branded they are still bought with real money. But, returning to an earlier point - money itself is a mass delusion. Money itself has lost its 'real' value. On money in Great Britain it is written 'I promise to pay the bearer'. You could take a five pound note in to a Bank and they were obliged to give you £5 worth of gold. Do that now and you would be laughed at at best! Here again we see the fiction in the real world being transposed to the virtual world.
We construct our reality in the same way as we construct our fantasy: through language and imagination. The world does not move around us, we move the world to fit our perspective. This is how we can construct new worlds and realities in virtual space and fictions that guide our real lives. Sometimes the two inform each other because they are two sides of the same coin. How apt this simple expression is as alas, the final word must go to capitalism, consumerism has entwined itself around/through/on top of/IS this relationship and makes a quick buck out of both.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Avatars
A wise friend recently asked “Are people dressing more like their avatars?” and I pondered and went to sleep and woke up having dreamt of avatarian existentialism all night long.
I perceive avatars as:
The avatar’s function is as a representation of the user within the online environment. As such, the user imbues the avatar with qualities they want to project into that environment. The avatars have differing levels of relationship to the actual identity of the user.
Anyway, I chose to ignore linguistic avatars and focus on 2D icons (with some reference to 3D models).
Here I am, thinking:
And here:
And here:
And here:
I hadn’t read much on avatar theory, but thought that Baudrillard, Foucault, and a tiny sprinkling of Barthesian structrulist analysis provides a framework from which to understand avatars…
I see avatars as serving a psychological function and a social function.
I’ll deal with the social function first.
Social Function of Avatars
The avatar is a visual representation of the user that enables participation within the online environment. As such, it is a social tool.
It also acts as a calling card/ telephone number/ identification card etc, allowing others to find the user/ avatar.
At the same time, it provides a distancing device that turns person (user) into character (avatar). It is a fictionalising tool that creates a new reality.
I’ll use this as the basis from which to discuss the phenomenon of an avatar within the frameworks of a few theorists.
How and what do they mean?
What would Barthes say?
Avatars are a form of language; they operate as a sign system according to a grammar that can be read in simple structuralist semiotic terms.
The symbol of the avatar (signifier) points to the signified (the user), creating a sign. As with all signs, the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, and the act of signification is determined (or at least accepted) by the culture/ language within which it is used.
The joy is that avatars often/ usually revel in their arbitrariness as a sign system: the ‘visual accuracy’ that might be assumed to influence a user’s creation of the avatar is often playfully disregarded and the avatar takes the form of an animal/ lego character… Avatars move/ play/ dance within the gap of the sign; the act of signification becomes the site of pleasure and play, the jouissance of the avatar.
C’eci n’est une pipe
The signifiers also become afloat from the signified. Avatars have their own names/ handles (such as in Second Life, where the list of surnames available restricts user choice, and also ensures an arbitrariness between avatar-name and user-name) and can be seen to have their own existence beyond the user. I am sure that research that asked users about their avatars would find that users often discuss their avatars as being distinct to themselves, as if they are real people separate from the user. To put it in different terms: as if the signifiers are separate from the signified.
In this way, avatars are wonderfully post-structuralist signs, with meaning existing at surface level.
What would Baudrillard add?
I’m not good on Baudrillard, so you’re going to have to help out here.
Here’s my reading.
I guess the place to start is the idea that with avatars, meaning/ reality has been replaced by signs/ simulacra. Avatars exist within the age of hyperreality, where the object/ reality of the user has been replaced by the symbol of the avatar.
I found a blog by an art student who uses Second Life and discusses her avatar thus: “I have often believed that my second life is more true than my real life… My avatar Gracie Kendal, is an extenstion (sic) of me. Her personality, the way she dresses, her art, her relationships, her house, her dogs… I don’t hide anything. Now sometimes that can get me into trouble…LOL (won’t go there!!) But for the most part… Gracie is true.”
(I like the fact that the blog is called ‘The Secret Life of Gracie Kendall’ and is named after the avatar, not the user.)
Presumably, a Baudrillardian reading would emphasise the replacement of reality with hyperreality/ simulacra; the replacement of truth with the symbol of truth…?
What would Foucault do?
Best be brief:
Foucault would love avatars. They are a site of power: users create their own identity, enacting agency (within the framework of the avatar-creating software/ interface). In that way, an avatar is an expression of the subject, within the dominant discourse. This needs developing.
Psychological Function of Avatars
I mentioned a long time ago (this was going to be a short post!) that avatars had two functions: a social function and a psychological function. Now to look quickly at the psychological function.
Avatars seem to operate somewhere between a mirror, an alter-ego and a pet. I’m sure Lacan, Freud and someone who specialises in pet-theory would be useful to discuss here. I am expert in none.
Avatars are created by the user, and the user is free to imbue the avatar with qualities that they wish to project within the online environment. The degree of agency that the user has is sometimes limited (e.g. an avatar created using the lego avatar-generator has only a limited range of possibilities), however the area of interest here is the way in which users choose to project themselves within the online environment.
My avatars above mostly reflect my real image/ identity/ habits from the real world (white boy; casually dressed; shaved head; likes meat). How would it be different if I’d created an avatar where I was female/ black/ disabled/ non-human? Why do some users create avatars that are similar to their own identity, whilst others create avatars that are very different to their real identity?
I guess all sorts of words and theories could be applied: escapism; aspirations; idealism; experimentalism… I don’t feel the need to be derogatory here: avatars clearly fulfil some sort of need for the users. I sense that the use of avatars that are very different to the user’s appearance are a form of liberated playfulness of signification, and that users enjoy playing within the gap of meaning.
Avatars that take the forms of profile pictures (like on Facebook and MySpace) are kind of like wearing your best clothes to non-uniform day at school: users want to present certain aspects of their personality (real, imagined or aspirational) to the society they interact with.
There’s a need for a whole ethnographic study on users and avatars.
Existentialism and Avatars
Fuck yeah.
“Are people dressing more like their avatars?”
Hopefully.
I propose a few comments on related topics. Proposed titles:
Some articles I’d like to read but haven’t had time yet:
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.32337.pdf
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.16435.pdf
I perceive avatars as:
- Text-based ‘handles’ which users may appoint as their name on a website/ forum/ MySpace page, or even as an email address (linguistic avatars?)
- A 2D icon (pictorial avatars? Image avatars?) These could be profile pictures, graphical images used as signatures, or characters created specifically for the purpose. Might accompany a handle, appear as a Facebook/ MySpace pic…
- A 3D image/ model/ character
The avatar’s function is as a representation of the user within the online environment. As such, the user imbues the avatar with qualities they want to project into that environment. The avatars have differing levels of relationship to the actual identity of the user.
Anyway, I chose to ignore linguistic avatars and focus on 2D icons (with some reference to 3D models).
Here I am, thinking:
And here:
And here:
And here:
I hadn’t read much on avatar theory, but thought that Baudrillard, Foucault, and a tiny sprinkling of Barthesian structrulist analysis provides a framework from which to understand avatars…
I see avatars as serving a psychological function and a social function.
I’ll deal with the social function first.
Social Function of Avatars
The avatar is a visual representation of the user that enables participation within the online environment. As such, it is a social tool.
It also acts as a calling card/ telephone number/ identification card etc, allowing others to find the user/ avatar.
At the same time, it provides a distancing device that turns person (user) into character (avatar). It is a fictionalising tool that creates a new reality.
I’ll use this as the basis from which to discuss the phenomenon of an avatar within the frameworks of a few theorists.
How and what do they mean?
What would Barthes say?
Avatars are a form of language; they operate as a sign system according to a grammar that can be read in simple structuralist semiotic terms.
The symbol of the avatar (signifier) points to the signified (the user), creating a sign. As with all signs, the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary, and the act of signification is determined (or at least accepted) by the culture/ language within which it is used.
The joy is that avatars often/ usually revel in their arbitrariness as a sign system: the ‘visual accuracy’ that might be assumed to influence a user’s creation of the avatar is often playfully disregarded and the avatar takes the form of an animal/ lego character… Avatars move/ play/ dance within the gap of the sign; the act of signification becomes the site of pleasure and play, the jouissance of the avatar.
C’eci n’est une pipe
The signifiers also become afloat from the signified. Avatars have their own names/ handles (such as in Second Life, where the list of surnames available restricts user choice, and also ensures an arbitrariness between avatar-name and user-name) and can be seen to have their own existence beyond the user. I am sure that research that asked users about their avatars would find that users often discuss their avatars as being distinct to themselves, as if they are real people separate from the user. To put it in different terms: as if the signifiers are separate from the signified.
In this way, avatars are wonderfully post-structuralist signs, with meaning existing at surface level.
What would Baudrillard add?
I’m not good on Baudrillard, so you’re going to have to help out here.
Here’s my reading.
I guess the place to start is the idea that with avatars, meaning/ reality has been replaced by signs/ simulacra. Avatars exist within the age of hyperreality, where the object/ reality of the user has been replaced by the symbol of the avatar.
I found a blog by an art student who uses Second Life and discusses her avatar thus: “I have often believed that my second life is more true than my real life… My avatar Gracie Kendal, is an extenstion (sic) of me. Her personality, the way she dresses, her art, her relationships, her house, her dogs… I don’t hide anything. Now sometimes that can get me into trouble…LOL (won’t go there!!) But for the most part… Gracie is true.”
(I like the fact that the blog is called ‘The Secret Life of Gracie Kendall’ and is named after the avatar, not the user.)
Presumably, a Baudrillardian reading would emphasise the replacement of reality with hyperreality/ simulacra; the replacement of truth with the symbol of truth…?
What would Foucault do?
Best be brief:
Foucault would love avatars. They are a site of power: users create their own identity, enacting agency (within the framework of the avatar-creating software/ interface). In that way, an avatar is an expression of the subject, within the dominant discourse. This needs developing.
Psychological Function of Avatars
I mentioned a long time ago (this was going to be a short post!) that avatars had two functions: a social function and a psychological function. Now to look quickly at the psychological function.
Avatars seem to operate somewhere between a mirror, an alter-ego and a pet. I’m sure Lacan, Freud and someone who specialises in pet-theory would be useful to discuss here. I am expert in none.
Avatars are created by the user, and the user is free to imbue the avatar with qualities that they wish to project within the online environment. The degree of agency that the user has is sometimes limited (e.g. an avatar created using the lego avatar-generator has only a limited range of possibilities), however the area of interest here is the way in which users choose to project themselves within the online environment.
My avatars above mostly reflect my real image/ identity/ habits from the real world (white boy; casually dressed; shaved head; likes meat). How would it be different if I’d created an avatar where I was female/ black/ disabled/ non-human? Why do some users create avatars that are similar to their own identity, whilst others create avatars that are very different to their real identity?
I guess all sorts of words and theories could be applied: escapism; aspirations; idealism; experimentalism… I don’t feel the need to be derogatory here: avatars clearly fulfil some sort of need for the users. I sense that the use of avatars that are very different to the user’s appearance are a form of liberated playfulness of signification, and that users enjoy playing within the gap of meaning.
Avatars that take the forms of profile pictures (like on Facebook and MySpace) are kind of like wearing your best clothes to non-uniform day at school: users want to present certain aspects of their personality (real, imagined or aspirational) to the society they interact with.
There’s a need for a whole ethnographic study on users and avatars.
Existentialism and Avatars
Fuck yeah.
“Are people dressing more like their avatars?”
Hopefully.
I propose a few comments on related topics. Proposed titles:
- Baudrillard and Avatars (my limited knowledge means I can’t really develop much further).
- Existentialism and Avatars
- Nihilism and Avatars
- The Ontology of the Avatar
- Advertising and Avatars: Branding Your Identity (Adidas and FCUK are dressing Yahoo users' avatars in branded clothing. From the pitch: "And now you can make your Avatar just as stylish as you - with the very latest FCUK Spring & Summer 2005 Collection of clothes." - http://adverlab.blogspot.com/2005/10/branding-avatars.html)
- Avatars and Character Theory for computer games
Some articles I’d like to read but haven’t had time yet:
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.32337.pdf
http://www.digra.org/dl/db/07311.16435.pdf
Thursday, 6 August 2009
Men and words
An essay in the language of Youtubian
well
thats what the guy did
he just let free all wat he kept there for good and become tyler
or somethin
lol movie??? but, what happens when the world or some part of it, doesn't love the person who knows themselves and the world? I need some handy wipes....that's soooo funny it could be a weapon. teh same thing happend 2 me!!!! It´s quite funny and good for elementary Ss. VERY INSIGHTSIVE You have no choice LMAO freakin ugly game....The movie is awsome!
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Appropriation and Fandom
NB I got so annoyed with the lack of word-wrap on the original incarnation of this post that I re-posted, but in the process lost all of the embedded videos. Fera not, however, for i valiantly went through YouTube and re-retrieved all of the embed codes for your listening and viewing pleasure. Sweet joy.
I wanted to add something on here about fandom and appropriation. I wonder if, in this glorious postmodern age of new technologies and tinternet, fandom represents a new form of appropriation.
Watch this in a dark room:
What does this video mean? Is it possible that this video has any meaning at all?
????????
I'm not interested, however in engaging with the text itself, but rather with the text as an object/ phenomenon.
Click through to YouTube and you'll see the video's had over 2.5million views. As the person who showed me this video said, "what will you ever do in your life that is seen by 2.5million people?".
What do we make of this?
Secondly, notice that the video is not actually their work (according to the notes left by SexyPuerto by the video on the YouTube page); it is that of someone else. They have appropriated the work of someone else which appropriated the work of someone else (Peter Jackson).
What does this say about appropriation?
Now it gets messy:
It seems 'Isengard' is actually part of (or maybe the start of) an entire genre of YouTube appropriations:
A version using the American version of The Office:
A version using Star Wars:
Then there's an entire range of films that appropriate these appropriations:
What does that mean? Some sort of postmodernism2
Now watch this:
And this:
best of all:
I guess there are some conclusions that could be drawn about authorship. Discuss.
I wanted to add something on here about fandom and appropriation. I wonder if, in this glorious postmodern age of new technologies and tinternet, fandom represents a new form of appropriation.
Watch this in a dark room:
What does this video mean? Is it possible that this video has any meaning at all?
????????
I'm not interested, however in engaging with the text itself, but rather with the text as an object/ phenomenon.
Click through to YouTube and you'll see the video's had over 2.5million views. As the person who showed me this video said, "what will you ever do in your life that is seen by 2.5million people?".
What do we make of this?
Secondly, notice that the video is not actually their work (according to the notes left by SexyPuerto by the video on the YouTube page); it is that of someone else. They have appropriated the work of someone else which appropriated the work of someone else (Peter Jackson).
What does this say about appropriation?
Now it gets messy:
It seems 'Isengard' is actually part of (or maybe the start of) an entire genre of YouTube appropriations:
A version using the American version of The Office:
A version using Star Wars:
Then there's an entire range of films that appropriate these appropriations:
What does that mean? Some sort of postmodernism2
Now watch this:
And this:
best of all:
I guess there are some conclusions that could be drawn about authorship. Discuss.
Sunday, 12 July 2009
Appropriation
Within the visual arts it could arguably be said that Appropriation started within Cubism and the use of found materials. However, these elements were then incorporated in to new pieces. In 1917, Marcel Duchamp showed a piece called 'Fountain' for the first time. This piece involves the display of a urinal as a work of art. The only modification to the factory model was the addition of the signature 'R. Mutt 1917' (an assumed named used by the artist).This piece is pivotal within the history of art as it is the first example of an artist taking an object and displaying it, as found, within a gallery context. This is appropriation in its purest form within the visual arts. Where the art comes is that by experiencing the object out of its normal context the viewer is invited to consider it on different terms. This may be the consideration of the aesthetic value of something that is considered to be simply practical. It also poses the question of artistic originality and authenticity. It asks the question 'do you have to make something yourself in order for it to be your own work of art?'. With this one step Duchamp opened up the possibilities of art. Art was not just about hand eye coordination but about the adept or poetical choice of objects and ideas.
Appropriation has now become an established part of many artists' methodologies. The history of which can be traced through Dada and Fluxus to Pop Artists such as Andy Warhol. Another example of what could be called a 'pure' form of appropriation is the work of Sherrie Levine in the 1980's. She took specific photographs by Walker Evans and displayed them herself. Here it is demonstrated that a female artist in the 1980's displaying these photographs has very different connotations to Walker Evan's initial reasons for taking the photographs. Here again the 'art' of the work happens 'behind the scenes' as it were. A shifting of values for a fixed point - in this case a photograph. This is akin to a word thats meaning changes over time. This is evident in all media from the visual arts through to music and commercial culture such as advertisements. Within the music industry sampling is often used to take a small part of one song to create another. However, to find the 'purest' form of appropriation the cover version is more effective. For example, the Sex Pistol's cover of 'I did it my way' by Frank Sinatra brings with it many new connotations. In the original version Sinatra's rendition of the lyrics can be seen to be a comment about his struggle to reach the top of the music business. In the Sex Pistol's version we can not help but reflect on their struggles with substance abuse. Again we see a shift in meaning attaching itself to a single cultural reference point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIXg9KUiy00
Within commercial culture the use of particular styles and fonts are used to create a particular awareness within popular culture of iconic images and the assumed connotations of certain styles and fonts. There is a growing use of irony that relies upon the history and cultural understanding of these visual techniques. For example, the use of the Barbara Kruger piece 'I shop therefore I am' by Selfridges. This act of appropriation seems to invite an attitude of knowing decadence to the stores shopping that is in direct opposition to the questioning nature of the originals. This is particularily interesting to us as the original Barbara Kruger work appropriated fonts and stylings from earlier advertising imagery. With the ease of access to computer technology over the last two decades it is easier than ever before for anyone to obtain the work of others. Just as popular culture has become more accessible in terms of the ability to produce, so to appropriation has become a far more accepted part of the way popular culture expresses itself. This can be evidenced across the internet on sites such as Youtube and My Space. Here it is easy to take a pop song or image and show it within your own page or site. Instead of a bedroom wall as the site of the consumption for this iconography it is the internet. With this comes instant networking and publication to allow the imagery to be reinterpreted once more. One example is the adaptation of a song with new images as a way to personalise it. Whilst this is not a pure example of appropriation as the original has been altered the song itself has been given a new more personal meaning. Here we can see the same shift in meaning from a single cultural reference point - in this case a pop song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvS90FLE1oE
Through the history of appropriation we can see the process go from controversial large scale public statement through to a proliferation of reinterpration on an ever more personal scale.
Monday, 29 June 2009
Private Property is theft: Appropriation in the post-Marxist age.
"Appropriation is first recorded 1393, "the making of a thing private property;" sense of "setting aside for some purpose" (esp. of money, etc.) is from 1789." It says so here so it must be true.
You're right - we need a proper post on Appropriation.
You're right - we need a proper post on Appropriation.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
i publish, you publish, he she or it...
This is the interesting thing about sites like Twitter. On the one hand they allow access to publishing for people that may not have access to that ability before. There is no need for a big printing press just a mobile phone! There are definitely examples of this freedom with people supplying information from places like Iraq and Iran and areas where information is more closely controlled.
I feel hesitant to use the word 'publish'. A dictionary definition is 'to prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale'. Many blogs, whilst having public access, do not have many if any readers apart from the authors. This blog is just such an example at the moment! This is an area where the idea of empowerment seems to me to be closer to the idea of distraction. Power over the means of production no longer means power. Democratisation of the ability to publish creates information overload as much as it does information empowerment.
Of course this depends on the intended use of the blog (and i include Twitter in this). Is it a way of building and binding a small community that already exists in the 'real' world or a way of disseminating information to a larger audience? The answer is both. It comes down to the relevance and interest of the information and it is up to the the people who read them. Some capture the public's imagination and gain a cult following. This suggests democracy, the people decide what information is relevant.
However, it is undeniable that consumer culture is rising to the possiblities of these new media. A prime example is the battle that Facebook had to have the right to use information posted by its users to focus advertising and examine trends. The internet is a two way street, and as such far easier to monitor than that of television etc. And from this to hone the services and advertising that come with it. With this comes the ability to influence what inform does reach us. Which blogs and posts get noticed, or which trend is picked up by the mainstream, be this on a concious or subconscious level.
Lexicon
I feel hesitant to use the word 'publish'. A dictionary definition is 'to prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale'. Many blogs, whilst having public access, do not have many if any readers apart from the authors. This blog is just such an example at the moment! This is an area where the idea of empowerment seems to me to be closer to the idea of distraction. Power over the means of production no longer means power. Democratisation of the ability to publish creates information overload as much as it does information empowerment.
Of course this depends on the intended use of the blog (and i include Twitter in this). Is it a way of building and binding a small community that already exists in the 'real' world or a way of disseminating information to a larger audience? The answer is both. It comes down to the relevance and interest of the information and it is up to the the people who read them. Some capture the public's imagination and gain a cult following. This suggests democracy, the people decide what information is relevant.
However, it is undeniable that consumer culture is rising to the possiblities of these new media. A prime example is the battle that Facebook had to have the right to use information posted by its users to focus advertising and examine trends. The internet is a two way street, and as such far easier to monitor than that of television etc. And from this to hone the services and advertising that come with it. With this comes the ability to influence what inform does reach us. Which blogs and posts get noticed, or which trend is picked up by the mainstream, be this on a concious or subconscious level.
Lexicon
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Twitter and empowerment
What does Iran and Twitter mean?
I guess the easiest interpretation of this (media) event is to examine Twitter as a tool of empowerment, a democratising force that utilises post-structural communication to organise protest like some sort of rhizomic organic democracy plant, growing under the ground of mainstream politics/ traditional political and media structures. Is this right?
But this seems to have been problematised a bit. Suggestions that Twitter's rescheduling of their downtime for maintenance was prompted/ requested/ directed by American/ western governmental intervention raise questions about the political/ ideological independence of Web2.0 sites. Are these sites (liable to be) part of the state apparatus after all?
(In my possible naivety) I'm not convinced by the ccuracy of the argument that the outage was rescheduled in response to govt intervention and feel it's a bit too Illuminatus, if that's not too inaccurate an anaology. However, I would argue that perhaps the western dominated Web2.0 phenomenon is inherently ideologically slanted and works as some sort of digital-age cultural imperialism which uses enlightenment concepts such as democracy and empowerment to legitimise the colonisation of online intellectual activity. Web2.0 thus becomes some sort of cultural hegemony, owned as it is (increasingly) by the powerful. Google's beanbags seem more ominous now.
OR maybe this can be interpreted differently. Maybe Twitter/ Web2.0 utilises and perpetuates the illusion of empowerment/ democratisation as a mode of offering a false-democracy. Rather than the politics of democracy, it is actually a politics of distraction.
Discuss, using pseudo-academic language that slips just out of reach of the meanings you originally intended but can not quite articulate.
I guess the easiest interpretation of this (media) event is to examine Twitter as a tool of empowerment, a democratising force that utilises post-structural communication to organise protest like some sort of rhizomic organic democracy plant, growing under the ground of mainstream politics/ traditional political and media structures. Is this right?
But this seems to have been problematised a bit. Suggestions that Twitter's rescheduling of their downtime for maintenance was prompted/ requested/ directed by American/ western governmental intervention raise questions about the political/ ideological independence of Web2.0 sites. Are these sites (liable to be) part of the state apparatus after all?
(In my possible naivety) I'm not convinced by the ccuracy of the argument that the outage was rescheduled in response to govt intervention and feel it's a bit too Illuminatus, if that's not too inaccurate an anaology. However, I would argue that perhaps the western dominated Web2.0 phenomenon is inherently ideologically slanted and works as some sort of digital-age cultural imperialism which uses enlightenment concepts such as democracy and empowerment to legitimise the colonisation of online intellectual activity. Web2.0 thus becomes some sort of cultural hegemony, owned as it is (increasingly) by the powerful. Google's beanbags seem more ominous now.
OR maybe this can be interpreted differently. Maybe Twitter/ Web2.0 utilises and perpetuates the illusion of empowerment/ democratisation as a mode of offering a false-democracy. Rather than the politics of democracy, it is actually a politics of distraction.
Discuss, using pseudo-academic language that slips just out of reach of the meanings you originally intended but can not quite articulate.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Diversification in the music industry
REM are releasing (purchaseable) typefaces that have been used on their last few albums. Presumably this is a reflection of the way in which the music industry is required to change in the online age. Whilst Radiohead have used all sorts of alternative business models to generate revenue (regular touring, with huge gigs; new distribution methods for music), I haven't heard of anyone else selling typefaces.
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
A response to Lexicon's thoughts
I thought I'd try and discuss Lexicon's thoughts in some way that might be more discursive between the three of us, rather than in a dialogue. But i don't want to go all wiki (not sure that's what the brain trust is really about?) so thought blog might be best. Maybe you'd like to join?
"when TV began to have more than one channel, that the consumer could change channels to form their own bricollage"
This empowerment isn't offered by multi-channel TV, but is facilitated by the arrival of PVRs/ Sky+ etc. The proliferation of content and the empowerment offered to audiences who can create their own schedules could be construed as a form of bricolage, however it's important to recognise that (currently) this is still part of the apparatus of the powerful. Traditional forms of ownership problematise the notion of this technological development as truly empowering to audiences. (I recognise that Google's ownership of YouTube is not necessarily 'traditional ownership').
Perhaps the projected convergence of internet and TV, as well as the PVRs, offer the opportunity for bricolage and empowerment that could truly be a 'threat' to the dominance of traditional media institutions and ideologies.
Do you read the comments under Youtube videos ever? All these people seem to be more used to giving opinions than forming them. In one way it is great that it is so quick and populistic, empowering to the people, instinctive. In another it makes me nervous because these opinions are formed with less and less rationale, context or careful argument.
Apparently there is little research done into the nature or discourse of the comments on YouTube. I feel that the empowerment is vital but also could be construed as an illusion of empowerment: the apparatus behind these tools for collaboration are of course part of the greater corporate apparatus (google etc). I am also uneasy about these discoursesm uninformed as they are by context or developed argument.
This proliferation of creativity - something that our mate Benjamin was fighting for all those years ago seems more like an end than a beginning. His idea was that it would give people power but it just seems to leave people less empowered whilst actually being more and more coopted in to the system. We are in the Matrix. People subconciously create whilst the suppliers of the means just watch what they are producing and sell it back to them.
Hmmm. Let's take this part by part. There is an undoubted proliferation of creativity. To what extent is this creativity productive? Or is the point of creativity to not be productive (and thus to step outside of the means of production)? So maybe I should instead question: to what extent is this creativity expressive/ important/ actually creative? I agree that this form creativity is not necessarily a form of power: the discourse is that of diversion rather than subversion.
The Matrix was, of course, the construction of a multinational corporation.
Some other thoughts: to what extent is the future of creativity corporately sponsored? To what extent is there an alternative space for subversive, empowered, liberated creativity? As Girls Aloud sang, "It's the sound of the underground." The alternative is incorporated.
If twitter is a monologue, how can we make this a dialogue/ 'multilogue'? Go on; you know you want to.
"when TV began to have more than one channel, that the consumer could change channels to form their own bricollage"
This empowerment isn't offered by multi-channel TV, but is facilitated by the arrival of PVRs/ Sky+ etc. The proliferation of content and the empowerment offered to audiences who can create their own schedules could be construed as a form of bricolage, however it's important to recognise that (currently) this is still part of the apparatus of the powerful. Traditional forms of ownership problematise the notion of this technological development as truly empowering to audiences. (I recognise that Google's ownership of YouTube is not necessarily 'traditional ownership').
Perhaps the projected convergence of internet and TV, as well as the PVRs, offer the opportunity for bricolage and empowerment that could truly be a 'threat' to the dominance of traditional media institutions and ideologies.
Do you read the comments under Youtube videos ever? All these people seem to be more used to giving opinions than forming them. In one way it is great that it is so quick and populistic, empowering to the people, instinctive. In another it makes me nervous because these opinions are formed with less and less rationale, context or careful argument.
Apparently there is little research done into the nature or discourse of the comments on YouTube. I feel that the empowerment is vital but also could be construed as an illusion of empowerment: the apparatus behind these tools for collaboration are of course part of the greater corporate apparatus (google etc). I am also uneasy about these discoursesm uninformed as they are by context or developed argument.
This proliferation of creativity - something that our mate Benjamin was fighting for all those years ago seems more like an end than a beginning. His idea was that it would give people power but it just seems to leave people less empowered whilst actually being more and more coopted in to the system. We are in the Matrix. People subconciously create whilst the suppliers of the means just watch what they are producing and sell it back to them.
Hmmm. Let's take this part by part. There is an undoubted proliferation of creativity. To what extent is this creativity productive? Or is the point of creativity to not be productive (and thus to step outside of the means of production)? So maybe I should instead question: to what extent is this creativity expressive/ important/ actually creative? I agree that this form creativity is not necessarily a form of power: the discourse is that of diversion rather than subversion.
The Matrix was, of course, the construction of a multinational corporation.
Some other thoughts: to what extent is the future of creativity corporately sponsored? To what extent is there an alternative space for subversive, empowered, liberated creativity? As Girls Aloud sang, "It's the sound of the underground." The alternative is incorporated.
If twitter is a monologue, how can we make this a dialogue/ 'multilogue'? Go on; you know you want to.
I couldn't think of another address that hadn't already been used
"As the archaeology of our thought easily shows, man is an invention of recent date. And one perhaps nearing its end." Michel Foucault
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)