I suppose I'll probably never walk into a Staples the same way again after reading _Everything is Miscellaneous_. Weinberger's Prologue sets up a great framework for the rest of the book, and highlights a few obvious points that I've always known, but never really considered. "In physical space, some things are nearer than others...physical objects can only be in one spot at any one time...physical space is shared...human physical abilities are limited" (5). That's not exactly mind-blowing stuff, but when you think about it, the layout of a Staples store is pretty useless relative to what the average person might need. If I need a cable (assuming I have no prior knowledge of where they are), I have to stop, look at all the category signs hanging from the ceiling, or maybe even ask someone. Even when I do find the location, I still might be tempted to stop and look at some cool new item or sale. So maybe a 15 minute trip into Staples isn't a big deal, but when you consider the age of digitality, it can seem like an eternity.
Weinberger's third order of order--the digital bits--is certainly a valid idea that will be brought more and more to the forefront of consumerism, as well industry and academics. Technical communication fields are already dealing with the boom of single sourcing and content management, and online stores such as Amazon and iTunes are offering endless ways for customers to shop and acquire things. I know that when I shop for music online, making miscellaneous searches is one of the best ways to find new stuff. As Weinberger states, the third order hangs information "from as many branches as possible" (103). Users of Amazon and iTunes create random lists of CDs and mp3s, and a single search can yield thousands, if not millions of possibilities.
I've been an avid user of Amazon and iTunes for quite some time now, but I find it very interesting that "giving up control" is what allows them to be so powerful (and addictive). I really like some of the analogies he uses throughout the book, especially the one about going into a clothing store, pulling everything off the shelves, and sorting through the "distractions" until you find your size. In many cases, not knowing what you want seems to be advantageous because you get more options. And at the click of a button. I suppose I've always thought of the Internet as very ordered--typing web pages, getting exact numbers of search results, etc--but the disorder that's out there is really what is driving it along. We're losing control of the order of information, and somehow it's making it easier for everyone.
So my lingering question is, will things evolve in such a way that order and ownership will become the norm again? Does the disorder/order come and go in cycles? It seems like we've been on the upswing for a while now--chiseling tablets, printing press, Internet...I wonder what new technologies could bring an order to the disorder?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
iMovie...
For my iMovie, I wanted to put together a video "commentary" on Nakamura's analysis of the iPod commercials. As I posted in my response, I really liked how she analyzed the black, silhouettes as "negative spaces" that the user could project themselves into. However, I didn't like how she assumed that this also represented a desire for white people to be able to dance like black people.
So for my video, I put together a few clips of a variety of iPod users, using the iPod like I think most people do. For me, those ads symbolized how a variety of people can be represented by the images, and how each person can enjoy their iPod in their own way. I think my video supports Nakamura's analysis of the iPod commercial, yet disagrees with the way she thinks most people interpret it.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thoughts on Nakamura (95-209)
As I'm digging further into Nakamura, I'm finding a lot of ideas that I really like, but I think some of them are overshadowed by her perceptions on race and how it is interpreted in digital/visual cultures.
In Chapter 3 (Social Optics of Race), Nakamura begins an interesting analysis of the iPod and how it's design and advertising reflect a product's integration into popular culture. The iPod commercials depict black, silhouetted figures against colorful backgrounds, which according to Nakamura, allows the potential user to put themselves into this character's shoes. I remember when I first saw those commericals, the very same idea popped into my head...that could be me! Although I wouldn't be going quite as crazy, and my selection of music would have been quite different. This "negative space" that the image provides is a powerful example of how a blank image can project a visualization of one's self. It definitely worked on me, even though I had purchased an iPod before those commercials came out.
She also makes some great points about "flattening" of data, and how "spatial wandering" lessens the need for an author to direct the media experience. I also thought her Manovich quote on how "random access is symptomatic of the 'decline of the field of rhetoric in the modern era'" made for a great discussion of how the usability of the iPod interface was changing the way we approach new media.
However, just when this chapter started to get interesting, Nakamura begins to describe how these images of black, dancing silhouettes depict black people dancing "because, as in the Matrix trilogy, black people dancing visually signifies desire that the white body cannot feel and cannot express visually." I think it's extremely presumptuous, and I have no idea where she gets her grounds for that argument. I felt the same way about her characterization of race in the Matrix. To me, it seems like you could pick apart any movie or advertisement and make connections with race. Race is everywhere in the online and visual world today, but she makes it seem like it's this hidden secret that we need to watch out for.
I'm just having a hard time making the race connection with digital and visual images in this book. Like I mention earlier, she has some great ideas, but the hardcore race factor she keeps throwing in makes it difficult for me to appreciate the good qualities of this book. I'm wondering if other students are having this dilemma as well...
In Chapter 3 (Social Optics of Race), Nakamura begins an interesting analysis of the iPod and how it's design and advertising reflect a product's integration into popular culture. The iPod commercials depict black, silhouetted figures against colorful backgrounds, which according to Nakamura, allows the potential user to put themselves into this character's shoes. I remember when I first saw those commericals, the very same idea popped into my head...that could be me! Although I wouldn't be going quite as crazy, and my selection of music would have been quite different. This "negative space" that the image provides is a powerful example of how a blank image can project a visualization of one's self. It definitely worked on me, even though I had purchased an iPod before those commercials came out.
She also makes some great points about "flattening" of data, and how "spatial wandering" lessens the need for an author to direct the media experience. I also thought her Manovich quote on how "random access is symptomatic of the 'decline of the field of rhetoric in the modern era'" made for a great discussion of how the usability of the iPod interface was changing the way we approach new media.
However, just when this chapter started to get interesting, Nakamura begins to describe how these images of black, dancing silhouettes depict black people dancing "because, as in the Matrix trilogy, black people dancing visually signifies desire that the white body cannot feel and cannot express visually." I think it's extremely presumptuous, and I have no idea where she gets her grounds for that argument. I felt the same way about her characterization of race in the Matrix. To me, it seems like you could pick apart any movie or advertisement and make connections with race. Race is everywhere in the online and visual world today, but she makes it seem like it's this hidden secret that we need to watch out for.
I'm just having a hard time making the race connection with digital and visual images in this book. Like I mention earlier, she has some great ideas, but the hardcore race factor she keeps throwing in makes it difficult for me to appreciate the good qualities of this book. I'm wondering if other students are having this dilemma as well...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
alllooksame!
Just a quick real-life example of alllooksame...I work with a guy from South Korea, and sometimes at lunch in the cafeteria at MCW we play of version of this game (never heard of the original until now though). Neither of us are very good at identifying between Japanese, Korean, or Chinese. When we do meet someone the usual exchange is "Oh I thought you were Korean" and "Well I thought you were Chinese!" Until I met him, I always thought this kind of mix-up would be offensive, but he thinks it's hilarious.
self-portrait...
This was a "portrait" my friend took of me a while back. I added a few things opaquely in the picture frame, and then of course the parade of family and friends below me. Basically I included things that are important to me. And yes the beer in my hand is one of them.
Thoughts on Nakamura (1-94)
In her intro, Nakamura states that the purpose of her book is to "focus on the ways that users of the Internet collaboratively produce digitial images of the body...in the context of racial and gender identity formation" (5). I found this a fascinating mode of critique. The Internet has become a visual-generating medium where text is no longer the only option. As our experience with Photoshop has taught us, ideas and creations of self-imaging are at our fingertips, and we can share those images with classmates simultaneously (not to mention the rest of the world, if only so many people were interested in our 709 blogs). Thus, it would seem important to analyze how we portray ourselves with the visual tools and outlets the Internet provides.
After reading the first couple of chapters (maybe I've not gotten far enough into the book to make a fair assessment), I found myself with many questions about the value of such analysis. Her second chapter focuses on AIM buddy icons. If we assume that the author of "Muslim" is a 15-year old Muslim girl from Detroit, why should we be suprised that her buddy icon features a Muslim girl with a DKNY shirt? This seems like a normal progression of expression, no different than if we were asked to draw a picture of ourselves. However, the Internet hides the actual person, so we can't be sure if "Muslim" is a Muslim girl or a 50 year-old white guy. The "anonymous" user is the wild card in terms of visual expression in an online environment. I was at first skeptical of Nakamura's choices of analysis, but I'm really beginning to see the value of online image analysis. The Internet certainly holds the potential for endless creativity with how we portray ourselves, but how will that change the way we communicate with others?
If we can be anyone we want online--which in most cases, we already can be--how will that affect our cultures? Nakamura raises a great point about how children today seem to be skipping the written text phase of learning and are jumping directly into a digital world of images and pictures. I've always been sure that the Internet will eventually be accessible to everyone on the planet, so when that day comes, it's feasible that a world-wide, uniform online culture could develop. Skin color would no longer matter, because each individual could represent themselves in any way they chose. And since the online environment would likely become the focal point of communication and culture, the actual human beings wouldn't really matter anymore, just like it doesn't matter if "Muslim' is a 50-year old white guy.
After reading the first couple of chapters (maybe I've not gotten far enough into the book to make a fair assessment), I found myself with many questions about the value of such analysis. Her second chapter focuses on AIM buddy icons. If we assume that the author of "Muslim" is a 15-year old Muslim girl from Detroit, why should we be suprised that her buddy icon features a Muslim girl with a DKNY shirt? This seems like a normal progression of expression, no different than if we were asked to draw a picture of ourselves. However, the Internet hides the actual person, so we can't be sure if "Muslim" is a Muslim girl or a 50 year-old white guy. The "anonymous" user is the wild card in terms of visual expression in an online environment. I was at first skeptical of Nakamura's choices of analysis, but I'm really beginning to see the value of online image analysis. The Internet certainly holds the potential for endless creativity with how we portray ourselves, but how will that change the way we communicate with others?
If we can be anyone we want online--which in most cases, we already can be--how will that affect our cultures? Nakamura raises a great point about how children today seem to be skipping the written text phase of learning and are jumping directly into a digital world of images and pictures. I've always been sure that the Internet will eventually be accessible to everyone on the planet, so when that day comes, it's feasible that a world-wide, uniform online culture could develop. Skin color would no longer matter, because each individual could represent themselves in any way they chose. And since the online environment would likely become the focal point of communication and culture, the actual human beings wouldn't really matter anymore, just like it doesn't matter if "Muslim' is a 50-year old white guy.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
a semiological approach to pic #3
I've decided to analyze picture #3 (the black and white of the guy and the drawing) and to apply a semiological method of analysis. As Rose's text states, semiology "confronts head on the question of how images make meanings." To me, this picture was the most subjective of the three--very minimal, simple, and quiet--and so it offers many different ways to interpret signs and meanings. Semiology explores connections between signs and meaning, and since I'm an audience of one (for the purposes of this analysis anyways) I want to talk about the signs and meanings this picture conveys to me.
According to semiology, the sign consists of two important parts--the signified and the signifier. Two separate things are being signified in this picture. One is "sight" and the other is "lack of sight." The signifier then, are the two men. The drawing of the man is the signifier of 'lack of sight," (I see a blind caricature feeling around as to not bump into anything as he is walking along). The actual man, who is physically looking at the drawn man, is the signifier for "sight."
All other elements in this picture (plain, black t-shirts, black and white, simple poses) defer to (in my opinion) the central meaning, which is the sharp contrast between seeing and not seeing. According to Rose, these signs are paradigmatic because they gain their meaning from contrast with other possible signs. Unless you have an extremely wild imagination, I think that "sight" and "lack of sight" come to the forefront of meaning in this picture.
Going one step further, we can physically diagram this photo to evaluate how the images transfer to one another. I imagined a line down the middle of the two men, with arrows coming from particular places. An arrow would be coming from the blind drawn man's hand (his way of seeing the man), and another arrow could go from the actual man to the blind man (his way of seeing). The fact that they are both looking at each other suggests they are aware that each other is there, only they are each using their methods of "sight".
So, whether through personal interpretation or diagraming, a semiological approach indeed offers a variety of ways of determining meaning. I've always believed that art (I think we can assume this is not advertising, but hey, thats my call,) is a personal way of deciphering, and this approach really works well for picking apart the signs that strike you as meaningful. However, this is also why this method is restrictive, because people interpret signs in different ways.
According to semiology, the sign consists of two important parts--the signified and the signifier. Two separate things are being signified in this picture. One is "sight" and the other is "lack of sight." The signifier then, are the two men. The drawing of the man is the signifier of 'lack of sight," (I see a blind caricature feeling around as to not bump into anything as he is walking along). The actual man, who is physically looking at the drawn man, is the signifier for "sight."
All other elements in this picture (plain, black t-shirts, black and white, simple poses) defer to (in my opinion) the central meaning, which is the sharp contrast between seeing and not seeing. According to Rose, these signs are paradigmatic because they gain their meaning from contrast with other possible signs. Unless you have an extremely wild imagination, I think that "sight" and "lack of sight" come to the forefront of meaning in this picture.
Going one step further, we can physically diagram this photo to evaluate how the images transfer to one another. I imagined a line down the middle of the two men, with arrows coming from particular places. An arrow would be coming from the blind drawn man's hand (his way of seeing the man), and another arrow could go from the actual man to the blind man (his way of seeing). The fact that they are both looking at each other suggests they are aware that each other is there, only they are each using their methods of "sight".
So, whether through personal interpretation or diagraming, a semiological approach indeed offers a variety of ways of determining meaning. I've always believed that art (I think we can assume this is not advertising, but hey, thats my call,) is a personal way of deciphering, and this approach really works well for picking apart the signs that strike you as meaningful. However, this is also why this method is restrictive, because people interpret signs in different ways.
some word play...
I've always enjoyed album artwork, especially the kind where the artist's name and album title are nowhere to be found. All you have is a visual representation, and for me, that creates distinct art value apart from the actual music. Most of the time, you see the artwork before you hear the music, and I've always thought that plays a role in how you interpret and appreciate the music. And vice versa. For this assignment, I thought it would be fun to add a couple of captions to such an album. This is a particular album cover I've always been curious about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)