The most prominent point, from which all others in the article stem, is the convergence of physical and virtual spaces – one that is best exemplified in the article through the relatively new social instincts that surround this convergence. It becomes natural to immerse ourselves in these mediatic spaces, suspend ourselves between the physical and the digital. Two great examples of this, used in the text, are Semapedia and Socialight. Both serve different purposes, but both seek to create a mobile link between both realms.

From this comes the idea of ‘non-space,’ in which we can become completely removed from both time and space. I don’t really think we should be terming this ‘non-place.’ That sort of attitude; that when we are unconnected from time and space we might as well non-existing; feels very dated. I think when we are no longer connected to a ‘normal,’ ‘recognised’ time and space we should not be in a ‘non-place’ – but instead, a ‘personal space.’ One where we are governed by our own time and space; dictated by what we do, when we do it, how we do it, and even ‘where’ in this digital world we go. I think a term like that would be much more suited to the concept…

Conclusively, I found the article very good, particularly being able to read it after Moore’s article, which provides a more solid base to the theory. However, I felt it to be a bit dated, despite it’s 2007 composition. This frustrated me, that Volker seemed almost unwilling to accept these new technologies, despite the fact she was, in part, advocating these developments. Overall, it seems that every ‘real’ space is now being infiltrated by digital media, an idea that daunts many, but has a somewhat inevitable feel to it…

Firstly, however, Moores uses one of Scannell’s most defined theories on ‘place’ and the way in which, through television, we can be physically present in one location, such as the average home living room, but mentally, emotionally audibly and visually connected to another place, anywhere else on Earth. The example that comes to my mind most strongly is the inauguration of President of the United States Barack Obama, in which my entire family was sitting on the couch in my living room, watching the television. We were experiencing an event that was taking place on another continent. I didn’t think about it in terms of ‘Place’, and my doubling of it, whilst watching, and never do, but retrospectively, this is no insginificant feat. We weren’t getting a video of the inauguration, we were getting it live and uniterrupted. Experiencing it at the exact same as the people who were physically present at that location in America. Fascinating really… Moores then expands upon this simple concept, and attempts to include the internet in his theory of ‘the doubling of place.’ This is done effectively, though admittedly not a hard arguement to make. The internet and mobile phones allow us to be constantly connected. We can be on a bus, watching live broadcasts from overseas. We can be in our homes, talking to people from all over the world, being able to actually see them whilst communicating, despite the distance.

We are ALWAYS contained to at least one place, due the physicality of our human existence. However, we are increasingly connecting to more people and more events in more places and every time we do, we create a second place. We move beyond the physical realm and create an existence for ourselves, emotional, mental, aural and even visual, in a completely new place… We double our place. A fascinating article with a simple idea behind it.

However, it did raise questions for me. For example; the internet does away with the constraints of physical barriers. It removes continents, places and events, and makes them equally as accessible to all. Or does it? In China, and many other countries of the world, there are incredibly heavy restrictions imposed on what citizens can view. One of my best friends, an exchange student from China, had NEVER heard or nor seen the Tank Man (famous for confronting a government tank soon after the Tienanmen Square Massacre of 1989). What happens when people can no longer decide what they view and who they are connected to..? This is an ethical dilemma that the article raised for me, one that I strongly disagree with…

However, the text continues, and I found it incredibly interesting to see the many disadvantages to finding a personal identity. For example; I had, prior to this article, always thought that we needed an identity. Some way that we could know who we are through language. A way to define ourselves. I still think this is the case, but I thought we must be much more political, or diplomatic perhaps, about the way we present our identity, particularly in the more generic forms, such as Male, White, Tall etc etc. This is because when we find traits to define ourselves by, as During exemplifies (Pg 150), we are not ONLY choosing words that describe us, but also discounting every alternative. If I say I am Caucasian/Anglo-Saxon, I am making a point of not being Indigenous, Asian, African-American etc etc.

This, evidently, left me with a lot to think about… Which traits build my identity, and do I only have one? Surely I am a collection of identities…

An interesting article that posed many questions for me… I Enjoyed it.

During, Simon. “Debating Identity” In Cultural Studies: A Critical Introduction, Routledge: London, 2005, 145-152.

The first of these techniques is ‘Naming,’ where words that contain certain connotations or implications are used. The second technique is ‘The Attacker.’ This technique uses non-human terms to describe the attacker, such as Monster, Beast, Maniac, Ripper etc. The incredible hyperbole of such terms emphasizes, subliminally, the alien and inhuman nature of this person, further enforcing The Sun’s views.

The article goes on to discuss more techniques used by the media, such as the Victim, to add extremely emotive connotations to the violence portrayed against these woman. It also discusses Transitivity, which adds further to setting a side of bias to the paper’s reports. This is then examined in more detail in the next section, ‘The Reports.’

As I read this article, I was continually enthralled by the way inwhich examination of a tabloid’s headlines, let alone actual content, could be manipulated in so many different ways, simply in the aims of putting one point across. The further the article delved, the more I began to despise how the average reader of a paper like ‘The Sun’ was being led astray, subliminally. Despite the evident wrong-doing in these cases of horrific sexual and physical abuse, the way inwhich the paper manages to take a side, without ever stating facts simply, but instead subliminally influencing our understanding of the story, angers me. I understand it is like this in paper’s all across the world, but I guess I have always just understood it as a given; I’ve known no other type of tabloid reporting. But still, in a topic as deep and emotive as Blame; this article still highlighted a great deal for me…

Kate Clark – The Linguistics of Blame. Toolon, M (ed) 1992 “Language, Text and Context” London, Rowhedge.

The article starts with a short introduction before moving on to three seperate case studies;

1. Foxtel iQ – Details how the PDR (Personal Digital Recorders) device works; by allowing, much the same as TiVo, viewers of digital television to record a number os shows simultaeneously, record any show that matches a certain set of criteria or even record without advertisement breaks. This high level of personalisation eventually creates a personal channel, where only shows that the viewer is interested in are displayed. This shifts the power of television from the programmer to the personal viewer. I, personally, do not own Foxtel, iQ or TiVo, but can very much see the benefits such personally scheduled programming. Due to advertisements, social plans and work, I don’t watch a lot of TV. If I manage to become interested in a show I will usually buy the DVD’s or download it online. If I could afford it, iQ would be installed in my home. I love TV, and I love being able to watch in uninterrupted and in my own time, NOT when the channels prescribe. I have to wonder though, what radical change Television companies will need to go through, to remain alive. When everyone can skip advertising breaks, who is going to continue to adverstise? Without revenue from ads, TV channels will find themselves without any substantial income. A revolution needs to take place. Eventually, I imagine, there will be no free-to-air channels…

2. YouTube -YouTube lets users not only choose what the want to see, when they want to see and where they want to see it, but also CREATE content. This means they have ultimate control over an infinite playlist, one that they can even contribute to. This is truly amazing. As the article states, “YouTube differs from broadcast television, where there is a clear distinction between producers and consumers… enabling viewers to take control of the production process…”

I see YouTube as a beautifully collaborative phenomenon, where the content and division between producers and consumers is a large blurred line of grey. Here, the issue of advertisement has been radically altered. Advertisers often find fame on YouTube for a well created ad, such as the “Will-It-Blend” phenomenon. To me, this says that consumers are always open to well-made and creative advertising, but only when they can dictate it’s viewing.

3. The iPod -The article talks about how the mobility of digital media has become much less constrained to time and space since the invention of the iPod. Not only can music, movies, television shows and radio podcasts be taken anywhere, and viewed in any situation at any time, but with the recently devised “Genius” system from Apple Inc. users can designate one song upon which an entire playlist is automatically generated. I first had problems with this functionality, wanting to devise my own playlists, but have grown to love the option. It allows me to choose what i listen to, and then when something strikes me in a certain mood, I can simply select it and let the iPod do the rest…

The last section of the article goes into further depth, inregards to the ‘flow’ of digital media. Rizzo discusses how the impact and and concept of flow has been altered to within an inch of its corporate life; being largely replaced by the individual flow of each different human being. The flow of not only programmed television, but also scheduled advertising has been disrupted by the viewer’s choice of whether or not they will participate in this flow, or actively create their own.

She discusses various views and notions as put forward by Raymond William, an esteemed novelist and media critic and the similar views of Deleuze and Guattari, authors of various books and academic journals to do with the way in which the playlist has adjusted the flow of broadcasting.

Once again, upon reaching the conclusion of the article, I am left with questions of the future. This seems to be the case in pretty much all of these media articles I read. However, I propose that in this case, the future has already largely occured, and that we are examining a change that has already taken place… But what does Foxtel mean for Free-To-Air television? What does YouTube mean for professional corporations? What does the iPod mean for Television manufactureres, let alone scheduled broadcasting being associated with varying aspects of social life; such as the TV dinner, the sleep inducing TV, the waking up routine?

Olivier Gonfond

3288632

1. The Speed of Creation.

2. Frequency of Publication.

3. The Wavelength of Consumption. (The period any given text remains in the public domain.)

Hartley’s article then moves on to discuss the connection between time and space, and that just as time is reverential to the producing of media, the space in which it is received is just as critical. It moves between the notion of a physical space in which people interact with media, and a virtual, digitalized version where “a sense of civic or national identity is… rendered portable” (Pg 257) releasing the ‘space’ from the physical world of ‘spatial belonging.’ This is then termed the ‘Space-Time Axis.’

I am not really sure why I find this concept so fascinating, but I really appreciate the clarity which this article provides. Hartley uses a few technical terms, jargon, related to the concept, in particular; ‘frequency’, ‘quotidian’ and ‘time-sensitive information’, but only when absolutely necessary. This may seem ignorant and hardly intellectual, but the straight-forward nature of this article was a ‘breath of fresh air’ in comparison to the highly bombastic, circumlocutory language of articles gone by. His metaphors (Particularly enjoyable; that of the Hunters and Collectors Analogy) are simple, and effective. It was quite lengthy, though, and has thus been difficult to condense to 300-400 words for the purpose of this blog. The main question I am left with after reading this article, is what comes next; that inevitable posing when it comes to technology. If we can look into the past, as Hartley’s primary argument; that media is an encompassing of all public writing, does, then we can only begin to wonder what the next phase can possibly be. How can information be received by the masses quicker than it already is?

References: Hartley, J. (2004). “The Frequencies of Public Writing: Tomb, Tone and Time” In Jenkins, H. And Thorburn, D. (Eds) Democracy and New Media. MIT Press, USA, pp 247-269.

Olivier Gonfond

3288632

Arts1090 – F14B

Silverstone discusses this concept under the headings “Origins” (Pg 130), with the use of four sub-topics;

1. Commodification: This is, essentially, the art of making a product commercial. Not only commercially accepted, but commercially wanted. Commodification is the process of domestication whereby the creates of a product prepare the world for its release and consumption. I think this is very important. In a somewhat subliminal way, these companies, in the sense of a single entity, create a need for the product. Technology rarely satisfies a need. It creates a need, and then produces an answer. Take the Television for example. First, we had art, fireplaces and the dinner table. This was the area of the greatest social gathering. Then came radio. Human beings huddled around the radio, whilst listening, they discussed the issues on the radio. Then came T.V. We moved from talking to each other, to listening intently to the world outside. Instead of interacting with it, we were simply presented it.

2. Conversion: The connection formed between the private consumer and the device/the media output of the device. Describes the way in which the new technology becomes a means of participating in social life, whilst maintaining an active role in domestic relations.)

3. Objectification: Displaying the device within the home, as a central part of the home. This changed the way we lived, particularly in association with that strong example, the television; instead of placing the television in our home, we created a place to put the television. In discussion with peers, I have found this notion to be largely acceptable. However, when talking to a member of an older generation, she seemed to feel that we had lost a lot of our daily interaction with each other, in replacement with the T.V. Instead of viewing and discussing things publicly, we view and discuss the public, in private. This is a very interesting, and somewhat difficult theory to understand…

4. Incorporation: Very simply put, this refers to the timing of the introduction of these technologies. Delving deeper, it also grapples with the idea of how we, as human beings, adapt to technologies and incorporate them in  our daily routines. The greatest of this, again attributed to the TV, is the Television Dinner. A whole new social circumstance.

I struggled through this article, finding it largely repetitive; in both concepts and structure of ideas, as well as the discussion of ideas and technologies that were implemented long ago. I am frustrated with myself, for finding it boring, despite the fact that I understand that for new technology to evolve, we must understand older technologies. For example, T.V. Did not spring out of nowhere, it required numerous creators, and extensive research, much stemming from the existence of technology already in place, such as the radio. It is in this way that I was able to appreciate the Silverstone’s views, whilst formulating my own. I too believe that we have reached a state in which the intermingling between private and public life is now considered normal. Exemplified by phrases such as “My Mobile Phone” and “Our Broadband” (Pg 234). In considering the questions Silverstone raises, such as domestication as a moral force (Pg 244), I believe I openly embrace the blurry haze of grey that now defines public and private, by using sites such as FaceBook and YouTube, I do, however, have to wonder whether the connections I have made through human beings within these mediums have been meaningful and true, or artificial representations of an older ‘currency’ of true friendship. Perhaps this concern is warranted, or perhaps it is part of the concerns raised within the text; that technology is affecting us adversely. Either way, Silverstone’s writings have provided much for me to muse upon.

Reference: Silverstone, Roger. “Domesticating Domestication. Reflections on the Life of a Concept.” Berker, T, et al, eds. Domestication of Media and Technology.  Open University Press, 2006, 229-248.

Olivier Gonfond.

3288632

ARTS1090 – F14B

The fundamental, yet linear, aims of the text are to make clear, concise and reasoned comparisons between the already prominent Media Studies 1.0 and the comparatively new “phenomenon” of Web 2.0. Gauntlett’s web article also endeavors to explain what this means in relation to the Media and Media Studies industries, whilst pondering the notion of a possible Media Studies 2.0 field of teaching. The first core point made by the article is that Web 2.0 is not a “sequel to the Web ['1.0'].” Personally, this is an interesting idea; that even though the technology has remained constant and unchanged, it can be utilised in not only different ways; but completely revolutionary ways. Within my own mind, it conjures metaphorical images of a retrofit – Putting a brand new idea ‘Lightbulb’ into a well worn technology ‘Socket.’ This, to say the least, intrigues me.

The article sets out the comparison with the use of 14 dot points. The first seven are dedicated as an outline to ‘Media Studies 1.0.’ They talk about the subject’s fascination with “…’Experts’, whose readings of popular culture are seen as more significant than those of other audience members…” which leads to a “…tendency to celebrate certain key texts produced by powerful media industries and celebrated by well-known critics…” Gauntlett uses the word “traditional” constantly throughout this section (a total of five times), implying that the Media Studies 1.0 is heavily outdated, and conforms to values that are, in my personal opinion, formulaic, without allowing ‘room to move.’ Ideas presented, such as the portrayal of digital and web based media as peripheral to ‘traditional media’, come across as incredibly uncreative and nonexplorative. 

In complete contrast to this, the second lot of seven dot points outlines the concept of Media Studies 2.0. However, instead of introducing seven new approaches, the basis of Media Studies 2.0 seems to be a largely updated version of the 1.0. For example, Gauntlett uses the word “replaced” to imply that these new ideas have replaced the old. Despite the use of this term, it is quite obvious that these the old has not bee REPLACED by the new, but simply updated. 

Gauntlett himself says, “Clearly, we do not want to throw away all previous perspectives and research; but we need to take the best of previous approaches and rework them to fit a changing environment, and develop new tools as well.”

The article has not only stimulated my own mind, but also those of the students around me. In interacting and discussing the article with them, both in face to face tutorials as well as other students’ online blogs, it is evident that some students are apprehensive about the Media and Web Studies 2.0. I do not feel anyone is qualified to judge whether this apprehension is quantified or not, but my own personal opinion is that they are not. Students concerned about the lives being led in virtual online worlds, such as ‘Second Life’ – or even popular social networking site, ‘Facebook -  were worried that these virtual lives and realms of existence were detracting from real world experiences. Phrases such as “The good old days” and “Children playing outside” make me feel like many of us are not read to embrace the 2.0 phenomenon. In quoting Tamiweiser’s WordPress blog on this very issue, “These days children log onto some virtual game, find another kid online – even possibly from a foreign country – and instead [of playing a game outside] play a very impersonal game with them…” This strikes me as rather odd. Whilst it is not an intensely physical activity, which is seen as the epitome, if not defining feature, of  ‘good old fashioned playing’, how can anyone deny that meeting someone from a foreign country is not an interactive, and even educational experience. It is in this way, that I feel Web 2.0 has EXPANDED our opportunities and interactions with other human beings, allowing us to connect with those we normally couldn’t.

Whilst I have never participated in online gaming, David Gauntlett’s article has helped illuminate the thought and evolution behind the interactive sites I do use, such as Wikipedia and Facebook. This, in turn, allows me to be participatory within the sites I use daily. I have moved beyond Gauntlett’s description of Media Studies 1.0 learning, and deeply into the 2.0 field. 

The sole question I have left to ask, unanswerable, i am certain, is what is next. Surely we can not reach Web 3.0 with this existing technology. Maybe, just as Gauntlett’s “History and emergence of ‘Media Studies 2.0′” showed that the emergence of 2.0 has been present and ready to explode for years, Web 3.0 has already embedded seeds of evolution… Time will tell…

A highly intriguing article.

References: 

Gauntlett, D. “Media Studies 2.0″ Available at http://www.theory.org.uk/mediastudies2.htm

http://tamiweiser.wordpress.com/ – 13/3/09

Olivier Gonfond

3288632

Arts1090 – F14B

Or other time of day…

My name is Olivier Gonfond, I am an 18 year old male, who has recently graduated from highschool, and is, as of this week, studying Media in Communications and Journalism at the University of New South Wales! As much as I don’t want this first blog to resemble my Resume more than my personality, I am now going to do a quick run down of where I’ve been, and what I’ve done.

My dad is French, and that is where my name comes from. It’s pretty easy to pronounce, quite frankly, but I’ve definitely encountered some strange variations… I think the easiest way for me lay it down for you, is this; Oh (Like that dejected noise you make when you discover how many blogs you have to write in Uni); Live (Like, Human Existence – Not ‘Live Broadcast’); Eee (Like… Uhhh… Like the middle part of ‘Peach’..?); and Air (What you breathe.). 

Oh. LIVE. Eee. Air.

Ok, that’s quite enough of that…

I aspire to acting. I’d love to go to NIDA (National Institute of Dramatic Arts) or Sydney Actors Center. I have auditioned for both, late last year, and got to the second and third round, respectively. I am still quite young, particularly for NIDA. They like a certain… Age… Experience. Life Experience. That’s the term… 

I have lived in Sydney for a month. Before moving here for Uni, I lived in a little town, north of here, called Taree. If you’ve been there, you’d remember it. Or have tried to block it from your memory… It is rather small, boring and limited in its dramatic opportunities. Still, I made the most of what was, and have performed in various stage performances, Television Advertisements (Due to appear nationally in late March) and a few scenes in various films made by Sydney Underground Films. And a LOT of friends’ major works.

By moving to Sydney, I’m really hoping to expand the audition base that I can apply for.

The end goal is film. 

However, as a small DISTRACTION (NOT backup), I have enrolled in Media in Communications and Journalism. Which brings us here! 

Firstly, I could never attend any other uni, from that of UNSW. Every soul I’ve encountered in my brief period of attendance has been beautiful, kind and helpful in every way. Much like the Uni itself. Aesthetically gorgeous and well set out, with clear instruction on where to go, and how to get there. 

Not exactly agreeing OR disagreeing with the above point is the number of stairs that are littered throughout the campus. Hundreds. Personally, I feel we should probably have a cardio-rhythmic showdown with other Sydney Uni’s. I guarantee we have the healthiest hearts.

And most definitely the best legs.

As for Media? I love communication. I remember, when I was quite young, driving home one day, on the highway, and seeing a red car flash their headlights as they moved in the opposite direction to us. I was situated in the front seat, next to my mum. I found it interesting that this man’s lights were broken. Not only broken, but in such a fashion that they turned on and off repeatedly. I brought this to my Mother’s attention. She laughed, and explained that this was the red car owner’s way of telling oncoming drivers that there were Police, or even a traffic accident ahead. It means “Slow Down.” 

This struck a chord with my young self. Just the idea that Red Car had absolutely NO idea who he was communicating this message to… And yet he did anyway. 

For example. Say Red Car was racist. Very Very Racist. I hate to think in such terms, but it suits the example. And reality, unfortunately… Anyway. Red Car is Racist. Behind us, is Black Car. Now, I saw the owner of Black Car as we overtook her on the highway. She had black skin. If we were walking down the street, and Red Man had some information about a fight breaking out around the corner, and there being a horrible scene, Red Man would be likely to communicate this information to me, White Man. However, upon seeing Black Woman walk down the street (Red Man being the racist he is…) he would probably choose to ignore Black Woman’s wellbeing, and let her blindly stumble into a confronting scene. 

Now, if we move back to the highway, Red Car has NO idea that Black Car contains a Black skinned individual. 

The people in oncoming traffic could be Caucasian, Black, Hispanic, Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Male, Female, Elderly, Young, ANY subset of physical features. And Yet the Message is Communicated REGARDLESS…

To me. This is simply amazing. 

Since then, I have strived to understand people, and the way the mind works. 

Media C+J is going to help me. As will the Philosophy lectures I attend, but am not enrolled in  

I realise this has been a VERY extensive and exhaustive introduction, but if you stuck on through, thanks.

For those of you who didn’t, but would like to know anyway, I prepared something earlier:

Olivier Honore Gonfond. Ollie. Olive. Liv. 

18. Male. Sydney. Hometown = Tinonee – Taree.

Creative. Actor. Pianist. Singer. 

Writer.

Surfer. Cycler. Metropolitan Public Transport Traveller. North Shore Line. Roseville.

Work at Triple J. Creature of the Night. Trawler of iPhones. Lover of words. Owner of Animals. Embracer of technology. Manifest of Culture. Observer of Architecture. Obsesser of Drama. Liver of Cities. Drinker of Orange Juice. Needer of Love.

I really do hope to see a heap of you about!

Ollie.