 |
| Motorola Dyna TAC Mobile Phone in 1983 |
Rachel Crowl had a lot to share to the class. Her life-story was so intriguing to begin with. She was a young confused drug-addict at the age of 19. Soon, she found herself in a world of acting which lasted for 20+ years where Monday night was her only day off. Then she was in the world of IT, building community websites, programming, managing, etc.
 |
| au Summer Collection 2010 |
She described the technological advancement and being in that world as though riding a train that is going downhill at an extremely fast speed---forever changing and forever accelerating.
I have only lived for 23 years. Yet, I see that so much has changed in that time span in terms of technology. I remember my father carrying one of those gigantic mobile phones when not many people carried them around. Soon, it was everyone in Japan that had cell phones. Not only did they consist of the functions to giving and receiving calls, but they also enabled people to e-mail (not even texting!!), watch TV, navigate, and use internet! It is quite enjoyable (and creepy??) to observe people on the train in Japan during my short term return for vacations. They are all in their own world, glaring at their phones. This "they" is not just young adults. It's everyone ranging from elementary school kids to 80 year old grandmas. Because talking on the phone is not allowed on trains and subways in Japan, they glare at their phones, and communicate with one another on blogs, message boards, commenting on other people's entries, etc. They tweet all the time. They constantly update their status on the blog called mixi (or so-called "Japanese Facebook").
This fever of Web 2.0 is seen not only in industrial countries, but in almost everywhere in the world. My point in bringing up the advancement of cell-phone is to emphasize the point that social media is so readily available for the public today. Julie is right in saying that seeing a laptop next to cell phones in a photograph almost makes you feel nostalgic---everything can be done on the cell phone! It's no longer about professional artists. As Lev Manovich in "Art after Web 2.0" suggests, this participatory/social media involves everyone (even though they may take ideas from professionals, such as embedding professionally made music videos on a blog, or using professionally made blog templates as their bases, etc.).
I strongly agree on Rachel Crowl's opinion on copyrights. Yes, if the artists truly hope to avoid copyright violation on their artworks, they are safest not to publish their works. Once they are exposed to media, especially in this era of social media, you are better off expecting some pirating and copyright violations. I remember in high school where I found myself opening the yearbook at the end of the year, only to find many of my pictures in the book. The yearbook team members have gone on facebook and took pictures from the albums that I have uploaded without asking for my permission. Is it my fault in uploading those pictures on a public space? Or should they have asked me first before using it in something that will remain physically forever? (It's YEARBOOK!!) I am no professional artist, but I believe many artists probably experience such similar incidents. The dilemma here is whether an artist should reserve their art pieces by not exposing them in social media. However, not promoting their works and themselves on the web today is equivalent to not being bold enough to make themselves known as an artist to the world. Should they accept that sharing their works to the public is the way to success today? (...that we are all interconnected??)
What we must keep in mind, is that this is a train going down that neverending downward slope. It's not a linear line, but rather a curve. We must keep up with what comes next and adjust according to what is normal today and in the future. The train will not stop for us.
Lastly, watch this short video clip. It has no verbal explanation and has annoying music, but the simple animation explains how Web 2.0 is the "21st century", and that it is a participatory media. After reading Lev Manovich's article and hearing Rachel Crowl's explanation on what Web 2.0 is, I think you will find this clip useful to visually summarize what it actually means!
Lastly, watch this short video clip. It has no verbal explanation and has annoying music, but the simple animation explains how Web 2.0 is the "21st century", and that it is a participatory media. After reading Lev Manovich's article and hearing Rachel Crowl's explanation on what Web 2.0 is, I think you will find this clip useful to visually summarize what it actually means!
I found Rachel's take on copyrights to be interesting, too. To an extent there is always the right of an author or artist to their works. Then again, in today's age when everything is so interconnected and immediate, it's difficult to ensure that something you produce won't be pirated. Rachel really seemed to grasp that when she told us that she just expected that anything she produced and made public would be stolen in some capacity.
ReplyDeleteI really like that you brought up the fact that the idea of Web 2.0 is not restricted to the internet, but can apply to a lot of different technological systems. It's interesting how something social, like not talking on your phone on the train in Japan, leads to popularizing the use of other forms of communication.
My dad has that phone! It cost him around $400 (inflation+)! That was probably before I was born. It was a luxury back then. That time, calling people cost way more than simply travel to meet the person yourself. It was a trade off between time and money. But now, like you said, everyone has their own world with them. I know people who called his roommate just because he does not want to walk that 20 feet (yes, it is a Hiett quad). I just posted mine about the Web 3.0. I can only see this personal world thing goes deeper and deeper. By the way, the video you found was very useful! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIf an artist doesn't want to put their work on the internet, I don't think that that means their not bold enough to put their work out there. The internet is a space where a lot of people can access everything, but in my experience, most people suck and the internet is all about gratification. I think that if an artist has an aversion to the internet for that reason... it's legitimate.
ReplyDeleteMaki, just as you and Hillary mentioned, I also enjoyed the part where Rachel discussed the dilemma of copyright. Not only artists, but also writers are often perplexed by the idea of publishing their work on the web. Before publishing any work, they tend to think several times, whether it is safe or not to share their work. Once their work has been published, it can never be erased; it may become history, but it will always be there. I believe that the "copyright" signature is just over-rated. How is your name next to the little copyright sign supposed to protect your work in any case? Plagiarism occurs so much nowadays, that catching each and every individual would either be difficult or impossible to do. Therefore, what are artists and writers supposed to do then? What if they want to share their work with others, but not let them steal it? Is that even possible to do?!
ReplyDeleteSome people think that all information should be shared but that may be overly idealistic.
ReplyDelete