Tag Archives: networked media

Analogue Video // Networked Media // Week 6

Megatron/Matrix – Nam June Paik

 

Who was the Practitioner?

Nam June Paik was an American – Korean artist considered to be the pioneer and founder of ‘video art’. During the ’60s, Paik’s fascination with televisions and electronics began to incorporate with his creative side, creating many famous artworks and thinking about the ‘electronic superhighway’ in relation to digital communication before most.  A true visionary, with most of his works being featured in famous galleries such as the Smithsonian Art Museum.

 

Background on the work:

Megatron/Matrix is one of Paik’s more famous works, being featured int he Smithsonian. The installation was created in 1995, featuring two sections of 215 separate tv monitors, that loop clips and soundbites that create a larger image when viewed together. The larger side is the ‘Megatron’, representing society and popular culture, looping cartoons and world flags. The smaller side, known as the ‘Matrix’, loops images of humans and real-world things. such as planets. It is thought that their connection is that the humans on the Matrix side are ‘plugged in’ to the digital society, which is quite a prolific and impressive concept for 1995.

 

How was this piece authored, published and distributed?

The piece was authored by Nam June Paik, during 1995 in his studio. By then, Paik was a well known and respected artist of the video medium, and the pieced was published and distributed by the Smithsonian Museum of art in 1998, where it was on display as a permanent exhibition until 2006. Now, the piece is moved around and set up in seasons. However, images and videos of Megatron/Matrix are distributed online via the museum’s website, various articles and YouTube for viewers to experience on demand.

 


References

https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/megatronmatrix-36486

Analogue Photo // Networked Media // Week 5

The Iconic James Dean by Dennis Stock

USA. New York City. 1955. James DEAN in Times Square.

 

Description

An image of James Dean, wandering the rainy streets of Time Square in New York in 1955.

 

Who was the Photographer?

Born in 1928, Dennis Stock was an American photographer who worked between the early 50s to late 90s. Stock worked with Life magazine for a majority of his career, branching out to more passion-based projects in the later years of his life. He was an apprentice to the prolific photographer Gjon Mili, famous for capturing famous artists such as Picasso.

 

Story of the Photograph

Dennis Stock was introduced to the new kid on the block James Dean at an L.A. party in the 50s, bonding over their mutual friend Gjon Mili. Dean agreed to let Stock photograph him, both while we went around New York, in which the photo above was taken, and around his family home, which was uncommon for the time.

Stock wanted to capture Dean in his natural state, going about his day and not posing for the camera, rather, observe his observations. Stock stated that Dean was more human than most, suffering from extreme insomnia and living quite a mundane life at the time.

 

When, Where and How was it Published?

A collection of portraits, including this picture, were published by Magnum Photos in 1955, as a collection behind the scenes images of the soon to be famous actor. Originally, these would have been printed into a magazine, and some original prints are in galleries. Currently, they are nicely digitized on their website.

 


References

Hyams, J. (2015). James Dean: Press photographer Dennis Stock on how he came to know and love the doomed screen idol. [online] Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/james-dean-press-photographer-dennis-stock-on-how-he-came-to-know-and-love-the-doomed-screen-idol-a6669611.html

https://www.magnumphotos.com/photographer/dennis-stock/

 

Annotated Bibliography // Networked Media // Assignment 1

Blog Index

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Annotated Bibliography

Lister, M 2009, New Media: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, New York pp 163-169, 197-200, 204-209, 221-232.

The article above documents the beginnings and inner workings of the web, particularly during the transition to Web 2.0, and the changes it brought to the landscape of big media. Lister talks about the beginning of the web, and about the endless possibilities it had during the conception of Web 2.0, with its limitless potential to change the way society thinks and approaches concepts like digital ownership, creation and distribution. Ultimately, Lister argues that this format was perfect for advertisers, and how marketing on the web, ‘once it was stable’, would be ideal.

A strength of the work is Lister’s comprehensive study and history to back himself up on points raised without this article. He refreshers readers of the ‘dot com bubble’ and other significant historical moments, which give his points of a shaky and unstable internet a larger sense of credit as he juxtaposes web certainty with incidents that were thought to completely dismantle the world wide web as people knew it. However, Listers writing does get a little tiresome, with passages seemingly repeating themselves as they go on. Furthermore, another potential limitation of this reading is its publication date. Being published in 2009, Lister and others are not up to date on the latest developments in the web and social media as a whole, especially since this content is before Instagram entirely.  Nevertheless, Lister raises two crucial points during the passages of this article, the first being ‘The Long Tail’ theory. The theory suggests that with the market for advertising drastically changing with the expansion of the web, the need to market safe and to large groups exclusively is no longer necessary. The interconnectedness to the web has made marketing to smaller, niche groups, more effective and profitable in the long term. Gone are the days of mass spread marketing, hoping something sticks. Companies are able to advertise and market to who they want, where they want, how they want. Another idea raised by Lister in this reading was the idea of the ‘Perpetual Beta’. That applications and services can be always updating and evolving, as no relevant product in new media is ever stagnant in process.

Both these terms and ideas raised by Lister are applicable to the course outlines and prompts of the class. An easy example is how the idea of the ‘Perpetual Beta’ is ever present in Instagram’s model, as well as many other social media platforms. Furthermore, Lister’s application of Anderson’s ‘The Long Tail’ theory can be used to analyse how Instagram uses advertisers and algorithms. Some of the main affordances of Instagram is its simple user interface and ability to hide ads within your feed. While this is not necessarily a positive affordance for consumers, it definitely is for corporations. Instagram is able to utilise your browsing data to identify your preferences and purchases, suggesting paid content throughout your feed seamlessly, attempting to make you associate it with the commonplace content from friends, celebrities and family. This knowledge and understanding of how advertisers market to small target audiences is shown in how Instagram distributes paid marketed content onto their site.

 

Norman, D 1999, ‘Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2)’, Nielsen Norman Group, http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html

In the article, Norman discusses and documents his extensive history with affordances, and how his perception of the concept has evolved over time, when relating it to his own work and practices. Norman is somewhat of a pioneer when it comes to affordances, even after previously stating that he ‘originally hated’ the idea. His discussion and recollection of his time with affordances covers the main basics of the concept, such as the difference between perceived and actual affordances and the constraints and conventions of affordances.

There are a large number of initial strengths to this piece. Norman is well written and researched, having an extensive understanding of affordances on both a macro and micro scale. He utilises a variety of digital and content specific phrases and terms, allowing readers to familiarise themselves with the inner workings of both affordances and their various constraints Furthermore, the layout of the article is very neat and well organised, with subheadings, and a relatively short and concise length, making it a very digestible read that can be easily repeated. Throughout these subheadings, Norman discusses key ideas of affordances. His language and use of examples when explaining an idea are all really helpful as a reader. Norman is able to relate a concept very easily to a physical or graphical example, such as when discussing the ‘physical affordances’ of computer and graphical content, such as scrolling and mouse clicking commands. Adding to that, the author discusses constraints in relation to the affordances with the same format, always relating the theory to an aspect of computer design and interface, such as how the physical constraint of having the mouse not be able to move ‘outside the screen’ on a typical one screen monitor setup keeps the user with the content. However, while Norman’s examples of constraints and affordances in this article always relate to technology, some basic groundwork examples of physical objects would make comprehending these somewhat complex theories easier to understand. For example, when outlining the main constraints of an objects affordance, using his classic example of a chair’s affordances and constraints could have helped new readers to the content get a grasp on these ideas sooner.

Nevertheless, Norman’s ideas and examples in relation to a programs perceived and actual affordances relates directly to the affordances and constraints of the social media platform Instagram. The perceived affordances of the developers of the platform originally would have been on a much smaller scale. However, with the mass marketing and publicity, user interactions and influencer activity, the perceived affordances of Instagram are drastically different to what the actual affordances of the application are in 2019, with a business and user integration focus, using a flow of hashtags and sponsored posts to boost both the clout of an ‘Instagramer’, as well as the products and businesses the platform is associated with it. However, there are cultural constraints to this idea, such as how the application itself is banned in China. These concepts of affordances and constraints of a digital product, specifically Instagram, are outlined clearly in the Norman article above.

 

Hinton, S & Hjorth L 2013, Understanding Social Media. Sage Publications, London 2013, pg. 1-31

In the digital copy of the book above, Hilton and Hjorth detail and outline the evolution and a brief history of Social Networking Sites (SNS). They begin this first with a general overview of Web 2.0, moving through to iconic social media services, the control and power of SNSs, then a brief overlook at how the world of social games has evolved alongside traditional messaging services. All these ideas come together to form the article above, and lay the groundwork for the authors’ overall points on ’empowerment and control’ as well as the new found way of intimacy after the adaptation of social networking sites into the everyday lives of consumers.

The book itself is quite poetic in many ways. Hinton and Hjorth open the first chapter with a visually stimulating scenario, which outlines their main point in that while SNS ‘were just for the young’,  during the time of publication in 2013, these services were becoming everyday applications for people of any age. The structure of the book itself is very digestible and well set out, with the rest of the first chapter detailing what the following passages would contain, with a brief synopsis of each, allowing the reader to ‘cherry pick’ between them, or read the book as a whole. The range of content they discuss as well is extensive, the authors ensure the reader is caught up on everything they talk about, going back as far as Web 1.0, ensuring you are well versed before discussing the nuances of Web 2.0. Their main argument, however, is this idea of control, stating that the ‘term “user” has two connotations: controller and controlled’. Hinton and Hjorth question our idea of control within a digital space by bringing up the addictive natures SNSs have integrated into their platforms, such as the ease at which a user can continuously swipe down a feed for hours and how the ‘typical teenager’ can feel lost or out of place without the aid of their mobile and social services. They target Google specifically, suggesting that while their motto is to ‘focus on the user’ and their experience, they really see us as products with data that need to be marketed and sold.  While there is nothing major to fault about this book, it does suffer by being somewhat dated when looking through a contemporary lens. While the content is not irrelevant in 2019, a lot more can be said and discussed in relation to this idea of control, and a revision by Hilton and Hjorth could garner a further read and look into the underbelly of SNS and services.

The two authors main ideas about control and addictive tendencies can definitely be related to the course prompt and Instagram as a platform. Bringing it back to affordances, a key affordance of Instagram as a platform for screentime is the ease at which users, new or acquainted, can scroll and interact with the service. The application is built around the idea of users continuously scrolling, stopping to like and comment every other post, only to continue scrolling once again. Furthermore, users can very easily develop an emotional connection to their Instagram, feeling a need to upload or stay active to keep followers and likes up. This related back to Hinton and Hjorth’s example of the ‘lost’ teenager, away from the online emotions and connections.


I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration – https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/support-andfacilities/student-support/equitable-learning-services.

 

Controlled over Control // Networked Media // Week 4

This week in the lecture, we learnt about the role social media plays in the world of affordances, and where it fits in this the concept of new media. I loved thinking about new media as this jar, and social media as the roots of a plant, growing inside this jar, only able to spread as much as the container allows. Then there are the fruits of this plant, the leaves. These are the individual social media services (SMS’s), and they can grow and live, or fall and die. Just a really nice and simple analogy.

The main aspect of this weeks content that I really enjoyed pondering and discussing came from the Hilton and Hjorth reading. ‘the term user has two connotations: controller and controlled’ (Hilton, S & Hjorth, L) to me is a very poetic and interesting way to address the evergrowing concerns about privacy and addiction when it comes to social media and the web as a whole. I think everyone has felt that they were being manipulated by social media services, whether that be through addicting and compelling interaction loops, or having self-esteem deteriorate as you scroll through feeds of meticulously crafted falsities.

However, one of the ways social media sites and the web as a whole can manipulate and damage you is our need to have access to it, and up until now, I hadn’t thought about how intensely this actually was, and how much of our lives revolve around the web and social media. Its affordances are too beneficial to our society. Some families communicate solely through the use of SMSs, and while I could definitely live without it, the affordances of Instagram allowing me to easily keep up with what friends are doing, as well as easily and aesthetically document events in my life and my photos and videos of them.

The reading definitely put it best, while Google always states that it is a user-focused company, it doesn’t really see us as users, it sees us as products, investors, dollar signs (Hilton, S & Hjorth, L).

Oh well, as long as I can still have my Instagram stories, I’ll be happy!


Hinton, S & Hjorth L 2013, Understanding Social Media. Sage Publications, London 2013. (Section: pp. 1-31.)

I Really Dig Thinking About Affordances // Networked Media // Week 3

I never wanted to be too broad with these blog posts, but I don’t really know where to start with my interest in affordances and constraints. Everything about this is so interesting. I love discussing and thinking about what the ‘perceived affordances’ (Norman, 1999) of a product were, and comparing them to what we actually use the product for. I find the idea of constraints so fascinating, how the semantics of an object or design are always teaching us how to use other objects. These are obviously not new concepts to my brain. I have always known that a chair can be thrown, sat on, stood on and flipped, but the psychology of it and the constraints of a chair are having scholarly terms and being something we study is really exciting to me!

I’ve now started thinking about how these ideas of affordances and constraints relate to social media and technology as a whole. I’ve loved reading about the history of programs, and how in the early days of computers, there were lots of constraints that disrupted user-use. Programs were being created with an expected programmer level of computer knowledge, rather than being user-experience forward (Norman, 1999). This reminded me of the transition between Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, and how the change brought a focus on user-creation and friendliness.

With my relatively amateur understanding, Instagram seems to push on user-focus affordances. While the original intention of Instagram seems to have been a relatively small scale image sharing service, mainly between your friends and followers, the platform has grown to push for posts reaching for the hundreds of thousands of likes, with a focus on hashtagging and appealing to the larger demographic. While that might not be correct or true, this idea of affordances and constraints is really interesting, and a little birdy told me it will be S U P E R helpful later in the semester.

(Seth Keen is a little birdy)


Norman, D 1999, ‘Affordance, conventions and design (Part 2)’, Nielsen Norman Group,  http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordance_conv.html

 

The Ever Evolving World Wide Web // Networked Media // Week 2

In class we discussed the differences between Web 1.0 and its evolution into what we have today, Web 2.0. The main takeaway I got from both the reading and the discussions is that Web 2.0 focuses more on community and co-creating. A collaborative web. This idea of collaboration is also everchanging, from the early days of Wikipedia edits and suggestions, to now, where groups can work together to control video game streams, using the chat comments to control the movements and inputs of the characters on screen. And while in both cases, intentional errors and trolling occur, the internet is better off with this level of mass involvement and creation.

Digressing a little, in the reading ‘New Media: A Critical Introduction”, Lister talks about the idea of The Perpetual Beta being a big change when Web 2.0 came to be, which is something that I had never really thought the internet lived without, but makes total sense to be a feature in the self-proclaimed ‘(or maybe I’ve dubbed it as the) ‘collaborative age of the web’. This idea of applications, software, firmware all updating and receiving feedback on what the community wants and doesn’t want is a perfect encapsulation of this idealistic user moulded web, and while many people feel like big companies don’t always listen to what users and the community want, I’m sure it’s really that developers can’t help but hear what we have to say.

Instagram in particular is heavily in a ‘perpetual beta’, with updates seemingly coming week in week out. And while it’s usually just for bug and crash fixes, the developers are always on the lookout to make the platform better for the users (and the shareholders)

The idea of an ever-growing Web 2.0 makes me excited for what is to come in the future for this user-driven, collaborative world wide web. Will this ‘Big Media’ relationship continue? Will we be enslaved to our tablets and fully integrate and collaborate with the internet? Who knows! All I can hope is that Grammarly learns to autocorrect my individual ‘i’ to ‘I’, cause:

(I’m really sorry for that ^^^^^)

 


Lister, M et al 2009, New Media: A Critical Introduction. Routledge, 2009