This weeks reading honed in on cultural expression and how the computer age has both enhanced and derailed its influence today  in regards to databases. Manovich concludes that media objects today do not tell stories without middle and an end – leaving audiences wanting more and searching for an alternative.

The reading answers questions in regards to as to why this new database form is now favoured.  Manovich says that “As a cultural form, database represents the world as a list of items, and it refuses to order this list. In contrast, a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items (events).” To conclude, Manovich favours the belief that a database ( a list) cannot tell a story and ultimately ruins the capability of viewers connecting with characters and to narratives within them.

The discussion was led by Adrian who firmly believed that databases were simply lists. Lists can lead to narratives being formed or the structure of a story yet as Adrian put it – a list is a list.

There was the argument that there is a correlation between databases and narratives that ultimately form components of a story such as relationships between characters, plot developments, challenges that the protagonists faces and finally a conclusion to the tale. Romantic Comedies are the perfect example of this linear approach taking place that is underlining basis of 90% of this type of cinema. However, narratives can still be formed without using a lists where rather focusing on the protagonists and their story, some writers attempt to explore other issues such as observations or actions by characters that can affect another character or beliefs and opinions  that some spawn throughout their narrative.

The film ‘Playtime’ is a perfect example of where Tati combines the protagonists journey in a new era of architectural design that does intend to illustrate his opinion at the time where France in the mid 70s were ‘getting rid of the old and bring ing in the new’. To his credit, Tati uses a new form of cinema (ahead of its time) to also state a so called problem that Paris was enduring in that period of time.

Titled ‘The Long Tale’ by Chris Anderson, this piece highlights the niche market that consumers are currently finding themselves being embroiled in today – thus the title reflects the road where on at the moment – the long tale. As consumers, we are in the middle of the so called firing line. On one side we have the internet which provides us with an array options and ideas. However on the other side we have large chain stores who have limited stock that is designed to fill a specific quota. there a both positive and negatives to both of the arguments. Predominately, the debate circles around the words Quality vs. Quantity. The internet provides us with an abundant supply of goods and services yet the quality is questionable. Retail chains however are designed to provide consumers with quality that can be touched, tried on and even seen with our own eyes – the problem is that there is less supply or a futile number of options available.

Anderson used Amazon and eBay as examples of sites that have driven retailing to a whole new era via the internet revolution. Needless to say, online shopping has become a new infatuation for consumers that is ultimately driving retail shopping to the brink of collapse. Demand is falling whilst stock is being left to rot thus causing businesses to foreclose. Books are a primary example of how online shopping can destroy bookstores leading to major companies declaring bankruptcy as the demand for online shopping went through the roof, book stores ultimately became a thing of the past.

Moreover, Anderson’s second point is also intriguing. As consumers get online goods on the cheap, their demand increases thus their want to to drive the price down even further – a trait that could potentially ruin online shopping. just like all organisations, their primary aim is to make a profit. In essence, it is a balancing act that producers must comply too, to ensure that consumers are happy whilst their bank accounts remain healthy. WE must understand that if you want something their probably not going to give it to you for free..

‘The Weakest Link – Small Worlds” provides its audience with the importance of acquaintances with the correlation with clusters, connectors and people as reading contrasts its belief shared by Erdos-Renyis ‘Random Social World’.

Small Worlds allows us to understand the benefits of having ‘weak social ties’ with someone, by providing us with aspects and components that are close friends overlook or fail to share. We are more likely to have a formal and polite conversation with a stranger rather than a deep and meaningful chat that we might have we our loved ones or close friends – thus the difference between the two social strands.

Facebook is a prime example where the duo overlap in some way shape or form. for example, if you have 1000 friends, it is highly unlikely that your actually mates with every single one of them – in fact, some of them you might even despise. ultimately, you will only have a core group of friends on this form of social media and a wide range of acquaintances that you don’t regularly see.

 

To be honest, just like 95% of everyone at the symposium, i had no idea what was going on..

So I have decided to describe (as best as i can) what was happening in the room.

On your left, you had a guy talking about a hammer and the ‘decisive’ link that a tool can have on network media.

On your right you had someone who was bemoaning what was being said from the guy on the left. I don’t know if Elliot was more annoyed at the fact that Adrian’s answer had nothing to do with the question or how he couldn’t see the other side of the argument (again not really sure of what the argument was)..

And in the middle you had someone starring up at the ceiling thinking of something to say.

All in all, i think it was a great class where everyone in the room contributed to their utmost ability  whilst receiving a wonderful insight into the mechanics of building a hammer…and something about control/power that we have.

Cheers.

One of the questions that wasn’t raised throughout the symposium was the question concerning internet users and their sense of privacy – Is blogging a form of narcissism?

To me, internet users have given up their sense of privacy through social norms such as Facebook and Twitter where some have gone to the point of using these websites as a tool of exploiting who they are. in recent times, there has been a sudden crave for some, particularly teenage girls, to show themselves off to their friends and the general public via Facebook. A new game has been created where popularity is now the defining image of who your are – a sad reality that teenagers are now embarking on today. Anyone can turn on their privacy mode on FB but the problem is that adolescents just don’t want to – they would rather have their ‘image’ paraded around on the internet in the search for likes and more friends that would add on to their so called ‘reputation’. the question isn’t have internet users lost their sense of privacy? its more why are they giving up whats left of their private life?

And the second part of the question is no different to the first. Just like Facebook and Twitter, Blogging is primarily about flaunting your own personal views and opinions. What do you think I’m doing right now!? i hate blogging…the reason why? the fact that someone out there is reading this post at the moment is embarrassing – because I’m at that point in my life that I don’t want anyone to read the stuff i write or things I say. I hate what Facebook has turned into. Today you have people doing whatever they can to get as many likes as possible just to show how popular they really are. so girls than resort to showing half naked photos of themselves just for the likes? is that what FB was designed for? Acceptance from the opposite sex and your friends? All this does is create a wave of more complex and toxic problems – cyber bullying, depression, youth suicide – problems that the internet has created and that millions have gone along for the ride for. Scary? yes. Sad? no doubt.

Vannevar Bush’s article titled “As We May Think” highlights a growing importance to ensure scientists begin a new wave of objectives that would allow a more accessible store of knowledge for human society. For too long, scientists have been creditably united in warfare and as that chapter closes, Bush calls on his fellow colleagues to begin a new project – a process that would see man and technology create a utopia of knowledge for future generations. As countries begin the long road of building relationships with one another instead of threatening it with military action, scientists must now forward their attention to an era here knowledge a learning is at the forefront of developing as a civilisation.

Bush illustrates the importance of scientist and how their role throughout the past has led to profound strides in the political, social and cultural arena. they have been credited in developing a material environment as necessities of man has led to breakthroughs in food, water and shelter that is ultimately elevating the social welfare of millions around the globe. In addition, a generation of progressive knowledge has accompanied the 21st century where aspects such as life and mental health has successfully been improved as time has continued on.

However, Bush exhibits a need of so called ‘specialisation’ that will establish progress and an irefutable array of knowledge for society that will transform scientific records that is currently in dyer need of some attention. Moreover, the figure highlights a burden that has been placed as time has gone on, that in order for us to continue on developing as people, science must be able to track, understand and respond to statistic sand records that will inevitably be a blessing in disguise in the not so distant future.

One of the more interesting points that was brought up during this weeks symposium was the debate on the validity of certain materials that are found on the internet, particularly on Facebook. The analogy on the death of Robin Williams was a prime example of how we perceive the information delivered to us via the internet. When i had awoken that Tuesday morning with a chorus of “R.I.P Robin” posts covering my news feed, their still remained an element of doubt. I’m not sure if that was because i was still in shock of the news or that I still had that belief that it was another one Facebook’s pranks to send millions into disarray. I still haven’t come to terms that one of how beloved heroes has passed yet the shear fact that I initially questioned the reports due to what Facebook has delivered in the past, not only annoys myself and millions of others, but will continue to do the same when another one of our favourite icons succumbs to death.

For me personally, the validity of a story can be justified by the number who adhere to the claim and if the media institute that reports the account is a reliable source. These two key factors are to me the most important components to ensure that a news story is valid or invalid.

In addition, the symposium led to the discussion of the comparisons and differences between network and print literacy. In essence, network literacy is almost a utopia for writers as material that would’ve taken months if not years to hit the bookshelves are now available on the internet allowing anyone and everyone to access one’s ideas, opinions and arguments all with a few clicks of their mouse. Yet does that make it a more credible source? For some, print literacy is almost the pinnacle for writers; the acknowledgement and prestige to have your novel published. Thats why some view this form of literacy as more creditable than network. However, the internet provides viewers with a limitless array of literature thus making it more accessible for the general public. To me, it seems the fight between network and print literacy is a double edged sword. In one corner, you have a more valid source of material; and in the other, you have an array of work that is only seconds away from being read. Its your choice..

 

 

Last week saw Adrian discuss the significance of Copyright and the realms of defamation when writing about or the ideas of a public figure. It was intriguing to understand what constitutes Defamation and how it can be defined. in its simplest form, one is liable to defamation when the so called ‘victim’ takes offence to their actions or words – thus defamation is a crime until the plaintiff says so. In effect, as writers, we must steer clear of slandering the name or reputation of any public entity or person as they have the power to lodge a complaint to an arbitrator or even judicial determination. Even though one may think that there words could not possibly affect an individual or group, it is not up to the writer to adjudicate what is fair or not fair – what is slanderous or simply what is the truth.

This led me to question the boundaries that can or cannot be exceeded by journalists or news institutions today. What is generally excepted in the modern era of media? We’ve seen countless articles and cartoons blatantly attacking specific individuals and organisations (e.g. Herald Sun and the Labour Party) yet they are able to get away with defaming someone or something by writing a brief apology to the victim on p.g 34 in the bottom corner of the page. Is that fair? Of course not. early on this year, The Herald Sun publicly defamed a prominent DJ from one of Melbourne’s most notorius nightclubs. the individual was publicly humiliated for a crime he did not commit that later affected his employment conditions. The leading news paper wrote a small apology that BRIEFLY outlined their apparent error.

In effect, the principles of Defamation are sound and ensure that those who threat or tarnish the reputation of a civilian is therefore responsible for their actions. However, the system does have loopholes that allows offenders to slip through the cracks and get away with tainting one’s name.

Tuesday – a day that we would rather forget – the day the world lost an icon of cinema, comedy and more importantly, a friend. Robin McLaurin Williams (1951-2014) brought joy to the faces of millions of people across three different generations as his career that had spanned for more than four decades was suddenly cut short leaving us mourning, questioning and celebrating the life of a comic genius. For the past couple of days, their still remains feelings of shock, disappointment and a sudden emptiness that hasn’t come to terms with a world without Robin. He was for many of us, at the forefront of our childhoods. For me, he was the real life version of Peter Pan – a man who didn’t want to grow up. He had the energy of a little kid that somehow was able to light up which ever room he walked in and could lift the spirits of anyone around him.

One thing that stands him out from the rest was his versatility. Williams was able to make us laugh, cry and appreciate his abundant array of talent that saw him play a variety of different roles. From an exuberant genie in Aladdin (1992), to his Oscar winning role as Sean Maguire in Good Will Hunting (1997), Williams was constantly breaking new ground  as both a comedian and as an actor.

Yet his talents also came with his generosity as the flanboyent figure would visit U.S soldiers in the middle east giving them a spark of happiness in a region that is currently shrouded in conflict. He also donated all proceeds of his “Weapons of Self Destruction” tour in New Zealand in response to the 2010 Christchurch Earthquake.

We have lost one of the greatest comedians of our time to a deadly illness yet his passing will not overshadow the legacy that he has left.

It is sad whenever an icon of Williams’ stature leaves us so suddenly, that we than begin to reflect of how much they really meant to us. To think that a man that had brought so much laughter and happiness was battling such inner demons for the majority of his life, is not only heartbreaking but also a cruel realisation of how depression can take the life of one of the most gifted, profound and incredible figures that we have ever witnessed.

We have no idea what was going on in Robin’s head or the problems he was facing throughout his life however we must learn, grow and comprehend that even our most treasured icons are not superheroes – but only human; and even they have their ups and downs, the good times and the bad, and are capable of falling once too many.

So i pose this question to you – how will you remember Robin Williams?

His talents, his kindness, and his profound gift of giving were just some of his hallmarks that made not just myself, but society a better place.

Finally…Thankyou Adrian; thankyou Armand; thankyou Alan; thankyou Peter; thankyou Genie; thankyou Mrs. Doubtfire; thankyou doctor; thankyou my CAPTAIN – THANKYOU ROBIN WILLIAMS.

R.I.P (1951-2014)

– In the words of Seth MacFarlane, “the world just got a lot less funny” –