Unfortunately I was unable to attend last weeks symposium, but here’s what a few of my media pals had to say about it (killing two birds with one stone for the sake of the participation form… genius!)
Evan sidesteps the main discussion around databases and instead focuses on an interesting quote raised: ‘In 8 years time we could have cars that drive themselves, and remote control camera’s. We will have remote control cameras.’ – Adrian Miles Evan highlights the benefits that remote control cameras will have for content creators, in terms of a budgeting, time-efficiency and safety features. I certainly hope such a technology becomes accessible soon as it definitely sounds like it will make our lives, as future industry professionals, a great deal easier.
Nethaniel discusses the levels of the media industry food chain, of which was also raised by the panel in the symposium. Individuals who’s work depends merely on practical skills, such as graphic designers and cinematographers, are supposedly at the bottom of the food chain, and receive the lowest income. Conversely, directory/consultant type media professionals who have an educated understanding of the functions and changing nature of the industry are at the top of the of the food chain, and are those who rake in the big bucks. Whilst their monetary value might vary, I believe both roles are almost equally important as the industry as they both heavily rely on each other. The big boss media guys would be nothing if they didn’t have the practical minds of others to make their ideas come together.
Similar to Nethaniel, Steph outlines the differences between design students and media students in terms of how they are taught and subsequently apply knowledge. According to the panel, designers are taught in a strictly technical way, learning practices that will have an effect on the future. The media course, however, supposedly focuses more so on the past and history of the subject, enabling students to think conceptually and critically about the shape of the industry today. I don’t really get this, though, as our course thus far has probably had equal emphasis on the past, present and future of the industry. Say whaaaat?
Giorgia discusses what it takes to write a good essay – some worthwhile notes for the dreaded final assignment. To quote Giorgia, who quoted Adrian, ‘a good essay is not an opinion, it is an informed, evidence based argument. It is not reflective so much as critical and analytical.’
Amy has a good summary of some of the key points of the reading revolving around database logic. She outlines the idea that webpages are continuously unfinished, and the fact that websites are collection of elements, rather than a flowing story.
Angus expresses a enlightening outlook on the Internet as a database sytem, arguing against the idea that the Internet is no home for narratives/stories. He claims that the origin and evolution of the Internet is a story in itself – how it came to be, and how it has grown. Although the story of the Internet continues, it has defined ‘chapters’ that certainly contain a beginning middle and end. He secondly states that the Internet has stories within it, each of which is created by the user.
Evan’s post, which I must commend on its brilliant title, discusses an alternative perspective on how we might consider ‘centres’ in networked environments. He generally concludes that whether or not networked spaces might have a centre varies from one scenario to the next – for example, whilst train networks tend to have a centre (take Flinders Street Station in Melbourne), social networks (with Mean Girls as an exception) usually do not. An interesting idea he also raises is although there is no common, established centre of the Internet, the single page the user, or ‘doer,’ may find themselves on is the centre of their experience at that current time.
Michael touches on the amazing extent of connectivity that networked environments allow, as indicated by the ‘Kevin Bacon Game,’ aka the ‘Oracle of Bacon.’ He also embeds the hilarious clip from the Hamish and Andy Show where the pair purposefully contradict the aim of the game by attempting to reach a Bacon Number of 100. The immensely catchy tune is sung to Billy Joel’s ‘We Didn’t Start the Fire’ and features the ‘best bad’ animations I’ve ever seen!
Kerri’s discussion of egocentric online behaviours is painfully true, and it’s about time someone said it! I really couldn’t have put it better myself, so please, allow Kerri to hit you with reality:
“By posting photos on Facebook we’re saying “hey friends/family/acquaintances/that guy I saw across the room at a party that one time/my 11 year old cousin’s best friend, here is a photo of me eating my raw vegan lunch/at a kewl party/at the Kanye West concert/at the beach/with my bae/from where you’d rather be“. And then we wait for the likes to accumulate on the picture, especially if we “dp’d” it, for affirmation that we are loved/cool/popular/have swag.”
Nethaniel opposes the technologically determinist view in saying that the creator’s role is crucial in determining how technology will be used, as are the ways in which a user consciously chooses to utilise the tools that the technology offers. This, in turn, can determine further events, rather than technology doing all the ‘determining’ itself.
Mia attempts to make sense of technological neutrality by comparing it to a more frequently used sense of the term – carbon neutrality. However, the concepts do not seem to directly correlate, which makes the definition of technological neutrality even more ambiguous. Her overall contention is that nothing in this world exists independently and thus, nothing can be neutral.
Angus discusses how we should not be able to name something as being neutral, as that mere reference in itself defeats its apparent signs of neutrality. Anything we have a knowledge or understanding of has inevitably had an influence over us, thus proving not to be neutral. Therefore, it is seemingly impossible to name a neutral device. Woah!
Some great points raised by all!
