This week’s symposium highlighted the fact that there is no centre or most important part in anything, whether speaking of people, networks, technology, anything. Furthermore, websites like Cowbird demonstrate that digital media makes it increasingly easy to group similar parts of something; where the final result becomes greater than the sum of all the parts. This parallels Sergei Eisenstein’s notions of soviet montage, where he demonstrates the juxtaposition between two separate imagery creates a completely new meaning, more powerful than the sum of both images.  This shows an interesting connection between the media of the 1920s and contemporary online networking. Notably, this is the second time I have referred to Sergei Eisenstein in my blog, more or less for the same reason. Guess it shows I actually listened in EMT last semester which is convenient.

Mitch summarises the key points from an old class reading to conceptualise what interactive narratives can do that print cannot. He recognises the current survival of the print medium, however predicts that the affordances of digital media creating convenience and the instant availability of information will wipe out the relevance of print media from our society. I like to think that because the form of digital media resembles the form of print media (in the way that html pages appear as printed pages), that instead of print media being wiped out, we are transforming our methods of communication and this shift is part of the process.

Sam is intrigued by Granovetter’s notions regarding mutual friends and the strength of weak ties; the accumulation of several weak connections between people to form a large network, unachievable through strong connections. Sam makes a connections between Granovetter’s theory from the 1960s and contemporary social media such as Facebook. He hypothesises Granovetters influence on the structure of Facebook as the presence and functionality of the mutual friends feature is integral to Facebook’s market domination and can be seen to parallel Granovetter’s notions.

Kenton vents his anger toward societies blasé use of the word: networking; as referring to any situation where people from different places interact. I guess by strict definition this is true, however I share your dislike for the overuse of the term, undermining the significance of networking within the media industry. Although can we denote that even the smallest forms of ‘networking’ contribute toward the immense network that is our society, therefore giving exception to overuse of the verb?