I found the Manovich reading a little confusing, particularly in his distinction between database and narrative. He begins by differentiating between databases and narrative, explaining that a shift towards the former has occurred in the age of new media. Even by the opening paragraphs I was feeling a little miffed. He used the CD-ROM and DVD titles as examples of databases and information storage units. Although I agree that yes, DVDs are used to store information, their primary feature (or key association most people have with them) is their ability to store a narrative, i.e. a film that is on DVD. I understand there is a difference between content and format, but this seemed like a strange example as a DVD in particular lends itself so clearly to narrative. I guess technically you could view each scene or shot as a separate piece of information that is being stored on the DVD, but it can only be watched in one order (even with scene selection we can only watch the film forwards). We need to access the information chronologically for the narrative to make sense, and the DVD only allows us to watch it chronologically – is this still a “database”? Later on, Manovich says DVDs and CD-ROMs privilege database, but I just don’t see how this is the case when often their whole existence is dependent on narrative. Sometimes I feel like he is just being controversial for the sake of it. For example, when he says “In the world of new media, the word “narrative” is often used as an all-inclusive term to cover up the fact that we have not yet developed a language to describe these new strange objects”, I feel like he is having a going at society, at the users of technology. It infers we are primitive when it comes to understanding narrative vs database, but in my mind he is overcomplicating the issue and creating a problem that doesn’t exist. If it is such a huge dilemma that I am “misusing” the word narrative (which has been around a hell of a lot longer than he has), maybe he needs to invent that new word himself!

Another example I thought of is the niki, which is a form of multimedia encyclopedia (which Manovich cites as an “obvious example” of the dominance of the database form). I found it interesting to note how many people prefer to make their niki entry a narrative rather than random pieces of information. The pages I have worked on have always involved a narrative element, does this mean I, and the rest of the networked media cohort, are atypical of the “new media age”? When describing narrative’s relationship to database, Manovich says it is but a method of accessing information, in the way one might file information numerically or chronologically. This made me think of Facebook, which is an information database. But without narrative, the information we are able to access doesn’t always amount to much. If I am doing a sneaky FB stalk and see a photo of the person with an awful haircut, it doesn’t mean a lot without context. But as soon as the narrative around it builds, say when it was done, why it was done, what the person’s reaction to it was, and whether or not it has been rectified or not, all allow me to make sense of the information. Without this narrative the photo is relatively useless, for all I know it could be photoshopped or a wig if I don’t know the narrative/context behind it. This brought me back to a symposium a few weeks back when Adrian said context was irrelevant. Bullshit!

I was interested by the question posed in the Symposium, “Can a network have a centre, or do we all create our own centres?”, a continuation from the discussion last week. At the beginning of this subject, our class seemed to agree a network has no centre. The reading Galloway Protocol refers to this as a “distributed network”, which more closely resembles a web or mesh than something centrically focussed. But the more I think about it, the more I think there is a centre in a network. And yes, I also think we can create our own centres, as the experience of the network is subjective. What is at the centre of the network will be what matters most to you, and what you see as a pivotal point, perhaps an element that explains or ties everything else together.

In the networked media, I think the centre would generally be the networked media page, where Adrian provides feedback, observations, readings, questions, and some food for thought. As Adrian coordinates the course, is he automatically placed at the upper echelons of the hierarchy. As students, we need to check in on this page regularly. Not only as a point of reference and to gage what Adrian considers to be good work, but because it is specified that we must as part of our assessment. We are given marks for keeping up to date with the networked media blog, we get information about classes here, and it is also where the weeks’ readings are published – another essential element of the subject we need to interact with.

From a more subjective point of view, the centre of my networked media world is my own blog. Without my blog, Adrian’s would hold no meaning for me. I would have no incentive to check in on his page, do the readings or really interact with any of the other blogs. I think this is the same for everyone, your blog is automatically your centre, and the more time you invest in it, the more central it becomes. Similarly, the more time spent strengthening the centre of your network, the more effectively the whole network will function. Stronger links will be formed, tightening the networked media connection and enriching the subject content.

The female ambulant toilets at RMIT are the furthest from the door.

Highly illogical.

All this talk about authorial intent, and how easily is can be misconstrued reminded me of an article I read in film magazine Sight and Sound months ago. The article outlined a new film about Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. The 2012 film Room 237 (directed by Rodney Ascher) is a documentary about some of the most outlandish theories on Kubrick’s classic. Five interviewees describe what they gleam from the film, each with a radical and seemingly unbelievable interpretation of his work. They each read props, cues, narrative and dialogue in different ways, bending them to match their point of view.

One claims The Shining is an allegory for the Holocaust. His evidence being: Nicholson uses a German typewriter, Danny (the son) wears a t-shirt with ’42’ on the front – apparently a direct reference to 1942, and all of the numbers shown in the film add to 42. Wow that’s some conclusive shit.

The intepretations only get better from there, with another asserting the film is clearly a confession from Kubrick that not only was the moon landing was faked, but that he was one of the megabrains behind it (this is based largely on Danny’s Apollo 11 sweater, oh and not to mention that “room” is almost an anagram of “moon”…). While another interviewee is adamant that no, it is a reference to the genocide of Native Americans.

Jesus, I’d hate to think what these people read into my blog posts.

For more info on each theory, check out The Daily Beast (S+S is a subscription website/magazine)

…Yes

The first thing that piqued my interest in the Murphy and Potts reading was that the term “technology” is one that has evolved, altered, and is shrouded in ambiguity. I don’t know if I’d call this ironic or hugely apt, but I did like that the word “technology” was experiencing similar changes to what it indexes.

The relationship between technology and culture is an important one to acknowledge – it informs us and helps us predict the way future technologies will impact us. The mention of the printing press jolted my memory into action and I suddenly remembered its interesting history and the repercussion that followed. In brief, the printing press (for text) was invented circa mid 15^th century If you’ve ever wondered why the English language is so “random”, why enough isn’t spelt “enuf”, why “rough” and “plough” are pronounced completely different despite their similar appearance, you pretty much have the printing press to thank. Before the printing press, there were many variations in spelling, often thanks to the variety of dialects in Britain. However, uniformity began to be enforced when texts were printed, so that different texts wouldn’t have to be printed for different regions. This led to a lot of mix and matching, taking certain words from a variety of areas and printing them – effectively cementing the spelling. This explains why we have so many exceptions to the rules in English, and why words often aren’t phonetic.

In summary, yes, technologies impact us a great deal.

The reading also asked from which cultural shifts do new technologies arise, and do these technologies bring new cultural possibilities into being? Thinking about this within the context of the course, we can look at both the nikis and the networked blogs. A shift to the online and the rise of digital media has surely led to these technologies being utilized as teaching/learning resources. In turn, the technology perpetuates our obsession with everything digital, and creates communities in an online space. New cultures are formed in the Networked Media sphere, the way we interact, the things we say, and who we say them to emerge the more literate we become.

Linking to outside the course, I thought about the relatively new dating app – Tinder (the straight version of Grindr, where you can find and chat with people in your area). One article I read asserted that this new technology encouraged a “college hook-up culture”. It says Tinder fuels an easy-sex mindset, allowing users to seek and largely find no-stings-attached relationships with minimal risk of rejection. The app encourages a culture where sex is one of the first topics put onto the table, and more often than not, practiced either in cyberspace or in real life. This is an example of a technology creating new cultural trends. But then the question of chicken and egg must be raised. Another articleproposes that the technology doesn’t encourage this culture, but instead caters to an already existing need/behaviour. According to this source, Tinder has been made to suit our busy, tech-oriented lives. Where time is precious and you don’t just happen to bump into the love of your life in a supermarket, like some sappy rom-coms make out. It also has a more positive view, saying that a technology that is tailored to our lives so effectively can lead to long-term relationships, not just a cesspit of teenage horniness.

Source: http://www.quickmeme.com/Tinder/?upcoming

Chris Anderson’s article on The Long Tail made arguments I could appreciate as I have seen them at work firsthand. Not only from my personal experiences of shopping, but also from a business perspective. Working in a bookshop (Jesus I swear to god I’m not trying to spruik my workplace on here, it just comes in handy for examples!), I see his theories at work in the store microcosm.

New releases tend to be what get people into the store, they account for a large number of our sales and store traffic. Although our new release section is a huge draw card, we also really try to push our backlist fiction – books that aren’t new releases, but that make our brand look credible and well stocked. If we only sold new releases I feel like we would look superficial, as though we had no real appreciation of literature.

However, as Chris says, you can’t have a brand that is only long tail either – you need to get a substantial volume of customers through in the first place. We often have sales in our backlist section to encourage people to browse older, loved or obscure (or both) titles. But the more effective method, as Chris notes, is to coax customers down the long tail using recommendations. When customers tell me “I’ve just read X, can you recommend something similar?” the easy answer would be pointing to the book next to them, that is the same genre and a big seller. But they could do that themselves, by stepping an inch to the left and reading the blurb of its neighbor. Same goes for classics, ie if they liked Kurt Vonnegut, I should recommend Joseph Heller. But instead, I might suggest The Good Soldier Švejk (Jaroslav Hašek, 1923. Awesome read), leading the customer to a different area in the shop and hopefully broadening their horizons. This recommendation has expanded what they are willing to read or browse, increasing the likelihood that they will browse more areas, and therefore successfully find a book to buy, in future. But more than that, they will return to the store to seek my advice. If I had simply recommended another well-known classic they could go to any other bookshop and browse the classics section, my advice would’ve been little more than that. Same goes for new releases, instead of recommending Sylvia Day for a fan of EL James (50 Shades, *shudder*), I would suggest Josephine Hart – a book in a different section they wouldn’t have located otherwise. I like to think the combination of the good book, with the personalized experience is what keeps customers coming back, and keeps online from overtaking bricks and mortar retail.

I overheard a woman on the train telling a friend about a little boy who only eats peanut butter.

Makes a nice change from all those kids with peanut allergies.