This post is slightly different in the way that it’s a response to something occurs very frequently in my life and in the life of people in general. The topic that’s on my mind currently is the fact that people can have different opinions. This is something that interests me so much because, in my experience, it’s something that can be very exciting as well as frustrating. As I mentioned in one of my previous blog posts I browse the Internet for movie news, as I am huge fan of films. One of the interesting things when it comes to discussing a particular film is the amount of different opinions people can have about the same film.

Some people may call a film a masterpiece; others will look at that same film and see it as trash. It’s fascinating to me that how one person can look at a piece and another person sees something completely different. One of my most recent experiences would be with a film titled ‘Man of Steel’, and if you don’t know what the film is its Superman. The reaction to this film was directly split, some people absolutely loved it others completely hated.

I loved it, as a fan of Superman to me it’s the best incarnation of the character, and I saw the film having a great deal of depth, great story, well written characters, amazing acting, visuals, score etc. There are people who have told me they felt the opposite upon their viewing of the film; they thought the story was weak, characters lacking development, and basically the opposite of everything I have listed above. I frequently ask people ‘did we see the same film?’ because its beyond me on how and why people see things differently, especially when some groups people have so much in common.

In my experience with this film some people have said that I have one of the worsts tastes in films, just because I liked it, but then I often discover that the people I’m talking to have a similar kind of taste, and when it comes to stuff like that my mind is taken back, because I tend to think if we have grown up with, and love so many classic films, like Star Wars, Jurassic Park, and we essentially have very similar likes, how can we completely see one film in a very different way.  Because these people claim that I have bad taste, but we almost like the same thing, so does that mean they have bad taste too?

I understand that opinions are subjective and not everyone will ever see things the same way, but what fascinates me is the meaning behind that. If everything is based on opinions, people always argue their different viewpoints, so is there really a sense of right and wrong? I know the answer to this question will also vary if one was to give an answer.

In one of the week fours reading titled ‘As we may think’, Dr. Vannevar Bush writes about a time when scientists work and research was dedicated to building weapons for war, assuming from the date of this article it would be World War Two, and the fact that the war was coming to an end meant that its time for the men of science to move forward in their fields into new areas.

More specifically into the development and advancement on technological devices and methods.  In one section of this article Bush questions the long-term benefits we have received and goes onto list what we have earned from technology, ‘First, they have increased his control of his material environment. They have improved his food, his clothing, his shelter; they have increased his security and released him partly from the bondage of bare existence’, another interesting quote from the article would be ‘…new and powerful instrumentalities come into use. Photocells capable of seeing things in a physical sense, advanced photography which can record what is seen or even what is not…’

They way I interpreted these quotes was that technology is, and has always been, an extension of ones self. The second quote does say photography is capable of capturing what is seen and perhaps what is not, which essentially means it goes beyond what we can see and our limitations, thus being an extension. This idea intrigued me and I ended going back and reading an article, which talked about what, the extension of technology could mean for us.

The article I am referring to is titled ‘From Post-Modern Condition to The Cinematic City’ by Al Sayyad. This article explores the idea of post-modern or cutting edge technology and what it could mean for the human race, by comparing to how the future is depicted in cinema. The article takes the concept of cyborgs, which in film are beings that are part human and part machine, and idea of cyborgs in films means that they can go beyond their own selves and the notions of humanity leading the world, in a destructive path, as depicted in films such as Blade Runner (1982). Bare in mind I am aware these are fictional notions; however what the article suggest is such a fascinating concept. It continues further by saying that being a cyborg doesn’t necessarily mean being a partially organic and partially technological being, but also it could be technologies that can help advance a person’s life e.g a pacemaker.

Looking at that statement, how I am interpreting it, is that the simple use of technology could consider a person to being a cyborg. That being said, does that mean the usage of modern day devices such as smart phones or social networking sites could be a form of cyborg? These devices that make our day-to-day lives so easy, which can be considered an extension of an individual given the personal nature of their design, does using them mean we are cyborgs? People nowadays cannot live without their iphones, they are considered to being a part of us. So now in moving forward technology will advance, it will grow, making life more and more easier and easier by the decades, what will actually happen to us as a race?

During this weeks symposium one of the questions that were asked was  ‘whether art and culture can progress without technology?’ and throughout the discussion the most interesting aspect that was brought up by one of the tutors was the idea that for art and its creation what is required are tools and that tools are different to technology. Adrian however argues against the point and suggests that tools are technology, which means that pens, paint brushes, pencils etc, are in to be considered as technology.

When I heard this I didn’t know how to feel about it, I always saw them as two different things, I never thought of a brush as technology, I tended to associate mechanics and digital devices as technology. So in order to get this straight for myself and my understanding I looked up the definition of both terms, as I realized that these terms are two that are so natural in life where I’ve used them or heard them and understood the possible meaning behind them but I couldn’t think of away to describe them to myself, and other people if I was asked. The online dictionary had several meanings for both words here are some:

Technology:

…’the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life…’

‘the application of this knowledge for practical ends’

Tools:

‘any instrument of manual operation.’

‘the machine itself; a machine tool.’

‘any instrument of manual operation.’

Looking at all these definitions they are all quite similar, in a sense that it shows that there is a connection between the two terms, as opposed to them being a synonym of each other. Take for example first definition of the word tool, its any instrument of manual operation, and the second definition of technology; it’s said to be the application of knowledge for practical ends. This definition claims that technology is something that needs to applied or used in a practical form, based on that I believe that another way to look at these terms would be that a tool becomes a technology when it is used or applied for a purpose. So once a pen is picked up and is used to write it’s a technology.

Finally I also believe that this ties in with the question of whether culture can progress without technology, which is that it clearly can’t. Our world operates in the use of tools and technology, especially in this modern digital age we can’t live without technology, and as Adrain did briefly mention at the symposium that our ancestors, the cavemen, had tools and technology, like fire, to go about their everyday lives.

One of the most interesting questions asked in week four’s symposium is “how do you validate information on the internet?” Upon answering this question one of the tutors said it could depend how many sources are reporting. The example used, was the tragic event that occurred on that day, which was the death of Robin Williams. At first this news sounded like a hoax, but every single news site was reporting it, and then followed by the statements from his family and business partners it was confirmed to being true. Now the claim that one of the methods to validate the information you find is to look at the number of sources, is a pretty reasonable one, however I wouldn’t agree with it completely.

My time online is spent essentially on film websites, and comment sections. These sites report the latest on movie news everyday, and the information that is provided is generally one hundred percent true. However every now and then I read something that is completely untrue. For example a film that is set to be released in the near future is Assassins Creed based on the hit video game, and one of the draws of this film adaptation is that it has the current Hollywood star Michael Fassbender attached as the lead actor and producer. I read a comment on YouTube once of a person saying that he or she is no longer looking forward to the film since Fassbender had dropped out. My instant reaction was ‘how come I didn’t hear about that?’ because none of my go to sites had reported the news. I did a search for this online and what I did in fact find was one website, which I won’t name, had reported the story without any credibility what’s so ever. I recognized the story to being a fake. This is a case in which I was able to recognize it being a fake because of the limited amount of sources.

However there have been cases where I have seen the opposite. One of the things about the Internet is that it goes crazy for the tiniest bit of news or an idea, and when consuming all of this film news there tends to be reports that are completely not true. Some of these sites report stories as rumors, and how these rumors originate are different.

There was a case in which an upcoming superhero film was casting its villain, and there where a few fans on blogs who stated that the actor they wanted to see portray the character was ‘Breaking Bad’ leading man Bryan Cranston. This was just a simple case of fan casting, not true at all, but within a few hours almost every film site I knew was reporting this as a rumor, and over the course of time some claimed that they had inside information that confirmed the casting. Now in some cases there have been times when rumors are spread they end up being true, but in this particular case it was not. The casting of this character was revealed and it wasn’t Bryan Cranston, and both Cranston and the studio, including the filmmakers said that Cranston wasn’t even approached or considered for the role.

Speaking from my experience I can say that in order to validate content on the Internet the idea of the amount of sources claiming it isn’t always viable, but it most certainly can be, but I think what should be looked at is where the information is coming from. In my opinion the most reliable stories are the ones that come directly from the source. In my case I follow movie news, and I tend to trust the once that are confirmed directly from the filmmakers themselves.

‘…writing something other people will read forces you to think well. So it does matter to have an audience.’

That’s a quote from Paul Grahams article ‘The Age of the Essays’. This line, which was mentioned briefly, suggests that a writer to should keep an audience in mind when working on his essays, but I am also going to take it in the context for writers of all kinds such as, novelists, poets, screenwriters etc. Graham thinks that writers should write for people, however this is something I disagree with, when it applies for professional writers. The article compares what Graham calls, “real” essays to essays that are taught in schools, now these are two different kinds, as stated in the article, but one of the things that I believe separates the two is the fact that one of them will be read and one of them will mostly likely not.

Essays that are written in schools will be read, because the students are told to write them, so that they can get marks, and the teachers will read them. To get good marks students have to make sure that the essays fits the criteria that is being expected to being present in the essays. Therefore students must keep their audience in mind, which in this case is the teacher, in order to get good results. However with any other kind of professional writing I feel like it’s a danger to keep an audience in mind for two reasons, which are, one I believe when you are a new writer no ones going to want to read your work, and secondly because as a writer you don’t know exactly what your audience would want.

Just to elaborate on that most writers in the beginning get rejected over and over again before they get their big break. Lawrence Kasdan for example, if your are not familiar with is the writer of The Empire Strikes Back, wrote scripts for around ten years before he sold his first script. Over 90 publishers rejected J.K Rowling when she brought them Harry Potter. Now I know what you might be thinking, both writers went on to be successful and they had their stuff read or seen by millions, but when reading the works of people like them, you know that they weren’t thinking about an audience or who is going to read it, because when these stories hit the shelf and screen what went through many peoples minds were how original or refreshing it was to read something like this.

Reading Harry Potter was an experience one which opened the minds and imagination to a lot of its readers, and to a lot of people they have never read anything like it before. So what I am trying to get at here is that if people felt like what they had read or seen was something they never thought of, how could these writers have written it for the audience, and what they might like?

Stories like the ones I mentioned above are pieces of work that are written from a particular point of view and when it is read the authors voice can be heard, and it feels personal, and the author is present. Now when you keep a group of people in your mind and try to write something for them that’s sense of personality a stories has is lost because a writer wouldn’t know how a million individual people think. If they could then there would be a story that is loved by every single person on earth, and that’s not how the world is, even the most brilliant of tales in history will be seen as trash in someone else’s eyes, and there nothing anyone can do to please everyone. And keeping an audience in mind is essential trying to please a group of people, and that’s what writing shouldn’t be about.

Writing is something that should be done because and you love it and the stories you write should be the ones you would to read or see, and not something that is just for other people. They should be written for you.