I honestly don’t think Avatar is a great example for a gender dichotomy. In some ways I suppose you could say that it does because it portrays all, or nearly all the men as being rough, stone cold soldiers who are all about their main goal which is money. In contrast, the women seem to care more for the indigenous people and their planet, but they are not by any means delicate little flowers; they are just as aggressive as the men. Of course this is just a comparison of the human characters. When it comes to the male and female navi (sp?) they seem to have a much closer goal in life and perception of the world around them; I don’t see much of a difference here.
Jake’s original identity is the tough marine who is completely self confident, willing to do anything to prove himself, doesn’t care much about science or anything, he just wants to go in and kick ass and prove he is not any less of a man than anyone else. Once he spends some time in the new world in his avatar body he starts to understand their beliefs and values. He realizes that what the humans are doing is wrong and slowly starts to side with the navi. Of course he doesn’t show this when he is with the humans, especially with the military leaders, because as Cheung says “…if we present these identities in inappropriate social settings, we experience embarrassment, rejection, or harassment” (275). This is much like the personal web pages Cheung talks about. Jake would probably like to show his real ‘identity’ but isn’t safe doing so in front of most of the humans. When he is in his avatar body it is safe to do so because he is with an audience that obviously agrees with his new identity.
Bell, David, Barbara Kennedy, and Charles Cheung. The Cybercultures Reader. 2nd. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 273-85. Print.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Blog #5: Lupton
Lupton describes various types of relationships we have with our computers. One such relationship is “The humanized computer” in which we give our computers very human-like characteristics. An example of this is the advertisement for the Apple iMac G4 a few years ago. Here is the url for the video since I don't see an option to embed it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYutehhGknI. In the commercial, Apple points out that their computer not only has more physical ability than the others as far as positioning goes, but they also give us the impression that it has personality. They want it to look fun and friendly, almost to the point where they want it to be our “friend”. This also reminds me of the first week or so of class when we listened to the different voice options for Snow Leopard. We talked about how it seems that some people (most likely lonely people) want to connect with their computer on a deeper level; they want it to be a companion. Lupton recognizes this saying, “Just as humans fear alienation and loneliness, so too do their PCs” (427). While I am not necessarily a Mac fan, I have to admit they have done a superb job over the years of marketing their products as having more flare and personality than others in the industry. We still see this today with the Mac vs. PC ads where the PC is represented by a very bland, chubby, middle aged man, while the Mac is represented by a young, energetic guy. While not everyone necessarily wants an exuberant computing experience, Apple is definitely catering to those who value the liveliness of their products.
I think the most significant thing I have learned so far this year is how different ways of presenting information can make us feel differently about that information. Burbules tropes are what come to mind here. I hadn’t really thought of things like this before, but now I find myself more aware of not just the content of what I’m reading, but of what the author was trying to sway me to believe. I have started noticing when and what they reference and link in with their work and realize that everybody has an agenda. Nobody is just giving you pure information these days; they all want something out of it. Really, this is a large part of what the DTC major is about, learning to subconsciously persuade people. Being aware of this not only makes us smarter consumers, but also better at using these techniques ourselves.
Bell, David, Barbara Kennedy, and Deborah Lupton. The Cybercultures Reader. 2nd. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 422-32. Print.
Snyder, Ilana. "Page to Screen." Routledge, n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/475/Readings/Burbules.pdf
I think the most significant thing I have learned so far this year is how different ways of presenting information can make us feel differently about that information. Burbules tropes are what come to mind here. I hadn’t really thought of things like this before, but now I find myself more aware of not just the content of what I’m reading, but of what the author was trying to sway me to believe. I have started noticing when and what they reference and link in with their work and realize that everybody has an agenda. Nobody is just giving you pure information these days; they all want something out of it. Really, this is a large part of what the DTC major is about, learning to subconsciously persuade people. Being aware of this not only makes us smarter consumers, but also better at using these techniques ourselves.
Bell, David, Barbara Kennedy, and Deborah Lupton. The Cybercultures Reader. 2nd. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. 422-32. Print.
Snyder, Ilana. "Page to Screen." Routledge, n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/475/Readings/Burbules.pdf
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Blog #4: Bell & Bauman
I think that the idea of virtual communities as "peg communities" is actually a pretty good way to describe them. I also don’t think these types of communities are a bad thing; they are just another way for people to express the different sides of themselves with people who share interests that they normally wouldn’t be able to because of differences in location. The main thing that came to mind while reading this was the online Subaru forum that I am a member of. As I have alluded to in previous posts, I am an avid car lover, as are many of my friends (real life ones that is). I enjoy working on project cars with friends, talking about ideas, etc. but when it comes to specifics about my own car I tend to communicate more with the people on the forum. Why? Because while my real life friends may share my love for automobiles, most of us have not only different brands of cars, but completely different classes of cars that aren’t really related. So when it comes down to talking about specific ideas, problems, possibilities, etc. or just wanting to talk to people who share my exact interest with, not just my general interest, I have a whole giant community to go to made up of people who are in the exact same boat as me so to speak.
On the other hand, I don’t think all online communities necessarily fit into the peg community description. For example, I also have a Facebook profile. The reason I have this is because growing up we moved around a lot, so Facebook allows me to keep in touch with people who I know and originally met in person but now live too far away from to keep in touch with face to face. I’m not friends with people on Facebook who I’ve never met, just actual, real life friends, so in my case this community is not a “peg community” in which I share a particular interest with but have no real responsibility to. Instead these are people who I actually have real life relationships with but don’t get to see face to face often enough to sustain these relationships without the use of technology.
As for the communities I would like to use for Assignment #2, I think I would like to use Facebook because I find it interesting how different people use it in very different ways. I would also like to use the Subaru forum as an example, which is www.nasioc.com. I’m not sure of a third, I’ll have to get back to you on that.
Bell, David. The Cybercultures Reader. 2nd. 1. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000. 254-63. Print.
On the other hand, I don’t think all online communities necessarily fit into the peg community description. For example, I also have a Facebook profile. The reason I have this is because growing up we moved around a lot, so Facebook allows me to keep in touch with people who I know and originally met in person but now live too far away from to keep in touch with face to face. I’m not friends with people on Facebook who I’ve never met, just actual, real life friends, so in my case this community is not a “peg community” in which I share a particular interest with but have no real responsibility to. Instead these are people who I actually have real life relationships with but don’t get to see face to face often enough to sustain these relationships without the use of technology.
As for the communities I would like to use for Assignment #2, I think I would like to use Facebook because I find it interesting how different people use it in very different ways. I would also like to use the Subaru forum as an example, which is www.nasioc.com. I’m not sure of a third, I’ll have to get back to you on that.
Bell, David. The Cybercultures Reader. 2nd. 1. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000. 254-63. Print.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Blog #3: Burnett and Marshall
Burnett and Marshall talk about how the web is often modeled after other forms of media. For example, some pages have almost a newspaper look with headlines and columns, other pages have banners and scrolling info much like news or sports channels, etc. They say the web has drawn some of it's structure from tv and other sources, much like "Building from radio, television has developed a pattern of presentation of flow..." (Burnett and Marshall, 87).
In looking at Yahoo, I see hints of many different types of media. For starters, I see a sort of newspaperlike structure. The first thing I notice when I see their page is the interesting news section right in the center of the page. This is much like the front page of a newspaper showing the big news of the day, except in this case it could be something important or it could just be something weird and interesting but relatively useless information. Another thing I notice about this section is that it scrolls, showing more than one “important” or interesting subject at once kind of like the ticker on the bottom of a news channel or the ticker on the bottom of the screen during a sports game showing the current scores in other games.
Burnett and Marshall talk about genres, saying “To make the claim that there are specific genres on the Web is to link our analysis to how television, music, or film is divided up into certain expectations” (90). I see this represented in the column on the left side of the Yahoo page. This column has links to other sites listed by particular subjects or genres.
They also talk about interactivity as an important aspect of a website. Yahoo’s website is extremely interactive, much more so than any other form of media could possibly be. Nearly everything on the site is clickable and will bring you to another site or another portion of the home site. This emphasizes the non linear structure of the internet that Burnett and Marshall talk about. The internet is truly a user decided experience unlike any other form of media. In a newspaper, you can read it in a different order rather than front to back, but you will still get the same information out of it. When watching tv, you really don’t have a choice what you see, unless you change the channel, but then you are still at the mercy of what is currently being shown. On the internet, you have complete control over where you go and what you see.
Burnett, Robert, and David Marshall. Web Theory: an introduction. 1st. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. 81-104. eBook.
In looking at Yahoo, I see hints of many different types of media. For starters, I see a sort of newspaperlike structure. The first thing I notice when I see their page is the interesting news section right in the center of the page. This is much like the front page of a newspaper showing the big news of the day, except in this case it could be something important or it could just be something weird and interesting but relatively useless information. Another thing I notice about this section is that it scrolls, showing more than one “important” or interesting subject at once kind of like the ticker on the bottom of a news channel or the ticker on the bottom of the screen during a sports game showing the current scores in other games.
Burnett and Marshall talk about genres, saying “To make the claim that there are specific genres on the Web is to link our analysis to how television, music, or film is divided up into certain expectations” (90). I see this represented in the column on the left side of the Yahoo page. This column has links to other sites listed by particular subjects or genres.
They also talk about interactivity as an important aspect of a website. Yahoo’s website is extremely interactive, much more so than any other form of media could possibly be. Nearly everything on the site is clickable and will bring you to another site or another portion of the home site. This emphasizes the non linear structure of the internet that Burnett and Marshall talk about. The internet is truly a user decided experience unlike any other form of media. In a newspaper, you can read it in a different order rather than front to back, but you will still get the same information out of it. When watching tv, you really don’t have a choice what you see, unless you change the channel, but then you are still at the mercy of what is currently being shown. On the internet, you have complete control over where you go and what you see.
Burnett, Robert, and David Marshall. Web Theory: an introduction. 1st. New York, NY: Routledge, 2003. 81-104. eBook.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Blog #2: Warschauer, and somebody else
The digital divide is the gap separating those who have access to and know how to use technology and those who don’t. As technology grows and advances at an exponential rate, so does this divide. Obviously there are countries and regions all over the world that have little to no access to the internet or computers or anything of that sort, some of them decades behind us in technology. However, this isn’t just a problem in other countries; we face the same problem here in America. There are still many people here who don’t have computers and wouldn’t even know how to use one if they did. As Warschauer points out, it isn’t just the lack of equipment that causes the divide, it is even more importantly the lack of knowledge. He says “…these same types of problems occur again and again in technology projects around the world, which too often focus on providing hardware and software and pay insufficient attention to the human and social systems that must also change for technology to make a difference.” (Warschauer 1). We can give people all the equipment we want, but if we don’t teach them how to use it it isn’t going to do them any good.
I think the author of the second reading, about the Mac user interface took it to a bit of an extreme. Yes, some of his points were valid, many of the icons and such on computers represent things typically found in offices, but the intent wasn’t to discriminate. I think the reasoning was just to make it easier to use and understand for what it was originally intended to be, an office tool! Most of the programs we use have icons that relate to something we might use in real life to do the same thing. The first thing that comes to mind is Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is designed with an artistic intent, therefore the icons are related to artistic tools. For example, you have the paintbrush tool which has an icon that looks like a paint brush, the paint bucket tool is a paint bucket, the slice tool looks like an x-acto knife, etc. Is Photoshop discriminating against say, car mechanics because it doesn’t use icons that look like wrenches and sockets? No, it is just using things that relate to items that you might use to alter a physical, paper copy photo, that’s all! Don’t make such a big deal out of it!
Warschauer, Mark. "Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide." First Monday 7.7 (2002): 1. Web. 1 Sep 2010. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/967/888.
Unknown, . "Mapping the Interface." Unknown. Unknown, 12 1994. Web. 1 Sep 2010. http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/475/Readings/interface.pdf.
I think the author of the second reading, about the Mac user interface took it to a bit of an extreme. Yes, some of his points were valid, many of the icons and such on computers represent things typically found in offices, but the intent wasn’t to discriminate. I think the reasoning was just to make it easier to use and understand for what it was originally intended to be, an office tool! Most of the programs we use have icons that relate to something we might use in real life to do the same thing. The first thing that comes to mind is Adobe Photoshop. Photoshop is designed with an artistic intent, therefore the icons are related to artistic tools. For example, you have the paintbrush tool which has an icon that looks like a paint brush, the paint bucket tool is a paint bucket, the slice tool looks like an x-acto knife, etc. Is Photoshop discriminating against say, car mechanics because it doesn’t use icons that look like wrenches and sockets? No, it is just using things that relate to items that you might use to alter a physical, paper copy photo, that’s all! Don’t make such a big deal out of it!
Warschauer, Mark. "Reconceptualizing the Digital Divide." First Monday 7.7 (2002): 1. Web. 1 Sep 2010. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/967/888.
Unknown, . "Mapping the Interface." Unknown. Unknown, 12 1994. Web. 1 Sep 2010. http://www.paulmuhlhauser.org/475/Readings/interface.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)