Turkle'd pink (har har)

AT LAST! An article which truly speaks to the way I feel about technology and its relationship to the way we think and feel as humans. In Sherry Turkle's article "How Computers Change the Way We Think" -- she compiles a "...short and certainly comprehensive list of areas where I see information technology encouraging changes in thinking." Turkle does not deem these changes as good or bad -- but simply makes observations about the effects technology and computation devices have on our minds.

I will address each of her points by going down the list she compiled.

Thinking About Privacy -- younger generations (the "net generation") feel little or no need to take action towards protecting their privacy. They fill out personal information online without a second thought, download music/videos illegally and purchase items online etc. Turkle points out that there seems to be a disconnect between the younger generations and the fact that privacy is a RIGHT and not a PRIVELAGE. They seem relatively unaware about violations of privacy and government/commercial surveillance. Although, there are young people out there who are protective of their information and privacy rights, I do agree that there is a lack of knowledge and caring in the matter of privacy. Who can see your information? What will be done with this information? How is the information being obtained? What can I do to ensure my privacy? These are the kinds of questions which fail to be asked by many youngsters, perhaps due to a lack of education in the matter.

Avatar Or Self? This was my FAVORITE part of the list and it is a point that I have been trying to get across for some time. CHAT ROOMS, AIM, FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, WORLD OF WARCRAFT, SIMS, ETC. ETC. THESE TYPES OF TECHNOLOGICAL VENUES CAN ACTUALLY BE A DETRIMENT TO THE SOCIAL GROWTH OF PEOPLE. I've been saying for some time how I feel that social networking can create a barrier between people because they can create an 'online persona' which does not manifest itself in reality. People can hide behind the computer or an avatar. Turkle says, "For those who are lonely yet afraid of intimacy, information technology has made it possible to have the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendships." She also says, "...some people who gain fluency in expressing multiple aspects of self may find it harder to develop authentic selves".

Miss Turkle, thank you. Thank you for saying what I could not find the right words for. At last, a scholarly article which supports an observation that I feel so many disagree with me on.

I am actually going to skip to her last point because I can tell that if I go through all the others, I will become lazy with my analysis and compromise the integrity of this post.

Simulation and its discontents ok -- I'm going to pull a rather large quote from the article...

"Despite the ever-increasing complexity of software, most computer environments put users inworlds based on constrained choices. In other words, immersion in programmed worlds puts us inreassuring environments where the rules are clear... Children grow up in a culture of video games, action films, fantasy epics, and computer programs that all rely on that familiar scenario of almost losing but then regaining total mastery: There is danger.It is mastered...Scary. Safe."

OK, what I think she is getting at is that (in a world where entertainment media already tries to make everything black and white, good and evil) -- we now have children growing up and learning to make simulated decisions based on very cut and dry rules and scenarios. When these children become faced with REAL decisions, in a world where things are NOT black and white, they may flounder. The world is complicated and full of grey areas. While these games may help in the process of decision-making skills....the decisions are based on clear situations, and in life there are times when there really is no "best solution" but rather a series of distasteful options which you must bear through . Turkle says, "we have never had a greater need to work our way out of binary assumptions...we need to rebuild the culture around information technology...in that new sociotechnical culture, assumptions about the nature of mastery would be less absolute."

WHEW! Congratulations if you actually read all of that.

Sherry Turkle, I love you.

Generation Flash

"Generation Flash" by Lev Manovich left me in the dust midway through the first paragraph. I tried desperately to grasp the concepts he was writing about but continually found myself at a loss for their meaning. I will attempt to make some sense of what I read.

The article starts off by stating, "This generation no longer is interested in 'media critique' which preoccupied media artists of the last two decades; instead it is engaged in software critique. This generation writes its own software code to create their own cultural systems..." I can only assume that what he means is, instead of critiquing a website based on its AESTHETIC looks, we now critique it based on how it was written and coded (?) We no longer say, "I really like AOL because it looks nice and I like the colors" but we say, "I don't like the way it functions, whoever created this did a poor job". I could be WAY off in this analysis because I know NOTHING about software programming and was further unaware that it is considered an art form.

So, okay. I try and look past this initial wave of confusion and move onto the next point Manovich writes about. He begins talking about "loops" and I say, "yeah, loops...like in electronic music...I'm on board with this." Manovich uses the idea of 'loops' to emphasize the 'remix culture' that we live in. He says, "Flash animations, QuickTime movies, the characters in computer games loop endlessly - until the human user intervenes by clicking." Manovich says that looping is now the new default metho to 'critique' media culture -- and I have ABSOLUTELY no idea what that means. How do you critique a loop? "That was a really bad loop -- I didn't enjoy that?" wouldn't you instead say something like, "I didnt enjoy the IMAGES or TEXTS or SOUNDS used in that loop?" Those are my best guesses.

Manovich then goes on to talk about layering in media. Just as musicians layer sounds together (drums, guitar, bass, keyboard etc.) so too can artists layer images. But Manovich warns that we must be careful how many layers are used in imagery because, "when we start mixing arbitrary images together, we quickly destroy any meaning". In other words, we must carefully choose the images to be layered and avoid just making a bunch of noise. He says that, as a remix culture, does it still make sense to create whole works if these works will simply be taken apart and turned into samples?

People are constantly taking images and editing them or 'sampling' them to make them their own; just as musicians sample tracks from songs and make them their own. For example, 'Gym Class Heroes' sampled a 'Supertramp' song in 2006. Someone took a picture of Abraham Lincoln and digitally placed Marilyn Monroe into the picture with him. So, it seems art no longer stands on its own as it is, but is essentially "up for grabs" to be reinterpreted or "remixed" by other artists.

I *think* what Manovich was getting at is that, the definition of art has changed as media types change. Instead of looking at WHAT the art is we look at HOW it is put together. And that is about as far as a could get with my analysis of this article. I feel unsatisfied with this analysis but without knowledge of the programs he spoke of (Flash ActionScript, Director's Lingo, Perl, MAX, JavaScript, C ++) then I cannot make an appropriate and educated response to the article.

Article

Attention Team Manovich!

I will be using the article "Generation Flash"!