I don't have much to say this week. I feel that discussing immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation is something that has existed since media has been around. For the most part, I think that it is just an observation in that by studying it we can no better judge if it is a good or bad thing. These are just the effects of progress.
Here is my entry
I don't feel like it would be necessary to write another reading response when part of my midterm project deals with some of the reading from last week. So here is an exert from my project:
As Bob Stein saw it, the future of the new text started potentially with Jon Craig's study of early editions of Copernicus's "De Revolution" and the comments that its readers had left. These books are very rare (they were considered to be the unread books) and were shared between professors and their students. Because of this trade, a dialogue between the readers developed where the readers left comments to the comments, and this diologue became interesting enough to be studied itself.
The idea of a nonlinear text is something that intrigues me. I can see how the hypertext format can be adapted to create a text that has no beginning, no ending, or no center, but why?
In the first few readings we did in this class, we explored the potential of social networking websites. Most of us might associate social networking websites to be all about meeting and interacting with people through the internet, I would like to explore when actions on the internet as led to actions off the internet. For those of you who sometimes watch Comedy Central early in the morning might recognize the name the Upright Citizens Brigade, which besides being a short lived television series is also the name of an improvisational group that was founded by Charlie Todd. Mr.
What I found personally interesting in our last week's readings was the different perspective that humanists have towards computing than engineers or scientists have. In most of my education, I have been taught to treat computers as a tool that should be carefully used because of its ability to do so much so quickly that it may be unclear as to how it was done. In a sense, we are trying to demystify the computer so that it may be no more complicated than any other tool that we may use.
After this last week's discussions of what new media is, I feel some what clear and unclear as to what digital media is. One thing that was debated was the concept of interactivity. The selections from The New Media Reader seemed to agree that new media could be truly interactive where as the Manovich essay argued that new media was not interactive but allows us experience the thoughts of another person. I have to disagree with Manovich in that while one may be bound by the rules of a video game or what links a person my go to, nothing dictates necessarily the order in which I do things.
In last week's discussions about social networking sites, privacy appeared to be one of the main issues that concerned many people. While it is certainly an important issue to be concerned with, I feel that in a sense, it is not an issue but maybe something that should be changed about it. When I enter the internet, I assume that anybody in the world could access my information. Most people probably would feel that this is no big step, but this includes my email, my social network profile, and even credit card information.
After reading Chris Anderson's "The Long Trail," it makes me wonder as to when this great revolution will take place where the days of the hit movies, music, books and other media will be a part of the past and media that I would find more entertaining would be produced. It seems that it could easily become reality but also just become a small trend on the internet. What seems to be the largest obstacle is that of the three rules that Anderson mentions, only the first rule could really be implemented without significant difficulties.