This article gives several text which support and refute the beauty of "ownership" in a Web 2.0 world. All of the title sound like ones that I may wish to follow up on reading later, so I will list the titles below so I can read them.
On one hand, we have the question of ownership: who owns reality? words? music? Once an artist releases music, isn't it available to all people? The only difference is that in our modern society being able to USE those words and music or video is becoming much easier. If you had an ear for music, you could have sampled music or stolen a riff for your song. However, with technology, the ability for ANYONE to sample someone's music just got a whole easier. I am even torn with this aspect of the new technology: on one hand it allows some non-musicians to be musicians of a certain kind. I think of my students who use garageband to make original songs. Many are musicians, but many are not. On the other hand, maybe the ability to sample and use music shouldn't come so easy. Maybe you need to know a little about music and an instrument before you should be allowed to sample randomly and without abandon. What is the right answer?
The other set of authors are contending that Web 2.0 is affecting our ways of learning and experiencing life, and they are not good. They express concern over fragmentation, emphasis on immediacy, focus of data saturation, and the lack of "authority" in written words.
One of the interesting points of this article was the idea that the internet allowed most people to slip into an "eternal childhood" like Peter Pan. They seemed to imply that people used the internet to share pointless and trivial matters, and that this mindset is what influences the news and others to focus on silly and funny events instead of heavy things.
However, I do address with Sustein's observation that we are allowed to personalize too much online and that runs us the risk of never finding people who have different opinions than our own. Obviously affinity groups are a fun part of online communication as we can talk about passions and interests that perhaps no one in our physical world care about. However, the danger that the news and things we read are all one sided is very dangerous, especially if you are extreme in your thinking or viewpoint.
So is it possible that Web 2.0 will not broaden our communication opportunities, but limit us to those who continue to reinforce our ideas?
What about artists who compose a work to be viewed in a certain manner? Is it right to allow others to take and use what they want from that work?
The conclusion of this article resonates most with me. It explains how sampling and fiction that combines other characters can be well done like J.J. Abram's "Star Trek" or "Clueless." Some people look at art or story and do something new with it. However, sometimes the imitation isn't innovation: it's just imitation like Lady Gaga reflecting Madonna and countless remakes of TV shows and video games into movies. One wonders if these imitations are so prevalent because we are so connected to our pasts. When one remembers the music or characters they loved as a child, you can just imagine people thinking that there is money to be made if they can connect you to those memories.
As with other forms of technology, it seems like we will have to balance the benefits with the drawbacks and learn how to navigate this brave new world.
Reading List
"Reality Hunger" David Shields
"You are not a Gadget" Jaron Lanier
"True Enough" Farhad Manjoo
"The Cult of the Amateur" Andrew Keen
"The Shallows" Nicholas Carr
"Digital Barbarism" Mark Helprin
"Amusing Ourselves to Death" Neil Postman
"Faster" James Gleick
"Data Smog" David Shenk
"Cyberselfish" Jaron Lanier and Paulina Borsook
Cass Sunstein
"Life the Movie: How entertainment conquered reality" Neal Gabler
"Lost Books of the Odyssey" Zachary Mason
No comments:
Post a Comment