Everything In It's Right Blog

2001-12-11T18:34:00.000Z

After reading Richard Wise's 'Spectacle As Commodity' chapter and attending a Dan Fleming lecture related to it, I would like to add to the various views on special effects in film. Although I agree with Wise's view that Herbert Schiller marginalises narrative I disagree with Wise when he dismisses Schiller's theory that as effects increase in value the narrative content is diminished. It is true that special effects need a 'believable' narrative to have value, but film producers seem to be growing more and more concerned with spending their budget on these spectacles. It is the companies attempting to place special emphasis on these effects, an example of this on www.threelsite.com, where Industrial Light Magic boasts about 'heralding the first principle computer-generated character in a live action motion picture' in Episode 1, (the character was Jar Jar Binks, worth remembering that he was probably the least popular character in the whole Star Wars series). They boast about how groundbreaking these new technologies are, but really without an engaging narrative they are nothing. However, there is still an attempt at dumbing down audiences. Film makers seem to think that instead of having a key plot twist to keep audiences interested producers opt to have a minor plot twist with a hugely impressive special effect to heighten its drama. This does not sound very creative to me. Sure, spectacle is part of cinema, but it seems more and more films are produced which rely on these effects for spectacle. Simple because it is the easy option, technical rather than creative.

2001-12-03T15:18:00.000Z

A topic brought up in last weeks seminar was that of mobile phone networks being able to track the location of their customers.
In the Online section of last Thurdsay's Guardian, S A Mathieson tells us of how networks such as Orange keep this location information but refuse to give it to their customers. Mathieson says, "Each of the four mobile phone networks, Vodafone, Orange, BT Cellnet and One"One, controls several thousand base stations through which subscribers' calls are connected.". These networks can track the customer to the nearest base station everytime they use a call. According to Mathieson Orange first denied the existence of this data and then refused to provide the locations of the base stations used to handle each of his calls. I think this is disgraceful, especially as it goes against the Data Protection Act 1998. I am not surprised to hear the Office of the Information Commissioner is taking it into consideration. It is bad enough they can track our location, but worse when they refuse to let us know of the information they keep on us.
The article also mentions the proposal of installing GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) into mobile phones. This will allow mobile networks not just to know your nearest base station, but to know your exact position when you use your phone. Although GPS can be lifesaving in an emergency, many have pointed out that it won't be long before it is exploited for commercial uses. Alan Charles Raul from Business 2.0 points out that installing this technology is very expensive and many networks will look for deals with commercial organisations to make profit. Therefore we will have location-based advertising, where if you are close distance to a place of business, their advertisement will appear on your mobile phone screen. I think this will annoy the user. Personally, I do not want my mobile being overloaded with ads everywhere I go. In fact I think most people will end up turning their phone off. Businesses realise the popularity of mobile phones amongst young people, and they want to turn the mobile phone into a 'pocket-billboard'. The idea seems extremely irritating and I really can't see anyone finding much benefit it. It is also strangely a subject that Richard Wise does not discuss in his 'Multimedia' book. Give me email to let me know what you think of the idea of 'location based advertising' on mobile phones. My email is: mcdaniel_paul@hotmail.com. You can also read Alan Charles Raul's article on the subject from Business 2.0 here.

2001-12-01T21:24:00.000Z

In this entry I want to address the issue of 'cybercrime' and difficulties found in trying to police it.
It is an issue which was brought to my attention in last weeks seminar, with reference to Thursday's Guardian. The newspaper reported of the worldwide hunt for paedophiles distributing and viewing child pornography over various newsgroups on the Internet. We were then told that due to the difficulty of tracking the suspects down over the Internet, only 129 paedophile suspects were arrested out of thousands who accessed the images.
The editor then commented, "The most effective response is developing and funding the police expertise in tracking this computer crime and crucially, the cooperation from ISP's.". Presumably this means Internet Service Providers yet again increasing the amount of information they can keep on their customers. All that newspapers seem to report about the possibilities of the Internet is its negative aspects, such as paedophiles accessing porn, people stealing money online or terrorists organising attacks through emails. People should remember thjat the anonymous nature of the Internet can have incredible positive aspects. For example, from reading Andrea's 'cybercrime' article from the no logo website, I learned that the Internet played an important role during the Kosovo conflict in 1999. Information accounting human rights abuse on Kosovo people by Serbia's war leaders was sent through the Internet to the rest of the world outside Kosovo. Because of the nature of the Internet the Serbian authorities were not able to stop the flow of information. If they had been able to track down the sources of this information it is likely it would have been censored. Many Serbian War leaders were put away because of this evidence and the Internet helped fight repression and give the Kosovo people a lot of hope.
I realise it is important to track down the paedophiles who deal with these images, but by becoming more intrusive on its customers, the Internet is going against the Utopian vision it was concieved as. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act already allows corporations to crack into peoples systems and monitor Internet traffic. If the restrictions get any tighter it will put many customers off.
It is a very complex and sensitive issue and I will welcome any comments on it. Email me at: mcdaniel_paul@hotmail.com
Thanks

2001-11-28T17:43:00.000Z

I want to talk about the issue of 'brand-building' in new media, as it is becoming an increasingly growing concern, particularly with students.
As Richard Wise states in 'Multimedia: A Critical Introduction', concerning corporate control over digitisation, "What gets transmitted is primarily what is profitable rather than what is in the public interest". This is a view I too hold strongly. Like the Internet, which I addressed in my last last blog, digital television is not being used to its full potential. Wise goes on to say: "The hundreds of channels made available by digitisation are not being used to expand the range of political views but rather to establish commercial services".
A perfect example of Digital Television's emphasis on commercialism over public interest is the adding of a permanent logo in the corner of the screen on every channel. These are known as DOGs (digitally originated graphics), and they intend to brand the channel and enhance its appeal to the viewer. Many people, including myself, find this an insult to their intelligence. I would rather watch a channel for its content than have these DOGs (which are basically adverts) defacing the screen). The house I live in has digital television and until recently I never realised how many channels have these permanent logos. Some are even animated to attract attention. Two excellent sites on the subject of brand-building are www.logofreetv.org.uk (which even has a petition) and www.dogwatch.625.uk.com. Both have links to other related sites showing the growing annoyance at the DOGs.
Terry Hughes is another student who mentioned digital television. In his blog he too addresses the emphasis of form over content. It's true what he says, some channels only last for a few hours and yet are called channels. Mostly what we get is repeats of old shows with the channel logo and website addresses splashed all over them.
The permanent logo is no different from the marketing tools used by Coca-cola or Nike. It becomes disturbing when commercialism becomes the focus of new media technology as it is a main source of creativity.
This interest was sparked by reading Naomi Klein's 'No Logo', a book which addresses the issue of labels and logos invading every space they can, especially over the last 20 years.
If you think this is all nonsense or you have any other views on this topic please feel free to email me at : mcdaniel_paul@hotmail.com. I am willing to hear what anyone thinks.

2001-11-23T20:47:00.000Z

This is my second blog entry. I have traded blog adresses with quite a few people so hopefully I'll have a small audience by now. This will allow me and other people to discuss the topics we bring up on the blogs.
The topics I wish to address in this entry are the computer counter-culture and the development of the Personal Computer. These topics are certainly related to the ones I last adressed: hackers and the Internet.
Going to Dan Fleming's lectures and reading Richard Wise's book on Multimedia, I find it fascinating to learn that Microsoft and Apple began creating the Personal Computer with the 1960's counter-culture vision in mind.
If, 30 years ago the aim of people such as Ted Nelson was to use the technology to empower the people culturally and politically, then why are we faced with such negative notions criticising this technology? Notions, I believe largely justified, such as 'instrumentalism' and 'hyperindividuation'.
Rather than bringing people together similar to a 1960's commune, new media like the Internet reinforces separation between people. As people read this they are more likely reading my online identity, which is just a representation of my real identity. This is the notion of 'hyperindividuation'.
As for 'instrumentalism', I think critics are being a bit too pessimistic. I do believe we use this technology for tedious, everyday tasks, not realising its full potential. However, maybe this is the way we can get to know the technology , by adapting it to our everyday lives. Maybe, then when we are fully aquainted with it we can fully grasp it potential.
I also want to address the issue of concentration of ownership among the Internet. Bill Gates seems to contradict his statements about Microsoft empowering the public and opening minds, when he keeps restricting the choices of the public.It makes the Information Revolution look a little hyped and perhaps counter-productive.
I find it ironic that Bill Gates began as a computer activist, now 30 years later he is the establishment facing young activists such as hackers trying to overthrow him.
I also realise the irony of me typing these views on a Microft computer!
Maybe its a little premature to state this views but I'm willing to have them challenged and hear other opinions as I go through the course.

2001-10-29T17:33:00.000Z

This is my first blogger entry. I've probably left it quite late but it has taken me a few weeks to settle in to second year and get my head around the new modules.
In the summer when I was selecting my second year modules I was hesitant in picking New Media And Society. I was unsure of technology just as I am unsure now this entry is being done correctly. I then thought to myself, "Wait a minute, I 'm a media student." Technology such as the internet is vital to the media in the age we are living in, the 'information age'. I should try to understand new media and this new age before I judge it. I was relieved in the first lecture when Dan Fleming assured, "If you are new to these subjects, don't worry."
One of the lectures that had a strong effect on me dealt with the subject of 'hackers'. Before this lecture I knew little about them, I thought of them as troublemakers causing destruction and messing up our computers just for the sake of it. Since that lecture I find myself emphatising with them. Is the internet really the utopian paradise we think it is? Maybe its just another way for large corporations to build and grow while we, the consumers consume more and more. I realise some hackers rob bank accounts online, but it seems to me that the only people who really suffer from this are the large organisations. Maybe I sound a little naive, as I said before my knowledge of new media is minimal. However I hope to learn more as the year goes on.
Paul.