Public surveillance is a topic that many of us already have existing knowledge in. By living in the United States, we see a lot of surveillance cameras everywhere we go, and we might not even realize it. There are cameras at intersections, at the bank, school, and there are some that are capturing just random people walking down the street. Some of this is a good thing, and some of it is not. Luckily for us, living in the United States, we are not being watched as much as the people in Europe.
Britain, being known as the most watched society in the world, has 4.2 million security cameras, and a typical person makes an estimated 300 closed-circuit television appearances a day. This is definitely taken to an extreme. And how useful is it? Not very. One reason this is not a very effective tool is when it comes to criminal acts. The person doing these acts is usually smart enough to destroy the camera, or to make sure the capture doesn't capture his image in some way. It is rare that surveillance cameras do a good enough job capturing the suspect to a point where no further evidence is needed.
One way that people are against public surveillance is the misuse of images. People are using images taken from surveillance footage for their own benefits such as creating videos, even movies with a story line using these images. In Britain, in 2008, it was said that for about $80 at any electronics store and some technical know-how, it's possible to tap into London's CCTV hotspots with a simple wireless receiver.
In the video posted above, the British Transport Police is confronted about video surveillance and the police is caught lying. The man in the video, Mark Thomas, asks the police if they have been video taping the area. Thomas goes on to talk to the Police and says that any individual is able to own a tape recording the public. The police officer says that he didn't know that. Thomas then goes into the nearby building and sees the British Transport police recording video. The police outside obviously lied, and the officer inside says he does know that anyone is able to obtain the video and about the process that takes place in order to do so. I think it's crazy that anyone has access to the random surveillance video taken in public! It doesn't help when you have a stalker or just some creepy person watching you is able to get these tapes of you for free. You don't have to tell the police the reason you want the tapes, they are yours.
This is a trailer for a British movie from 2008 called Surveillance 24/7. It is about a gay teacher, Adam, who gets swept up in a national scandal when his handsome and mysterious one-night stand shows up dead. In his desperate race to discover the killer, Adams every move is tracked through the streets of London. I have not seen this film since I just discovered the trailer for it, but it looks very interesting. Every move this man makes is recorded on CCTV.
I found this video hilarious, a surveillance camera caught a bride cheating on her soon to be husband with the best man! I could go on and on posting these funny videos that surveillance cameras have caught.
I believe most people are convinced of the effectiveness of video surveillance and may even feel a certain amount of comfort in knowing that it adds to their sense of personal safety. They understand that their chances of being a victim of crime are reduced when they find themselves in an area monitored with cameras. Also,video surveillance is more about deterrence than it is about evidence collection. Red light cameras do catch drivers in the act, but their role is much more about making drivers think twice before running a red light. If citizens see that there is a surveillance camera around, they will do their best to behave and not do anything wrong/suspicious. At least that's how most people would act. It is a good thing to perhaps have a surveillance camera at a traffic light just to scare people, it doens't necessarily have to work.
The Patriot Act that formed after the September 11th 2001 attacks was unconstiutional and violated our rights.This act was signed into law under President George W. Bush and reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies ability to search telephone, e-mail, medical, financial, and other records. It also eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States, and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorist acts. Before the government revised this act in 2003, the government was able to go through your doctor's records, e-mail, phone calls; basically anything they wanted without probably cause.
There is a lot of concern with privacy issues when it comes to English civil libertarians. There is no control in the United Kingdom over the commercial use of public video images recorded by CCTV. Since there is so much surveillance in the UK, it is not unusual to find footage from parking garages, housing developments, department stores, and offices that may have commercial value. Cameras may record couples intertwined in office stockrooms, elevators or cars; women undressing in department store changing rooms; or husband and wives engaging in domestic squabbles. Scenes like the ones listed are sold commercially in UK video stores. I was shocked when I read this. I thought to myself, “Shouldn’t there be rights of some sort?!” Then the next thing I read was that the United Kingdom does not have a bill of rights that protects individuals from government intrusions on privacy. Individuals have limited recourse against local government agencies that provide revealing tapes to commercial producers. Since lawsuits can be filed against these producers, the producers try to protect themselves by making the image a little fuzzy to prevent a perfectly clear image of the individual. Although they make the image fuzzy, you are still able to tell what is going on and with whom in the surveillance video. The Local Government Information Unit has proposed a Spy Camera Code that would restrict access to CCTV footage. Unfortunately a code like that would not be legally binding and have a limited effect.
As you can see, some public surveillance can help the greater good, while others does not. We are lucky to live in a society where our rights aren't violated like those in the United Kingdom. Societies today are being compared to George Orwell's novel, 1984. I can see where people are getting this idea because in that novel every move they made was watched. They even had "telescreens" which was a two-way medium where you could watch television and the government could watch you. We have even adapted terms like "Big Brother" into our daily lives. In the novel Big Brother was the highest in society, and he watched over everything people did. People are convinved our society is turning into Oceania, like in 1984. I do think it's a good idea to have surveillance in some areas like I stated earlier, but they aren't necessary everywhere you go. I hope that our society won't turn into something like the United Kingdom's......
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Hacking & Gaming
When examining the hacking and gaming culture, there are a lot of different levels of understanding, and the way that this technology is being used is changing drastically. Before this new technology age, people played games without using cheats, and nobody knew what hacking was. Now hacking into computers and cheating in computerized games is an every day thing.
Some people think about hacking and immediately bad things come to mind. I associate hacking with criminals and something that is illegal. But on the other hand, there are people out there who hack into systems every day. Hacking is everywhere; you may not realize it, but it is. Like right now, I’m using wireless internet that someone there is probably using too; but they gained access by hacking into it.
I don’t consider myself a “gamer,” and playing video games is not something I’m too familiar with. I did used to play games when I was younger, like Super Mario Brothers and Mario Kart. I didn’t use cheats when I played those games, but using cheats is something gamers use everyday. If I was a gamer, I would probably be guilty of using cheats too. It is understandable when you can’t get past a certain level in a game, you have no other choice! But then again, I can see the other side where people get angry about all of this cheating. If I had worked hard getting to a certain level by actually playing the game without any help, it would bother me if a friend kept bragging how much farther they got because of the cheat codes they used.
I know that some gaming systems are considering banning users by trying to eliminate cheating. I don’t think that’s necessary, I think people should be able to choose what they want to do, whether it involves cheating or not.
Hacking is also becoming a big issue in America, well, all over the world. In the movie, War Games, Matthew Broderick’s character is able to hack into the school’s computer from his home! He makes it seem so simple, perhaps it is for some technology savy folks. This is where issues come into play for people who have no knowledge about technical functionality. I don’t think it’s a big deal, you just don’t know what you’re missing. Some people are okay with playing games the normal way and beating all levels on your own. If people aren’t okay with that, they find some way to cheat or hack into the system.
I have mostly talked about negative ways where hacking comes into the picture, but there are actually some positive ways. The government is able to hack into our phone lines, computers, basically anything they want if we are suspected of terrorism. With this freedom, they have been able to catch criminals before they have committed the crime.
Our relationship with gaming and hacking shows a lot about our cultural connection to technology. We all want what we can’t have, and we do whatever we can to achieve it; like hacking into computer systems to change your grades, and cheating in games just to beat your friend. Hacking is become such a big part of our culture, and I think it will continue to keep on growing.
Some people think about hacking and immediately bad things come to mind. I associate hacking with criminals and something that is illegal. But on the other hand, there are people out there who hack into systems every day. Hacking is everywhere; you may not realize it, but it is. Like right now, I’m using wireless internet that someone there is probably using too; but they gained access by hacking into it.
I don’t consider myself a “gamer,” and playing video games is not something I’m too familiar with. I did used to play games when I was younger, like Super Mario Brothers and Mario Kart. I didn’t use cheats when I played those games, but using cheats is something gamers use everyday. If I was a gamer, I would probably be guilty of using cheats too. It is understandable when you can’t get past a certain level in a game, you have no other choice! But then again, I can see the other side where people get angry about all of this cheating. If I had worked hard getting to a certain level by actually playing the game without any help, it would bother me if a friend kept bragging how much farther they got because of the cheat codes they used.
I know that some gaming systems are considering banning users by trying to eliminate cheating. I don’t think that’s necessary, I think people should be able to choose what they want to do, whether it involves cheating or not.
Hacking is also becoming a big issue in America, well, all over the world. In the movie, War Games, Matthew Broderick’s character is able to hack into the school’s computer from his home! He makes it seem so simple, perhaps it is for some technology savy folks. This is where issues come into play for people who have no knowledge about technical functionality. I don’t think it’s a big deal, you just don’t know what you’re missing. Some people are okay with playing games the normal way and beating all levels on your own. If people aren’t okay with that, they find some way to cheat or hack into the system.
I have mostly talked about negative ways where hacking comes into the picture, but there are actually some positive ways. The government is able to hack into our phone lines, computers, basically anything they want if we are suspected of terrorism. With this freedom, they have been able to catch criminals before they have committed the crime.
Our relationship with gaming and hacking shows a lot about our cultural connection to technology. We all want what we can’t have, and we do whatever we can to achieve it; like hacking into computer systems to change your grades, and cheating in games just to beat your friend. Hacking is become such a big part of our culture, and I think it will continue to keep on growing.
Monday, April 5, 2010
The Internet & its Policies....
Langdon Winner’s article, “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” really got me thinking. Before reading this excerpt I never really gave thought to thinking about the internet that way, but now I completely see where Winner is coming from. There is a lot to discuss when talking about politics and the internet; net neutrality, open source software, copyright, and the list goes on an on. I don’t think many internet users are aware of the politics taking place on the internet, or they don’t pay any attention to it.
People tend to think of the internet to be open to everyone, all opinions are welcome, an unlimited amount of websites; well at least that’s what I think. You can find anything on the internet and post anything you want, but there are websites out there that are discriminatory, perhaps they have a deal with another company. Like, Safari, perhaps. It’s the default browser I use on my Mac, but built into Safari in the upper right hand corner is the Google search. Why couldn’t it have been Bing, or Yahoo? They must have deal worked out, therefore Safari uses probably go to Google before trying any other search engine. I know I’m definitely a victim of that. I can guarantee my entire household doesn’t even realize which search engine they use, nor do they care. So Google wins because some Safari users just do what’s easiest, and the Google search engine is right at the top of the page.
Winner also goes on to discuss how the roads and bridges in Long Island were built so that buses weren’t able to drive on these highways – one of Robert Moses’ ideas. His reason for this was to satisfy his biased and racist attitude. He did this because most people that owned cars during his time were upper class whites, while the poor minorities had to ride the bus. Internet can be looked at in the same way, like I described above. While at this point it seems like there isn’t a lot of net neutrality out there, John Wu is fighting for the cause.
In Wu’s article, “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality,” brings up some very valid points. Wu doesn’t want the internet to turn into a capitalist structure, where the people with the most money are in charge. And I see where he’s coming from because it seems like everything else in our world is already run by capitalists, and the internet should be an escape from that. People should be allowed to post whatever they want and have the same capabilities as anyone else. Say the Apple website is much faster and easier to access than a smaller, unknown website. This isn’t how the internet is supposed to work. Everyone should have an equal say and equal access.
In class, we also discussed cyber-bullying that takes place on the Internet, fortunately something I haven’t encountered in my life. I didn’t even realize how big of a deal bullying was on the internet because I don’t participate in many forums where you can post anonymously. I am aware of Formspring though; the recent phenomenon, that seems to appeal mostly to high school kids. I would never create a Formspring because you are asking for trouble right off the bat. People are encouraged to ask anything they would like, which may include some form of bullying, such as “Why are you so ugly, why do you wear those clothes, you are too fat,” and so on. Although some people ask legitimate questions, most questions I have seen are there to cause problems. Because people can post these comments and questions anonymously, they tend to hold nothing back. The user can’t trace the question back to anyone. One benefit with other social networking sites as Facebook and Twitter is that you can’t post anything anonymously. You have an account that you maintain, and you used to have to have a college e-mail in order to join Facebook, which I thought was a great idea because it was originally for college students to keep in touch. Although some of these policies have loosened on Facebook, it is still a great place to keep in touch with each other, without the fear of cyber bullying.
There is so much to think about when it comes to these topics. I could continue to go on and on about them. I hope the future of the Internet and its politics doesn’t go too far because I believe everyone should have a fair say. The internet is one of the only ways where anyone can say what they want to say and have anyone in the world read it. If that right became limited, well, it just wouldn’t be right.
People tend to think of the internet to be open to everyone, all opinions are welcome, an unlimited amount of websites; well at least that’s what I think. You can find anything on the internet and post anything you want, but there are websites out there that are discriminatory, perhaps they have a deal with another company. Like, Safari, perhaps. It’s the default browser I use on my Mac, but built into Safari in the upper right hand corner is the Google search. Why couldn’t it have been Bing, or Yahoo? They must have deal worked out, therefore Safari uses probably go to Google before trying any other search engine. I know I’m definitely a victim of that. I can guarantee my entire household doesn’t even realize which search engine they use, nor do they care. So Google wins because some Safari users just do what’s easiest, and the Google search engine is right at the top of the page.
Winner also goes on to discuss how the roads and bridges in Long Island were built so that buses weren’t able to drive on these highways – one of Robert Moses’ ideas. His reason for this was to satisfy his biased and racist attitude. He did this because most people that owned cars during his time were upper class whites, while the poor minorities had to ride the bus. Internet can be looked at in the same way, like I described above. While at this point it seems like there isn’t a lot of net neutrality out there, John Wu is fighting for the cause.
In Wu’s article, “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality,” brings up some very valid points. Wu doesn’t want the internet to turn into a capitalist structure, where the people with the most money are in charge. And I see where he’s coming from because it seems like everything else in our world is already run by capitalists, and the internet should be an escape from that. People should be allowed to post whatever they want and have the same capabilities as anyone else. Say the Apple website is much faster and easier to access than a smaller, unknown website. This isn’t how the internet is supposed to work. Everyone should have an equal say and equal access.
In class, we also discussed cyber-bullying that takes place on the Internet, fortunately something I haven’t encountered in my life. I didn’t even realize how big of a deal bullying was on the internet because I don’t participate in many forums where you can post anonymously. I am aware of Formspring though; the recent phenomenon, that seems to appeal mostly to high school kids. I would never create a Formspring because you are asking for trouble right off the bat. People are encouraged to ask anything they would like, which may include some form of bullying, such as “Why are you so ugly, why do you wear those clothes, you are too fat,” and so on. Although some people ask legitimate questions, most questions I have seen are there to cause problems. Because people can post these comments and questions anonymously, they tend to hold nothing back. The user can’t trace the question back to anyone. One benefit with other social networking sites as Facebook and Twitter is that you can’t post anything anonymously. You have an account that you maintain, and you used to have to have a college e-mail in order to join Facebook, which I thought was a great idea because it was originally for college students to keep in touch. Although some of these policies have loosened on Facebook, it is still a great place to keep in touch with each other, without the fear of cyber bullying.
There is so much to think about when it comes to these topics. I could continue to go on and on about them. I hope the future of the Internet and its politics doesn’t go too far because I believe everyone should have a fair say. The internet is one of the only ways where anyone can say what they want to say and have anyone in the world read it. If that right became limited, well, it just wouldn’t be right.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Databases; What Would We Do Without Them?
Before databases, there was the narrative structure traditional media. Now that we have databases, we can find everything easier, and not only on the internet. In our minds we sort things like a database. We put our sweaters in one drawer, jeans in another. Some of us alphabetize our CDs and DVDs, which is something that a database would do. All websites can be looked at as a form of a database, while this was not the case many years ago.
With the narrative structure, it was harder to categorize and find things without a database. I think this new form of media is very beneficial to everyone. The narrative structure served as a storyline for different types of media and news stories in regards to where they came from and the story behind them. Like one of my classmates said, I think it is important to consider where different types of media (books, newspaper articles) originate from. It isn't always necessary to know about the author but sometimes it does give the piece of literature a new meaning.
With this new medium we now have databases on website like CNN, Twitter, and YouTube. When logging onto these websites there are different categories to choose from when trying to find what you are looking for. On Twitter, for example, if you were interested in hearing what other people had to say about the Academy Awards, you would be able to click on a category about the Oscars, or even other categories like the fashion at the awards. Twitter also uses the "#" sign to put in front of a word(s) so that one will be able to search for something like "#valentinesday" and there will be a bunch of posts that show up about people who are talking about Valentine's Day. News stories are categorized on websites like CNN, or even Perez Hilton. Perez Hilton (a blogger who dishes dirt on celebrities and is my guilty pleasure) even has his blog entries categorized into either an even that happened, or the celebrity that the story is about. You are able to go back and look at stories from years ago that you are interested in.
People are able to use databases to their advantage everyday. A variety of people post their pictures online, perhaps using Photobucket or Flickr. When doing this you are able to categorize your pictures, maybe by the date, who is in the picture, or what object the picture contains. Without the invention of databases, we wouldn’t even be able to write research papers or projects. Well, we might be able to but it would be a lot more complicated. We wouldn’t have the luxury of sitting at home on our computers looking up articles on a database.
With the narrative structure, it was harder to categorize and find things without a database. I think this new form of media is very beneficial to everyone. The narrative structure served as a storyline for different types of media and news stories in regards to where they came from and the story behind them. Like one of my classmates said, I think it is important to consider where different types of media (books, newspaper articles) originate from. It isn't always necessary to know about the author but sometimes it does give the piece of literature a new meaning.
With this new medium we now have databases on website like CNN, Twitter, and YouTube. When logging onto these websites there are different categories to choose from when trying to find what you are looking for. On Twitter, for example, if you were interested in hearing what other people had to say about the Academy Awards, you would be able to click on a category about the Oscars, or even other categories like the fashion at the awards. Twitter also uses the "#" sign to put in front of a word(s) so that one will be able to search for something like "#valentinesday" and there will be a bunch of posts that show up about people who are talking about Valentine's Day. News stories are categorized on websites like CNN, or even Perez Hilton. Perez Hilton (a blogger who dishes dirt on celebrities and is my guilty pleasure) even has his blog entries categorized into either an even that happened, or the celebrity that the story is about. You are able to go back and look at stories from years ago that you are interested in.
People are able to use databases to their advantage everyday. A variety of people post their pictures online, perhaps using Photobucket or Flickr. When doing this you are able to categorize your pictures, maybe by the date, who is in the picture, or what object the picture contains. Without the invention of databases, we wouldn’t even be able to write research papers or projects. Well, we might be able to but it would be a lot more complicated. We wouldn’t have the luxury of sitting at home on our computers looking up articles on a database.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The Culture Industry: Standardization or Diversification?
In The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, written by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, discusses how popular culture is standardized. In their opinion different outlets of media contribute to the idea where standardization helps shape society. The culture industry provides a form of entertainment, usually containing what all of the people want. Today we are now being introduced to pop culture, which is enforced by radio, magazines, television and other popular media outlets. Because of this idea of mass media, people are being controlled by the capitalist society.
The radio is discussed as, “turn[ing] all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same.” Although this isn’t exactly the case anymore, there is still some form of standardization. There are numerous radio stations today, and some are independent or college radio stations. With these types of stations you can listen to an alternative type of music rather than pop stations. But, you aren’t the only one listening to these stations. You may feel like an individual but there are actually a lot of other people listening to the same radio station as you.
Blogs, forums, and other forms of interactive media are becoming a more popular way to communicate. With this form of communication you are allowed to post comments, perhaps after an article. You are able to talk to people all over the world, some you may not know, and voicing your opinion and any other input you would like to share. Some may think that with this new form of technology, our culture is no longer a form of standardization. On the contrary, I still believe it is. If you think about Facebook (almost everyone has one) and Twitter, we control what we want to say/post. But, we don’t actually control the website. We may think we are unique because we have our own Facebook, but everyone else out there has one too. It is hard to find someone who doesn’t have one. We can also create websites, but so can anyone else.
With this new form of communication, I think it is a step forward to individuality, but I don’t think we will ever be complete individuals on the internet. We can control the way our blogs, Facebook, and Twitter look like, but that is only a small piece where the standardization actually diversifies.
Adorno and Horkheimer state, “any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals.” So basically, when it came to broadcasting, people could not say whatever they wanted to. We still can’t say whatever we’d like to on film, but with blogs and forums, you have the option to say anything you would like, and people can actually read what you have to say. People are allowed to comment and respond to you with this form of interactive media. That was impossible with television and radio, you could try to reach out and state your opinion, but other people usually did not hear it.
So, with this new interactive way of communication on the internet, things have definitely changed since the past. Definitely for the better, in my opinion. Although we still are being looked at as just another person on Twitter, we can now say what we feel. The internet will always be controlling us with its standardized ways, but at least we can express the way we feel about it.
The radio is discussed as, “turn[ing] all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same.” Although this isn’t exactly the case anymore, there is still some form of standardization. There are numerous radio stations today, and some are independent or college radio stations. With these types of stations you can listen to an alternative type of music rather than pop stations. But, you aren’t the only one listening to these stations. You may feel like an individual but there are actually a lot of other people listening to the same radio station as you.
Blogs, forums, and other forms of interactive media are becoming a more popular way to communicate. With this form of communication you are allowed to post comments, perhaps after an article. You are able to talk to people all over the world, some you may not know, and voicing your opinion and any other input you would like to share. Some may think that with this new form of technology, our culture is no longer a form of standardization. On the contrary, I still believe it is. If you think about Facebook (almost everyone has one) and Twitter, we control what we want to say/post. But, we don’t actually control the website. We may think we are unique because we have our own Facebook, but everyone else out there has one too. It is hard to find someone who doesn’t have one. We can also create websites, but so can anyone else.
With this new form of communication, I think it is a step forward to individuality, but I don’t think we will ever be complete individuals on the internet. We can control the way our blogs, Facebook, and Twitter look like, but that is only a small piece where the standardization actually diversifies.
Adorno and Horkheimer state, “any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals.” So basically, when it came to broadcasting, people could not say whatever they wanted to. We still can’t say whatever we’d like to on film, but with blogs and forums, you have the option to say anything you would like, and people can actually read what you have to say. People are allowed to comment and respond to you with this form of interactive media. That was impossible with television and radio, you could try to reach out and state your opinion, but other people usually did not hear it.
So, with this new interactive way of communication on the internet, things have definitely changed since the past. Definitely for the better, in my opinion. Although we still are being looked at as just another person on Twitter, we can now say what we feel. The internet will always be controlling us with its standardized ways, but at least we can express the way we feel about it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
The Role Aura Plays in Media Today
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin discusses the idea of “aura.” Benjamin defines aura as uniqueness, and refers to the authenticity and originality that pieces of art contain. Even with the introduction of film, photography and the computer, aura still plays an important role in pop culture today.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” This is something that lacks in art today, it is hard to find aura when almost everything is being duplicated and there is no “original” copy. When talking about a photographic negative, no one asks for the authentic print because numerous prints can be copied and will all contain the original negative. Because lots of new media can be copied without a problem, aura is even harder to find than in the past.
People travel to museums and art galleries all across the world to get a glimpse at original pieces of artwork. Why is that? It is because of the aura. If you were to look at a copy of the Mona Lisa on your computer, it wouldn’t be the same if you were to see it in person. When reproducing art, the time period and space where it was created is lost. Art can have a different meaning if you were to view the original in comparison to a replica.
When watching a performance in person, the stage actor is presented to the public in person, but a screen actor is presented by a camera. The camera can change its position and can use special camera angles and close-ups. If you were to watch an actor in person, on a stage, you would not see the different angles presented by the camera. Once the camera (film), is introduced, the aura is not there. You would see the performance presented in a very different way if you were to compare the film and original performance.
Machinima is the use of three-dimensional graphics usually taken from video games that are used to create storylines and additional videos by fans. When machinima is made it is not the original video game, suggesting that the aura has decayed. But, one would also think that the aura is not lost because the original art is still being used, just in a different way. A new form of media is being created here, which can also suggest that a new aura may be formed.
For example, avid media consumers are creating fan fictions daily. When creating a fan fiction, the original characters and settings are usually used, but the storyline changes. People often create these if something does not go the way they want in the form of media they are watching. If watching a television show, one may want a relationship to happen that doesn’t work out, but instead create a fan fiction where these two characters are together.
Today, art seems to be almost always duplicated. It may be hard to find art in its original state because new forms of media keep emerging. Photography, film and the computer have affected ways that art can be produced and how aura can be created or destroyed.
“Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be.” This is something that lacks in art today, it is hard to find aura when almost everything is being duplicated and there is no “original” copy. When talking about a photographic negative, no one asks for the authentic print because numerous prints can be copied and will all contain the original negative. Because lots of new media can be copied without a problem, aura is even harder to find than in the past.
People travel to museums and art galleries all across the world to get a glimpse at original pieces of artwork. Why is that? It is because of the aura. If you were to look at a copy of the Mona Lisa on your computer, it wouldn’t be the same if you were to see it in person. When reproducing art, the time period and space where it was created is lost. Art can have a different meaning if you were to view the original in comparison to a replica.
When watching a performance in person, the stage actor is presented to the public in person, but a screen actor is presented by a camera. The camera can change its position and can use special camera angles and close-ups. If you were to watch an actor in person, on a stage, you would not see the different angles presented by the camera. Once the camera (film), is introduced, the aura is not there. You would see the performance presented in a very different way if you were to compare the film and original performance.
Machinima is the use of three-dimensional graphics usually taken from video games that are used to create storylines and additional videos by fans. When machinima is made it is not the original video game, suggesting that the aura has decayed. But, one would also think that the aura is not lost because the original art is still being used, just in a different way. A new form of media is being created here, which can also suggest that a new aura may be formed.
For example, avid media consumers are creating fan fictions daily. When creating a fan fiction, the original characters and settings are usually used, but the storyline changes. People often create these if something does not go the way they want in the form of media they are watching. If watching a television show, one may want a relationship to happen that doesn’t work out, but instead create a fan fiction where these two characters are together.
Today, art seems to be almost always duplicated. It may be hard to find art in its original state because new forms of media keep emerging. Photography, film and the computer have affected ways that art can be produced and how aura can be created or destroyed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)