Better Late Than Never?

I'm sorry to post so late, guys. This assignment ended up taking way longer than I'd anticipated. But enough of my whining:

Manovich’s most basic principle of new media language is based on its programmability, defined and manipulated entirely with mathematical functions, what the author terms numerical representation. There’s nothing new about representational media—early examples include 30,000 year-old cave paintings found in France and Spain, and grave goods dating to the Middle Paleolithic period. What’s relatively new are the technologies capable of rendering images, sounds, and texts that predate digital programmability into algorithms. Manovich describes some “old” representational media as the rendering of continuous action that carves a defined composition from a larger medium, such as chipping away stone with hammer and chisel or framing light through aperture and exposure. New media linguists (artists and/or programmers) convert continuous data into numerical units by first translating it into discrete units, a process called sampling, then rendering the data mathematically, called quantification. Manovich assumes that most post-Industrial Revolution representational media have facilitated digitalization by combining continuous and discrete data. As one who writes (sometimes), I was immediately sold on the miraculous benefits of word processing, e.g., cutting and pasting, editing on the fly… OK, word processing didn’t necessarily speed up the writing process for me (I’m the slowest writer on the planet), but I like to think it has improved the product.

Manovich’s second principle describes the modularity of sampled and quantified data, as new media objects are made up of smaller parts that can be manipulated separately using various software applications. Another example of modularity the author cites is the World Wide Web itself, made up of countless web pages, each of which can be viewed independently of the rest. The analogy can also be extended to operating systems, which are composed of code modules that carry out discrete functions in given sequences; however, the analogy breaks down on consideration that an operating system won’t run if a module is removed or corrupted, as Microsoft Windows users can attest. I’ve seen modularity’s significance most pointedly in my experience using online platforms to put together and teach online courses. Again, online platforms didn’t necessarily make teaching easier—in fact, I think teaching online is more difficult than face-to-face—but I like the increased access and flexibility it offers students.

On the basis of the first two principles, which Manovich describes as “material,” Manovich derives three “logical” principles characteristic of new media objects (48). The first of these are lower-level automated operations used to generate or manipulate media objects in word- and image-processing software, and higher-level automated functions that drive artificial intelligence (AI) engines in simulation, virtual-reality, and gaming applications. While it’s intriguing to think of computer-generated characters learning and adjusting strategy in a game, Manovich points out that programmers accomplish this level of AI through severely restricting the types of interaction a user has with the characters. Such careful control of the user’s experience is reminiscent of stringent belief systems that predetermine users’ expectations in interacting with predefined tenets, producing self-contained logical loops. I’m not an online gamer so I haven’t experienced AI in that regard, but I have used publication software extensively in my periodic bouts with professional writing and editing, and the automated operations available in programs like Quark and Acrobat beat the hell out of manual typewriters. Another aspect of automated operations that has been incredibly useful in my editing work is online research. Again—the technology is nothing short of miraculous.

The second logical principle characterizing new media objects is variability. As opposed to old media representations that are fixed and immutable, new media objects can be changed by virtue of their modularity. Access to databases through a variety of customizable interfaces further facilitates the elasticity of media objects, as do hyperlinking elements and downloading periodic software updates. Scalability is another aspect of variability; the example Manovich cites is zooming in and out on maps and other images, which often induces changes in resolution as well. Along with increasing users’ power to create distinct representations, these aspects of changeability also increase the responsibility of users’ own decision making in the process of creating and manipulating digital media objects. While the increased responsibility may intimidate some users, I assume many more welcome it. A similar dynamic in the class room comes to mind—what we call collaborative learning methods that shift the burden of the instructor transferring knowledge through lecture to students working together to reach a deeper understanding of the concepts at hand. As for my personal experience with variability, one platform that comes to mind is Google Earth, which I love. My most memorable excursion was revisiting my very favorite spot in the Sierras where I used to backpack and camp and fish with my dad!

Manovich qualifies his purpose, audience, and genre in his discussion of his third logical principle, transcoding old and new representations. To me, this is the most interesting part of the chapter, in which the author identifies two distinct sets of dimensions—those of culture and computer—and constructs the theoretical framework for describing what happens when the two sets merge, and each layer influences ongoing variability in the other. This is where the author’s computer-programming background comes to the fore, and he sets his course by the guiding concepts of programmability, Interface, and database to explore the “more general process of cultural reconceptualization” (47). I love how he contextualizes new media with the old (specifically, cinematic), demonstrating dramatically that the new didn’t appear magically in a vacuum ca. 1990, and I found Manovich’s historical background (“How Media Became New”) especially fascinating.

I have to admit that I approached the book skeptical that our culture’s computerization would change us in any appreciable way other than speeding up the cycle of cultural trends, but I find the author’s approach balanced and credible, and while I’m still skeptical, I’m willing and able to keep an open mind while we see where all this is headed. Are we witnessing a redefining of what it means to be human? Does our capacity to sample and quantify quotidian behaviors obviate humans who excel at quotidian behaviors? How far do we want to see artificial intelligence represent human experience? To what extent can neural biochemical reactions be sampled and quantified? Are we prepared to see the erstwhile abortions through?

Don't you love it when scholars make up new terms?

My title is a little tongue-in-cheek. I always roll my eyes when I read English texts where scholars make up their own definitions for common words or make up their own words for ideas that already have words...all with the result of pulling their reader through a vocabulary matrix and long, winding definition-paragraphs. (Rather, I get annoyed when they do it unnecessarily or when they do it ineffectively.)

Manovitch has winding definition-paragraphs, but the section I'm going to paraphrase below was well done. Manovitch's prose (while it tends to wander more and more as the document goes on) is actually pretty clear to read. The words he chooses to describe the principles of new media are aptly chosen and build off the reader's intuitive understanding of the word without falling away from the definition.

Let's start with the Numerical Representation of new media objects. As his first principle, Manovitch points out that all new media objects can be represented as numerical data. All of it, every image, video, web page, disk, text document, etc., can be reduced to those little ones and zeroes we use to transfer information from one computing machine to another. This is the core of new media, the principle that allows most (if not all) of its functionality and social consequences to exist: every new media object was created using, or can be translated into, a universal language.

An example of this might be a handwritten document I scan into a computer. The document wasn't created on a computer, its lines and nuances weren't originally sampled or digitized using binary code. But as soon as I scan it into my computer, I could look at the numerical representation of that object (or have my computer look at it) and manipulate the document using the numerical data. This allows me to do precise, over-arching, and algorithmic edits on the image, like changing the color of the ink I used without rewriting or erasing the text.

A very similar principle to numerical representation is the Modularity of new media texts that Manovitch describes. Basically, digital or digitized documents have a structure where individual elements of an object are stored individually, instead of being fused with the whole. With new media, we've built legos out of smaller legos, out of smaller legos, out of smaller legos, and all the layers of legos can be shifted around and modified to change the whole piece.

My brother-in-law showed us a video this weekend of a clip from Star Wars. (I'm sure some of you have seen it by now.) It's the scene where the characters are being awarded medals for their heroics...only someone took the music away. Although the video still functions and isn't broken, the experience of watching the scene is quite different without the dramatic song playing in the background. The only sound you hear is Chewy growling, and it sounds like he's being tortured...

Now, if you have an overwhelming supply of information and objects that can be manipulated mathematically and divided into thousands of layers of component parts, this allows you to automate some aspects of new media creation. Automation, as Manovitch points out, is another defining principle of new media. It allows artists to simplify and magnify new media objects using simple and higher forms of automation.

Minecraft terrain generation is a great example of this automation. Sometimes I love just wandering and wandering for hours through an amplified Minecraft world, admiring the majestic cliffs, deep cave systems, and villages that are half-submerged in lava. None of this was sculpted or crafted by an individual. All of it comes from algorithms that randomize the generation of cubes of different materials.

 Memes are a simple but fitting example of Manovitch's principle of Variability. A new media object has the capacity for infinite alteration; it is not static. Taking a picture and adding or changing the text on it to suit the moment or to make a statement about the original picture/text is a great example of this. This behavior goes viral, and soon there are hundreds (or thousands) of variations of that original new media object.

And last, we have Manovitch's principle of Transcoding, which is basically to say that there are (at least) two categories for the coding of new media objects; new media can be interacted with through its cultural interface or its computer interface. Manovitch's commentary about the mixing of these two codes is interesting. Over time, they are becoming less separate as people become more familiar with computer code and workings. I don't think they'll ever meld together seemlessly, but it's an interesting thing to think about.

A great example of this transcoding is the text editors blog building sites use. (Like the one I'm working in right now.) I can create a post without actually typing a single bit of html code. Or I can go in and manipulate the exact presentation of the culturally-understood-and-derived text by working with the html and css, a coding system created for computers specifically.

Of all these principles, I think the principle of transcoding is a very influential drive in the computerization of our culture. As soon as you start thinking and using code as part of your natural vocabulary, the other principles start coming even more naturally. And many of our young generations grow up learning computer code because it allows them to manipulate many parts of their environment in a bigger way.

The Internet has much Ji--and also much Toh

This is a fairly rambling train of thought, playing with some concepts related to our first blog post assignment:

The greatest gift the internet has given us is also one of the greatest threats to educational, copyright, and publishing institutions--or at least, a threat to  institutions of this kind that hold a dominant status based on old custom and tradition, a dominant status that offers them profit and power. This gift is the (comparatively) cost-free sharing of all the world's knowledge, literature, and art. In a world where the internet is used to its highest advantage for human kind, elaborate and expensive institutions are not needed for the distribution and micromanagement of learning. Middle men are largely done away with and so lose power over their traffic and the market. Basically, the internet allows us to learn things without an inflated price tag. It allows us all the potential of becoming Renaissance men, masters of many trades. It allows precious information and highly valued creations (such as art and literature) to extend their reach beyond anything previous generations dreamed of.

One of the problems the internet has created for us is the fight between pre and post-internet concepts and stances. People, organizations, websites, etc. can take advantage of new technologies to make their information more expansive and more correct, as Wikipedia tries to do (and succeeds, a lot of the time). This allows for the growth of individuals, culture, and civilizations. Alternatively, people can ignore or half-use the internet as a place to find this information (and didactically abuse it to the next generation in hopes that they too will ignore it). This creates a stagnation of culture, individuals, and civilizations and withholds from the internet (and thus the greater part of the world and its peoples) some of the great resources and knowledges that could better reach the next generation in this form. Or, people can use the internet without a sense of obligation or an understanding of its advantages and dilute the plethora of great information available, causing the dissemination of misinformation to abound and heap itself upon the masses.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

The best thing about the internet is increased access to information, but whether it proves to be a net positive depends on who controls access to the internet. If you’re a citizen of China or Iran, you have good cause to worry about government control of the internet. If you’re a US citizen, you can worry about your political representatives’ political will to protect your access against the interests of corporate monopolies. In the meantime, we can all worry about the wolves, lone or not, that gain access to our most deeply held account information.
It’s a traditional struggle here, there, and everywhere the internet extends its magical trust in the faith of humanity, and the FCC has given the industry a lot of leeway since birth. As we try to balance intellectual property and civil rights, how far will the pendulum swing?

It’s not that I’m not a dedicated consumer. One of the most exciting days of my life was when the shoe skates I’d ordered from the Sears catalog arrived in the mail, after I’d allowed, as per the disclaimer on the order sheet, 6-8 weeks for delivery. Who was I to complain? I was a nine-year-old looking up at the moon Neil Armstrong had just taken his small step onto. Fast-forward to August 2014, and I had to wait two days with free delivery for my text books for this course. Next thing we know, amazon.com will populate a delivery drone with selections from a wish list I'd never actually considered actionable. I hope this all works out for the best, but I’m no card-carrying positivist.

Absolute Knowledge Corrupts Absolutely!

So here is my first official post:

What do you feel is the biggest positive change the prevalence and dominance of the internet has brought to culture or everyday life? 

In my digital literacy autobiography, I claimed that the ability to exceed the knowledge of our predecessors was the most positive effect of technological advances with computers and the internet. That is to say, people can learn new skills and information faster and more efficiently online, or spend their time posting pictures of their cats, but the potential to self improve exists. The internet also allows that information to be accessible between various members of an organization or company. In the field of medicine, being able to have quick access to information is potentially life-saving. The internet has also allowed for a better and more complete collection of records.  The internet also preserves pictures and important family artifacts better over time, than having a physical copy does.

Contrarily, what do you feel is the biggest new cultural/social problem that has come with the internet? 

Just as in the days before the internet, people will often use positive things for negative purposes. To be more specific, the far-reaching grasp of the internet's access to information gives people with negative intentions the opportunity to invade the privacy of others and use that information to slander or extort others. In addition, the anonymity afforded to people on the internet has created a sphere of communication where people can express their worst thoughts toward someone else.

New Design

Hey my lovely team,

So I decided to give our blog some style, if you absolutely hate it just let me know and we can do something else. The idea behind the changes are this: since our blog title is a reference to the matrix I tried to make the style of the blog reflect that homage; I changed the font to something that looked more simple and digital to reflect computer console typeface, that is also sans serif, for readability. However, we could change the titles to a serif font to make it look fancier and if it feels like the blog could use some contrast in typeface, which right now is only being accomplished by bolding. I also understand the subscribe link at the bottom is hard to read but I tried a number of colors and everything looked equally as indiscernible. I would have just added a background on it like I did with blog title but that was not in option in the advanced settings unfortunately. Maybe one of you that is smarter than me could figure that out. Lastly, I know I am not required to respond to your introduction post but I am going to anyway because I figure that we are a group for the whole semester so we might as well be friends :) Or, at least be blog friends. Okay, I lied about the last lastly. Truly-lastly, sorry if I am taking too much control with the blog, I don't mean to put myself in any position of authority or leadership and if I am already annoying you feel free to take that role. Thanks, Jason

I knew David Carradine, and you, Senator, are no David Carradine

Dean Huffaker here: My favorite website is WashingtonPost.com, believe it or not. I know that sounds dull, but I haven't yet attained the extent of digital literacy needed to pin my identity to my favorite website. In fact, you'd probably consider me a complete Luddite based on the following character traits:

* I own no cell phone.
* I've never blogged a day in my life.
* I'm not on Twitter, Facebook, or Google Plus.
* I did my graduate research from a card catalog in a physical library.

Questions? Comments? Go ahead. Make my day.