Blog Post #1
In chapter twelve of the Participatory Culture Handbook, attention is focused to blogging and the assets that it has for society. Blogging has allowed for interaction between people from all over the world, creating a culture unlike one that has been seen before.
An interesting example of this used is that of Sim City, which is not technically blogging, but does involve the interaction between people from across the world. The game allows people to make things and sell them to other people no matter what their location, creating a sense of community across the globe. However, the use of Sim City has led to people creating blogs about the game, which is interesting because it further allows them to connect with people outside of the game about the game. I think this is interesting because not only does it allow people all across the world to communicate outside of the game, it allows for people to expand their knowledge of the game and find more enjoyment about the game outside of the game. This is important because it creates a better sense of community inside the game, where there are a group of passionate people inside the game, but those same people are interacting outside of the game creating their own community, both about the game and about whatever else they feel is important. This allows people to find relationships in places they would have previously been unable to because of geographical boundaries, which is something no other generation has yet to see. While the game itself is an important facet of the conversation, it is the conversation outside of the game that is proving to be the most important, where people are blogging and building their own community based on their similar interest, something that is unheard of previously.
Another interesting note from this chapter is the idea that blogging has become another fad that will soon leave the public consciousness. While that may be the case, I think blogging gives enough substantial knowledge to be important enough to stay around. There have been so many different iterations of blogging already, from LiveJournal to Tumblr to WordPress, all of which provide unique and valuable information to users, that to think that blogging is just a fad seems farfetched. It’s also mentioned in this discussion that those who are taking part in these blogging sites are walking about with information about website design and coding that they would have not gotten anywhere else, which is a skill that is becoming more and more valuable in today’s society. While there is a community behind all of these sites, there is also valuable knowledge to be learned, which is why I think blogging will stand the test of time in at least some form. Blogging has also allowed for other types of communication to be created, such as “vlogging”, the YouTube equivalent of blogging. Without these initial ways of blogging, there would be no evolution of the media, and the evolution has created some of the most valuable social media websites of our generation (YouTube, Twitter, etc.). This alone gives the impression that blogging will remain a valuable part of society in some form, and as the media expands so will everything involved with it.
An interesting example of this used is that of Sim City, which is not technically blogging, but does involve the interaction between people from across the world. The game allows people to make things and sell them to other people no matter what their location, creating a sense of community across the globe. However, the use of Sim City has led to people creating blogs about the game, which is interesting because it further allows them to connect with people outside of the game about the game. I think this is interesting because not only does it allow people all across the world to communicate outside of the game, it allows for people to expand their knowledge of the game and find more enjoyment about the game outside of the game. This is important because it creates a better sense of community inside the game, where there are a group of passionate people inside the game, but those same people are interacting outside of the game creating their own community, both about the game and about whatever else they feel is important. This allows people to find relationships in places they would have previously been unable to because of geographical boundaries, which is something no other generation has yet to see. While the game itself is an important facet of the conversation, it is the conversation outside of the game that is proving to be the most important, where people are blogging and building their own community based on their similar interest, something that is unheard of previously.
Another interesting note from this chapter is the idea that blogging has become another fad that will soon leave the public consciousness. While that may be the case, I think blogging gives enough substantial knowledge to be important enough to stay around. There have been so many different iterations of blogging already, from LiveJournal to Tumblr to WordPress, all of which provide unique and valuable information to users, that to think that blogging is just a fad seems farfetched. It’s also mentioned in this discussion that those who are taking part in these blogging sites are walking about with information about website design and coding that they would have not gotten anywhere else, which is a skill that is becoming more and more valuable in today’s society. While there is a community behind all of these sites, there is also valuable knowledge to be learned, which is why I think blogging will stand the test of time in at least some form. Blogging has also allowed for other types of communication to be created, such as “vlogging”, the YouTube equivalent of blogging. Without these initial ways of blogging, there would be no evolution of the media, and the evolution has created some of the most valuable social media websites of our generation (YouTube, Twitter, etc.). This alone gives the impression that blogging will remain a valuable part of society in some form, and as the media expands so will everything involved with it.
Blog Post #2
In chapter twenty-three of the Participatory Culture Handbook, access to computers for current inmates of a juvenile prison is heavily discussed. The discussion of if they should even have access to computers is brought up, the fear that they could use them to release their rage instead of grow their knowledge of the world while being in a juvenile prison. However, I think it’s smart what has been set up, giving them access to the internet and computers to interact with people and continue to be creative even though they are in a juvenile prison. With the precautions in place, such as not allowing them to use their own name for their username and monitoring the sites they visit, I think that there is enough to keep those in the juvenile prison to express themselves as they see fit, without worrying if they are crossing boundaries that would get them in trouble in the juvenile prison.
Another interesting thing that is brought up in the chapter is the idea of forcing them to remain anonymous versus allowing them to still express themselves. This creates an interesting debate because obviously the goal is to allow those using the system being described to express themselves in order for them truly experience what they want on the internet, and hopefully allow them to express themselves in more positive ways than they previously had. However, this does create understandable concern because if those in the juvenile prison do express themselves to the full extent, it could end up getting them in trouble once they leave the prison, something that goes against everything the staff in the facility are trying to do. By doing whatever they want on the internet, it could create more enemies for them to address when they are released, thus they would land back in some sort of prison, which is not the goal. I think that there is a line between the two that creates a situation for all involved that they can be comfortable with. For those in the juvenile prison, they have to accept their feelings and not allow them to be exposed onto the internet out of necessity upon their release. For the staff of the juvenile prison, they have to set up a monitoring system for the activity that those in the juvenile prison are taking part in on the internet, but the staff also has to allow them to have some sort of creativity online if they want them to use the internet because it requires it.
Overall, I think the idea that those in a juvenile prison are able to access the internet and talk and work with others outside of the prison is great. It allows them to not lose their creativity while they are at the facility, and allows them to see how people outside of the juvenile prison think, hopefully leading them to think like those people upon their release. While there are a lot of concerns with this idea, I think that for those in a juvenile prison to be able to not end up in a real prison upon their release, they need to see healthy ways to channel their energy, and this is a great start. As long as there is some sort of monitoring system in place so they are not violating their sentences, I think this is going to become more and more necessary as the internet and technology becomes a staple of society, meaning that for those in the juvenile prison to stay up to date upon release, they have to explore these types of outlets for them.
Another interesting thing that is brought up in the chapter is the idea of forcing them to remain anonymous versus allowing them to still express themselves. This creates an interesting debate because obviously the goal is to allow those using the system being described to express themselves in order for them truly experience what they want on the internet, and hopefully allow them to express themselves in more positive ways than they previously had. However, this does create understandable concern because if those in the juvenile prison do express themselves to the full extent, it could end up getting them in trouble once they leave the prison, something that goes against everything the staff in the facility are trying to do. By doing whatever they want on the internet, it could create more enemies for them to address when they are released, thus they would land back in some sort of prison, which is not the goal. I think that there is a line between the two that creates a situation for all involved that they can be comfortable with. For those in the juvenile prison, they have to accept their feelings and not allow them to be exposed onto the internet out of necessity upon their release. For the staff of the juvenile prison, they have to set up a monitoring system for the activity that those in the juvenile prison are taking part in on the internet, but the staff also has to allow them to have some sort of creativity online if they want them to use the internet because it requires it.
Overall, I think the idea that those in a juvenile prison are able to access the internet and talk and work with others outside of the prison is great. It allows them to not lose their creativity while they are at the facility, and allows them to see how people outside of the juvenile prison think, hopefully leading them to think like those people upon their release. While there are a lot of concerns with this idea, I think that for those in a juvenile prison to be able to not end up in a real prison upon their release, they need to see healthy ways to channel their energy, and this is a great start. As long as there is some sort of monitoring system in place so they are not violating their sentences, I think this is going to become more and more necessary as the internet and technology becomes a staple of society, meaning that for those in the juvenile prison to stay up to date upon release, they have to explore these types of outlets for them.
Blog Post #3
I found chapter eight of the Participatory Culture Handbook to be incredibly interesting, especially with it’s discussion of new media and how that new media has become a collaborative effort among viewers and creators. This is an interesting idea because it ignores all forms of copyright and royalties that are currently found in media, and allows for some incredible work to be made because of it. In this chapter, it talks about how this collaboration is currently not being looked at as legitimate because it is coming from so many different sources and the artistry can not be attributed to any one person. I think this is a great thing because it allows for the best work to be made. If someone has a great beat for a song but can’t think of lyrics to write for it, the culture allows for someone else to step in and create lyrics for them so that this beat doesn’t stop existing. This collaboration allows people to continue to work in their niche and have others help them get through everything else, which really will only make the future media using this method the best of its’ time.
There is special attention paid to web-based collaboration on poetry, where the authors of this chapter (Helen Burgess and Thomas Swiss) discuss their experience with the media. They discuss how this web-based collaboration on poetry created an environment for them to better understand their own work, hearing different interpretations of their work instantly. This allows for them to edit their work as they see fit in order to get across the meaning they intended with their work. I think this is great because it allows new material to be heard and interpreted by anyone who sees it online before it’s published, allowing the author of the work to make the work their best work, with the help of those in this online collaborative system. It also allows work to be published in different ways, where different iterations of work can show up anywhere depending on the specific interests of those working on the collaboration. This allows media to cross boundaries that it was previously not able to, such as someone who sees an article from a journal and create other forms of media from it, using the same ideas and collaborating with everyone on the work. This allows ownership and source material to be forgotten as a necessity, and the best work to shine from anywhere that it comes from.
Overall, I think that this idea of collaboration with new media is something that will only benefit those who are interested in whatever media is being created. This collaboration will allow those who are better at some things than others to not be hindered by their inabilities. I think that this will create some of the best work that has ever been created, allowing for more people to express themselves where they previously were not. While the question of ownership comes into play, especially if this type of new media continues to expand and becomes the norm, I think that there are going to be a lot of issues with ownership before there is a general rule regarding it. That rule may be whoever started the project owns the work or whoever contributes the most owns the work, but I’m not sure if there is one right answer for every situation, so it’s going to interesting to see this play out as more and more people begin to use collaboration on their work.
There is special attention paid to web-based collaboration on poetry, where the authors of this chapter (Helen Burgess and Thomas Swiss) discuss their experience with the media. They discuss how this web-based collaboration on poetry created an environment for them to better understand their own work, hearing different interpretations of their work instantly. This allows for them to edit their work as they see fit in order to get across the meaning they intended with their work. I think this is great because it allows new material to be heard and interpreted by anyone who sees it online before it’s published, allowing the author of the work to make the work their best work, with the help of those in this online collaborative system. It also allows work to be published in different ways, where different iterations of work can show up anywhere depending on the specific interests of those working on the collaboration. This allows media to cross boundaries that it was previously not able to, such as someone who sees an article from a journal and create other forms of media from it, using the same ideas and collaborating with everyone on the work. This allows ownership and source material to be forgotten as a necessity, and the best work to shine from anywhere that it comes from.
Overall, I think that this idea of collaboration with new media is something that will only benefit those who are interested in whatever media is being created. This collaboration will allow those who are better at some things than others to not be hindered by their inabilities. I think that this will create some of the best work that has ever been created, allowing for more people to express themselves where they previously were not. While the question of ownership comes into play, especially if this type of new media continues to expand and becomes the norm, I think that there are going to be a lot of issues with ownership before there is a general rule regarding it. That rule may be whoever started the project owns the work or whoever contributes the most owns the work, but I’m not sure if there is one right answer for every situation, so it’s going to interesting to see this play out as more and more people begin to use collaboration on their work.
Blog Post #4
I struggled heavily with the Wark reading, not exactly sure where he was going half the time and failing to understand a lot of his arguments. I felt like the book was written for people who already agree with his ideas and just want further proof why they believe what they do. Considering a large majority of the population are not made up of the extreme leftists that Wark described, I think his book was mainly targeting those who make up that demographic and really had no concern for those outside of that field.
From the beginning of his book with the discussion of the Chinese, there felt as though there was very little substance, but rather just a walkthrough of the history of leftists. While I could see where some of his arguments were going, I don’t think he fully made his point, especially with the Situationists, which seems unnecessary to discuss.
However, from his work I think the most interesting thing I was able to take away was the concept of spectacles, which is relatable to the concept of participatory culture. The concentrated spectacle is important to participatory culture because it creates the idea of the attention all being placed upon one facet of something. For example, dictators who want the attention all on them, such as Kim Jong-Un, who controls every form of media in his country. This allows him to create whatever image he wants of himself, which he creates a very idealistic image of himself and how the country is running. This is interesting because for someone to control the media in a country, they are simultaneously controlling how people participate in society. If people are not allowed to access the media that they want to access, they are cut off from that outlet, creating a skewed sense of what the culture is interested in and what they are able to create. The opposing view to this is the diffused spectacle, which allows the spectacle to not control everything and allow everyone in the society this takes place in to express themselves however they see fit without worrying that they will be oppressed because of it. An example of this can be seen in the United States, where we are given the freedom of speech, which allows us to create whatever media we feel important enough to create without a higher power controlling it. This allowed for movements like the Occupy Wall Street movement to become a thing with such a heavy media presence, because people were not told what they could and could not create.
While I don’t think most of Wark’s book is easily accessible, I can see its relationship to participatory culture through the ideas of different spectacles. However, I think much of the relationship ends there, Wark pandering to the extreme leftists of history rather than looking at how all groups came together to create change and what motivated these groups to do so.
From the beginning of his book with the discussion of the Chinese, there felt as though there was very little substance, but rather just a walkthrough of the history of leftists. While I could see where some of his arguments were going, I don’t think he fully made his point, especially with the Situationists, which seems unnecessary to discuss.
However, from his work I think the most interesting thing I was able to take away was the concept of spectacles, which is relatable to the concept of participatory culture. The concentrated spectacle is important to participatory culture because it creates the idea of the attention all being placed upon one facet of something. For example, dictators who want the attention all on them, such as Kim Jong-Un, who controls every form of media in his country. This allows him to create whatever image he wants of himself, which he creates a very idealistic image of himself and how the country is running. This is interesting because for someone to control the media in a country, they are simultaneously controlling how people participate in society. If people are not allowed to access the media that they want to access, they are cut off from that outlet, creating a skewed sense of what the culture is interested in and what they are able to create. The opposing view to this is the diffused spectacle, which allows the spectacle to not control everything and allow everyone in the society this takes place in to express themselves however they see fit without worrying that they will be oppressed because of it. An example of this can be seen in the United States, where we are given the freedom of speech, which allows us to create whatever media we feel important enough to create without a higher power controlling it. This allowed for movements like the Occupy Wall Street movement to become a thing with such a heavy media presence, because people were not told what they could and could not create.
While I don’t think most of Wark’s book is easily accessible, I can see its relationship to participatory culture through the ideas of different spectacles. However, I think much of the relationship ends there, Wark pandering to the extreme leftists of history rather than looking at how all groups came together to create change and what motivated these groups to do so.