The Dismal City

A dismal feeling is set in this dark city when the audience stares. A mood of a painting can say a lot for the picture that can give across a message to the viewer. The painting is told of how dark and dangerous this city can be. It drives a striking image to have the audience to rethink of why this city would be this way. It helps to start a story in a viewers mind that can't be told if the mood was different. The mood of painting is like an environment that the audience gets comfortable with when analyzing the picture. It is something that can not be replaced, but sets the stage for the painting.

Copyright Credit Link

Immediacy vs. Hypermediacy

People have a certain way on explaining how they look at art, and there can be media that influences how one experience this. Butler and Grusin talk about two categories on where these experiences can be categorized. The first of the two is Immediacy where it is the more realistic and one angled perception is taken. It is a very straightforward take of the image for example, photographs that are just taken in the moment. Now the other main category is Hypermediacy is where the media highlights realism for more intense experience. An example of this would be a person playing a video game that is set in World War Two where they know its not real, but provides on knowing many different angles of what happened in reality.

When Butler and Grusin use virtual reality references to help drive the Immediacy and Hypermediacy the terms they use can get misguided. The way they are describing how we view this perception on viewing art comes along with new terms to name it as. In their explanation there are some new terms they put that I feel I can not grasp the whole meaning they are putting out. Because I will cross it with an already present meaning that I know so the point they make is lost to me. Besides this point Butler and Grusin really brought out their point on how we perceive art in either Immediacy and Hypermediacy.

An article from Mediated Memories uses these two categories when comparing the physical and virtual space of a museum. A twist that is taken is how they use the same virtual image, but displayed in a window or full screen to show different degrees of immersion. The point the author is making is the object itself making the point of either being Immediacy or Hypermediacy. However, the author makes the clear point that these two categories reinforce each other when displaying this museum since Immediacy and Hypermediacy can as well go hand in hand. A point to make across of these two branches is how twisting perception can be separated points or entwined together.

Gap Between Free and $.01

Chris Anderson in his work Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business talks about businesses getting burned by the free method. Now Gillette razors example is used to show how much profit is sent out by giving freebies to people yet barely getting revenue back. Over time Gillette build its reputation and now a disposable razor became a craze that had the business booming. The key point Anderson was putting is that businesses are having to reinvent themselves on selling their products. Because the Internet has the public in strong favor of receiving free stuff, and not going for even low priced material.

Now here comes in Malcolm Gladwell with his entry of Priced To Sell where he as well mentions this free method. Gladwell explains that companies try a nice maneuver of selling next to nothing of products to consumers to gain a better profit. Now the other take on this free method is to not even put a price on the product, and let it be cost free. Gladwell takes towards selling next to nothing rather to Anderson's completely free. Gladwell wants more of a main product will be the cost while the extra expansions are free. For example, the Iphone is the payment where the "free apps" is cost free.

Gladwell and Anderson are arguing against each other yet there is a nice balance they have created. The creation is the platform for businesses using both these methods and meeting different successful ends. The Internet and the increasing of information is so fast that its hard for companies to create strategies to keep up with it. These writers are explaining how fluctuating the market concerning the Internet is because consumers are having more say now. Which has companies testing out methods never done before. It really comes down to having the flexibility to switch between free or "free".

copyright link

Author: The Ideal of One

Michel Foucault, wrote "What is an Author" which carries the point of "author function" where we put authors persona on a pedestal. It is hard to grasp this point from Foucalt's work since his writing can be on a deep level that has you to read it over more than once. My understanding with "author function" is how society can put such an impression concerning the name of a literary work that we forget that the connection is the tone with the text. Compared to the authors name and the tone being written in the literary work. Foucalt showed the point that we classify great works with the name of the work to the point the stories are categorized with the authors name rather than title of the literary work.

Now another point of Foucalt's that I couldn't quite grasp is how if society would get rid of this hold on an authors name then it would make us all free. That we as a public would start to shed seeing the author as an ideal figure head as some sort of freedom that would later domino to other areas we do this in. Where we hold the power of a name with so much value that if it started in literary area that it can follow say in entertainment business. I don't see how that connection can be made, and what freedom that can give society. I do grasp though on how we recognize the power behind a name.

I mean Jane Austen of Pride and Prejudice is world renowned that to just think the title of the book people know who she is. The novel of hers would not be the same if the name would be someone else because they would think of the famous romance author Jane Austen. The treatment given to her name is due to her works, but there is so much weight brought out to her name. There is recognition that people would instantly think of her name after her novels were to be named. I even get male friends if I were to mention that novel to say "Isn't that from the chick flick author Jane Austen" to know immediately that she wrote this book. Everyone takes in the side of Jane Austen that wrote this novel of famous cliche romance compared to the 3D personality version of her in real life. Foucalt is right to say that we take in the side that is shown to us in authors through their novels, and make stars of them for it. We put such power to the name we forget that they can be just as human as us. How would society be if that were to change?

Copyright Law: Uncalled for Infrigement

Copyright law is such a battle now with the Internet that it has businesses running around trying to come up with policies to secure their heavy profits. Technology grows at such a fast pace that its creating a wider chance for people to make the majority of content against having businesses. Now the problem lies in the content that is being made because businesses are making an argument that its taking their intellectual property illegally. Now the problem that is with the whole issue of copyright I find is how to price an idea. Its as if there are money amounts tied to thoughts coming from our brains. I mean how can one put an exact price on that?

Well business are now cracking down on their content to the point they try cut through the public to the individual using the business work. All the individuals that are making their own content is given thanks to advancing cameras. I mean there are these great flip cameras one can take on the go to then USB plug in to a computer, and bam you have the video loaded up on youtube. Now the content that can be seen in these videos can have material that certain businesses would call "infringement" since it contained a possible McDonalds logo or Nike name. I mean we have all seen the blurred out logo, but can still recognize through the blur. Well of May 2009 there were companies suing the individuals because they would visual show the company's logo or something to that similar degree. Now I find that just taking it too far.

The real issue I see that is going on is the company is not getting any profit from a person who did a shoot that contained a few seconds of their work, but wasn't even focusing on company work. Its like showing a youtube video showing myself walking down a street, and having a Nike poster on the wall in the background. According to this situation I would be accused of "infringement" because I didn't get the OK from Nike. This whole cry of stealing intellectual property real seems to be about companies greed on losing profit. I mean that is all one sees is the companies constant building of policy walls. Where is the actually creators opinion on this issue?

Copyright battle really needs work on who calls the shots on who can make the lawsuit. Because I'm always seeing the companies making a fuss about it rather than the creators of the work. I mean now a days with the fast growth happening of people making their content it is getting harder to police them all. The real battle though is where to draw the line on what should be vaulted ideas or how much is shared. Lets hope a reasonable idea can be made that is a fair enough deal.

Facebook: What is the point?

Not being able to get on Facebook for a whole week. Now that is a mission nowadays with everyone constantly checking up on some social network. Facebook is a majority used website for the purpose to help flourish ones own social network. So I took this assignment to not look at all or even over a friends shoulder. There were a couple of moments where I was compromised that I had to turn my back because a friend of mine was using my labtop then goes"I'm done", and I don't turn around since I knew they kept it up to trick me. Surprisingly I ended up "cheating" because people just kept telling me what they did online before I could stop them, but that was during the weekend now its nothing. It was like I physically became my newsfeed on Facebook where everyone updated to me in person. I started to think what is the purpose of Facebook? Is it more of wanting the ability to pause our connections with people until we have time for them?

Lets focus on the Facebook chat where you see whoever is online you can chat with. Which can be at any random time of the day or year. Like getting a random "hey whats up?" message from some guy you haven't seen in over a year, and never even really knew him in person. Yet you respond back then get into menial talk of each others life which lasts five minutes. So how is this branching out ones social network? I mean that is the point of Facebook where they create this chat system so you be instantly talking with them, but does anyone really ever chat more outside of their circle of friends? What is the point of adding people when you know that you won't really talk to them again so they become like friendly strangers to you. Its better than adding random people through friends request who most likely stay as a random number in ones friends list.

This creates a circle system where you add the person, either do instant "how you doing?", then it dies off , and random pop ups of checking up on each other through the year. This system doesn't really help people because no one really bothers to get closer than guarded walls, or network for events unless your closer with the person in real life rather than Internet talk. Facebook chat just reinforces how one doesn't bother to further the network by doing random "hi hows it going" check up on a person rather than "Would you be interested in this event?". This just builds a virtual world where people can feel they are socializing, and not having to do much work for it. So the point of just Facebook is doing a lazy social networking so that we give certain time to it, but focus most of our time on things that we find more important. Creating the system of holds on people that we can stay connected with them, but at the same time play on with other things in life.

Copyright link