On a tangent for a moment – an interesting debate that came out of a tute class last year was to do with the KG UV (aka Kelvin Grove Urban Village), and again the other day with a town planning student now working with a company on the UV: One of the key concepts behind the design of the UV was to build and then foster a ‘creative hub’ that would bring together intellect, imagination, innovation, inspiration (how many other I words can come up with here?) etc. in a creative environment. For what purpose? Because creativity fosters creativity of course! And creativity is good for all right? So I agree with this well enough, but my question is – can you actually build and foster something like this? Isn’t attempting to artificially construct this sort of environment ignoring the essence of these creative hubs? Nobody would have guessed 10-20 years ago that West End or
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Can you build a creative hub?
A revelation of the "real" value in YouTube
After being impressed by the profound videos we are often shown in tutorials (to which Charlie the Unicorn is absolutely no acception) I turned to YouTube in search of something that would encapsulate the importance of online communities and highlight the value of these communities as part of the "real" world. After a rather lengthy amount of searching and many frustrated combinations of keywords later, my quest for a flashy video, smoothly cut, with catchy music and stunning graphics came to a rather abrupt end. I suddenly realised that on YouTube, these videos are far and few between. In this came my revelation.
Avid and popular YouTube user Paul Robinett (also known as Renetto) suggests that “people are innately born with a desire to communicate and to have a fellowship and community with each other”. Robinett’s Who Are You video (see below) expresses that the value of YouTube, and essentially the internet, resides in the community of users. Since the posting in August 2006 it has received 181,107 hits (correct at time of blogging) and a wealth of comments praising Robinett for identifying the value of community and challenging the stereotype of YouTube users as timewasters who have nothing better to do than film goofy videos for the sake of their own amusement. True not all the comments entailed praise, but at least some users were appreciative in their own right.
A refreshing and honest response to Robinett’s post came from YouTube user 1938Superman. The following video, re: who are you? (our online community), is 1938Superman’s personal reflection on online communities.
The opinion presented in 1938Superman’s video, while subjective, can be applied beyond YouTube users, to all users of the internet. It is a raw and insightful comment on the value of online communication, and the virtual communities that grow from this.
YouTube isn't about the technically elite sharing their latest works, but it is about interaction, communication, and a democratic inclusiveness. The same goes for the internet, and the many online communities exisiting within its endless boundaries. The real value here is that online environments are essentially nuetral and non-discriminatory, allowing for true self expression to immerge. Sure you might get torn to pieces once you put yourself out there, but another virtual identity is only a click away.
Finding who you are online is a much less evasive and frightening journey. Maybe once we have this more defined sense of self those of us previously socially incapacitated may find the courage to become active in the "real" world. And if they/you don't what is actually wrong with living life online? It's your life, your choice, and your community.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Success, the music industry, and a little bit of optimism.
What determines success? I think that the answer to this question is above and beyond an individual thing. My immediate thoughts usually come back to something along the lines of wealth/money/fortune, fame/popularity, but ultimately happiness and contentment. So where am I going with this? Given the fragmentation of cultures, the rise of hyperlocal socialization and industry, and the fall (or at least decline in market share) of many big businesses, is this changing the way we view success.
Consider the music industry for example. The popular music industry is dominated by four multinational corporations: Sony BMG; Universal; AOL Time Warner; and EMI. But over the last decade there has been a considerable rise in independent labels, sole traders and small media buyers who compete directly with the smaller companies and labels that make up the "big-four" record groups. I suppose it is still generally assumed that to crack the "big time" in the popular music industry you still have to be signed to one of these major labels, but to be a successful musician? Maybe not so.
It’s generally accepted that the biggest changes in the music industry have come from digital mp3 formatting technology and file-sharing. These technologies have revolutionized music production, distribution, and audiences. Aside from presenting (huge) challenges associated with copyright and intellectual property, digital formats have not only contributed to the growth of highly interactive music-orientated PayTV stations (such as Channel [V] and MTV Australia) but have, or should I say are, ultimately stretching the boundaries of endless “possibilities and complexities of ever-changing, collaborative creation” (Martin 2006, 323-324). Unfortunately even though these new opportunities for creation, innovation, and inspiration should be celebrated, there is still only a weak link between what can be considered as talent and the recognition and success of this (Martin 2006, 327). In Australia, state governments have begun to nurture the popular music infrastructure, particularly through recognizing ‘contemporary popular music clusters’, like the one found in the Queensland suburb of Fortitude Valley (Homan 2006, 252). Ah, ‘creative clusters’ – another buzz word of the moment! These clusters serve as a breeding ground for emerging music artists and give them an opportunity to immerse themselves in the music industry with recording studios, live music venues, and other music businesses concentrated in the one area (Homan 249-252). It is through this avenue that emerging music artists may get their foot in the door of the music industry. The increase in talent quests such as Triple J Unearthed, and reality TV programs like Australian Idol also gives emerging artists a launching pad for their music careers, but once launched you are at the mercy of the populace.
Continuing on from the revolution of digital formatting is the change in audience building and the use of technologies associated with Web 2.0. New media platforms and internet sites that support file sharing and/or encoding devices, such as MySpace, Esnips, AMIE Street, and YouTube have given emerging artists the opportunity to self promote their own music and begin to accumulate a fan base without ever signing a record deal (Graham 2007). This works well with the reverse value structure of the mass mediated industry, where things, such as music, retain more value with each use, as well as enabling artists to distribute their music on a global scale and to an endlessly diverse audience (Graham 2007; Martin 2006, 321-324; Sternberg 2006, 335). Most musicians are able to overlook the fact that they are at the mercy of various encoding devices, and face a reduction in sound quality, in light of the opportunities the internet and digital revolution brings. I think that the music industry’s concerns over viability due to the threat of digitization are not unwarranted, but they should be looked on more favourably considering the advantages, particularly for emerging artists, that these technologies bring. Supporting the local infrastructure of the popular music industry, encouraging entrepreneurial activities and spirit, and embracing and utilizing new technologies is the best way to foster the growth of emerging popular music artists and for them to elevate their own success. This of course extends beyond the music industry and goes for all new technologies and all industries across the board. Pessimism is not a healthy thing – Keynesian economics anyone? Sure we should be wary of how these new technologies are used, but to try and suppress their potential because we are scared of them is putting limits on the unknown! Maybe I’m too optimistic about humanity, but I would like to believe that the majority of people doing good out there outweighs those doing bad. Logically as long as this isn’t thrown off balance then there should be an exponential growth of good work being done, that will be able to trump anything bad that ever comes along.
REFERENCES
Graham, P. 2007, 2 September. Popular Music.
Homan, S. 2006. Popular music. In The Media and Communications in
Martin, F. 2006. New media, new audiences. In The Media and Communications in
Sternberg, J. 2006. Youth media. In The Media and Communications in
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Re: KCB201 Asmnt2 Criterion Matrix Query
To all my fellow KCB201ers - during tutorials today we had some discussions about the criterion matrix for assignment two - specifically the "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" section. Below is my email correspondence with Axel:
"Hi Axel,
During my tutorial today there has been considerable debate about interpreting section four of the criterion matrix for assignment two.
It seems to be the understanding of myself and my peers that "evidence of participation in online social networks and critical interaction with peers" related to your comments on other blogs and does not apply to your actual blog entries. Our tutor Thomas has interpreted this section of the criteria as relating to your comments as well as how you link out to other resources in your blog and comment on these resources in the text of your blog.
Could you please clarify this?
Thanks, it’s appreciated by me and my peers!
Ella"
And very prompt response:
"G'day Ella !
Thanks for getting in touch about this. Please also have a look at the way the required standard for this criterion is described for each grade, which might help explain it further:
* at the very basic level, we expect you to engage with your peers via comments on their blogs (and responses to their comments on yours, where appropriate) - what we're looking for here, and what will be seen as evidence of more sophisticated engagement, are constructive and insightful comments and intelligent and respectful discussion: in other words, a mere "I agree" or off-topic remarks won't rate as well as thoughtful responses which promote further discussion between you and with others
* at a more sophisticated level, you'll find that bloggers also often conduct discussion and debate not simply by commenting on one another's blogs, but by posting substantial responses on their own blog which pick up on topics explored by others (these could be your fellow students, or outside bloggers and others authors whose work you have found online) and add significant further original thought - we would see this as evidence of a higher level of social networking and interaction with peers
So, put simply: if you see interesting ideas on someone else's blog and add a comment there, then that's a start (and the more insightful and constructive the comment, the better you'll do as we mark you on this criterion).
If you see someone else's post or article, and this inspires you to publish an original blog post of your own in which you link to and engage in substantial dialogue with their ideas (perhaps even getting a real back-and-forth conversation going), then that's an even more sophisticated way of engaging in critical interaction with your peers.
I hope that helps ?"
And I hope this helps some of you! All the best with everyone’s assessments!
The Machine is Us/ing Us
Hopefully it works!
The link I have embedded is for Michael Wesch's video Web 2.0... The Machine is Us/ing Us. If you haven't seen it then go check it out, it is insightful and thought provoking, even for the technically inept of us.
Wesch’s video “Web 2.0 … The Machine is Us/ing Us” epitomises the rise of convergence culture and the DIY movement of content creation. It was picked up immediately from its YouTube broadcast and quickly spread across the global network that is the internet, going on to win the best video category at the 2007 Wired Rave Awards. Wesch seems to have been driven (in true DIY fashion) to create the clip in the hope that it would spark reflection on the power of technology, and the responsibility we have as users of these technologies to grasp this potential and use it for the benefit of humanity (even if this is only on a very personalized, or hyperlocal level).
Wesch makes some profound comments on the way we communicate in our complexly interconnected world/s and the possibilities of digital technologies, with emphasis on Web 2.0. John Battelle (whose Searchblog focuses on “thoughts on the intersection of search, media, technology, and more”) posted a short interview he conducted with Wesch on his blog (see http://battellemedia.com/archives/003386.php) which gives a greater insight into Wesch’s video and the man himself. Battelle’s blog post also signifies the way collaborative web-based technologies have created the potential for scholarly discussion in the mode of conversation. The web speeds up the response process that is otherwise disengaged and detached in traditional forms of academic argument.
I found many of the comments attached to the original post almost as astute as the original interview. Both Wesch’s video and Battelle’s post are highly insightful and engaging resources when considering the influences new technologies, convergence, and changes in the way we are communicating (eg: through networks), are having on all aspects of our lives.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Why we fear the influences of electronic games PART TWO
The term antisocial, while often being expressed as anti, or against, social, or society, in relation to electronic games, has come to refer, in this instance (or atleast from my mothers perspective), to the potentially addictive quality of electronic games and the lack of socialisation associated with such addictions. I’ve got to say that on this part of the argument I’m probably more with my mum – while I don’t think violence is caused by too much gaming, people alienating themselves from traditional social activities so they can be gaming instead certainly does in my limited experience. BUT on that note, perhaps I’m just offended that my brothers would rather spend time gaming then hanging out with me. I guess it’s not so much that gaming makes you anti-social, but it changes your social patterns and behaviours. Just like any hobby that someone else doesn’t understand, its about what YOU do for enjoyment, not the person sitting beside you…
I suppose what it comes down to is that the comment that electronic games make people antisocial is to an extent over publicised and exaggerated and suffers severely from stereotypes such as “nerds” and “key-board junkies”. Nevertheless, this anecdotal evidence should not be discounted. These personal experiences give us an opportunity to gain depth in our knowledge of the impact of electronic games on individuals, past that which can be found in the constructed artifices of a laboratory experiment.
The surfacing and acknowledgement of gaming cultures have fuelled the notion of electronic games being a bad-habit. But one must ask, what distinguishes a good habit from a bad one? In essence, gaming is little different from other hobbies that we indulge in because, to the individual, it is a rewarding experience (sorry I realise I’m sort of repeating what I said just before). Here is a good quote from
Calling this process of involvement and mastery addiction is medicalising what many of us do in all sorts of pursuits from gaining competence in playing sport to understanding a subject or language. Although (this) compulsive behaviour may be irritating to those around who are not playing and there may be a sense of wasted time, (players are) simply motivated by a desire to master the particular game in all its intricacies.
This is particularly true for real-time strategy games like Age of Empires and Command and Conquer, where you have the opportunity to play God, as well as role playing games and first person shooters such as classic Dungeons and Dragons or Halo III: Combat Evolved, where characters become a projection or an extension of yourself (Quittner, 1999).
Another element of electronic games as a perpetrator of antisocial behaviour is illuminated by Robert Kerbs (2005) who divulges that while gaming cultures can be thought of as pro social through their level of interactivity, the environment and atmosphere in which these cultures are cultivated may not be so healthy. Since its mass introduction in 1994, the world-wide-web has gathered over 380 million users (ok note that this is 2005, I’m sure its grown massively beyond 380mil…) and acts as a key to intricate expanding virtual realities and cyber-worlds. If you have ever played or even heard of Second Life you will see what I mean. I guess what Kerbs (2005) was trying to say is that this portal to a new virtual presence is not without dangers. It would be detrimental to forget that social interaction and communication has a physical element that does not and can not exist in an online network. Sure I have a facebook and a myspace and I chat on msn and am writing this blog with some small hope that it might get read but I tell you what, I’d take a face-to-face conversation with a friend any day over my online ‘social’ activities. Jenkins (2006) makes the point that while gaming cultures can extend past the world of the internet, to clubs and social gaming with friends and family, physical communication and the element of touch is lost on these online cultures (Jenkins, 2006). And if you’re still not persuaded (sorry if this is about to be totally inappropriate) think about whether you would rather cyber-sex or real sex… Unless you’re being a smartarse I would say the majority of people would opt for real sex.
With that said demand and demographics that previously defined games and gamers are changing, perhaps due to the release of games like Nintendogs (by Nintendo in 2005), The Sims (by Maxis first in 2000) and Everquest (by Sony Online Entertainment first in 1999). As more and more games emerge that are typified by their element of social interaction and those who play, electronic games can no longer be seen as an independent pastime for boys cooped up in computer rooms at school. Online and offline gaming cultures are a new segment in society, existing on local and global scales, where gamers from every context can engage and exchange with others, enriching their own gaming experiences through networking, knowledge and understanding (Kerbs 2005).
Forgive me for this next comment but I’m trying hard to see both sides of the argument here – it seems to me that while elements of contemporary gaming can be described as social, there persists some pervasive elements in electronic gaming with the potential to manifest antisocial behaviour and self-isolation. In my eyes addiction, to anything, is not a healthy thing. Another citation from
One of the characteristics of video games throughout their history has been an attempt, with the help of various technologies, to erase the boundary separating the player from the game world and to play up tactile involvement. Indeed, much of the development of video games has been driven by a desire for a corporal immersion with technology, a will to envelop the player in technology and the environment of the game space. That development has coincided with and been supported by developments in perspective and the optical point-of-view structures of games, which have increasingly emphasized the axis of depth, luring the player into invading the world behind the computer screen.
It is this very nature that
Lou Robson raises a similar alarm for Australians, stating that ‘hundreds of
Although most of the evidence supporting the existence of a psychological condition of game addiction is anecdotal, the quantity of these documented experiences is considerable, so much so that detox clinics for game addicts have been opened in
Electronic games have become ‘a normal and everyday experience for the more than two generations of 50 million Americans that are now in adulthood, whose memory and imagination have been coloured by Atari, Nintendo and Sega, the same way that the memory and imagination of previous generations were tinted by television, cinema and vinyl records’ (Marshall, 2004, 62). While much research is focused on the effects of electronic games on children, perhaps because they are naively seen as unwittingly more susceptible to overindulgence (Gauntlett, 1998), advances in electronic games and their availability have given rise to the development of gaming cultures and progressed to cater to much more diverse audiences. It must be admitted however that surrounding these cultures is an underlying community dis-ease (take that as a pun if you like) and the willingness to slip too far into these often violent fantasy worlds.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that it is obvious that the vast majority of people are able to recognise the difference between reality and the reality of a game. But I do think that we should be mindful of the minority who cannot. Maybe we wont be able to ever pin-point abnormal behaviour to a particular cause but even if one individual is unexplainably affected by an electronic game, whether it is a violent or antisocial or some other form of negative response, it should be identified and utilised as a precaution to others. Equally, if an individual is inexplicably affected by an electronic game in a positive way, this should then be publicised so others may reap similar benefits.
I think that it is unfortunate that violence and antisocial behaviour are an inescapable part of our modern world, but whether or not this behaviour is spawned from new technologies (in this case electronic games) and their related activities is doubtful. It is inevitable that this blemish on humanity has a permanent quality that can only be reduced by a unanimous effort to remain open to the fears that exist within society. A fear is still a fear, whether it has validity and substance or not, and can only be overcome by being confronted. So the jury remains out on the question: what do we have to fear from electronic games?
REFERENCES
Banks, J 2002, ‘Everybody knows that gaming makes people antisocial and violent’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture Gaming Cultures at Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, on 11 May.
Jenkins, H 2006, Reality Bytes: Eight Myths about Video Games Debunked, PBS,
Kerbs, R 2005, ‘Social and ethical considerations in virtual worlds’, The Electronic Library, vol. 23, no. 5, 2005, pp 539-546.
Marshall, P D, 2004, New Media Cultures, Hodder,
National Institute on Media and the Family: Mediawise 2006, ‘Watch what your kids watch: computer game addiction’ http://www.mediafamily.org/facts/facts_gameaddiction.shtml (accessed 12 April 2008).
Quittner, J 1999, ‘Are video games really so bad?’, Time, vol 153, no 18, pp 50-59.
Robson, L 2006, ‘Game over’, The Sunday Mail, January 22, p 27.
Sydney Morning Herald, The, 2003, ‘Computer addict found dead at screen’, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 13
Van Horn, R 1999, ‘Violence and video games’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol 81, no 2, pp 173-174.
Apologies again for any referencing errors!
Why we fear the influences of electronic games PART ONE
OK so I know this blog is meant to be for KCB201 but I figured it’s MY blog and I can post stuff on here even if it deviates from the unit content. So this isn’t a personal rant, but after a lengthy ‘discussion’ (ok lets be honest – argument) with my mother I figured it was time to address the issue of gaming, and whether online gaming in particular is actually ‘bad’ for you…
My mother, an avid media effects supporter (at least to an extent) is constantly trying to restrict the amount of gaming my brothers do. I myself am not a gamer (probably from suffering at the hands of my brothers mercilessly slaughtering me every time I make an attempt to play) but have watched this debate rage for as long as my brothers could pick up a controller or figure out that spacebar = jump/shoot on any of the old school pc games. Particularly since the beginnings of xbox live and World of Warcraft I have watched my mother slowly lose ground in her argument that “too much gaming promotes anti-social and violent behaviour”, because while these new environments might not necessarily be traditional social circles, they are most definitely engaging, active, collaborative, and many other words that can be related to what I would call “social.”
But my mother is not alone. The effect of electronic games on individuals and society is a debate that is as intense as trying to complete Halo on ‘legendary’. In my opinion to state that electronic games make, or do not make, people violent and anti-social is a misleading generalisation that ignores the grey between the black and white. However, it is our prerogative to search for an answer to the ills of humanity, and experiencing cognitive dissonance as a consequence may be unavoidable.
Electronic games, a term utilised by David Marshall (2004) to encompass all forms of new media games from arcade games to computer games, have become an integral part of contemporary society and culture. Around the world people use electronic games for all sorts of purposes, from anything as simple as a leisure activity, to an ultimate escape from the daily trials of life. But what this increasing focus on games, gaming, game players and the culture that is developing around them, may mean for the future, is yet to be seen. Ok that was not meant to be as ominous as it sounds…
To accurately present the possible influences of electronic games on behaviour, it is necessary to deal with violence separately from antisocial behaviour. There is a ‘slowly growing body of evidence’ (Sanger et al. 1997, 63) reflecting concerns that violence and antisocial behaviour are the results of using electronic games. However, a distinction between the two must be clearly made in order to interpret how electronic games impact individuals and society, as the relationship between violence and antisocial behaviour is not one of simple cause and effect.
Part of the problem with identifying potential links between gamers’ behaviours and the games they play is that there is an inherent inconsistency with the way researchers have defined violence, and that media effects research has no specific parameters that enable it to be standardised (Scott, 1995). David Gauntlett (1998) impresses that this is because media effects research initially approaches the problem of societal violence backwards, ‘by starting with the media and then trying to lasso connections from there on to social beings’. In this case, arguing over if the chicken or the egg came first is unproductive as it is obvious that violence existed long before electronic games. Anybody ever study roman history? If you said no I suggest you go watch a film like Gladiator and you might start to get the idea. I doubt that I am alone in that suggestion that what we should be doing instead is going directly to the perpetrators and channelling the question of why violence is still continuing today through them.
For productive research, with relevant conclusions, to take place, exactly what constitutes violence needs to be clearly defined and understood. Assault, indirect hostility, irritability, negativism, resentment, suspicion and verbal hostility are considered seven subscales of aggression (see Scott 1995). From this it is easier to understand why violence is difficult to quantify because everybody comprehends it differently. It follows then that media effects researchers need to construct a scale that measures the degree of violence in any given electronic game. This is supported by Tony Reichhardt (2003) who highlights the reliance of media effects researchers, like Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman, on basic correlations found between violence and electronic games. Reichhardt (2003) advises that standardising research efforts in this field will help identify potential causal relationships rather then just tenuous links. And I’ve got to say that after two years of discussing media effects at uni I am more then a little sceptical in regards to any “causal” relationships found in this sort of research. Unfortunately for media effects researchers I think they are desperately trying to hold on to a theory that would provide a neat solution to violent and anti-social behaviour in society, conveniently ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. Columbine massacre anyone?
I should also note that of course not all games are violent. John Banks (2006) emphasises the diversity in game genres, comprising of sports based games, platform adventure games, simulations and puzzle games, role playing games, strategy games and fighting or action games (including first person shooters). Banks illustrates that despite the focus in the media on violent games such as the Grand Theft Auto series, not all games, not even all the popular ones, are violent. However, with the release of games that are becoming increasingly realistic in terms of graphics and context, such as Manhunt (by Rockstar in April 2004) and the fourth in the Hitman series, Blood Money (by Eidos Interactive in May 2006), gamers’ curious fascination and enjoyment of blood, guts, gore and fatalities is probably one of the key ‘reasons’ behind those concerned with media effects.
In discussing whether electronic games make people violent, my biggest point (particularly when arguing with my mother) is that it is not simply monkey see monkey do. We’re not simply passive receivers, but interactive living beings filtering, receiving, analysing, interpreting, and then regurgitating how we perceive the world and the information in it. Gauntlett (1998) says ‘the point here is not that the content of the mass media (should) not be criticised, but rather that the mass audience themselves are not well served by studies (in media effects) which are willing to treat them as potential savages or actual fools’. And I should probably point out that neither of my brothers are fools. We have all been socially conditioned and, with the exception of the mentally unstable, we are capable of making choices that reflect our conscious. It is these choices that define who we are and what sort of behaviours we exhibit.
Something that really hit home for me was from Alan McKee (2006), one of my first ever lecturers, who proposed that media effects research is the progeny of moral panic, spawned from advancing technology and culture that threatens the golden age of past generations. I mentioned the Columbine massacre earlier – well it is events like the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, where the press broke a tape documenting Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold describing their planned shootings as reminiscent of the first person shoot game Doom, result in hastily drawn conclusions driven by the need to explain the occurrence of such tragedies. This subjectivity and emotional proclivity continues to hinder the findings of media effects researchers. To put it bluntly there is no substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that electronic games are a cause of violent behaviour. Reichhardt (2003) dryly notes that considering how many people have played the game Doom and its sequels, and with violence in the United States at a thirty-year low, the logical violence epidemic that would follow Doom directly making people violent does not exist.
So let us turn the argument on its head for a moment. Sanger (1997, 64) has suggested that ‘the violent and destructive elements in (electronic) games serve a cathartic purpose in allowing players to release stress and tension in a contained situation’. Perhaps they are a way to become liberated from the pressure in our lives… However these arguments tend to ignore the intensity level of games, and that they are everything but relaxing. Anybody watching a gamer in action can see the tension and excitement building from the time the start up credits are rolling. Not that I’m any different – trust me you don’t want to be around when I’m wielding a Nintendo Wii remote around!
Quittner (1999) describes electronic games as being ‘all about adrenaline, and the easiest way to trigger adrenaline is to make someone think they’re going to die’. Even in classic G rated games like Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario Brothers, the will to survive envelops gamers, mind and body, where any invasion of your focus means certain death and the undoing of all your hard-work up until your last save. Approaching someone high on adrenaline, and interrupting their concentration will commonly result in, at the very least, a snappy remark about how it’s all your fault that they died. This reaction and its severity will of course be determined by the individual, and the context of their game play, but I must say that I learnt quite quickly to keep away from my brothers if they were engaged in a game that required even only a minimal amount of skill.
I think that the key issue is not exposure to violence as depicted in electronic games or even with gamers’ apparent obsession with gore and fatalities. It is, instead, those subgroups and individuals, who demonstrate violent dispositions, mental instability, or abnormal characteristics that we should be actively exploring so we can work towards an unbloodied future.
References
Banks, J 2002, ‘Everybody knows that gaming makes people antisocial and violent’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture Gaming Cultures at Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove Campus, on 11 May.
Gauntlett, D 1998, Ten things wrong with the media ‘effects’ model, http://www.theory.org.uk/david/effects.htm (accessed 23 January 2006)
Marshall, P D, 2004, New Media Cultures, Hodder,
McKee, A 2006, ‘Everybody knows that the media makes us do it’, Lecture in KCB102 Media and Society Public Lecture The Effects Tradition at Queensland University of Technology Kelvin Grove Campus, on 9 March.
Quittner, J 1999, ‘Are video games really so bad?’, Time, vol 153, no 18, pp 50-59.
Reichhardt, T 2003, ‘Playing with Fire?’ Nature, vol. 424, pp 367-368.
Sanger, J., Wilson, J., Davies, B. and Whittaker, R. 1997, Young children, videos, and computer games: issues for teachers and parents, Falnor,
Scott, D 1995, ‘The effect of video games on feelings of aggression’, The Journal of Psychology, vol 129, no 2, p121.
Van Horn, R 1999, ‘Violence and video games’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol 81, no 2, pp 173-174.
APOLOGIES FOR THE REFERENCING - I've done it off the top of my head so its probably not to the tee of our QUT Harvard style...
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Convergence culture and related technologies
Remembering its a lazy Sunday afternoon, the weather today has been wonderful, but its heated this house like a sweat box and I needed SOMETHING to take my mind of it! So before I really get started on this blog I figure it is probably a good idea to revisit some of the ideas already address in our virtual cultures unit. A thankyou in advance to fellow students, my team mates, Emma and Nat and Bre who helped contribute to this post that is essentially an adaptation and expansion on what we have already disclosed on the KCB201 blackboard discussion board.
Lets begin by discussing a buzz word of the twenty-first century: convergence. In short convergence has had (and continues to have) a huge impact on cultures and societies around the world. Henry Jenkins (2006), debatably the key scholar in this area, has outlined three principle ideas relating to the concept of convergence.
1. MEDIA CONVERGENCE
I’m sure to many people in society (like my parents) the introduction of television does not seem like that long ago. These days tv is spread across not only a traditional television set, but also on your mobile, your computer, your pda, and a variety of other formats. This simple example demonstrates how media content is now spread across multiple platforms.
Much media convergence has been driven by consumer demand to have single devices with multiple functions. This is not to say that we will end up with one all-encompassing device that we can do everything from/with, something that Jenkins (2006) heavily emphasises. Jenkins (2006) notes that the increase in multi-platformed fully integrated devices not being the ultimate technological solution is evident in that the majority of consumers who own multi-function products (eg: a mobile phone) don’t actually use all (or even many) of the other capabilities of the technology. I know for me personally my phone is a reasonably up market model, but there are functions on it I don’t think I’ve even heard of! For me my phone is a way to text and call people, and occasionally take photos with, but that is about it. In contrast, my twin brother uses his phone not just in the way I do but also as an mp3 player, access to the internet, an alarm clock, an organisers… just to name a few!
The circulation of media content across these different platforms depends heavily on user-led active participation and engagement with the content and the platforms it is available from. Perhaps this links back to Jenkins (2006) who argues that there are two different forces behind convergence - consumer led convergence (cultural shifts of consumers seeking new information) and technological convergence (where new technologies become intertwined and we are forced to use multi-function singular devices, rather then multiple single function devices).
2. PARTICIPATORY CULTURE
It is now common knowledge that forces like globalisation have caused a significant increase in international networking and cultures are now beginning to overlap and intertwine as we become increasingly involved in the lives of others (on a local, national, and international scale). Technologies like the internet have encouraged behaviours that promote engagement and interaction with media of all forms, as well as people of all kinds. The barriers to communication have been beaten down, opening our ability to access and connect with the world around us and the people in it.
We are encouraged to source our own information and then share it with others. We are able to evaluate this information and twist it to our own purpose. From this process we are creating new information and building an active knowledge base. Because of participatory culture there is a cyclical process of information that is being enrichened and developed as it is constantly evolving. Users are becoming more active and connected with media. Social networking and interactivity is a key to being involved and simply living. Our participation is changing our culture/s, and we are becoming noisy and very public as a result.
3. COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
Flowing on from participatory culture is the notion of collective intelligence. There is widespread sharing and collaboration of information, which then turns into knowledge through sharing this information with others. If we look at it from a very basic mathematical perspective, collective intelligence comes down to if we know "A" and share it with another person who knows "B", we now know "A&B". Collective intelligence would not be viable without convergence and culture is very much centred around this collective and shared body of information and knowledge. Convergence is making culture more intelligent, involved, and intertwined.
So where does technology fit into all of this (other than being a tool from which waves of change like convergence are crafted)? We’ve had it hit home by Axel Bruns in his KCB201 lectures over the past couple of weeks: simply, technology is not just a device, or the functions a device, but it is how we use this device and its functions for our own purpose/s that makes technology significant. By being active and using technology to meet our own means we can extend the original functions of the technology and make it our own. This is not to say that the intangible design/concept/idea/philosophy behind the technology (material/physical object) is not important (of course it is!), but the real importance lies in how technology becomes part of our society/culture. If we consider technologies from this perspective it is easier to consider technologies as cultural technologies that are socially constructed and dependent on the user, instead of the traditional philosophy.
I should probably be referencing all those sentences. OK you want more academia, I’ll give it ago. Flew (2005) explores the fact that culture comprises of several different tiers and his book New Media explores in depth the notion that technology is increasingly becoming more than an impacting component on culture, and it is becoming ingrained as a part of cultural forms and development. Flew (2005) states that on a rudimentary level culture is built from physical objects/tools/artefacts and our tangible presence here on earth. Technology, and new technologies, is/are part of this. On this level content and information is produced and distributed through these mediums. From this dispersion of content culture begins to coalesce and form around recipients of this information. This is becoming what Bruns (2008) would call a palimpsestical process! After the cultural foundations are built (which, for the record, are not necessarily static or stagnant bases) our systems of knowledge and the meaning that is socially construed from the culture/s we are immersed in determine the further development and projection of any given culture. Here we can see how technology moves from being on the outside of cultural foundations to being engrained in every level of cultural development.
With that said, if man maketh the technology can technology maketh the man? I don’t think so! We are not defined by the technologies around us because we have the ability to choose how we use these technologies. Sure we may be limited by the technologies abilities, and our own abilities to know how to use a particular function, but this is where the importance of creativity and innovation comes in. Without creativity and innovation in our culture/s and societies around the world we are lost.
REFERENCES
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201: Virtual Cultures.
Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Introduction: “Worship at the Altar of Convergence” in Jenkins, H., Convergence Culture: When New and Old Media Collide,
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Some thoughts on Virtual Cultures
I'd say most of my blogging to come are going to be long winded and wordy because its what I do. Hopefully something substantial will be able to be extracted out eventually...
So hello and welcome to all you fellow bloggers and especially any KCB201ers out there!
Alright this is not an official post so I'm not going to make a big thing about being scholarly or academic, but I thought I'd post some of my thoughts on KCB201 aka Virtual Cultures content so far this semester. So coming into my third year of studying media and communications some of this stuff has become so familiar to me that I just assume everybody has thought about it, knows about it, wouldn't be confused by it. Apparently not. My parents are both intelligent beings, always open to discussion about life the universe and everything, but I try and talk to them about things like DIKW, convergence, niche markets and hyperlocal(ism?), even something so seemingly simple as the social networking trend, and they look at me like I'm speaking a different language...
Maybe its just my generation, and the new generations coming, we take these things for granted. Things like computers and the internet for example. I mean wow, I can remember the day we got our first family computer. This old clunky grey box with a screen so rounded the picture would be warped from any direction you were looking unless you were sitting directly infront. I remember playing games like commander keen and pod racer. I remember clicking that space bar so hard from jumping and firing that eventually it would rattle if you so much as brushed your fingers against it! I remember the load up screen (with what was it, MSdos or something? Please excuse my technical illiteracy!) and when the technology was so slow but nobody cared waiting for the load up because it was just such an amazing thing. These days I get frustrated when programs dont open instantly, or if it takes more then about 10 seconds to load a new page. Where did my patience go?
I take things like the internet for granted. Its so easy to forget the huge technological divide that our world teters on the edge of. I can understand that if you never have something, never experience it in the first place, then you don't know what you're missing out on to miss it in the first place. But does that make it ok? Will the rest of the world ever catch up? This is not to say they necessarily want to, but in my personal opinion I think that the good that has come from technology such as the internet outweighs any potential harm it may have. Sure people can misuse technology for their own gain and to the detriment of others, but I honestly think the majority of people have atleast a primitive level of moral development that goes beyond that. Atleast I would like to believe that. Maybe I'm too naive or optimistic, but I'd rather have a world full of optimists then pessimists any day.
OK I'll admit this post is really not going anywhere worthwhile, but I'll wrap on regardless - I want to be part of this new participatory culture! I think networks should be encouraged and I think we should all do our bit to contribute to that mass of information continually building out there in the world. So maybe this particular post isn't going to do that, but who knows what is to come. Hopefully next time I log on I will have something profound or insightful to comment on. I'm waiting on some more inspiration.
Or it could be I just like the 'clack-clack' of my typing and the sound of my own voice (in my head ofcourse, dictating to my little fingers tapping away on the keyboard), whether I have something worthwhile to put up here or not...
