Week 1 Reading/Viewing Responses
Phoenix Perry
Gah. I'm never really surprised by any discussion about sexism in programming or video games. This talk was no exception, but I appreciate it for existing because there will always be people for whom all of this *is* shocking. Though I agree with Perry that advertising is part of the problem, I think it's reductive to suggest it is the only thing contributing to the declining percentage of women programmers and developers in the work force (especially in the age of ad-blockers, the dying off of print media, and the steady trading in of cable televisions for on-demand streaming services with limited commercials). I think she could have made a stronger case by detailing the toxic masculinity in gaming/programming blog threads (see: Reddit), the rape and death threats women gamers/developers receive via social media, and tales of misogyny in the workplace (both subtle and overt) that scare off potential women employees. Regardless of my oratorial advice, I think Perry is great and I'm glad powerful ladies like her are speaking out!
Clay Shirky
I thought Shirky's overview of media history and the most important technological advances was concise and accurate. There's no arguing with his declaration that the Internet is different from previous media innovations in history because it allowed for the first many-to-many conversations to take place (as opposed to one-to-one and one-to-many). His talk approaches a more unstable area when he addresses the shift from consumer to producer, the fact that the Internet allows any person, anywhere to voice their opinion, to help shape a general cultural narrative. While this is true, I think it's a very polarizing subject: some people think this is an important reallocation of power to "the common man" while others strongly believe commentary should be left to the professionals regardless of the subject. When Shirky concludes with the question, "How can we make the best use of this media," I think he's meaning: how do we deal with the fact that some want to give *every* voice the chance to be heard, while others do not. I wish he'd spoken to that more explicitly and maybe comment on how online communities are currently addressing this conflict (be it via self-appointed forum moderators, group rules, social media platforms working toward eliminating spam and inaccurate news, etc.).
Shirin Nashat
Nashat's talk, punctuated by the propaganda photos of Iranian women during the Iranian Revolution and images of her own beautiful artwork, was really powerful to me. She really hit on something when she spoke of being caught between being critical of Western conceptions of Iranian identity and feeling angered by the current state of Iran. I think this ebb and flow of shame and pride is one of the most essentially human experiences. I see it happening to American progressives right now: before the election, there was a sense of pride in what we felt we could be as a country, and now there is an overwhelming sense of shame for what we allowed to happen--perhaps from being so prideful that we dismissed the bubbling evil as nothing to fear. Of course, Nashat is speaking from the perspective of a person in exile, which makes her experience all the more nebulous and terrifying. I think she is right, though, to take inspiration from Iranian women: despite a history of being used as political tools during the Revolution and still today, "under all circumstances, they have pushed the boundary. They have confronted the authority. They have broken every rule in the smallest and the biggest way. And once again, they proved themselves."
Responses to Five Questions
All of these responses were really interesting to read, especially retrospectively, since 12 years have passed since their publication. I was most taken by the responses to #3 and #5. Starting with #3*, I was curious about why the original question asserted fine art is uninterested in rendering human psychology and subjectivity. I don't think I agree with that claim--there's plenty of fine art that entirely revolves around those aims. In terms of new media, my head also immediately jumped (as Levin's had) to interactive art. It is, formally and conceptually, dependent on human engagement and, therefore, intrinsically linked to human psychology and subjectivity. Question #5** interested me because Levin's (prescient) answer was written one year before Facebook became publicly available, forever changing how art is made and consumed (among many other things). Levin references a super old viral video, adding "it may not have the genius of Hitchcock, but if you want to see the televised revolution, look no further." It's laughable to think about this video and sentiment and see how quickly videos and memes are produced, digested, regurgitated, and forgotten nowadays--Levin was right! The original question asserts that the goal of technology to turn consumers into producers has failed time and time again, but now, in the year 2017, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Social media agencies are paying thousands of dollars to kids making Instagram videos in their bedroom. Justin Bieber (along with many other stars) started as YouTubers. Social media has completely allowed for consumers to become producers to the point that it's actually difficult to become a "producer" without exploiting yourself via the Internet, without being affected by the critiques of any dude with a laptop.
*"Today cinema and literature continue the modern project or rendering human psychology and subjectivity, while fine art seems to be not too concerned with this project. How can we use new media to represent contemporary subjectivity in new ways? Do we need to do it?"
**While the tools to produce one own media have been more accessible and more powerful, people never consumed more commercial media than now. Thus the essential division between 'media amateurs' and 'media professionals' which got established in the beginning seems to be as strong as ever. In short, the 1960s idea that new technologies will turn consumers into producers failed over and over again. Will this situation ever change? What will be the next stage in media consumption after MP3 players, DVD recorders, CD burners, etc, etc, etc.?
Gah. I'm never really surprised by any discussion about sexism in programming or video games. This talk was no exception, but I appreciate it for existing because there will always be people for whom all of this *is* shocking. Though I agree with Perry that advertising is part of the problem, I think it's reductive to suggest it is the only thing contributing to the declining percentage of women programmers and developers in the work force (especially in the age of ad-blockers, the dying off of print media, and the steady trading in of cable televisions for on-demand streaming services with limited commercials). I think she could have made a stronger case by detailing the toxic masculinity in gaming/programming blog threads (see: Reddit), the rape and death threats women gamers/developers receive via social media, and tales of misogyny in the workplace (both subtle and overt) that scare off potential women employees. Regardless of my oratorial advice, I think Perry is great and I'm glad powerful ladies like her are speaking out!
Clay Shirky
I thought Shirky's overview of media history and the most important technological advances was concise and accurate. There's no arguing with his declaration that the Internet is different from previous media innovations in history because it allowed for the first many-to-many conversations to take place (as opposed to one-to-one and one-to-many). His talk approaches a more unstable area when he addresses the shift from consumer to producer, the fact that the Internet allows any person, anywhere to voice their opinion, to help shape a general cultural narrative. While this is true, I think it's a very polarizing subject: some people think this is an important reallocation of power to "the common man" while others strongly believe commentary should be left to the professionals regardless of the subject. When Shirky concludes with the question, "How can we make the best use of this media," I think he's meaning: how do we deal with the fact that some want to give *every* voice the chance to be heard, while others do not. I wish he'd spoken to that more explicitly and maybe comment on how online communities are currently addressing this conflict (be it via self-appointed forum moderators, group rules, social media platforms working toward eliminating spam and inaccurate news, etc.).
Shirin Nashat
Nashat's talk, punctuated by the propaganda photos of Iranian women during the Iranian Revolution and images of her own beautiful artwork, was really powerful to me. She really hit on something when she spoke of being caught between being critical of Western conceptions of Iranian identity and feeling angered by the current state of Iran. I think this ebb and flow of shame and pride is one of the most essentially human experiences. I see it happening to American progressives right now: before the election, there was a sense of pride in what we felt we could be as a country, and now there is an overwhelming sense of shame for what we allowed to happen--perhaps from being so prideful that we dismissed the bubbling evil as nothing to fear. Of course, Nashat is speaking from the perspective of a person in exile, which makes her experience all the more nebulous and terrifying. I think she is right, though, to take inspiration from Iranian women: despite a history of being used as political tools during the Revolution and still today, "under all circumstances, they have pushed the boundary. They have confronted the authority. They have broken every rule in the smallest and the biggest way. And once again, they proved themselves."
Responses to Five Questions
All of these responses were really interesting to read, especially retrospectively, since 12 years have passed since their publication. I was most taken by the responses to #3 and #5. Starting with #3*, I was curious about why the original question asserted fine art is uninterested in rendering human psychology and subjectivity. I don't think I agree with that claim--there's plenty of fine art that entirely revolves around those aims. In terms of new media, my head also immediately jumped (as Levin's had) to interactive art. It is, formally and conceptually, dependent on human engagement and, therefore, intrinsically linked to human psychology and subjectivity. Question #5** interested me because Levin's (prescient) answer was written one year before Facebook became publicly available, forever changing how art is made and consumed (among many other things). Levin references a super old viral video, adding "it may not have the genius of Hitchcock, but if you want to see the televised revolution, look no further." It's laughable to think about this video and sentiment and see how quickly videos and memes are produced, digested, regurgitated, and forgotten nowadays--Levin was right! The original question asserts that the goal of technology to turn consumers into producers has failed time and time again, but now, in the year 2017, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Social media agencies are paying thousands of dollars to kids making Instagram videos in their bedroom. Justin Bieber (along with many other stars) started as YouTubers. Social media has completely allowed for consumers to become producers to the point that it's actually difficult to become a "producer" without exploiting yourself via the Internet, without being affected by the critiques of any dude with a laptop.
*"Today cinema and literature continue the modern project or rendering human psychology and subjectivity, while fine art seems to be not too concerned with this project. How can we use new media to represent contemporary subjectivity in new ways? Do we need to do it?"
**While the tools to produce one own media have been more accessible and more powerful, people never consumed more commercial media than now. Thus the essential division between 'media amateurs' and 'media professionals' which got established in the beginning seems to be as strong as ever. In short, the 1960s idea that new technologies will turn consumers into producers failed over and over again. Will this situation ever change? What will be the next stage in media consumption after MP3 players, DVD recorders, CD burners, etc, etc, etc.?
Comments
Post a Comment