‘But what's happening today – the mass ability to
communicate with each other, without having to go through a traditional
intermediary – is truly transformative.’ (Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian
newspaper, ‘The splintering of the fourth estate’)
How is the
diminution of traditional, and often hierarchical, “authoritative”
intermediaries changing the role of publishing in social life? You should
choose one broad area of publishing, such as, for example, journalism or music
publishing.
Culture and Data: The convenience of a mobile phone (Source: Wikipedia Commons)
Humans make errors... Sometimes we can’t even answer the simplest questions...We make decisions with partial information...We are forced to steer by guesswork... That is, some of us do. Others use data.
The way that we, as social beings, interact with not only each other but also our personal technologies has an immeasurable influence over our everyday experiences.
This week, in analysing the role of 'Culture and Data', I first came to reflect upon the above extract from Wolf's 2010 article in the New York Times.
Of course, the case study in that example is - for want of a better term - a bit 'full on', or a little 'extreme'. Perhaps so ... but conversely... not at all.
Data serves to give meaning and to provide reasoning (Edwards, 2010). Data, in its purest form, is a concrete set of figures depicting (and/or determining) human activity, allowing 'objective analysis'.
From that example, I began to critique my own actions, in which data may directly (or indirectly, unknowingly) affect my consequential behaviours.
Websites (some) often collate data to determine how long you've spent on their servers. This is generally a figure which needs to be manually 'toggled' by the user, but nevertheless, its role and purpose remain clear once more.
Just as was the case in the aforementioned coffee scenario, this too could be used to 'wean' users from the site - aka, stop wasting time and do something productive! I would argue that if very popular sites i.e Facebook, Twitter, (and perhaps, even the Arts2090 moodle page...) had this feature embedded, we'd be quite shocked at the time spent on the site (or the lack thereof?)
Websites may (and often can, with user permissions) monitor time spent on the servers.
This too made me think: does data solely reflect the doings of the person, or is it the individual who stands to mirror the collected figures?
In the above example of website session monitoring, it is innately the user who determines the length of time that they should spend on the site - and therefore, the data that stands to be collected.
When data is represented in, a news bulletin, per se, I would then argue that data may affect our cultural stance.
Generally speaking (again, with the previous examples in mind) data collation could only be viewed as a positive thing.
There are downfalls to some data collection, however, not least breaches affecting consumer finances and online security.
"As data breaches exposing consumer credit card, debit card and other personal information become more common, nearly half of cardholding shoppers say they're reluctant this holiday season to return to stores that have been hacked, according to a new survey by CreditCards.com."
(Marketwired - Oct 22, 2014)
Although I've thus far spoken of 'Culture' and 'Data' being two single entities, Manovich (2009) argued that culture is data; whereby increasingly, "measures are taken in which the digital preservation of cultural assets is turning into an obligatory act"
This notion of 'obligatory' data collection (or monitoring) is readily apparent when people actively monitor kilojoule or calorie intake as a part of a well-managed, or 'strict', pattern of eating.
Furthermore, Manovich notes the importance (or relevance) of visualisation in the data collection process. From what we've come to know in our Arts2090 tutes is that while visualisations come to easily represent data, they too can open up new lines of thought. Manovich also takes up this positioning.
"We can create interactive visualizations and dynamic maps of large cultural data sets to find new patterns – and to generate new theoretical questions."
Therefore from this brief discussion, we may observe both how and why data and culture are not mutually exclusive entities, and that they coexist not only to determine human behaviour, but to also provide the reasoning behind it.
References:
Edwards, Paul N. (2010) ‘Introduction’ in A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming Cambridge, MA: MIT Press: xiii-xvii
Distribution and Aggregation: Co-existing in one setting
"Perhaps the most significant advancement in publishing since the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, boosted by the introduction of new technologies, new-media platforms and the expanding internet, is allowing publics to be more “Social” and open through distribution."
In 2014, everyone has a voice. Some admittedly, are louder (or more prominent) than others - but irrespective, we do all have a say on public matters. And we can very well make our thoughts, opinions, beliefs and values heard (or read) with apparent ease.
Take that above paragraph as an example. I for one am arguing that we all have a voice. Others, however, would argue against me. But this is my own platform of discussion - further illustrating the point that, regardless of social status, wealth, health or otherwise, new technologies entitle their users to a sense of vocal entitlements.
Guillaud (2010) argues that "We live in flows ... that is, in a world where information is everywhere." Essentially, Guillaud makes the point that by living in the technological stream, we too not only create, but distribute it, and too alter the social sphere in doing so.
It is also very much important to note that the way in which content - be it data or another form of information – can be created and managed has rapidly increased.
The internet stands as the heart and soul in this discussion, providing a source for various platforms for content to be distributed, such as on blogs (alike this one) , social media, and other websites.
Thus, we may once me observe both how and why new-media creations (videos, music, articles, visualisations, VJ productions and more) are able to be distributed and viewed at a greater speed, to a wider audience, and over greater proximity – crossing both space and time parameters
Perhaps the greatest and most easily apparent sign of social and technological change is the way that once “people had to have what they were given, made by media professionals” through technologies such as the TV and Radio (Gauntlet 2011). Now, we’re making things in the world, not just consuming them.
We make take from this video, that Gauntlet puts forth that a vibrant publishing society is filled with opportunities for us to publish efficiently and effectively.
The associated effects on society - i for one, would argue - are witnessed however not to their fullest extent. As technology develops, so too will society's acceptance, appreciation and appropriation of such.
References:
Charalambous, L. (2011) 'Distribution, Aggregation and the Social; Open and Closed' [online] at: http://bit.ly/1vY62l6
Gregg, Melissa (2011) ‘Know your product: Online Branding and the Evacuation of Friendship’ in Work’s Intimacy Cambridge: Polity: :102-118
Guillaud, Hubert (2010) (on Danah Boyd) 'What is implied by living in a world of flow?', Truthout, January 6, <http://www.truthout.org/what-implied-living-a-world-flow56203>
Sink or Swim: Polar Bears and the effects of Climate Change (Source: WikiMedia Commons)
"Scientific visualisation is an interdisciplinary branch of science according to Friendly (2008) "primarily concerned with the visualisation of three-dimensional phenomena (architectural, meteorological, medical, biological, etc.), where the emphasis is on realistic renderings of volumes, surfaces, illumination sources, and so forth, perhaps with a dynamic (time) component
With a conscious effort to avoid making an overly-generalised, all-in-all qualifying statement about human behaviour, I would still go on to argue that we - as people, as individuals, all in part of a wider social dimension - are afforded our greatest knowledges via visual connections to other people, objects, climactic phenomena, wide-scale events, etc, etc... OR, more simply put: We learn most easily when seeing and immediately conceptualising -opposed perhaps to hearing, interpreting, and making best fit of information that has been conveyed.
For the purpose of this week's blog post, I will set out to clarify and the 'How' and 'Why' visualisation is used, and greater still, their relations to the Body and too, the Social Body.
However firstly, I must also make clear that it is difficult to argue a singular way of 'How' data representation is conveyed. Largely, the means by which one may interpret, and then further to visualise content is all-but endless - of course, visualisations may thence take the shape of any given form, in any given format, at any given time.
The reasons 'Why' we use visualisations, in contrast, become much more apparent with critical reflection to academic studies.
Iliinsky (2012) argues that "...our visual system is extremely well built for visual analysis. There’s a huge amount of data coming into your brain through your eyes; the optic nerve is a very big pipe, and it sends data to your brain very quickly..." and therefore visual data representation is the most efficient way of conveying otherwise difficult to grasp (or widely uncommon) concepts and/or information packages. Iliinsky furthers to state that "[Visualisation] casts data into a format that can be grasped and understood much more quickly and easily than the raw numbers alone."
In light of these points, refer to the image of the Polar bear at the top of this post: Without any additional contextual information having been provided, we can see that the animal is in a state of discomfort, looking to merely survive above and beyond anything else. We come to understand that something is not 'right', there is a need for social change/action to halt global warming, etc... We come to understand the plight of the creature much more quickly and much more easily than that is Polar Bear data was to say, be presented in a table.
Thus 'How' (in this instance more so than on a whole) in a literal sense is somewhat more clearly defined: perhaps, 'the How' equals that of an emotional connection, and thus 'Why' = to promote wider social change.
Watch: (0:01-1:22) for an insight on the benefits behind visualisation, and the reasons behind its use.
With these points in mind, we may then ask how can (specifically scientific) visualisations be linked back to the Body, and greater still, the Social Body on a whole?
First, turn over your palms and look at the base of your hands. Assumedly, they'd look something like this:
Visualisations and the Body: an illustration Human Hand controlling Bacterial Biofilms, which uses a novel biofilm imaging technique to show the growth of bacteria, at 400 times normal resolution. (Source: abc.net.au)
Of course, with the obvious exception of the hands being of the opposite side of the body, there is quite a strong contrast in what we come to understand as being on the hand.
The human eye is not adept to view such microbes on the hand, and I would argue that data alone - presented in a table or in prose - would not spark such a mental reaction as the one I had experienced when first viewing this image.
Visualisations, in this case, may thence be used to promote good personal hygiene, i.e 'Washing your hands after taking out the bin, or patting the dog, or going to the toilet, etc...'
Once more, we may come to see that Visualisations are not only effective in communicating data quickly, but also in a way that can be best interpreted to promote either (or both) personal and social change.
References:
Anon. (2008) 'Struggling polar bears put on endangered list', Metro.co.uk, May 15, <http://www.metro.co.uk/news/147937-struggling-polar-bears-put-on-endangered-list
Social change is not something easily diagrammed on a chart. Sweeping transformations that rearrange the workings of an entire culture begin imperceptibly, quietly but steadily entering people’s minds until one day it seems the ideas were there all along. - (Walljaspe, 2011)
In week six we deal with matters of the 'commons', and the information published by those in this sector. Also, we look at 'attention' - and specifically how publishing and assemblages affect our day-to-day lives. Key questions to be discussed as per this week's moodle slides... Attention:
How do publishing, and assemblages involving publishing, affect/construct your attention, and what does this do to you?
What are the implications? Personal, social, political?
How are the senses assembled differently in the use of different archives, and different modes of publishing more generally?
What difference does this make to our (literal and figurative) sense of the social?
The Commons:
Who owns, gets to see, share, publish information or data, etc, from personal data to state and corporate data?
What difference does this make? Should publishing be open access?
What difference do different forms of publishing (eg filesharing or P2P, or Apple apps, or niche music “netlabels”) make to the bringing together of a social group?
What are the implications? Personal, social, political?
When I first came to think about how i would approach this discussion, I immediately saw it fit to address these overarching questions...
The first: How do publishing, and assemblages involving publishing, affect/construct your attention, and what does this do to you?
And secondly: What are the implications? Personal, social, political?
In the current media climate, we are so often engaged with readily-accessible technologies that our attention is somewhat shifted from that of the real world. Means of contemporary publishing, and too those assemblages involving publishing, construct and/or alter our attention - sometimes without us even realising.
By becoming more so connected with our peers in a digital context, it is often the case that we distance ourselves from those closest to us - think the use of our mobile phones in public....
The video below perfectly illustrates these aforementioned points of discussion.
So, from that video, we immediately come to know of the 'how' and the 'when (and perhaps also the 'why') our attention is altered through publishing methods .... but not so much the 'what' (or the implications to come out of these behaviours)
"What is the line right now when we go from a kind of technology nourishment to a kind of stepping backwards, to a kind of distraction — where instead of informing us, [technology] distracts us and impedes our productivity?... There's growing evidence that that line is closer than we've imagined or acknowledged."
Thus, we may deduce that an over-indulgence in technology (and more so, published material on a whole) may divert our attention to those lengths where by productivity becomes reduced and so too our engagement with our peers most closest to us.
"There's growing concern among scientists that indulging in these ceaseless disruptions isn't good for our brains, in much the way that excessive sugar or fat - other things we evolved to crave when they were in shorter supply - isn't good for our bodies." - Temple (2011)
“It’s one of those things that regardless of where you are, everyone has experienced it" - Australian graduate student,Alex Heigh, on 'Phubbing' (Source: Time)
From these points, it is now more clear how our behaviour is affected by publishing. The question then beckons, who, in fact, are those publishing this material?
It is here that this week's discussion leads into the 'commons' - an explanation of which is delivered below...
Quite simply, the 'Commons' are public spaces. So therefore in a media context, that 'public space' should be one where the public can contribute to discussions - however that is not always the case.
Our modes of public discussion have shifted over time, from the days meetings in town halls to private user-gen forums on the web.
"...On the Internet, the viral spiral is how new commons are born. It began with free software and later produced the web..."
- David Bollier (Activist, writer, and policy strategist, co-founder of the Commons Strategies Group)
Prof. murphie summed up the notion of the 'Commons' well in this weeks lecture slides:
There will always be some kind of common... whether this is the land people share to grow food, or a space in which all can participate in political discussion, or common social life or the current sharing of information/ knowledge/media forms (music, films, yes, but also, books, published research, educational materials)
References:
Walljasper, Jay (2010) ‘The Commons Moment is Now’, Commondreams.org, <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/01/24-0>
Meretz, Stefan (2010) ‘Ten Theses about Global Commons Movement’, P2P Foundation, <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ten-theses-about-global-commons-movement/2011/01/05>
Temple, James (2011) ‘All those tweets, apps, updates may drain brain’ San Fransciso Chronicle, April 17, <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/16/BUTO1J0S2P.DTL>
Steinmetz, Katy (2013) 'Why the ‘Stop Phubbing’ Campaign Is Going Viral' August 6, <http://techland.time.com/2013/08/06/why-the-stop-phubbing-campaign-is-going-viral/>
Archives, as we most often come to think of them. (Source: Wikipedia Creative Commons)
“There would indeed be no archive desire without the radical finitude, without the possibility of a forgetfulness which does not limit itself to repression.” (Enszer, 2012).
This week, Prof. Murphie introduced us to the idea of theories, methods, memory and the archives in which these are commonly stored.
Key points to take away from the lecture:
Theory
Ideas about how things work
From latin: "theoria” - contemplation, although here we will see it as between contemplation and action.
Not only to understand the changing world, but to allow us to participate in the changing world.
Provides us with a new way of understanding already familiar things
A form of mediation between methods and practices.
Archives
Ways of organising the materials we work with, e.g media, data, objects, ideas, etc...
Memory
taken as complex, dynamic (constantly shifting) and ambiguous - is also where there is a lot of action at the junction of media technologies and cultural change
From this week's lecture and readings, we can deduce that archives (be it in the literal form as evidenced above, or in a more conceptual understanding i.e thoughts, memories, conversations, etc...) are home to the theories of the world.
As a starting point, I'll call upon the text from this week's Moodle slides to introduce the idea behind archives, and too, 'Archive' fever.
"In general, for (Jacques) Derrida (from the text Archive Fever, 1995) archives are always important because they become the basis for what counts within both society and even perhaps our sense of ourselves...
Archives constitute the most fundamental level of social and individual institutions and practices"
The term 'Archive fever', as referred to by Prof. Murphie, stems from the want to track, record, acknowledge and announce both past and current theories. (or more so today; practices, habits, actions, etc...)
Ogle (2010) argues that "...as people, we are made up of the sum total of all the experiences in our lives and in the lives of those we love. Being able to track what’s happening right now — amplified and revitalised by the real-time web — is important and will undoubtedly remain so..."
Enszer (2012) furthers to state that "... archives are both “traditional and revolutionary; at once institutive and conservative..."
So what can we take away from this? And specifically more so in relation to 'Publics and Publishing?'
I propose the first question to be, why we as media practitioners (and perhaps even more so as consumers) would want to archive, or store, things that have been published?
After significant thought and having read the associated texts of this weeks topic, I had concluded that the answer to that question is this:
We collect, store and archive data so that we can track and trace the changes in epistemological / theoretical connections to world views and sub-sequential human activities. Or, in simpler terms, how lines of thought have changed over time, and how records of such determine (or help to explain) personal behaviours.
However from this, another interesting question to consider sprung forth, and one that was proposed by the ABC's Lyn Gallacher in 2010: Do (Archives) describe our past or our future?
I am also of the belief that the answer to this question is largely subject to matters of interpretation, and that not one such answer could be upheld with any great deal of conviction.
However Derrida proposes, as again witnessed in Enszer, that while the archive seems to point to the past, it “should call into question the coming of the future.” “It is a question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise and of a responsibility for tomorrow.” (p.36)
References:
Derrida, J. (1995) ‘Archive Fever—A Freudian Impression’, Diacritics, 25(2), pp9-63
Enszer, J.R. (2008) Julie R. Enszer (personal blog), 'Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression by Jacques Derrida', November 16, <http://julierenszer.blogspot.com/2008/11/archive-fever-freudian-impression-by.html>
Gallacher, L. (2010) ‘Archive Fever’, Hindsight, Radio National, ABC, <http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/hindsight/archive-fever/4953602> (podcasts)
Ogle, M. (2010) ‘Archive Fever: A love letter to the post real-time web’, mattogle.com, December 16, <http://mattogle.com/archivefever/>
This week; we discussed issues of assemblage, the role and impact of technology upon means of publishing and of course: Latour's 'Actor Network Theory'. (ANT)
Personally, i found it rather difficult to wrap my head around the many concepts and abundant intricacies of the ANT - and took great solace in Cressman's brief summation of the topic.
In short, Cressman (2009) argued that the ANT - as proposed by the likes of Latour (1996) - considers "...both human and non-human elements equally as actors within a network. In other words, we should employ the same analytical and descriptive framework when faced with either a human, a text or a machine..."
Latour (Source: Wikipedia Creative Commons)
Straight away I found myself questioning when - and in what context - would the ANT be applicable/used?
Again, this was met with a degree of uncertainty, because many readings - not least that of Law and Hassard (1999) - found that there is no orthodoxy in current ANT, and different authors use the approach in substantially different ways.
However one sticking point across many, if not all of the proposals from those critiquing the theory is this: Technological and Social (or 'Human') actants, regardless of their contextual positioning, are to be held as equals in their respective social structure.
Once more, this lead me to question the potential windfalls of the ANT... and the first was rooted in the very name of the concept itself.
This stance was readily supported by Dankert (2010) who found that "ANT does not use the word actor in its regular meaning. The word actant would be more appropriate. An actant is that which accomplishes or undergoes an act. They differ from actors because an actant can not only be a human, but also an animal, object or concept that accomplishes or undergoes an act. Through the use of the word actant humans, animals, objects and concepts are treated equally in an analytical sense"
To relate this concept back to the over-arching theme of 'Publics and Publishing', we may thence gather that the ANT is applicable in determining the role and impacts of technologies (consider these as a means of publishing) upon their users (publics) - and vice versa!. This, in turn, serves as concrete foundations in many socio-cultural studies.
And whilst generally used in this field of study, I propose the idea that the ANT could also be used in an 'every day', or significantly more common, form when deconstructing advertising messages; be those via print or in a video-graphical form.
Respondents, in critiquing or analysing the given texts, could effectively deduce the role of the 'actants' in the work, and thus conceive their impact in transmitting the intended (or otherwise) messages to be decoded.
