Style 4

Name: Jakob

Location: SoHo

Occupation: Model

Q: Tell me about your outfit.

A: The jacket is from Zara, the jeans are Levi's and the shoes are Pumas.

Q: Being a model, do you feel pressure to fit a certain style? Or did you always dress in this way?

A: I think some pressure. Or more now I have an appreciation for nice clothes. I didn't use to dress as this before I became a model. But now, when I tell someone that I am a model, I don't want to be looking in a bad way, I have to dress good.

Q: Do you feel that designers are trying to sell a certain lifestyle or set of values to consumers with the clothes they design?

A: No (laughs)....they are just clothes. It's more like an art that you can wear, to express your taste. You make the lifestyle and values, not the designer.

Style 3

Name: Lalia

Location: SoHo

Q: How would you describe your style?

A: I like to mix and match things. My outfits don't always have to match, but I make sure I achieve an overall look.

Q: What do you feel has influenced your style?

A: I think I draw insiration from different things, and make it my own. Hip-Hop, Indie, Tribal, Mod....and then add a little Lalia!

Q: Do you think your style is essential to who you are, and your expression of self?

A: Yes! I love clothes and use my outfits as statements.

Q: What statement are you making now?

A: That I'm me. That I have an effortless style and I'm someone you'd want to know.

Style 2

Name: Lacey

Location: Union Square B&N

Occupation: Grad Student

Q: How would you describe your style?

A: I think of it as indie with an urban flavor.

Q: How much time would you say you spend putting an outfit together?

A: Depends on my mood, but usually about 5 min. The most 10.

Q: Do you feel that you dress in a way that expresses your individuality, or do you like to keep up with trends?

A: I definitely like to express my individuality.

Q: That's cool. By the way, I really like your scarf.

A: Thanks! I'm so into them these days. I have sooo many!

Q: And tell me about your headphones...

A: I love them, they're so fun! When I saw them, I knew I had to have them.

Q: Would you say they are unique; reflective of you?

A: Yea, definitely. I don't see many people with lime green headphones on the street! I think they do express my personality cuz I have a bubbly, funky personality, so my headphones and I are a match!

Style 1

Name: Anna

Location: Union Square B&N

Occupation: College Student

Q: How would you describe your style?

A: Well, I'd say I just throw things together. I like to dress casual but look put together.

Q: Do you feel like you dress in a way that in expresses your individuality, or do you feel that you like to keep up with trends?

A: Well I guess it's a bit of both. I like to update my look and incorporate some mainstream styles, but I wouldn't say I base my wardrobe on it. I like to just wear basics, like a tee, skinny jeans and a cardigan, and then add accessories, some that reflect trends and some that are unique to me.

Q: I like your scarf a lot; would you say thats something unique to you?

A: Thank you! Umm, no i wouldn't. I guess thats more of a trend.

Q: What would you say is one thing your wearing now that is unique to you?

Umm...I guess nothing right now! (laughs) I mean sometimes what I do is take a shirt & then reconstruct it a bit, like cut a basic tee into an off the shoulder shirt, or cut old jeans to make them shorts for the summer. If I'm bored, I'll do something to jazz my sneakers up a bit.

Q: Overall, would you say you are an individual?

A: Yes. I think everyone is, everyone is different; their own person. Just because styles may be similar, doesn't mean the people wearing them are the same.

Story Comments and Analysis

Ali Jo,

You portray cool as being someone who goes against mainstream culture (the anarchist cookbook, ripping down corporate posters). The interesting part was this line: "In her dreams she wore a black bandanna around her face and the same outfit as Artie from Pete and Pete. A true hero." That made me think, maybe this idea of cool is actually mainstream, because everyone wants to be a hero, a star, the main character. We just choose to seek that attention through different forms, depending on who's hero or star we want to become. But again, it seems it's all about pleasing and receiving attention from the audience. But then you know what, Petunia seemed pretty pleased to be a "hidden" hero, requiring no one around to admire her work other than her trusty dog. That, I think is cool.

Good Job =)

___________________________________________________________________

Carol,

Haha...I liked your story. I think it's what a lot of guys go through. They try to impress their "boys" and bag the girls. But in it, you see a lot of insecurity and low self esteem. That kinda makes me sympathetic towards the character, even though it doesn't seem like his personality is very likable. The struggle to be popular is like the lottery; many will play, few will win. But what about those, who like your character, can't win? It's not a good feeling to get rejected, but I feel that he should stop trying to make people like him who don't like him, and just turn his attention elsewhere. He'd be a lot happier.

Good Job on the story =)

___________________________________________________________________

Moe,

This sounds like a typical day at SOF. It seems like your idea of a cool person is someone who just goes with the flow, and doesn't worry to much. Also, your character talks back a bit to the teacher, which is basically what goes on every day. I think your story did a good job of being realistic, and reflecting what high school life is like. But, is this your idea of what cool is as well, or just a mirror of what takes place?

Overall, Good Job =)

___________________________________________________________________

Dylan,

This basically sums it up: "'look man' Johnny said calmly, "I'm gonna be in this academic factory for the next few hours, leave then come back tomorrow for the next few hours. So excuse me for not trying to enjoy the few happy moments I get." First off, so true. Second, it seems that the idea of cool here is an easygoing person, who has a grip on what their personal values are, and are willing to stand up to authority if they are challenged. I think the character is actually more mature or intelligent than somebody who is purely school-driven, and does not take time out to enjoy life and relax. Because really, what's the point in life if it's not going to be enjoyed?

Good Job =)

___________________________________________________________________

Jace,

I loved this quote: "Life is like a balloon. When your born your filled with air, but as you go on living the air starts deflating. 'No you can't eat crayons' (air leaves). 'You can't go to that school' (air leaves). 'You might not go to college' (air leaves). There is no way to stay fully inflated with life." This is the perfect description of growing up. Kinda like when you loose your "innocence", and don't have that perfect view of the world anymore. It kinda makes you long to be a little kid again, because the world appeared so differently. Your idea of cool is more subtle, and that in itself is like a kid...to them, everything about life and the world itself is cool. And then they grow up.

Good Job =)

Exploration of Cool

I think being "cool" is just trying to understand yourself and others, being compassionate and honest, and always trying to make situations better. Also, being funny wouldn't hurt. In terms of image, I just think someone who takes care of themselves (showers, shaves, wears deodorant) is cool enough. There are people who have impressive styles, but I don't think that's necessary to be cool (maybe to others it is).

One thing I don't like about "cool" though is that it causes people to become even more judgmental than they would be otherwise. Even in my idea of "cool" which is not strictly image based, I'm setting up certain standards to measure people up by. That can tend to either hurt people's feelings, or "gas"them up.

But I mean honestly, if you base your own view of yourself, or your self esteem on what other people think of you, you will go through a constant rollacoster of emotions; one day you'll feel great, and the next day you'll feel like shit. One thing you surly won't be is stable and content in yourself.

It may sound super corny, or unrealistic, but no one should base their idea of themselves on what other people say. There are many people who are negative, and thrive on bringing down others. Just because a member of your family, or a person in your social group is constantly criticizing you or telling you how you should be, doesn't mean that there's something wrong with you. I think it's cool if you can just shrug off their opinions and know that even though you may not be "good enough" for them, you are happy with who you are, and you will find people who do accept you.

In life you don't need anyone who does not like you the way you are, because those people will literally suck out your happiness, self esteem and whatever else they can take. Worst comes to worst, you can always be your own best friend, but when you let others tell you how you should change to please them and their standards, you become your own worst enemy.

Big Paper 1- Rough Draft

Digitalization promotes disembodiment, has become a medium of corporate propaganda, and fosters capitalist values at a young age.

-Disembodiment; TRANSHUMANISM

-Consumer Farming

-Capitalist values: INDIVIDUALISM illusions; COLLECTIVIST reality (both true states, one better state)

Intelligence is having unity with the earth. Being present in decisions made; every aspect of life should be made of decisions, even food (omnivores dilema)

HUMAN CONDITION- evolutionary talk

Capitalism requires individualism while evolution and survival are founded on collectivism.

Outline Suggestions

Ali Jo,

What exactly do you define as "true" pleasure and happiness? And in contrast, what is a false state of happiness?

I know you are not an advocate of binary statements, so how do you defend there being such a thing as a "true" or "false" state of happiness? Happiness is after all, a state of mind, and any feeling that we experience must be very much authentic, no? I know that you bring up the point of temporary and long lasting as a way of distinguishing which feeling is the real deal, but is how long lasting a certain feeling might be really a good indicator of how true the feeling may have been? I would argue differently, because some of the strongest emotions felt are ones that are fleeting; the terror as death grabs us and lets us go just in time to survive, for instance. Was this "short" feeling not true? Also, to discuss the idea of time that a feeling lasts, we need to have a working definition of what temporary and long lasting is, because generally speaking it's all relative (and a binary idea at that).

Now the reason I bring all this up is because you said in your comment to me: "There is no such thing as "true" and "false". Everything in our universe, whether it's ethical or not, is a natural and indigenous part of REALITY. If it can be fathomed, it's natural."

So then if it can be felt, is that not real also? Is it not the reality of our experience? Can a feeling EVER be false?

And I certainly see your point (don't think I'm attacking it) when you argue that nothing can ever be true or false, but the tricky thing with that is that we are not able to effectively convey our experiences as human beings in terms that are not binary. Something has to be right, and something has to be wrong. Something has to be good, and something has to be bad. Something has to be alive, and something has to be dead. Or else, we cannot comprehensively make sense of our situation.

While I, like you, am interested in ways that this can at least be minimized to acknowledge that at best our world is shaded gray (or purple, blue, yellow) and is not a binary universe, we must remember that we are trapped within our human ability to understand. This is why we measure time on a weird round shaped thing with two clicking lines moving across numbers. It's also why we measure how "big" or "small" things are by how much "space" they take up, when in fact the universe is constantly expanding, and so it is impossible for us to even understand this concept of space. Our universe does not have parameters, but our ability to process it does.

So even though you seem to emphatically believe that binary distinctions are bullshit (and I agree with you) both of our papers have theses that revolve around these distinctions of "true reality" for me and "true happiness" for you.

Now this is only to be expected of us as humans; I'm personally stumped for how to write this paper without including binary ideas, let alone perceive my life without them.

Soo yeah pretty much we can reject binary ideas on a theoretical level, but I'm just not sure that it can be done in practice.

But binary and reality debates aside, I'm sure your paper will be thoughtful, and well written as always :)

________________________

Carol,
I like how you relate our use of digital gadgets to our happiness. You provide a specific definition for what happiness means or is portrayed as in our culture, which is good. However, what do you think happiness should be? You seem to not believe that digital media can make one truly happy, so what would you argue does and why? Maybe you can talk about what you perceive to be the difference between these two states of happiness (if there is one as you argue). Adding that in will make your paper stronger.

Your use of evidence is great though-I think you will have a lot to work with here.

As your ideas develop further, I'm sure your paper will be really good :)

Big Paper Outline

Thesis: Digitalization is dangerous because it promotes disembodiment, and causes it's users to create and experience a world that is not consistent with the true state of being as it would be experienced with body and world awareness. In addition, it has become a medium of corporate propaganda, and the fostering of capitalist values at a young age. <----(is this too lengthy??)

Argument 1: Digitalization causes disembodiment; does not match up with true state, as a result physical conditions worsen. We are largely oblivious to this, and in turn disasters are headed our way.

Evidence: Video's of digitalization, Feed lesions compared to our situation

Argument 2: Corporate propaganda.

Evidence: Feed, Tv, Use of Ads

Argument 3: Capitalist values (an extension of corporate propaganda, or at least a hand in hand kinda thing).

Evidence: Everything bad is good for you, Wall-E

--> UPDATE: After considering Ali Jo's comments I agree that everything is a part of reality; however I still stand by my thesis on the grounds that if our physical experiences are neglected, it shall cause a great deal of destruction and stress on the world, while there will be no such consequence if our digital experiences are neglected. In other words, while both physical and digital states are real, only one is directly tied to our ability to survive, and allowing us to have the human experience in the first place. I'll expand and add to this in my paper.

Second Text (Long Excerpt)

In "Everything Bad Is Good For You", Steven Johnson argues that digital media and popular culture hone different mental skills than the ones exercised by reading books, although both hold equal importance. Johnson claims that even though video gaming should not be an enjoyable experience due to all of the work required, reward circuits in the brain cause us to inherently seek out satisfaction, and video games hold the promise of getting it right above our noses.

Of course, Johnson is smart enough to know that just because something happens to fit our reward circuits does not mean it's good for us. He acknowledges this, and even likens video gaming to crack cocaine, in that both provide the same addictive satisfaction. However, he still believes that we gain notable benefits from video gaming. He points out that video gaming allows kids to absorb and understand information about the world that they might tune out had it been conveyed to them in the format of a teacher in a classroom. He uses his nephew, who learned about what lowering industrial tax rates would do to a city from playing Sims.

Also, in his particularly effective beginning, Johnson paints a picture of a world were reading and books came into existence after video games. The passage refers to libraries as scary places where "dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers".

And while I did enjoy reading his book, I just can't agree with it. For one, I find a couple contradictions in his arguments. While he says that reading provides a social disconnect, and causes isolation from peers, he seems to find "finding yourself hunched over a computer screen, help guide splayed open on the desk, flipping back and forth between the virtual world and the level maps...you find yourself reading the help maps over dinner" to be perfectly acceptable. Ummm...hello disembodiment! This guy is not even enjoying or experiencing his food because he is mentally removed from his body in the task of solving a problem that does not even exist in the physical world, but is rather a mashing of codes and graphic images that have been deliberately created by another person to make money off of him, and boost this sense of individualism and success-can-be-yours mentality that capitalism so heavily relies on.

I think it happens like this: when a video game is successfully completed, it causes the player to feel as if they have accomplished something, that they have succeeded, that this is something they did. However, in the cases Johnson describes, the gamers seem to consult their manuals (in written text format none the less) to make it from one stage to another, the entire time. Unfortunately, life does not come with a handy manual, and so the skill that the kids are actually using is reading the text information they are given and applying it to an altered (although realistic) reality. I'd even say that by kids needing these guides so badly (as Johnson describes) they will be more open to allowing corporations to oh-so-gently help them and nudge them in the "right" direction in their physical life as well, by telling them what products they will need to succeed, and selling them ideas of individualism to keep them feeling good (read: oblivious) about the whole thing. And thus the capitalist machine blooms.

Feed B

"Art is not a Mirror with which to reflect the World. It is a Hammer with which to shape it."

Actually, I think Art that is a Mirror happens to be the strongest hammer. A mirror is a reflection of something as it stands now. Unfortunately, most people do not take the time to sit and look at current situations, or perhaps do not see them clearly. This is why art that is a mirror is often more shocking than anything else because it throws a negative or concerning aspect of our lifestyle or society into our face. Recognizing it as our own is then the part that motivates serious self or societal evaluation and scrutiny.

For me, Feed was a definite success in this way. The book's power lies in it being so blunt, unapologetic, and true to who we are allowing ourselves to become as a society ruled by digitalization and corporations. Because of this the book also makes you question what you should do to stop all this. And Tobin does provide an answer, through his revealer character Violet. Violet says she wants to create a consumer profile so skewed, that no one can sell to it. So she literally goes around looking at random, outrageous stuff and pretending that she likes them, confusing her feed in the process. This made me wonder, what would be the equivalent action for us?

My thoughts go to trying to appear as little as possible on consumer profiles, studies and data tables which make us easier to target. This would mean not allowing companies or corporations access to our information in any way, even over sites like Facebook. Also, pulling out from the digital world as much as we can, at a reasonable pace determined by us. Also, I think not allowing our kids to be exposed to the TV when they are so young, just like Violet was not exposed to the feed until she was 7, and therefore had developed her own personality.

That's all ways I can think of for now, but I'll defiantly keep thinking, and also looking out for ideas that other people may have.

Feed A

"Everything we've grown up with-the stories on the feed, the games all of that-it's all streamlining our personalities so we're easier to sell to. I mean, they do these demographic studies that divide everyone up into a few personality types, and then you get ads based on what you're supposedly like."

Now this got my attention. It is a dead on description of our current state. And the bluntness of Anderson's words makes it horrifying. It is a well known fact that corporations do all these studies and have massive piles of data on different demographics. It literally transforms human personalities into data tables. The human personality; graphed. If we the public had access to all of these data collections, we would probably be able to find our personality perfectly described. In fact, there have been times were my digital web feed has directly targeted my personality, and much to my shame, was on target. When looking up songs on iTunes, a little bar pops up with recommendations "just for you" based on what you have listened to/ purchased. I found myself liking every song they offered me (although not enough to purchase their ridiculously overpriced $1.29 per-song tracks). Also, when shopping online, most stores have a "you may also like" bar under each item you look at. Of course, I liked almost everything in that section. After reading Feed, this is something that deeply disturbed me because I realize that I fit in perfectly and seamlessly with data collections of some specific "personality type". My sense of individuality evaporated right before my eyes.

Another passage that really got at me was:

"They keep making everything more basic so it will appeal to everyone. And gradually, everyone gets used to everything being basic, so we get less and less varied as people, more simple. So the corps make everything more simple. And it goes on and on."

This is a dangerous thing because we are losing the depths and layers of personality, emotion, desire and other qualities that define us as human. Instead, we are becoming like machines, our interests pre-programed to be simple, consistent, and most importantly, predictable. It's as though the corporations have created some kind of super function to plug in our personality dynamics, and get an output of every product that we would crave. This allows corporations to market things in simple, easy ways that would make a certain product appeal to everyone universally. We are being trained to become the ultimate consumers, and I'd say we're pretty much there already. Think about it: as a nation we spend billions of dollars a year on God knows what things that are completely unnecessary and not conducive to our survival nor add any meaning to our lives, and we are not consciously aware that we are being grouped and studied so that over time we may become even better consumers. Of course, even if we do become aware, and attempt to make a change, the next shiny new and improved product will effectively draw our attention away.

Take Titus for example. Violet makes Titus feel intellectually inferior. She is the revealer figure in his life, and at times that makes him feel uneasy. In the midst of it, his parents announce to him that they will be buying him an upcar because of all that he's been through with the hacker. This is his reaction:

"I was hugging them, and I was like holy shit, by tomorrow I would be driving to pick up Violet in my own goddamn upcar, and suddenly, suddenly, I didn't feel so stupid anymore."

Finding out he was getting a new shiny thing was enough to boost his confidence, as if the upcar was an extension of his very being. By making an object so personal, corporations are successfully making us believe that without their products we would not be complete. In terms of digital gadgets, I think the big success is allowing people to experience something that is not. Without digital gadgets, we would have to face ourselves, were as with them we can create a reality that is tailored to satisfy us. And of course, should we not know what we want at any given moment, we will be assisted, and told what we want with the ever so helpful "recommendations".

Welcome to Life™.

Self Experiment (Hw #11)

Over the summer, I found myself growing increasingly annoyed with AIM, and the whole IM'ing thing. I figured, the people who I'm close with have my number, and I talk to them often through text, so why am I on AIM? It only leads to conversations that start with "Hey" climax to "What's up?" and then trail off awkwardly since I don't see many of those people regularly, or don't know enough about each other to hold up a conversation. I decided I would stop using AIM, and I did.

So for my experiment, I wondered what it would be like to sign on again and stay on for 3 days. Would I see that I missed it, and was just going through a phase in the summer? Or would I still not want to be signed on?

On Day 1 of AIM, I enjoyed it, and found myself having a lot of conversations. I thought to myself, I might just start signing on again.

On Day 2 of AIM, I again felt like it was pointless to be on it, like I did in the summer.

On Day 3 of AIM, I just wanted to sign off because I was not liking it again.

On all 3 days, I scrolled down my buddy list a couple times a day, and all of a sudden I was in the know on people's lives based on their away messages. I saw who is in a relationship with who, what date they started going out, the problems they were having, or if it was still "amazing". I don't personally care for that information, so getting the gossip or whatever on people's personal lives is not enough to draw me back into AIM. And since conversation wise I dislike it, I ended the experiment by signing off, and not signing back on since. I think my feelings in the summer were not just a phase, but just indicative of the way I've changed maybe since last year, when I used to not mind the pointless conversations, and admittedly enjoyed reading juicy away messages.

Internet Research (HW #10)

Parenting digital kids:

I tried to find something about the kids from Japan we talked about in class who had their parents bring them food and never left their room, but my google search wasn't successful. I found this article instead, that talks about how parents have to adjust to raising kids that are so digitalized. The parents complain that their kids text during dinner, watch TV on their computers in class (college age group that is), and are overall very absorbed in the digital world. The parents note how at family get-togethers, the kids have a hard time being in the moment, because they want to answer their texts and be on their phone.

That's kind of excessive because being with your family is supposed to be fun, or if it's bad, at least it's supposed to draw you into the present moment. These kids seem to have created their own world that allows them to withdraw from their surroundings, and I can imagine why their parents don't like that. And I can only imagine by the time that I have kids, how many more gadgets there will be to draw them in. I just hope younger teens, or kids like my sister, learn to enjoy physical life and find it sufficient and satisfying so they will not leap at the chance to escape and delve so deeply into the digital realm.

I don't know, I feel like a lot of this digital "progress" our society has been making will come and bite us in the ass one day. We're devaluing nature and the natural world so much, it's crazy.

Sexting article:

This article describes how an 18 year old Florida boy sent a naked picture of his girlfriend to her family and friends after they got into an argument. The police were notified, and he was arrested and charged with child pornography (his girlfriend was 16). He was convicted, and was sentenced to 5 years probation along with being required to register as a sex offender, according with state laws.

I know this sexting thing is becoming a big deal, and more and more teens are being caught doing it. What I don't get is how all of these teens are being prosecuted because of it. I mean, this couple was together for 2 and a half years, the chances that they had physical sex are overwhelming. In school, we are even taught about the tactics of safe physical sex, implying that we are going to be having it. In some cases condoms are even provided. Yet when this teen sent out pictures of his girlfriend naked (which she took, at her own free will) he can get punished for it. Morally, I think what he did was really messed up, but I don't think he should have to be registered as a sex offender for it (which only was the case because of her age). I don't really get why the government restricts what you can and cannot do with your own body. Of course, if this girl was 10, it would be a whole different story, or if the picture was taken without her knowledge somehow. But this was 2 teenagers willingly having a long lasting sexual relationship with each other. It should not be a legal case.

Responding to Video Comments (HW #9)

Carol,

Thank you for taking the time to watch my video.

Your comment was helpful, because it made me consider how I could have done my video differently to provide even more insight. I feel like I was very conscious of the fact it was an assignment, and even though my expressions came naturally, my environment was not the one I'm usually in while texting. I'm usually moving around, talking to my mom and sister, doing HW. Maybe by showing that I would have gotten even more from the assignment, because I would see myself taking the actions I take every day.

I think we both share the feeling of being pulled into texting conversations as they progress, and I think we can both agree that at times we resent this. We are reluctant yet allow ourselves to become involved nonetheless. I also liked how you made me think about how my digital experiences are different when I start out with different moods. When I start out in a bad mood, texting makes me feel even worse because I become annoyed with having to answer messages that I don't really feel like answering. Don't get me wrong; I like talking to people but when I'm in a shitty mood I like to be on my own, and to have time to myself. When I start out in a good mood, texting makes me feel even better, because I find conversations are more entertaining and even funny, probably because I'm in a state of mind to appreciate them more since I'm not clouded with a bad mood. My conversations on text rarely get "deep" though. I find that on the very off chance they do, I wish the conversation was taking place in person.

I feel like both of us focused on texting, with you interested in how it affects us while we use it, and me focusing on why I feel the need to text in the first place. I feel like both parts need to be looked at if we want to gain any insight worth having (one that has the possibility to change our habits).

We both seem interested in breaking some of our digital habits, but as life comes at us, it seems comforting to rely on our safety blanket routines, and texting, tv watching and all that good stuff plays a large part in giving ourself a (false) feeling of having something we can control and manipulate, or simply loose ourselves in. So how do we withdraw? What approach should we take? I think a large part of it may be honest self reflection, and prioritizing. While our computers may be essential to complete HW and check e-mail, watching a 6 hour marathon of "E: The True Hollywood Stories" is probably not as necessary.

___________________________________________________________________

Ali Jo,

Thank you for taking the time to watch my video.

I feel like you were able to pick up my emotions from my expressions very accurately, and I'm kind of shocked that it comes across that obviously. It makes me wonder what else my facial expressions might give away in my daily life.

I actually did feel annoyed in the video, because I had a long day and just wanted to be done with my responsibilities so I could lay down and listen to my ipod (escaping from one digital device to the other -_-). By pointing out that this comes across visually in the video, you made me wonder why I didn't just say I was busy and throw the phone in some corner of my room for the rest of the night. But as I mentioned in my write up, I continued to text even after the video ended, and probably continued looking annoyed (with breaks of mild amusement) the whole time.

I feel like both of us had varying degrees of this annoyance expression, however you focused more on analyzing different digital media, and pointing out some of the things that are deliberately created to be subtle to the average person (the sexually violet video games and such) while I feel like my write up talked about me personally, and for the most part stated things that are obvious. I guess that's ok too for now, but noticing the subtle things and their huge implications is something I'm striving for.

Commenting On Triad Videos

Ali Jo,

Wow. This whole post is just amazingness, from the video to your insightful writing.

Your video captured me, because of your expressions and the mood portrayed (which was greatly enhanced by your song choice). While you played the video game, I could tell that you were involved with what was happening, but yet something about the look in your eyes was disconnected and even sad. It seemed that when you were watching the "dogs in hats" video, you appeared dissatisfied by the images playing on your screen, and the experience didn't seem to fulfill you as much as you might have hoped it would. When you rested your head against the pillow and fiddled with your bangs, you kind of half closed your eyes, which reminded me of someone counting the seconds until the dismissal bell rings to bolt out of school and into freedom. By the end of the video, I got the feeling that you were still searching for something, something that your video gaming and youtubing failed to provide.

Reading your write up, I feel like you did a great job analyzing "sexually violent" video games. I had never thought about first person shooter games as penis-centric before. I agree with you when you say that you wouldn't want your kids spending time doing any of this, but I also understand your dispare of feeling like a hypocrite. It always seems that when we as individuals are engaging in an activity we wouldn't recommend for others, it seems slightly justified or less dangerous because we all would like to believe we "have it under control", whereas other people clearly don't or won't. I feel that way a lot, but it's really such an ego trip. Actually, one of the "successes" of digital gadgets and media is that they always make it clear that you have the control, that you have the power to choose....they build up your ego nice and big. In reality though, we are the ones who are submissive.

Your video made me reconsider why it is that when I'm bored, or want to escape the present moment I turn to digital devices. These seem to provide little satisfaction, and simply put a band aid over my feelings, but don't really seem to resolve them. It's like willingly trapping yourself; ridiculously dumb. But I know in my heart of hearts I won't be stopping anytime soon.

Great work! :)

_________________________________________________________________

Russell,

Great post. I found your video and your write up to be very interesting, and it challenged the common perspective.

While watching your video, the first thing that becomes noticeable is your breathing. It shows how engrossed you are in the game. Even though you appear to just be sitting in a chair, the action on the screen had a physical impact on you.

Your write up was particularly interesting. I liked that you raised the question of what reality is, and why a stimulation is not considered real. I think in order to come to a solid answer, we have to prove that the physical lives we are leading are real, and that there is a significant difference between that and a stimulation. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove that our physical lives are a reality. For all we know, this life may be a "vanilla sky" type of of thing. We just can't be sure.

However, we can still compare physical life and a stimulation, because like we learned in science, we can make an observation that way. I think the significant difference between the physical football game and the stimulated one is what form you took in each of them. In the physical game you took on your own form, you played using your own body, with the skill level that your body possess. In the stimulation, the form you took on is not the one you see in the mirror, if someone tackled you it didn't cause physical pain, and your skill level could potentially be different. I would argue that comparatively, digital simulations are fake, or "faker" than physical existence.

Good job on the video & post.

Interviews and Surveys

Interviewing my Mom:

Me: How many hours would you say you spend using digital devices?

Mom: Well in my job, I have to use the computer almost the whole time, so around 8 or 9 hours a day. People used to walk over to each others office and talk about what was going on, but now everyone e-mails each other. It gets tiring for me because so many hours in front of the computer, I get a headache. But when your boss and your co-workers are e-mailing you, you have to respond. I don't really have a choice.

Me: Is there any other digital device you use besides the computer? And how much time do you spend on it?

Mom: Oh yes, I forgot of my cell phone. This is the only other one. I only use it for phone calls, and they only go on for a couple minutes.

Me: Do you think that we (me & my sister) spend too much time using digital devices?

Mom: Mmh...yes I do. Your sister, she gets so attached to the TV now and that worries me. I think it makes her more nervous...I think this is the word I'm not sure...(describes it to me in Greek...the word is not exactly nervous, but more like agitated). And you, I trust you. Your 17 and know how to make your own choice. Compared to other kids, they are addicted but I don't think it's an addiction for you.

Me: Thank you.

Interviewing Strangers:

Me: (explaining about the class)

Stranger one: Ok, no problem.

Me: How many hours would you say you spend using digital devices?

Stranger One: Eh, about 4 or 5. That's time on the TV and time on my phone.

Me: Do you think this is too much time? Have you ever considered disconnecting for a while?

Stranger One: I don't think it's too bad. Disconnecting? Nah, I don't think I could do that. I need my cell phone man.

Me: Thanks for your time.

Me: (explaining about the class)

Stranger Two: Sure thing.

Me: How many hours would you say you spend using digital devices?

Stranger Two: I hate all those gadgets! I do admit though, I have a cell phone, a TV and a computer, even if they are all the simplest models out there. I would say collectively about an hour to two hours on a bad day. Even though I have 'em I don't use 'em a lot.

Me: What would you say are companies motives for pushing technology so hard? Does the government also have a motive for it?

Stranger Two: Yes! They both have motives. I think companies do it for the money, and the government does it to suppress any adversion there might be. I think they don't want folks to get riled up while they pull their shady tactics. They want us to be too caught up in fantasyland while they screw with the real world.

Me: Thank you for your time.

Interviewing my Best Friend:

Me: How many hours would you say you spend using digital devices?

Kat: Wow, a lot. Like I'm always plugged in somehow. I need music to survive, so my ipod is a must. I use my phone constantly to stay in touch with people, and the computer is just a must in college. Like, it would be completely impossible to get any work done without it. So I think I'm always using it in some way, like 24/7.

Me: Do you feel that there is a separation between the digital self and the physical self? Is one authentic and the other inauthentic, or fabricated?

Kat: Yea, there's a separation. When your talking to someone in person, it's much harder to control your initial reaction to things. When you use digital things you can control every piece of what you put out there, you kinda create the ideal you. For the authentic & inauthentic thing...umm I mean it really depends on the person. Most are more authentic in person than on a screen, but some may be authentic on both, others in neither.

Me: Thanks!

Video Project

Video Project from e s on Vimeo.

After watching my video, I noticed that even though I'm not doing anything else, I don't really look absorbed or particularly interested in what I'm doing. This is how I felt when I was recording it, because I had a long day, and I just wanted some time to myself. But towards the end of the video, when conversations started to get more interesting I couldn't help but be pulled in more, and even after the video ended, I kept texting (although not exclusively like in the video).

I wouldn't want my sister or future child to spend a lot of time doing this kind of stuff, because even though there are both positive and negative effects, I think that the negatives are more pronounced and significant. Already though, I notice my sister has become attached to the TV and it bothers me because I was never like that when I was little. But when my sister comes home from school, she always asks me if she can watch TV and I tell her after she does her homework. So after she finishes, I let her put it on but then after about an hour I tell her to turn it off and she starts shouting and screaming "NO! NO!" and I try to explain to her why I don't want her to watch it. It works and she eventually turns it off but not after 20 min of screaming and crying and kicking.

As for ideas like the Wii, I do think it is supposed to make the contrast less stark, but at the same time, I do think that it's less harmful than other digital devices. Even though it's better to exercise outside, or playing the real sport, at least with the Wii people can still move around and play with other actual people.

Comments On Other People's First Thoughts (HW #4)

Ali Jo,

I liked how even though you weren't inspired to write, you wrote out your thought process. I think it turned out very well, and was honest and insightful. One of the lines that stuck out to me is when you say "When I walk into your class in the morning, I am at first empowered by the floral 'fight technological oppression' sign, only to be confused and disheartened when I find that the neon blue tape connects it to the back of a fancy computer". It's a great, detailed observation, yet it also says something deeper about our attempts to "fight" or get away from how digitalized our world has become.

I feel your struggle to listen and to nurture your own thoughts, and I agree with you when

you say that the relationship between man and his screen is a complex one. I also think your

feeling of hopelessness is shared by many of us who want to stop aimlessly roaming the web or

watching a TV show we don't particularly care for. It's as though we are involuntarily

dependent on technology to cure our boredom and dissatisfaction with the present moment.

I also like your added thoughts, and the idea of the detachment of our physical being and

our digital identity. I also brought this up in my post, but I think the idea of the authentic

self is also complicated, because even in our physical, daily lives many people do not present

themselves honestly, or attempt to blend in with the crowd. By doing so and muting their own

voices so that others may not discover them, perhaps there is a point were it becomes silent

even to them. If the person does manage to keep a sense of who they really are though, I would

argue that it is possible for them to feel more comfortable expressing it in the digital world

were they have their screen to shield them.

To be honest, I think all of your ideas were well developed, so I guess the only suggestion

would be to maybe have more conversations with other people, such as the one with Ian

that lead to your expanded thoughts.

Your post did get me thinking about when we are going to try and be digital free for a few

days. I wonder what will take the place of the digital stuff. Also, it made me think about how

I've been getting sick of AIM and decided not to go on it anymore. For me, that seemed pretty

radical, but then, just like the blue tape was attached to a fancy computer, I'm still incredibly

attached to texting and listening to music on my ipod so even this bold move really amounts

to no significant detachment.

Good job, I look forward to reading more from you as your thoughts develop!

_________________________________________________________________

Russell,

I really liked the format of your post. I think talking about the tabs you had open on your

computer was a smart and innovative way to approach the assignment. Also, it gave a look into

your natural, daily life.

I agree with your idea of facebook and how it has redefined the word "friend". The majority

of people who are facebook friends are probably people who you don't share a real bond with,

yet they can have an up close and personal look into all the details of your life...your

relationship status, your status updates, and pictures. Since this is the case, and

the friends you do share a bond with you also text and IM with, what is the real motive behind

having a facebook?

I can connect with your thoughts on fantasy football, and the idea of not being able to do

something in real life and instead doing it digitally. When I was younger, around 9 or 10 years

old I used to play those fashion games on the web (embarrassing to admit) where you can

dress the model up in whatever you want. In reality, I didn't have a closet full of trendy,

cute cloths to play around with, but there was something satisfying in pretending.

I think all of your thoughts were well developed, the only suggestion I would have is to

maybe have done another tab or idea that you had. But really, you did a great job as it is.

Your post did get me thinking about my own life though, because I used to have a facebook

as well. Then one day, I just decided to up and delete it. I, like you, had many facebook "friends"

but as to how many I actually talked to was much, much fewer. I just felt that for me it had

become pointless because of that, and because when I looked at the idea of a profile page, it

seems like a form of self advertisement. Is the "about me" section more than just a

proclamation of "I'm cool! Be friends with me!"? Is the profile pic more than just a way to show

others how attractive you can be when posing at that angle, in that lighting, with those effects?

Although recently I have seen people who leave the about me blank, and who just put a candid

shot as their profile pic so I guess that it is avoidable.

Good job on your post, I look forward to reading more of them!

First Thoughts About Digitalization (HW #3)

When I think about digitization, I think about how it affects people's relationships with others, and how it affects people's perception of themselves, their values etc. Here are some of those thoughts:

- The faster our technology becomes, the more impatient we grow. Society values instant results, and when they are not delivered people will deem it inconvenient or will look to something else. This is dangerous because when people demand that as soon as a question or an idea comes to mind, that an answer be presented, it can devalue the process of thinking simply because it is not convenient enough. In a culture were the value of solitary thinking is minimal to non existent, it's people are bound to grow "dumber" (less observant, inquisitive, analytical, independent).

- With so many facets of digital expression, how important can the digital "feeds" we put out there really be? Is it crucial and vital to update your twitter, myspace, facebook, and AIM away message? I would argue that it's simply an explosion of random meaningless chatter that allows people to create a universe, and put themselves at the center of it. Because what, really, is the motive for tweeting every 10 min? It might be harsh, but most people probably could care less about the blow by blow details of your life. But by being presented with the question that sites like twitter present ("what are you doing now?") people feel compelled to answer. Soon it becomes an addicting habit that allows the person to feel as though they are leading an important and interesting life, and owe it to their "friends" or "fans" to keep them posted at all times, lest they miss a key moment such as "chiilin' in the crib watching family guy".

-Where does reality begin? End? I think it's hard to draw a clear line at this point, because so many things in the virtual world affect physical and in-person reality. If you text someone telling them you like them, it can affect your face to face contact with them even though you have never said anything to them in person. This whole concept is weird, because it allows people to say things they would never say to someone face to face, yet have the in-person experience as though they did. There are even people who announce to their spouse that they are filing for divorce by changing their facebook status from "married" to single". What does this amount to? I think less social skills that will ultimately put our generation at a disadvantage to forming a true human to human relationship, because we will be so at loss and uneasy.

-With all these digital devices, networks and sites, where do you go? Where does your authentic self fit in to all this media, if at all?

-Digital representation devices are highly addictive. It's easy to fall into the trap of needing to be plugged in at all times; a willing or unwilling addict.

-Social networking can at times seem like a form of self advertisement. The about me section, profile pic, and other details of your page are deliberately selected by you in order to present the image you want others to see.

-There are TVs everywhere, even in cars. This shows how dependent we are on technology; we can't even go for a 30 min drive without plugging our kids in front of TV sets. It's as though the TV has replaced pacifiers for getting kids to stop being restless.

- As of now, the digital world and the "actual" world co-exist (although often overlapping), but possibly in the near future they will be inseparable, intertwined. It kind of reminds me about what we learned a few years back in humanities, the "industrial revolution" and how that put many people out of work because human labor was no longer needed. I think a "digital revolution" could very well happen, and we may not need certain jobs anymore because computers will take their place.