To Francesca on post 11:
This post was really interesting. Your honesty about how dependent you are on your ipod was amazing.
You state how you are more aware of your surroundings. I got the feeling that being aware made you uncomfortable. Do you prefer to be isolated in your own bubble?
I know just what you mean about feeling uncomfortable and feeling the need to stare or look at pictures or just even zone out. I feel like ipods are just little things that keep our attention and they keep us from really interacting.
Its interesting how you call it your "security blanket" it makes me think of something that you depend on to keep you safe. What do you think you would do if ipods had never been invented? Would you be okay with staring at other peoples books?
Me myself I feel like we would feel just fine with staring at people on the train because that would be all we have ever known and nothing would be wrong with that because in a way it would be normal.
This was a very interesting post, I could really relate to what you were saying.
To Ian G, on Feed B:
I like this post a lot, the way you write is really original and interesting.
I like how you introduce a different way that you might be able to intertwine a story. a picture and an elaborate allogory all in to one.
I completely understand how you connect Anderson's story to your farm house idea. Because it goes to show that anything can be meaningful if given the right character and importance.
Personally I don't really care about waking the world up when it comes to being digital. I mean it is how it is and most likely its not going to change, but there are going to be a 1,000,001 "Anderson's" who make a point and then do nothing.
How would you tell your kind of allegory? Do you think that more allegories on digital things are needed?
This makes me think of how people like to point out the bad in life 100 times over and nothing gets done about it.
Ian this was a great and funny post. I look forward to more :]
Monday, October 26, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Hw 14- Johnson Vs. Anderson. Feed Us Bad B.S That Is Good For Us
Well to be honest I ended up skimming over all of the provided texts. And I noticed that about 1/2 way through the longest text I began to think about how it connects to everything else. I realised that I was no longer reading but sating and thinking.
At the end of my skimming/thinking/staring I understood like the vexing title of the book that everything bad is good for you. Johnson brought up alot of good points that me being an oblivious teen had never thought of. In the first few pages of the long text, Johnson brought up the argument of timing and placement. Which I thought was clever.
He mentioned that if video games had been introduced centuries before books that we would say that books are bad and cannot be trusted. I felt like that argument in itself was a pun for stupidity. Basically because we have been exposed to it longer then it can be trusted. Which I found as odd and increasingly interesting. Johnson made a point about how when we are learning to read we are focusing on what the plot and what the point of the book is rather than learning.
Johnson mentions a point that Spock made about reading being something that helps us to gain knowledge because we stay focused on something for long periods of time and it is actually us Reading word by word doing all the work. Johnson retorts by saying video games offer the same stimulation.
Personally I like video games and I like reading. I think that it depends both ways. For example if I'm reading something that I am not interested in then most likely I'm not going to gain any knowledge from it and the whole theory of reading to gain knowledge goes down the toilet.
Connecting Feed to this should be interesting.
Feed is saying that digital things are turning the teens of today in to mindless stupid fools who don't feel. Which in many ways could be true. Anderson is basically screaming at the reader to wake up and look around at what we are becoming. To detach from the screens and go outside and feel. So we as the readers go on thinking that digital is bad. Then Johnson comes along saying that actually digital isn't all that bad and tuning in might be in your benefit.
Anderson is talking about a large dependence on digital and here Johnson is talking about a slight comparison and that the screen should not be shunned but it shouldn't be depended on to live either.
There is always going to be a good and a bad side to something like "digital". Personally it doesn't really matter to me anymore. I feel like this has been going on for a long time. People pointing out the problems in the world and then not doing anything about it. I feel like this is only going to make us see both sides of the argument and we are going to go about our lives and keep texting and logging on.
So, what is the point?
At the end of my skimming/thinking/staring I understood like the vexing title of the book that everything bad is good for you. Johnson brought up alot of good points that me being an oblivious teen had never thought of. In the first few pages of the long text, Johnson brought up the argument of timing and placement. Which I thought was clever.
He mentioned that if video games had been introduced centuries before books that we would say that books are bad and cannot be trusted. I felt like that argument in itself was a pun for stupidity. Basically because we have been exposed to it longer then it can be trusted. Which I found as odd and increasingly interesting. Johnson made a point about how when we are learning to read we are focusing on what the plot and what the point of the book is rather than learning.
Johnson mentions a point that Spock made about reading being something that helps us to gain knowledge because we stay focused on something for long periods of time and it is actually us Reading word by word doing all the work. Johnson retorts by saying video games offer the same stimulation.
Personally I like video games and I like reading. I think that it depends both ways. For example if I'm reading something that I am not interested in then most likely I'm not going to gain any knowledge from it and the whole theory of reading to gain knowledge goes down the toilet.
Connecting Feed to this should be interesting.
Feed is saying that digital things are turning the teens of today in to mindless stupid fools who don't feel. Which in many ways could be true. Anderson is basically screaming at the reader to wake up and look around at what we are becoming. To detach from the screens and go outside and feel. So we as the readers go on thinking that digital is bad. Then Johnson comes along saying that actually digital isn't all that bad and tuning in might be in your benefit.
Anderson is talking about a large dependence on digital and here Johnson is talking about a slight comparison and that the screen should not be shunned but it shouldn't be depended on to live either.
There is always going to be a good and a bad side to something like "digital". Personally it doesn't really matter to me anymore. I feel like this has been going on for a long time. People pointing out the problems in the world and then not doing anything about it. I feel like this is only going to make us see both sides of the argument and we are going to go about our lives and keep texting and logging on.
So, what is the point?
Monday, October 19, 2009
Feed B- Art?
Anderson,uses his words as art. He paints a picture in your mind but it is strategically set up so that each reader sees it in a different way. For example and adult interpretation would be: damn kids, they are so dumb these days. A teen would say something like: I really want a feed. I believe that Anderson wanted to show how dumb we were because the majority of people reading this book won't get the message until later informed. Which I think is a great technique, kind of like a blanket over the truth so the unveiling makes the point so much more epic.
However I think that Anderson does have a point about saving the large point of the book until the last pages. What I like about his work is that he picked a topic that can be cared about and at the same time brushed off. Writing about teens who depend on technology might not turn alot of heads. But at the same time its waking people up. Writing about a teen tragedy isn't really attractive and the thoughts of "art" don't really come to mind for me.
As for what art is, I think that it is what you make it. It can be both the hammer and the mirror. It makes it so much more fun when one thing can be seen as several different things. There is a much deeper understanding when more interpretations can be pulled because the art touches everyone and there is a mesh of thoughts rather than one great big grey blob of emptiness...
On the terms of being successful I can't really say. I mean how on earth would you judge that?! If I got the point of the book and someone else didn't does that mean that the book was unsuccessful?
In all honesty I don't really care about what my art would say, if Anderson is correct about us then really all we care about is getting something new and shiny. So I figure art wouldn't really interest too many people in our age group.
Anderson is stating the problem, but if the people that read the book can't figure that out then the point of the book/art is pointless. At this point in the game nothing is really going to be done about this whole technology fad. Instead of fighting why not embrace? Would that make us dumb?
However I think that Anderson does have a point about saving the large point of the book until the last pages. What I like about his work is that he picked a topic that can be cared about and at the same time brushed off. Writing about teens who depend on technology might not turn alot of heads. But at the same time its waking people up. Writing about a teen tragedy isn't really attractive and the thoughts of "art" don't really come to mind for me.
As for what art is, I think that it is what you make it. It can be both the hammer and the mirror. It makes it so much more fun when one thing can be seen as several different things. There is a much deeper understanding when more interpretations can be pulled because the art touches everyone and there is a mesh of thoughts rather than one great big grey blob of emptiness...
On the terms of being successful I can't really say. I mean how on earth would you judge that?! If I got the point of the book and someone else didn't does that mean that the book was unsuccessful?
In all honesty I don't really care about what my art would say, if Anderson is correct about us then really all we care about is getting something new and shiny. So I figure art wouldn't really interest too many people in our age group.
Anderson is stating the problem, but if the people that read the book can't figure that out then the point of the book/art is pointless. At this point in the game nothing is really going to be done about this whole technology fad. Instead of fighting why not embrace? Would that make us dumb?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Feed A - Lol R We Rly Dat Dum (Revised)
Let's see, this book is basically mocking every teen. Now first instinct tells us that we should get upset, deny it with all our souls or just ignore the book. Instead of that why not think about it? We know how much time we spend on our knickknacks I think that admitting that we spend at least 2/3 of our day texinging,instant messaging...yada yada yada is where the road block comes in. (See my earlier post "Not AA...")
Feed does touch on many things that we as teens in 2009 do, like disregard our parents, get in crappy relationships, go to parties just because... I could go on for a while. Feed is an allegory for the majority of teens today. Granted there are those who spend their Friday nights reading with their phones off just waiting for mommy and daddy to come home but for the most part the book is spot on.
What's weird about self discovery is that we try to deny it. I mean no one wants to be called dumb and no one wants to be a stereotype but when you have 5 hour conversations that look like this: lol, omg Bobby was so totally looking at you! :-) there might be a problem...
Look in to that
There are ways in which Feed can be false. You can assume the the lives of teens today are not tragic. Most of us are obliviously looking forward to the days to come where we can stare blankly at screens just because we can. Feed is saying that this is the direction that we are going in. Feed is saying that eventually a large dependence on computers and technology will lead us further into stupidity.
Most teens today are not bothered by that. Most people don't see technology as our downfall. Most people see that smoking, overuse of oil and pollution are going to end the world!! But I'm almost sure that technology can lead people to do all of the above. 1. You get frustrated that your phone doesn't work and your ipod is always freezing and you pick up smoking...as a nervous habit. 2. most phones, TV's and computers are made of plastic. 3. eventually you'll throw it out.
"Some say" (see earlier post for the joke) that using technology actually hurts us more than not using it. Lets say you watch TV all day (most of us do) and you're sitting there mindlessly eating (this can happen). Say potato chips out of a plastic bag, you run out of them. So you get up get in your car and drive to the nearest Wal-Mart which is atop a hill, so you get out and walk and you're out of breath (lets say your overweight from all those chips) wasting precious air. You pay and drive back and return to your TV. A month later the bill comes and since you've watched plenty of TV the bill is like 7 pages long. Sounds like just watching TV wastes more resources than getting off your butt and doing something.
Think about it as well. But if a Titus is reading this then...da da da da da
Feed does touch on many things that we as teens in 2009 do, like disregard our parents, get in crappy relationships, go to parties just because... I could go on for a while. Feed is an allegory for the majority of teens today. Granted there are those who spend their Friday nights reading with their phones off just waiting for mommy and daddy to come home but for the most part the book is spot on.
What's weird about self discovery is that we try to deny it. I mean no one wants to be called dumb and no one wants to be a stereotype but when you have 5 hour conversations that look like this: lol, omg Bobby was so totally looking at you! :-) there might be a problem...
Look in to that
There are ways in which Feed can be false. You can assume the the lives of teens today are not tragic. Most of us are obliviously looking forward to the days to come where we can stare blankly at screens just because we can. Feed is saying that this is the direction that we are going in. Feed is saying that eventually a large dependence on computers and technology will lead us further into stupidity.
Most teens today are not bothered by that. Most people don't see technology as our downfall. Most people see that smoking, overuse of oil and pollution are going to end the world!! But I'm almost sure that technology can lead people to do all of the above. 1. You get frustrated that your phone doesn't work and your ipod is always freezing and you pick up smoking...as a nervous habit. 2. most phones, TV's and computers are made of plastic. 3. eventually you'll throw it out.
"Some say" (see earlier post for the joke) that using technology actually hurts us more than not using it. Lets say you watch TV all day (most of us do) and you're sitting there mindlessly eating (this can happen). Say potato chips out of a plastic bag, you run out of them. So you get up get in your car and drive to the nearest Wal-Mart which is atop a hill, so you get out and walk and you're out of breath (lets say your overweight from all those chips) wasting precious air. You pay and drive back and return to your TV. A month later the bill comes and since you've watched plenty of TV the bill is like 7 pages long. Sounds like just watching TV wastes more resources than getting off your butt and doing something.
Think about it as well. But if a Titus is reading this then...da da da da da
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Hw 11- I'm Not A Scientist, But I Can Get A Degree Online
How the heck are we supposed to do a "digital fast" when all the homework for this class is due online?
Anyway, I didn't watch TV yesterday. Which to be honest was not that hard. I didn't have a burning urge to watch it and I didn't start foaming at the mouth at the thought of not watching TV.
Uh then I tried only using the computer. It wasn't hard either since its the second digital thing I use most, the first being my ipod. I was tired by 12:30, not because its an artificial stimulator but because I was just simply tired. Despite what was said in class.
I don't consider myself to be a very digital teenager. I think that it would be hard to cut digital things out of my life completely because I wouldn't be able to do anything that is considered "anything" in this day and age. Since everything has been converted to being digital, not being digital would cut you off from society...which might not be that bad... Someone told me that cell phones are leaches. They are there so that parents can keep tabs on their children, something to consider.
Technology is boss. No one defies the boss. (I say there should be no boss...cough cough...Anarchy) Its almost as if we have to be digital...or else. We are forced to depend on these things to function and therefore we are labeled the 'dumb generation'
I say that every generation had things that they were dependant on, just these days the things we depend on are rechargeable...not saying we're better but hey.
Anyway, I didn't watch TV yesterday. Which to be honest was not that hard. I didn't have a burning urge to watch it and I didn't start foaming at the mouth at the thought of not watching TV.
Uh then I tried only using the computer. It wasn't hard either since its the second digital thing I use most, the first being my ipod. I was tired by 12:30, not because its an artificial stimulator but because I was just simply tired. Despite what was said in class.
I don't consider myself to be a very digital teenager. I think that it would be hard to cut digital things out of my life completely because I wouldn't be able to do anything that is considered "anything" in this day and age. Since everything has been converted to being digital, not being digital would cut you off from society...which might not be that bad... Someone told me that cell phones are leaches. They are there so that parents can keep tabs on their children, something to consider.
Technology is boss. No one defies the boss. (I say there should be no boss...cough cough...Anarchy) Its almost as if we have to be digital...or else. We are forced to depend on these things to function and therefore we are labeled the 'dumb generation'
I say that every generation had things that they were dependant on, just these days the things we depend on are rechargeable...not saying we're better but hey.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Hw 10- "Some Say" I LOL @ "Concerned Parents"
For the Music Lover:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827159,00.html
Ipod volume has always been the talk of the town. I think that it's interesting to know about the damage that can possibly be done to your ears by listening to a simple song. Let me put emphasis on the words: long term, so no you won't go deaf tomorrow more like when you're 40. The article is talking about how listening to loud music for certain periods of time. I only skimmed it but the phrases "concerned parents" and "some say" came up often. I'm not sure if they even bothered to ask us..
For the TV Lover:
http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2007/10/31/1910306.htm
This is a short article. Basically "concerned parents" again asking if their children will be harmed by sitting too close to the TV. So it looks like no matter what you are staring at your eyes are working. The site suggests some tips for long term TV watching.
For the Naughty Kid:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/05/19/emotional_problems_mobile_phone_report/
This is weird. "Some say" that if kids are acting up in school blame cell phone usage. Basically the article is saying that mothers in Denmark who talked on the phone excessively during pregnancy may have altered the behavior in their children. A study was taken for children up to age 7 in 1993 linked to their academics.
For the Text Lovers:
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=9085
-and-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=is-texting-making-us-bad-spellers-09-09-23
So the first article is saying that texting could be doing horrible damage to your hand and wrist muscles. "Some suggest" that you need to take routine breaks during texting (which may defeat the purpose, texting is supposed to be quick) The second is explaining how texing can make people horrible spellers. "Critics say" that texting can lead to sloppiness.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1827159,00.html
Ipod volume has always been the talk of the town. I think that it's interesting to know about the damage that can possibly be done to your ears by listening to a simple song. Let me put emphasis on the words: long term, so no you won't go deaf tomorrow more like when you're 40. The article is talking about how listening to loud music for certain periods of time. I only skimmed it but the phrases "concerned parents" and "some say" came up often. I'm not sure if they even bothered to ask us..
For the TV Lover:
http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2007/10/31/1910306.htm
This is a short article. Basically "concerned parents" again asking if their children will be harmed by sitting too close to the TV. So it looks like no matter what you are staring at your eyes are working. The site suggests some tips for long term TV watching.
For the Naughty Kid:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/05/19/emotional_problems_mobile_phone_report/
This is weird. "Some say" that if kids are acting up in school blame cell phone usage. Basically the article is saying that mothers in Denmark who talked on the phone excessively during pregnancy may have altered the behavior in their children. A study was taken for children up to age 7 in 1993 linked to their academics.
For the Text Lovers:
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=9085
-and-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=is-texting-making-us-bad-spellers-09-09-23
So the first article is saying that texting could be doing horrible damage to your hand and wrist muscles. "Some suggest" that you need to take routine breaks during texting (which may defeat the purpose, texting is supposed to be quick) The second is explaining how texing can make people horrible spellers. "Critics say" that texting can lead to sloppiness.
Hw 9- Old Habbits Die Hard, G-K
To Ian G
Thank you so much for your comments on my video, they were so nice. You said alot of things that I didn't even consider.
When you mentioned that I was multitasking through alot of my video that helped me. I didn't really consider that that was what I was doing.
Your comment actually helped me to think about the things that we do but we never really notice. I think that an act like that would help to bring out the "natural" feeling in our videos.
I like how you mention the point of "self defeating" I think that it goes great with the term "double edge sword". Its like how could this possibly be natural if what Im doing is planned?
How can we seem or become as natural as possible without seeming fake? I think its a hard question because its assuming that we are already real...
If you get an aswer please let me know.
To Francesca T:
Thanks for watching my video, your comment made me think deeper in to the meaning of what it means to be digital and disembodied.
When you mentioned the scene where my dad was talking and I looked like I didn't care, that helped me alot to notice the little subconcious things that people do and don't notice them until they are pointed out.
I had thought that my video was personally not very good and I felt uncomfortable. But your comment and POV is from a different angle and that makes me think that when we view ourselves we feel fake in a way but when others see us, it seems real to them. Do you think it helps to be able to see ourselves?
Do you think that we should see ourselves on a regular basis?
I liked your comment it made me think more. Thanks for taking the time out to do it.
Thank you so much for your comments on my video, they were so nice. You said alot of things that I didn't even consider.
When you mentioned that I was multitasking through alot of my video that helped me. I didn't really consider that that was what I was doing.
Your comment actually helped me to think about the things that we do but we never really notice. I think that an act like that would help to bring out the "natural" feeling in our videos.
I like how you mention the point of "self defeating" I think that it goes great with the term "double edge sword". Its like how could this possibly be natural if what Im doing is planned?
How can we seem or become as natural as possible without seeming fake? I think its a hard question because its assuming that we are already real...
If you get an aswer please let me know.
To Francesca T:
Thanks for watching my video, your comment made me think deeper in to the meaning of what it means to be digital and disembodied.
When you mentioned the scene where my dad was talking and I looked like I didn't care, that helped me alot to notice the little subconcious things that people do and don't notice them until they are pointed out.
I had thought that my video was personally not very good and I felt uncomfortable. But your comment and POV is from a different angle and that makes me think that when we view ourselves we feel fake in a way but when others see us, it seems real to them. Do you think it helps to be able to see ourselves?
Do you think that we should see ourselves on a regular basis?
I liked your comment it made me think more. Thanks for taking the time out to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
