It’s all just a little bit of history repeating
Posted by: manelleissa on: May 26, 2009
In the words of Shirley Bassey, who may be a little old for all you readers out there, it’s all just a little bit of history repeating. Maybe you guys heard the Propeller Heads remix of the old classic “History Repeating”.
Like the acid wash jeans of the 80s, the 60s mod bob, the 50s swing dancing and wallpaper of the 40s, at some stage, all of these face a revival. Even classic musicals like Sweeney Todd are revamped with the sexy Johnny Depp’s of the world. And of course we mustn’t forget the most recent history repeats that we find scavenging through secondhand shops in a search for that vintage glam outfit. So why is it that we always seem to find history repeat itself? And… how does this relate to my new media blog?
I’m studying a double degree in Business and Creative Industries and my expertise will lie in Marketing and Media Communication. One day, when I’m graduated and out in the big, bad world working as a marketing guru, my job requirements are going to demand something more… More than just the average. I’m going to have to offer than just one or two ideas to keep my fantastic, high paying, dream job. And so, I’ll adapt to these expectations by finding new creative spaces to promote my ideas. With the big bosses demanding more I’ll have to offer innovative ideas and powerful marketing techniques to impress them. As people before us, I will use the previous knowledge and foundations of marketing styles to creatively revamp my professional repertoire.
From now on, I will always be the produser forever adapting to new media platforms. Whether it be through citizen journalism or social network advertising, the nature of business must be adaptive. And I willingly accept and assume this idea. Because of this, the evolutionary nature of new media platforms such as the Internet will serve as a catalyst to my innovative business strategies. I will use the fundamental principles of produsage such as open participation and collaboration to consistently propel my career. Through these new media concepts I will develop as a professional in my field. By evolving on past ideas such as traditional marketing strategies I will adapt and evolve theories and ideas to suit the contemporary business world in which I exist.
Like the comeback of so many fads, shoulder padded jackets, mood rings and even retro Volkswagen Bugs may live forever. Moreover, the need for evolution and redevelopment on these historical artifacts is necessary too. Let’s face it, if there was no such thing as produsage ideas such as the Walkman and even the Discman would never have evolved into mp3 players like ipods. So, as history repeats itself, we must creatively evolve and develop on these ideas in order to generate the best outcomes for the future. This idea is one that I will walk away with, knowing that although history repeats itself at times we can all learn from the past and hopefully these lessons will benefit us in the future. Thanks everyone who read this blog:)
What’s your level of expertise?
Posted by: manelleissa on: May 23, 2009
This week is about experts and amateurs. What makes an expert and are you just one or the other? Can you be both? Is it just as simple as black and white? Take this short quiz to find out more…
When are you an expert on cancer? When…
a) you’ve studied cancer for years and are a qualified researcher/doctor
b) you are a cancer patient and have battled the ins and outs of the disease for years?
When do you know more about art?
a) when you have an art history degree and have traveled to many different places to experience artworks
b) when you are an artist who has sold most of your pieces
c) when you are an artist that has never sold a piece
All of the above responses are, to some degree, the argument of an expert’s. So then why can such different answers all translate to expertise? What does it mean to be an expert or an amateur? How can the two be distinguished between? Well an expert is often defined as a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. On the other end of the spectrum, an amateur is someone attracted to a certain pursuit with minimal formal training and often no pay. But how can such simple definitions define such complex ideas? In the world of folks and experts it’s not just black and white. You’re not just one or the other. As Bruns argues, the grey area between professional and amateur is like a continuum where different levels of expertise can be placed.
An so there are a number of different conventional methods applied to categorising experts and amateurs. Be it experience and training, payment received for work or credibility based on reputation. Additionally, the context in which we examine experts and amateurs will decipher the depth and definition for expertise. That is to say a doctor only becomes an expert after years of study and prac work. This is a highly in depth level of expertise. On the other hand, an expert on The Simpsons could be anyone who has watched the program religiously. Both these experts have different expectations and criteria to gain expert status. When examining the new age of amateurs privileged on new media platforms, society must understand these different definitions for expertise. As society shifts and a focus is place on online networked mediums, the expectations of experts and amateurs must so too shift as well. In this context the online world, the callibre of expertise is determined by different, somewhat easier factors.
And so we must remember that just because someone has not studied cancer for twenty years fighting the disease grants them some sort of credibility and expertise in the field. An artist that doesn’t sell a piece of work can still be an expert. I guess what I’m trying to get across is that experts and amateurs aren’t just black at one. It’s not just one or the other, but rather a continuum where people move between the two extremes according to changing criteria. Signing off…
The Evolution of Language- Wikipedia style
Posted by: manelleissa on: May 18, 2009
This week is all about Wikipedia. Basically, this week I’m going to be discussing some of the positives of Wikipedia in terms of its contributions to language. So let’s start with Wikipedia. What is it? How is it used? What does it offer people?
Wikipedia is the equivalent of an online encyclopedia only with a contemporary twist. In this produser driven world, Wikipedia serves as a compilation of user-edited pages that provide information and definitions about words, people, history and events, to name a few topics. The collaborative function of Wikipedia delivers it as a representation of society’s knowledge. Based on this, people constantly update pages of information in this online wiki site. This can have many implications for example credibility. How do we know whether the information edited is correct or accurate? Who are the people adding to the site and from what is their credibility generated? Another implication is the issue of control. Who monitors the posts and regulates the site? These are very interesting topics of discussion although I’m drawn more towards some of the features and benefits of Wikipedia. Instead of taking an approach that analyses it’s credibility and regulation this week’s post will be discussing how Wikipedia has lent itself to the evolution of language.
And so we need an examination of language and the evolution of it. Charles Darwin argued evolution links changes in genetic material from one generation to the next. This was in the case in terms of people. We all know the infamous argument that people evolved from apes. So how has language evolved? Language is only given meaning in context. A word can mean something in one social or cultural context and another thing in a different context. As an example the word scroll previously referred to the parchments that were used to write on. Despite this, through the sociocultural evolution of language, scolling now refers to an action that takes place on a computer to move the screen up or down. This is just one example of the evolution of language.
So what does this have to do with Wikipedia? Well Wikipedia is a site that is contributed to daily where produsers unknowingly assist in the ongoing development of language. Through the editing of words and phrases, produsers of Wikipedia are actively evolving language and its contextual uses. This implies that social and cultural elements develop language. This sociocultural evolution describes how cultures and societies have developed over time and their effects on language. Wikipedia has been a very important tool in shaping this sociolinguistic evolution. Words evolve and their meanings are developed.
Wikipedia is simply a representation of knowledge based on social and cultural principles of produsage. This site drives creation, collation and the combination of information and knowledge across an online media platform. And so, issues such as credibility and controlling can, in a matter of speaking, be overlooked as Wikipedia would not be the useful langauge tool it is with these restrictions. We should say thanks Wikipedia, for all that it contributes to language and all that it will do in the future.
Sex and the City vs Gossip Girl: the lifespan of Citizen Journalism
Posted by: manelleissa on: May 10, 2009
This week’s installment… Citizen journalism. With Carrie Bradshaw audiences everywhere were hooked on Sex and the City, drawn to her character and her writing. Wind the clock forward and television watchers everywhere are starting to become addicted to Gossip Girl, where an online gossip blog somewhat navigates the series. What’s so different between these two characters as journalists? Why was the success of Carrie Bradshaw so different to that of Gossip Girl’s? And above all, what makes them so relevant to this week’s blog?
The major differences? The regular journalist deals with newspaper and magazine as mediums platforms for their work. Citizen journalists project to their audiences through online connections. Another difference is the manner in which journalists build their credibility. Citizen journalists generate credibility based on a completely different set of criteria to that of regular journalists. As regular journalists are credited by their previous work and experience in writing, these criteria apply only marginally to citizen journalists. Citizen journalists can build ‘fan-base’ through their writing’s genre, creativity and even their edginess. With the different media platforms highlighting the need for different types of information, articles by citizen journalists are valued for different attributes. The relaxed and somewhat casual language that is synonymous with the Internet is appropriate within this media outlet. So then with these vast differences what makes both forms of journalism so successful?
The obvious success for journalists is evidenced in their fan-base, and reach of their articles. And then, for regular journalists there’s the financial reimbursement for their work. But citizen journalists don’t get paid. They don’t submit an article and get paid for their hours or the number of words they’ve written. Instead the measure of success for citizen journalists is based purely on the success of their blog.
So then, is it the motivation to write that drives citizen journalist? Gossip Girl has a social blog that brings its readers the breaking news of the social lives of the ‘popular elite’. Gossip girl’s identity is ‘private’ and part of the appeal lies within this. Additionally regular people can send Gossip Girl their social news and sure enough, if credible, it will be posted in the blog. Gossip Girl’s success lies in the content of her blog in that it deals with information relevant and entertaining to its audience members. The context of this blog, which is generated in an environment where gossip is highly valued, foregrounds the success of Gossip Girl. Then we must ask is it only ever going to be a leisure platform, fine for those with some free time but never actually a career? Famous citizen journalist Perez Hilton has developed his gossip blog and has transcended stardom. But will it always be JUST a gossip blog? What is the business of citizen journalism? Is there room for this as a career? Will citizen journalists wash up just like all soaps do? Sex and the City lasted FOREVER but will Gossip Girl? Will the traditional journalist always prevail over the citizen journalist? For now we’ll have to wait and see… x o x o
Produsage- The ‘choose your own adventure books’ of the Internet
Posted by: manelleissa on: May 6, 2009
Produsage? What is it? Sounds like someone has jumped on the net and amidst their online sharing made a spelling mistake, but NO. ALAS, Produsage explains just that, the nature of user as producer. Remember those choose your own adventure books where to get out of sticky situations you could choose from a number of options? The opportunity for you, as a reader to choose your own ending was exciting wasn’t it? Produsage is kind of like that in terms of the Internet. Expert Axel Bruns coined this topic as ““the collaborative and continuous building and extending of existing content in pursuit of further improvement” (Bruns, 2007). With this in mind, what then is produsage? How did it come about? And what is its relevance to the average joe?
Building on the simple foundations of creative collaboration, produsage refers to the hybrid state of being both user and producers. Basically, audiences are in control of generating content of sites and this has had great impacts on the uses of the internet. The idea of produsage has led to the creation of sites such as Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter and delicious. These interactive sites engage audience members and redefine the concept of production. Through open participation, these pages allow for communal evaluation. Similarly to choose your own adventure books where if the ending was not to your satifaction you could go back and ‘re-write’ it. The fact that you could ‘re-write’ your ending links very closely with produsage and theories of fluid heterachy; where the deconstruction of hierarchical order within the online world has taken place. Where Web 1.0 programs, just like regular books enabled users only to access information, Web 2.0 programs, like choose your own adventure books, (which centralise around themes of produsage) engaged audiences on a deeper level. By offering the ability to generate your own sites (or in terms of the books, endings), the contemporary notion of produsage is highlighted through the exponential growth of such sites. So then, what does it mean for us… average people that surf the net?
Well as common property, produsage supports the idea of a continual process, whereby artifacts are unfinished. Anyone can change and add to the information provided rendering the Internet and these sites as continually developing mediums. The need for collaboration and creativity has led to this idea of produsage but will this idea fizzle out? So maybe choose your own adventure books did already have the endings cut out, as here are only a limited number of outcomes that your can choose… But, the very essence of being able to choose your own adventure was the early stages to users becoming produsers. So why did choose your own adventure books never really make it against regular books? We were too quick to jump into the fad of the books just as people are overly eager to work as producers? Will this idea of produsage die out when the excitement of these collaborative sites die down? Lets hope not. For now we can only wait and see…
http://produsage.org
Search
- manelleissa: I just bought a jacket with shoulder pads myself so i'm an advocate for the 80s fashion! thanks so much for your comment:)
- Elizabeth Bannon: So true Manelle, I completely agree with your point of view here, without continual growth and evolution where would we be today... scary thought righ
- joan demos: you are as clever as you are beautiful!!!!!! Love You Nan
Categories
- Uncategorized (5)
