aina

As discussed extensively throughout the semester, digital technologies have paved the way for further increasing the popularity of civic journalism and freedom of expression.

As shown by activist campaigners, such as ‘The Yes Men’, and the Australian version in ABC’s ‘The Chasers’, media channels are used to successfully capture the public’s attention. These groups often imitate figures of authority or reprise events with the goal of exposing corporate or government “EVIL” agendas – for the public’s interest of course.

Witness.org is an organization, which promotes “the use of video and online technologies to open the eyes of the world to human rights violations.”

Without succumbing to political discussions, especially with the current global financial crisis, exploitation of mainstream media is somewhat reasonable. Personally, it is not only an informative source, but also a rather a entertaining one. Must we always have to accept bad news? However, these groups often encourage viewers that it is acceptable to disrespect the decisions of politicians or disregarding the recommendations of experts, for the sake of generating comic scripts. It is always wise to gain two sides of a story – not every government initiated media releases are necessarily negative. After all, a country’s governing body is to serve what is best for their nation – in utopia!

Although their intentions are represented in digital forms through TV, radio or the Internet, these groups support the traditional means of protesting in achieving effective ways to communicate their ideas and objections.

Art? 

What defines art?

The masterpieces by Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello and Leonardo (wait a minute….they are the 4 teenage mutant ninja turtles), the sculptures displayed throughout the new Eastlink Freeway in Melbourne, the graffiti which colours the walls of city laneways, the advertising images on billboards, Andy Warhol’s pop art images, the gruesome scenes of Quentin Tarantino’s films, the beautiful lyrics of romantic songs, the collage of shoes I want to purchase…… are all considered some form of art.

One can say, ‘art’, whether it is represented through a process or as a material product, is an expression of ones thoughts and beliefs that captures the attention of an audience.

This week’s lecture showcased the artwork of 2 interesting ‘contemporary’ artists – one who altered images with the use of a scanner and the other produced digital artworks that resulted from combining science and technology. Each artist had very different goals in what their end product would look like, yet they shared similar intentions in using digital techniques to manipulate their artwork.

Brophy’s article ‘Singapore Biennale’, discusses the issues in regards to “art going beyond painting.” With the availability of technology, media art is now absolutely huge! As technology continues to advance beyond expectations, production of art digitally is somewhat a fresh means of expression – as demonstrated by the guest speakers this week. Digital aesthetics as a new channel for art expression allows for art to evolve into something that will show distorted unimaginable images, something that will blow audience’s minds – according to Brophy, “this will push mediums beyond its numbing base.”

With the onslaught of new, ‘cool’, savvy, state-of-the-art, funky, sweet (call it what you like!) technologies available, it is now much easier to record daily experiences and furthermore, store as much of it as you would like.

According to the article ‘Life Caching’ by trendwatching.com – “trends are often a manifestation of new enablers unlocking existing human needs.” As the article points out, humans are fueled by a society with pressure for control, validation, self-worth, vanity and even immortality.

As the trend of owning the latest digital toys escalates, caching every moment of our lives is now often second nature. Additionally, the increasing popularity of social networking sites on-line, sharing these images/photos is almost encouraged…. much to the ignorance of the consequences involved in doing so. Because of our obsession with capturing nearly every moment or event, which occurs in our lives, have we forgotten why we take photos in the first place? Traditionally, photos were taken with the intention of remembering sincere moments in our lives. Today, it seems pictures of derogatory nature are captured with the purpose of displaying it for public viewing (ie pouting for a Facebook profile photo) – am an offender of doing so! Are we capturing these images for memory’s sakes or for attention?

In relation to globalization and the effects it has on the media and publicity, the ease of being able to capture events have brought upon certain advantages. Citizen journalism, for example, has exploded in popularity of recent times, especially since 9/11. Media companies have taken advantage of the images captured by the public – who were present at the exact time as to when the event took place. This gives first-hand images to support breaking news stories. However, when does it become inappropriate to take images? Is it ok to take photos of someone who has just died because of a bomb blast? Is it ok to take photos of a young child who has just been raped? Is it now socially acceptable to take photos of anything for the sake of obtaining an image as proof of an experience….and are these images something worth remembering?

In Thompson’s blog, ‘Collision Detection’, lifeblogging was a personal experiment conducted by Gordon Bell, a Microsoft Research scientist. ‘Lifeblogging’ involved Bell to record every single experience he had everyday – from conversations, images, thoughts and to every detail in his activities of daily living. Every gesture was captured, and a picture was taken every 60 seconds from a camera around his neck – and all archived into his computer. Bell’s intention was to “never forget anything.”

What will life be if nothing is forgotten?

There are certain times in everyone’s lives when events are better off forgotten. Many would suggest that there is no need to archive every minute details of a person’s life. Once every detail is recorded, behavioural changes occur to ensure what is being captured gives the ‘the perfect’ impression or depiction, therefore personalities and reality are set aside.

Having the capacity to be able to offload memories and thoughts into a machine can benefit those who need to remember important things, have the need to store knowledge for future use or simply have difficulties in remembering things. However, one needs to elect which information is worth remembering or more importantly, how much information is too much information?

‘Second Life’ is an on-line virtual world, an on-line community, in which any one can be anything they want to be. An ‘avatar’ of a person may not necessarily depict the characteristics in which they live in ‘real-life’ – in their ‘First Life’.

As it continues in popularity with now more than 2 million users, ‘Second Life’, for many of its participants, has given them another life, although surreal; consisting of perfection, control and anonymity. All of which seems unachievable in their real ‘First Life’. 

‘Second Life’ is almost like a parallel world to ‘First Life’ according D. Toft (from Lecture 16/10/2008 “Second Life”). It is a world almost similar, but exaggerated, to reality (the outside world). It has a population consisting of various identities, cultures, backgrounds, beliefs and objectives, it has an economy (Linden dollars), it has the presence of corporate/business operations (product placement, marketing, advertising) and it encourages social building and interaction. ‘Second Life’ gives an opportunity for its users to communicate with others on-line without the disturbances, which may arise if given the same scenario in the outside life. It is also a channel for interaction between the inside and outside world.  

As the world continues to become more digitalized, an increasing amount of immersive environments online are created everyday. However, the essence of communication in reality involves trust, honesty and is reliant on authentic information. Communication and social building is a major attraction for immersive online environments such as ‘Second Life’, but its characters and surroundings remain ‘false’ and simulated. Therefore, is it worth becoming so engaged in the environment if what is conquered or achieved on-line in ‘Second Life’ is not real? For entertainment purposes, ‘Second Life’ has succumbed anyone’s expectations with the countless possibilities that again are not achievable in reality. It has also become an easy conduit to unleash alter-egos. With this in mind, Marxists would add that immersive environments are “set to change our lives on the Internet and probably life in general” (Quaranta, 2007). The creation of a ‘perfect avatar’ becomes seductive that participants are enticed (at times obsessive) to choose to concentrate on their lives in ‘Second Life’ more so than their ‘First Life’. This brings the question, has society today become so fastidious, routine….boring, that many now resort to online spaces to represent themselves without the constant rejection and judgement? “Will the copy transcend the original?” (Toft)

Although ‘Second Life’ may give many of its participants an escape from reality, it remains just that – an escape- it will not replace the ‘real’ physical self. One can argue what is ‘real’ or what is ‘normal’? But, a digitalized form of oneself is not the person breathing oxygen from the air, not the person eating for energy, not the person making money to buy a computer or thinking to learn to use a computer, etc. – all of which are required to create ones avatar in the first place. Without the real ‘First Life’, there is no ‘Second Life’.  

Professor Eric Faden (Bucknell University, USA) compiled a rather humorous video “A Fair Y use tale”, which collaborated Disney characters to explain the rules, the legalities and the limitations involved in copyrighted material. Although the main purpose of the video was to explain the aforementioned copyright systems, the video itself questioned the rules and regulations of the term ‘copyright’ by utilizing characters and adjusting the scenes that do not ‘belong’ to him as the producer (Prof Eric Faden), but belong to the Disney enterprise.

Copyright is defined as “ a legal device that provides the owner the right to control how a creative work is used. A copyright is comprised of a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make copies, authorize others to make copies, make derivative works, sell and market the work and perform the work. Any one of these rights can be sold separately through transfers of copyright ownership.” By not mentioning where I derived this definition from breaches copyright law – plagiarism – therefore for safety reasons, I hereby acknowledge that this definition of ‘copyright’ is from www.nolo.com J.

In the video, Faden mentioned that the use of ‘copyrighted’ material is “forbidden without the permission granted by the copyright owner.” As an example, many of Disney’s fairy-tales are based on old folklore stories that have been told in the community – in the public domain – for centuries, yet how did and how was Disney allowed to claim copyright ownership for these stories? Furthermore, because of Disney’s colossal success in movie production and advertisement, their supposed ‘original’ work – ‘copyrighted’ to their enterprise – is now out of hands from the public – where they originated from in the first place. Therefore, some old story teller out there who thought of these stories originally remain unrecognized! Where is the justice in that? Did Disney ask the public to use their stories? NO!!

Faden mentions in the video that “with permission and appropriate payment”, copyright material may be used by others. This capitalist notion is now almost always used to ensure the creator/artist/producer is the sole ‘OWNER’ of their ideas, product and other forms of work in the community. This is fair in a way – one deserves the right to take claim for their original work. However, how far does this right go and what are its limits? We now live in such a money-driven selfish environment. As Faden mentions, “copyright now lasts a lifetime.” Does this mean, that when a particular person who created or thought of an idea passes away, their children, grandchildren, great great great grandchildren and/or relatives profit from the work they were not technically responsible for?

Faden adds that copyright material can be used in the public domain, given that it is for used fairly: for teaching, news reporting (public interest), parody and in critical comment. And, they must NOT change the marketed commercial value of the product.

In light of the above arguments, Pavlosky’s article “Barbie in a Blender” refers to the 1999 case between MattelÓ vs Tom Forsythe. MattelÓ filed a lawsuit against Utah artist Tom Forsythe whose art-work displayed Barbie dolls in nude poses among kitchen appliances (shown in above pictures). MattelÓ claims that this was copyright infringement. The court declared that MattelÓ pay Forsythe $1.8m for legal and court fees and claimed Mattel’sÓ arguments as “frivolous and unreasonable.”

This small victory against major corporations which thrive to copyright EVERYTHING has paved way for organizations such as ‘Freeculture’. Freeculture.org is a website created by International student who believe free speech should be celebrated and that public intellectual capital and open cultural space should be protected from privatisation and exploitation.

As we live in the digital age, there continues to be an increasing forms and methods for the delivery of ideas/art/products. It is absolutely necessary to ‘copyright’ original works for the benefit of the original creator. ‘Copyright’ also somewhat restrains plagiarism and the re-creation or re-vamping of works in a derogatory manner. There needs to be a limit as to when copyright ends, who should be credited and who is allowed copyright privileges in the first place.