Wednesday, December 9, 2009
my contributions to wikipedia
Form and content as applied to televisions, and actual TV shows, is an idea which is always changing, much like how form and content itself is always changing. Since television is a relatively new invention compared to many other things which we use today in our everyday lives, the form of a television is still in an infant stage. The TV’s of the past were big, heavy things that were extremely expensive for their time and it was rare for there to be a TV in an ordinary household. If you had a TV in the 1950’s, you were in the minority. Now, if you do not have multiple TV’s in your house, you are in the minority. TV’s are getting bigger as far as the screen is concerned, but they are very thin and many can be hung on a wall like a poster, so all of the dead weight of TV’s of yesteryear is no longer an issue. The form of a TV has rapidly developed over the last 60 years or so and does not seem to be slowing down. The content of TV has developed just as much, if not more, than the form and actual hardware of a television. In the past, the content of TV was minimal. Most televisions only received 6 or 7 channels and most of them dealt with world news and other serious topics. Now, the content is much more elementary with channels that show almost anything which will draw an audience. People nowadays watch TV to be entertained, as opposed to the past where people watched television to be informed. People do still watch TV to be informed, but the percentages are rapidly moving away from information and toward entertainment and recreation. Things like Comcast Digital Cable which offer upwards of 1000 channels allow for almost anything to be aired and make it difficult for a person to not be able to find something desirable.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Pale Fire
The first thing which I feel obligated to tell you before I begin my response is that I am not the biggest poetry reader in the world. I never really understood the point of saying something in a way that was so hard to understand instead of just coming right out and saying exactly what you think. Poetry is a little too roundabout for my taste.
However, one thing which I usually am into are novels, and part of this question included what we think the purpose of a novel is. I believe that the main purpose of a novel is simply to tell a story. There can be many different kind of novels, fiction or non-fiction, and stories such as comedy or science fiction or a love story, but in the end, novels basically just tell stories.
In my opinion, Pale Fire is not unreadable, but its damn close. I tend to get very discouraged with readings if I do not fully understand them right away, so it took a lot of effort to get through this one. I do not see myself trying to read all of it, Spook Country was hard enough. While I was reading I wasnt really focusing on how postmodern it was because I was mostly trying to just understand the meaning of it, a task which I do not feel I was successful at.
I feel like the foreword was a little too long. Forewords are always too long and this one seemed particularly dragged out to me. Like I said before, I do not think that this was unreadable, but I also wouldnt call it a work of genius, at least not yet. maybe my opinions will change once we are in class and I learn more about it from discussion, but right now I would have to say the this is none of the above.
However, one thing which I usually am into are novels, and part of this question included what we think the purpose of a novel is. I believe that the main purpose of a novel is simply to tell a story. There can be many different kind of novels, fiction or non-fiction, and stories such as comedy or science fiction or a love story, but in the end, novels basically just tell stories.
In my opinion, Pale Fire is not unreadable, but its damn close. I tend to get very discouraged with readings if I do not fully understand them right away, so it took a lot of effort to get through this one. I do not see myself trying to read all of it, Spook Country was hard enough. While I was reading I wasnt really focusing on how postmodern it was because I was mostly trying to just understand the meaning of it, a task which I do not feel I was successful at.
I feel like the foreword was a little too long. Forewords are always too long and this one seemed particularly dragged out to me. Like I said before, I do not think that this was unreadable, but I also wouldnt call it a work of genius, at least not yet. maybe my opinions will change once we are in class and I learn more about it from discussion, but right now I would have to say the this is none of the above.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
group 1 response
Overall, I feel that group 1 did a pretty good job with their presentation. Copyright laws can be confusing for anyone, so to try to explain them in a short period of time to a group of people who knows very little about them as well is no easy task. As far as postmodernity goes, their connection to it was a little weak in my opinion because just because there are new ways of sharing things and new ways of stealing things, such as music, does not mean that it is postmodern.
I am in agreement that these new ways of stealing make it easier for people to get away with it, and that this is the reason why we se so much more of it nowadays. Things in the field of stealing music and copyright laws are evolving just like anything else in life is evolving.
I think that the way the presentation was given could have been a little better and more organized. I think that the use of both video and powerpoint is good, but to switch back and forth so many times was not ideal in my opinion. I also think that they focused a little too much on music and not as much on copyright laws as applied to everything.
1)Do you feel that copyright laws should be weaker, stronger, or are they good as they are now?
2)The penalties for copyright infringment are pretty harsh, do you think they should be weakened, strengthened, or left alone?
I am in agreement that these new ways of stealing make it easier for people to get away with it, and that this is the reason why we se so much more of it nowadays. Things in the field of stealing music and copyright laws are evolving just like anything else in life is evolving.
I think that the way the presentation was given could have been a little better and more organized. I think that the use of both video and powerpoint is good, but to switch back and forth so many times was not ideal in my opinion. I also think that they focused a little too much on music and not as much on copyright laws as applied to everything.
1)Do you feel that copyright laws should be weaker, stronger, or are they good as they are now?
2)The penalties for copyright infringment are pretty harsh, do you think they should be weakened, strengthened, or left alone?
Sunday, November 15, 2009
form and content
The difference between form and content is not something which I am particularly knowledgeable about, but I would have to guess that form is the way in which content is presented, and content is what is actually being presented. As for youtube, I would have to say that it is modern in some ways and postmodern in others. The reason it is modern is because it is simply videos of people doing things, but it is postmodern because of the way it is presented to people. Youtube is video sharing from person to person and is not professionally done, making it postmodern because anyone can do it. In this case I would say that the content of youtube is modern because it is just video, but the form of youtube and the way it is presented is postmodern.
As for the Shakespeare sonnet, when you change the words around, you do not change the form because it is still a sonnet and in the classic sonnet form with 4 lines and all that good stuff, but the content is nowhere near what it was before. The original sonnet makes perfect sense and can be read fluently and understood by anyone with a 5th grade reading level, but when you change the words into alphabetical order, it does not make any sense, to anyone. I would argue that changing the form from the original sonnet to a sonnet where all of the words are just in alphabetical order is just a stupid practice with no real purpose. The only reason why anyone would do that is to try to cause unnecessary confusion amongst the readers of the sonnet. It doesn’t solve anything so why not just leave it as it is, accept it as one of the works of a great historical writer, and move on? There’s no need to change things just for the sake of argument.
As for the Shakespeare sonnet, when you change the words around, you do not change the form because it is still a sonnet and in the classic sonnet form with 4 lines and all that good stuff, but the content is nowhere near what it was before. The original sonnet makes perfect sense and can be read fluently and understood by anyone with a 5th grade reading level, but when you change the words into alphabetical order, it does not make any sense, to anyone. I would argue that changing the form from the original sonnet to a sonnet where all of the words are just in alphabetical order is just a stupid practice with no real purpose. The only reason why anyone would do that is to try to cause unnecessary confusion amongst the readers of the sonnet. It doesn’t solve anything so why not just leave it as it is, accept it as one of the works of a great historical writer, and move on? There’s no need to change things just for the sake of argument.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
response to group 3
1. As far as postmodernity goes with group 3's project, they had an entire page of their website dedicated to explaining how it connects to postmodernity. I think that one sort of underlying connection to postmodernity is how the presentation was actually presented with each individual sitting at a different computer viewing an interactive website. The lack of a very direct person to person communication is a very postmodern idea.
2. A few examples from their presentation that support their claim are all of the videos that demonstrate flash mobs. However, I feel that there were way too many video examples in the presentation. I think that it would have been more productive to focus more on what a flash mob is instead of just feeding us a massive amount of random flash mob videos to try to pass the time.
3. Looking back, would you have still had us go to the library and check a book out and give it right back, or would you come up with another idea that might be a better example of a flash mob?
Would any of you ever want to personally be envolved in a legit flash mob with a lot of people that went around doing random things, or do you think that the whole thing is just a waste of time?
2. A few examples from their presentation that support their claim are all of the videos that demonstrate flash mobs. However, I feel that there were way too many video examples in the presentation. I think that it would have been more productive to focus more on what a flash mob is instead of just feeding us a massive amount of random flash mob videos to try to pass the time.
3. Looking back, would you have still had us go to the library and check a book out and give it right back, or would you come up with another idea that might be a better example of a flash mob?
Would any of you ever want to personally be envolved in a legit flash mob with a lot of people that went around doing random things, or do you think that the whole thing is just a waste of time?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
response to group 4
1. The only thing which I did not like about the presentation was in the video where all of the little blurbs in articles were highlighted. The reason I did not like this is because all of them were changed so fast that i did not have time to actually read what they said. For all I know they could have just highlighted random paragraphs in random articles. They related to postmodernity by saying that there is not much emphasis on the high and low ground and therer is more emphasis on the middle. Also, now everyone can connect with anyone through the internet instead of having one person connect with many.
2. One example which I thought would be good for this project before, I even saw that it was in it, was the family with the balloon in Colorado. That is a prime example of a family pulling a stunt to try to get noticed and using the fact that they knew the entire country would cover it and feel sympathetic about it if they said that their son was in the balloon. Another example which supports the group's position are all of the random videos on youtube which show people doing stupid, sometimes even painful, things just to try to get noticed. All of those videos are prime examples of poeple just trying to get noticed and have their 15 minutes, or 15 seconds, of fame.
3. My two questions are kind of on the personal level, they are as follows:
Do any of you personally want to be famous?
Would you personally rather be infamous or not remembered at all?
2. One example which I thought would be good for this project before, I even saw that it was in it, was the family with the balloon in Colorado. That is a prime example of a family pulling a stunt to try to get noticed and using the fact that they knew the entire country would cover it and feel sympathetic about it if they said that their son was in the balloon. Another example which supports the group's position are all of the random videos on youtube which show people doing stupid, sometimes even painful, things just to try to get noticed. All of those videos are prime examples of poeple just trying to get noticed and have their 15 minutes, or 15 seconds, of fame.
3. My two questions are kind of on the personal level, they are as follows:
Do any of you personally want to be famous?
Would you personally rather be infamous or not remembered at all?
Monday, November 2, 2009
3 videos response
In the first video with Will Ferrell, it is obvious how this would reach a younger audience. Everyone knows how funny Will Ferrell is if you have ever seen Anchorman, Step-Brothers, or any of the other hilarious Will Ferrell movies, so it is not hard to see why a younger audience would want to watch this video, even if it is speaking about a not so funny topic.
In the second vidoe, we're number 37, the content is presented to you in sort of a song form with a very fast paced, uptempo feel to it. In this day in age, people have such short attention spans and are easily distracted, so a slow documentary type presentation would not be nearly as effective, especially to the younger generation. Also, I feel that this video is almost the definition of postmodernity because it is a self-made video which a man has created and is now spreading around the world without the help of a major filming company. The ability to do something like this is a very postmodern idea.
The last video is pretty much the complete opposite of what I said was good about the first two videos. The first two were short, sweet, and to the point, but the last one required a lot more time than I would normally spend watching a video. That short attention span idea comes back into play because there are not many people, including myself, who are willing to sit there and watch a youtube video which is almost 10 minutes long. Also, I do not feel taht this video is really postmodern in any way because it was basically just people talking with nothing really catchy about it that would make me remember it. I believe that the information in the video is useful, but I think that it was simply presented to us in the wrong way.
In the second vidoe, we're number 37, the content is presented to you in sort of a song form with a very fast paced, uptempo feel to it. In this day in age, people have such short attention spans and are easily distracted, so a slow documentary type presentation would not be nearly as effective, especially to the younger generation. Also, I feel that this video is almost the definition of postmodernity because it is a self-made video which a man has created and is now spreading around the world without the help of a major filming company. The ability to do something like this is a very postmodern idea.
The last video is pretty much the complete opposite of what I said was good about the first two videos. The first two were short, sweet, and to the point, but the last one required a lot more time than I would normally spend watching a video. That short attention span idea comes back into play because there are not many people, including myself, who are willing to sit there and watch a youtube video which is almost 10 minutes long. Also, I do not feel taht this video is really postmodern in any way because it was basically just people talking with nothing really catchy about it that would make me remember it. I believe that the information in the video is useful, but I think that it was simply presented to us in the wrong way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)