Original logo, BMW. And here is my reproduction...
As you can see, my illustrator skills need some work. Although for a first effort on a new software I don't think it is too bad.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Vector Image Original and Reproduction
Original logo, BMW. And here is my reproduction...
As you can see, my illustrator skills need some work. Although for a first effort on a new software I don't think it is too bad.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Keen Questions
1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links. Include this idea of "disintermediation".
According to Andrew Keen, author of “How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture” democratized media are websites with user’s creating the content. Unlike in the past where professionals accounted for the majority of the media we consume, the internet is opening up a world of opportunities to amateurs. This presents a problem according to Keen; these amateurs do not have the formal training necessary to proliferate trusted news. Trust is a large focus of Keen, mainly the lack of it democratized media offers. Websites allow anyone to submit and edit content, the result of which is less credible and reliable than the work of professionals. Without fact checkers and editors people can post stories of pure fabrication or bias.
The term “disintermediation” is the lack of a gatekeeper party between website hosts and content submitters. There is no one around to check on the accuracy of the submitted material. Without fact checkers Keen argues that the whole medium is discredited and nothing more than amateur journalism. Without traditional pathways disintermediation is crossing the roles of content submitter, webmaster, and reader. One person can play multiple roles creating a conflict of interests that threatens to discredit the entire medium.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys!?)
In the ever changing world of technology standing still is not an option. The world is changing and people's viewpoints cannot afford to stall. One side of the spectrum argues that technology will help us make the next evolutionary step towards becoming the hyperbeing while others argue that this technology will eventually be our downfall. Douglas Rushkoff belongs in the first group of people, although he is cautious of the abuse of technology he is overall in favor. In his opinion the changes made in communication have made a positive change on our lives. At first glance it would appear he is right, we now have the ability to communicate with people is distant countries as easily as someone down the block.
On the other hand, there are people who argue that this technology will eventually prove negative. Andrew Keen is among those people. He views the change in communication and the rise of democratized media as a bad thing. He argues that we are becoming dependent on this technology and the further on we go the more this addiction will grow. My opinion agrees with Keen's, I too believe that the continual dominance of technology will have overall negative effects on people. More and more of my generation are wasting time on Facebook rather than spending time face to face. As Facebook becomes an even more critical aspect of our society I can only see the problem spreading.
According to Andrew Keen, author of “How Today’s Internet Is Killing Our Culture” democratized media are websites with user’s creating the content. Unlike in the past where professionals accounted for the majority of the media we consume, the internet is opening up a world of opportunities to amateurs. This presents a problem according to Keen; these amateurs do not have the formal training necessary to proliferate trusted news. Trust is a large focus of Keen, mainly the lack of it democratized media offers. Websites allow anyone to submit and edit content, the result of which is less credible and reliable than the work of professionals. Without fact checkers and editors people can post stories of pure fabrication or bias.
The term “disintermediation” is the lack of a gatekeeper party between website hosts and content submitters. There is no one around to check on the accuracy of the submitted material. Without fact checkers Keen argues that the whole medium is discredited and nothing more than amateur journalism. Without traditional pathways disintermediation is crossing the roles of content submitter, webmaster, and reader. One person can play multiple roles creating a conflict of interests that threatens to discredit the entire medium.
2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. What are these differences in opinion? Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why? You may include the ideas of such utopian technophiles as Larry Lessig, Chris anderson, and Jimmy Wales (who are these guys!?)
In the ever changing world of technology standing still is not an option. The world is changing and people's viewpoints cannot afford to stall. One side of the spectrum argues that technology will help us make the next evolutionary step towards becoming the hyperbeing while others argue that this technology will eventually be our downfall. Douglas Rushkoff belongs in the first group of people, although he is cautious of the abuse of technology he is overall in favor. In his opinion the changes made in communication have made a positive change on our lives. At first glance it would appear he is right, we now have the ability to communicate with people is distant countries as easily as someone down the block.
On the other hand, there are people who argue that this technology will eventually prove negative. Andrew Keen is among those people. He views the change in communication and the rise of democratized media as a bad thing. He argues that we are becoming dependent on this technology and the further on we go the more this addiction will grow. My opinion agrees with Keen's, I too believe that the continual dominance of technology will have overall negative effects on people. More and more of my generation are wasting time on Facebook rather than spending time face to face. As Facebook becomes an even more critical aspect of our society I can only see the problem spreading.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Comments
http://mikeflorio1.blogspot.com/ Mike Florio - Primary response
Additional responses
http://mikenicsmedialit112.blogspot.com/2011/02/whither-individual.html Mike Nicoletti
http://jessicafrancia.blogspot.com/2011/03/whither-individual.html Jessica Francia
Additional responses
http://mikenicsmedialit112.blogspot.com/2011/02/whither-individual.html Mike Nicoletti
http://jessicafrancia.blogspot.com/2011/03/whither-individual.html Jessica Francia
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Whither the Individual?
As new websites and technology become popular the modern man is more connected and subsequently disconnected than ever. Our digital lives are beginning to encroach on our real lives, siphoning away free time and trapping users within the friendly confines of cyberspace. As more and more of our time is spent on Facebook and other forms of social media we should, at least in theory, be more connected than ever. But the inverse would be more accurate, instead of connecting we are isolating as the standard for what passes as communication becomes broader.
With the majority of our new communication coming in the form of statuses and tweets, we have to limit our speech to fit 140 characters. This works perfectly when the subject of our message is going to the mall or what cute thing your cat is doing. But, when we need to convey more complex messages we are at a total loss. When we only have to produce simple ideas we lose the ability to craft complex ones. The subject of our communication has changed from what people are thinking to what people are doing.
Thoughts are no longer a prerequisite for communication, as long as you are doing something you can communicate.
Facebook promises its users the ability to create their own page, unique to their taste and digression. However, look at any number of Facebook pages and they most likely share more similarities than differences. Aside from the uniform template used throughout the site even user’s individual content is very similar. Females all take the same picture of their faces scrunched up in attempt to look cute while guys pose in hyper masculine stances. Facebook may give the illusion of individuality but underneath the surface lies the unmistakable stench of conformity.
In an effort to streamline the web we have traded individuality for convince. Facebook beat out MySpace as the dominate social media website for the sole reason it was more convenient. MySpace pages were highly customizable and two pages rarely looked similar, users could change their page’s layout, background, and even embed music. This customization came at a price, MySpace was notoriously difficult for new users to grasp and slow speeds ruined the burgeoning social media enterprise.
Facebook realized the strength of MySpace was also its greatest weakness. Customization was a nice feature but it took away from the primary focus of social media. Users wanted to connect with friends and family, not make a statement about their individuality. Facebook rose to the dominate social media website by removing these features and replacing them with the convenience a uniform template offers.
It remains to be seen if the lose of individuality will lead to a modern dystopia akin to ‘1984’. Users may see the conformity as a requirement of the Internet age, a necessary evil for the connivance of social media. As technology progresses further into the future we may see a return to customization. Social media is still a relatively new concept; uniformity may give way to customization in Facebook’s inevitable redesigns. But as of now it appears users have given up their rights as an individual for the right to be part of the group.
With the majority of our new communication coming in the form of statuses and tweets, we have to limit our speech to fit 140 characters. This works perfectly when the subject of our message is going to the mall or what cute thing your cat is doing. But, when we need to convey more complex messages we are at a total loss. When we only have to produce simple ideas we lose the ability to craft complex ones. The subject of our communication has changed from what people are thinking to what people are doing.
Thoughts are no longer a prerequisite for communication, as long as you are doing something you can communicate.
Facebook promises its users the ability to create their own page, unique to their taste and digression. However, look at any number of Facebook pages and they most likely share more similarities than differences. Aside from the uniform template used throughout the site even user’s individual content is very similar. Females all take the same picture of their faces scrunched up in attempt to look cute while guys pose in hyper masculine stances. Facebook may give the illusion of individuality but underneath the surface lies the unmistakable stench of conformity.
In an effort to streamline the web we have traded individuality for convince. Facebook beat out MySpace as the dominate social media website for the sole reason it was more convenient. MySpace pages were highly customizable and two pages rarely looked similar, users could change their page’s layout, background, and even embed music. This customization came at a price, MySpace was notoriously difficult for new users to grasp and slow speeds ruined the burgeoning social media enterprise.
Facebook realized the strength of MySpace was also its greatest weakness. Customization was a nice feature but it took away from the primary focus of social media. Users wanted to connect with friends and family, not make a statement about their individuality. Facebook rose to the dominate social media website by removing these features and replacing them with the convenience a uniform template offers.
It remains to be seen if the lose of individuality will lead to a modern dystopia akin to ‘1984’. Users may see the conformity as a requirement of the Internet age, a necessary evil for the connivance of social media. As technology progresses further into the future we may see a return to customization. Social media is still a relatively new concept; uniformity may give way to customization in Facebook’s inevitable redesigns. But as of now it appears users have given up their rights as an individual for the right to be part of the group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)