Tilt-Shift Photography Experiments

I decided to give this a try, and it turned out ok! Especially since none of these pics were taken with tilt-shifting in mind. Enjoy!

 

The Kids are Alright…or are they gadgets?

As far as I can tell, I’m not a gadget. I’ve manipulated/censored myself to participate in social media (somewhat), but I feel more connected to my favorite humans than ever before in my life. I still get my best new band suggestions from people, best website recommendations and best concert reminders. I feel like social media helps me stay connected. But maybe this is all because I remember a time before the digital revolution.

“In 1997 my family got it’s first real desktop computer. I was 13 or 14. That means I had 13 or 14 years of pre-digital experience in the world of old,” says me to my grandkids in 2040. “But all of you are two generations into this.” And the kids will all laugh at how weird and old 20th-century-grandpa is. And maybe grandpa will feel really really weird around those little gadgets, with their iSynapse digitally optimized minds and wifi telepathy. Organic grandpa will be trying to make a webpage in HTML17 while they play games that are downloaded into their brains, seeming as crazy as the first users of hands-free bluetooth devices.

But enough silly speculation. Lanier is a smart guy, and he’s made a lot of very good points in his manifesto. People run the risk of turning into gadgets when they don’t raise a critics eyebrow to the trends in our world. I like a lot of the things about our digital world. I like the free information, the instant gratification. I like being connected to my friends on Facebook. I like posting content on their walls that they would enjoy. To me, Social networks are an extension of myself, but they are not me. But what about the kids?

PESSIMISM: I can’t imagine Facebook in high school. High school, as it was at the turn of the millennia, was plenty to deal with. Add Facebook, and peer pressure explodes, pulling in a larger number of impressionable youth that might have made it out ok otherwise (by ok, I mean people who follow their own interests instead of bending to fit in). And this is a shame. The strong survive, but the weak get pulled along with the ever-dimming crowd in greater numbers.

High school years can make a big impression on who people become in the future. This wasn’t the case for me (thank f***ing God), but a quick scan of my Facebook friends reveals that some were not so lucky. But Facebook exists for everyone today, from tweens to adults. What happens to people when they begin bending to the digital mold at younger and younger ages? Will larger numbers of people grow into a digital mold, an anonymous avatar of a persona?

OPTIMISM: In response to these Lanier-esque fears, I postulate that this stuff is Darwinian. The strong will survive, as they always do. They’ll emerge from a digitalized and ultra peer pressured youth alright. They’ll use the free information to their advantage. They’ll excel at a faster rate than others. And the weak will be at the mercy of the crowd, as they have been for 4.5 billion years.

I choose optimism because I’m human and therefore hard-wired for it. But also because I have faith in humanity. I don’t like what the digital age has done to musicians, but I love what it has done for music. I like being able to see my favorite artist at a small venue. I like being able to shake their hands after the show. I like the fact that the best bands are not as well-known as they might have been 15 years ago, but that doesn’t keep them from existing.

The digital era puts passion first, where it belongs. I hope that all of this will work itself out.

Amaturization Week!

Clay Shirkey got us thinking about amaturization. I still have a few questions about the subject, mostly relating to the industries that are being directly effected by mass amaturization. What’s going to happen to the media? Is it going to become irrelevant, or will it adapt and survive? Also, how is amaturization currently effecting the media?

Lanier’s book is interesting, too. I’m only 45 pages in, and it doesn’t seem like it’s about amaturization. It seems like it’s about raising a critical eye to the mass digitalization of our society. He talks about forming humans to fit digital molds. How is it happening? I need more evidence before I jump onboard. Also, what could have been the alternatives to the locked-in methods that dominate?

Little Red Book, Big Implications

We all know the world is changing. Shirky wrote Here Comes Everybody to explore one of the largest changes: organizing without organizations. But I get the feeling that this book does more that explain the various changes occurring in society because of technology. This book provides a framework of human nature that allows us to make predictions about the future.

Shirky has described, in detail, the various human motivations behind collaborative effort, rapid information sharing and solving social dilemmas, among other things. But what he doesn’t do is predict the implications of these phenomena. Or at least he hasn’t done so yet. I’d like to discuss some of these issues here.

THE MEDIA. This industry is probably facing more change than others. We’re already seeing groups using blogging and social media to attract mass media attention to issues. In the world of tomorrow will we see increased social influence over the media? At what point will it level out? Will the media more-or-less remain as it is today, or will the changes continue until mass media as we know it is completely different?

POLITICS. With increased group mobility, power in numbers becomes a reality for the political process. Group action, fostered by technology, lead to the passenger bill of rights. What’s next? I think this could be a tremendously good thing for our government. Power could be swayed back towards the masses and away from the special interests. But like all things, humans seem to figure out a way to screw it up. So, in the end, will it actually be a bad thing?

SOCIALIZATION. We know about Facebook and Twitter, but these tools are relatively new. So how will social interaction change over time? I can image a scenario where people find each other in ways that would never have been possible before (online dating, that witches group), thus leading to a happier human society. But I can also image bad ideas spreading like wildfire, leading to groups popping up with negative political agendas, leading to WWIII. So, world peace and war can be brought about by organizing without organization. I’m sure both will at some point, but the reality will probably average out to be a zero-sum game.

COMMERCE. Will group feedback kill the snake oil salesman? The shady corporation? I hope so. Collective action could make this happen.

GLOBAL POLITICS. What about groups forming in other countries? Is it possible for a huge political group in the US to find it’s soul mate in, say, a German group? These groups might have similar views about sustainability, leading to environmental policy changes. Or they can both hate on Greece and cause financial reform. Can an international human consensus be discovered through organizing without organizations?

How will the subject matter discussed by Shirky change our world in out lifetime? If the last decade is any indication, then the answer is “profoundly.” In 20 years, will Shirky’s book be a fundamental read in understanding what happened? Maybe.

Where Will Flash Fit?

I love flash. I keep hearing people say they hate it, but I love it. It’s a lot of fun to create something in Flash, and then be able to play it for people so they can mess around with it. I played my Voyager 2 slider for my dad and he loved it.

I’ve always had an eye for animation. When I was a child I used to use the family video camera to make stop-motion animations of lego guys and GI Joe’s fighting and mutilating each other. It was fun, and it taught me a lot about visualizing things in a timeline form. I think this is why I enjoy Flash so much: it’s the digital version of my childhood animations.

But recently I’ve been reading a bit about HTML5 and the new version of internet explorer. Both have me a little worried about Flash. I’ve read about how Flash is dying, and also about how it’s not dying, just simply fitting into it’s place better. But that leaves me wondering: where will Flash fit in? I’m spending an awful amount of time using it to create things, and I would hate for these skills not to translate to the real world.

I’ve asked a few people in the real world about the use of Flash. They all say the same thing: “We don’t use Flash here.” Yikes! Flash seems like the easiest way to create engaging content. I’m very interested to see how these companies are creating engaging content without using Flash. I keep hearing about PHP and Javascript, both of which we have yet to learn anything about. Are these the tools of the future?

Until I get some clear guidance here, I’m going to continue to hammer away at these Flash project, not only because they’re assigned to us, but because I enjoy using Flash. I hope it doesn’t leave me hanging in the long run!

Wealth of Networks Pre-reading Questions

I just read the summary on the inside of the book jacket, and this looks like an interesting book. It’s related to the topic of my research assignment. That means I’m hoping it will answer these questions:

Will this book discuss changes the digital age has caused to human psychology? I’m very interested in this topic from a marketing perspective. I know he covers markets (from the cover), but I don’t expect Benkler to cover consumer behavior. But that would be awesome, I would cite him in my research paper.

What changes have the wealth of networks brought to the political process? The examples we covered in class seemed to have been fails. What has worked, and how?

I’m also interested in which markets have been destroyed and which new markets have emerged because of the digital era.

I Love Bees ARG Review

This has to be one of the most interesting and clever marketing campaigns even conceived. I’m not a Halo player, but I’m extremely impressed by this ARG.

Before Halo 2 was released, it’s most loyal followers randomly received large jars of honey from ilovebees.com. They were obviously confused, but realized that the URL had been changed to ilovebees.com at the end of the Halo 2 tv commercial. It turns out that they had been invited to participate in an ARG that ties the Halo storyline to the present day.

The story goes like this: A rouge Artificial Intelligence named Melissa came back in time 500 years and arrived on earth, manifesting itself in the server space of ilovebees.com. Melissa’s presence inside the server caused ilovebees.com to begin acting strangely. Strange messages began popping up and the site appeared to have been hacked. The sites creator, Dana, attempted to delete Melissa and damaged it’s memory on the process. Keep in mind that all of this was contrived by Halo’s marketing team.

So, to the outside user, all of this was very mysterious. When Halo players curiously visited ilovebees.com they arrived on a site that looked like it had been hacked, loaded with cryptic messages. According to her blog posts, Dana fled to China leaving visitors to fix the hacked site. The Halo players slowly learned about Melissa as they decoded the information. They also found GPS coordinates of pay phones and specific times when the phones would ring. Halo players had to answer Halo-related questions when they answered the phones. When a large series of phones were answered, a piece of Melissa’s missing memory was restored and the mystery was slowly unraveled. Thus, only the most dedicated Halo players were motivated enough to commit to this bizarre ARG.

The coolest thing is the conclusion. When the entire mystery was unraveled, Melissa was able to return to the future. But, in the process, it told a race of aliens (the Covenant) about the location of the Earth. The Covenant is the enemy in the Halo franchise, and ilovebees.com now has a countdown to the day when the Covenant will arrive on Earth, starting the war that Halo is based on. So, Halo players who participated in this ARG can say that they are responsible to starting the entire Halo story.

Like I said, I don’t play Halo, but this was an absolutely brilliant marketing campaign. I’m seriously impressed.

Thoughts On “Reality Is Broken”

I like this book a lot. It’s entertaining, insightful and funny. It has certainly changed my opinion about gaming and gamers, and has inspired me to go a few rounds of slaying zombies on my iPhone for a midday pick-me-up. But, I’m still looking for answers to my questions.

As I said in my last post, it’s “all positive so far.” I’m about 200 pages in and this still holds true. There has been a lot of information about the positive effects of gaming on individuals (McGonigal used gaming to overcome a concussion), and a bit about the positive effects on society. There have been plenty of examples of games designed to improve peoples feelings towards strangers, personal jogging times and building self esteem and optimism. All of these examples make individuals happier, which I would assume has a net effect on society. But my overarching questions remains: are there any negative consequences to society as a whole?

The hours spent gaming, something like 3 billion collective hours a day, are staggering. These hours are supposedly the most productive for these gamers. With so much energy, effort and time going into gaming, it seems (so far) that the only outcome is personal satisfaction. All the teamwork and problem solving is being spent in a virtual environment that, when all is said and done, doesn’t really make a difference to the global problems we face.

It’s been said again and again that reality is broken and is not nearly as interesting as virtual environments and gaming. Reality is unsatisfying, difficult and boring. Could this be partly because we’ve used a massive amount of human effort to accomplish virtual tasks instead of real tasks? I can’t help but think that if a fraction of the energy spent in gaming over that last 30 years was used to tackle a real world issue that might be contributing to the dullness of reality, like the growing income gap in America, that we might have a solution to these issues. Is this “wasted” effort actually contributing to the demise of American society? Is gaming a vicious cycle?

The term “escapism” comes to mind. What are people escaping from? Reality? Yes, reality is hard. It takes hard work to tackle huge issus in society, and each generation is faced with new and unique challenges. We need all the help we can get to solve our cultural dilemmas. If we can use gaming to help solve these issues, then it all seems to have been worthwhile. If not, then it truly is a massive waste of human time and energy which, in my opinion, is the most precious commodity in the universe.

As Colbert said while interviewing McGonigal, “does it work?”

All Positive So Far

I like this book. It’s lighter than our other readings, and it’s highly informative. It’s also very interesting; the subject of gaming’s current and historical impact on society is something I knew nothing about, and the positive psychological effects gaming has on individuals is profound. But, it’s all positive so far. For example, the section on the game Guitar Hero concludes with statistics about people being motivated to pick up a real instrument after their gaming experiences. Then she mentions that there is no available data about weather or not these individuals follow through with their new found musical interests. Do any of them become talented musicians? Of course it may be too early to tell (musical talent takes years to develop), but I can’t help but wonder: what is she not telling us about the negative impact of gaming? Without the “dark side” of this subject, this will end up being a one-sided argument.

Most interesting to me, perhaps, is the psychological impact of gaming on our state of mind. Once again, everything presented is positive. Gaming improves our self esteem, makes us more optimistic, gives us a  sense of accomplishment and community, etc. But, considering the fact that life is propelled forward by physical interaction with the opposite sex (unless you’re a sponge), and video games don’t require any physical interaction with others, is it possible that gaming leads to a decline in “real-world” personal human relations? Can gaming hurt social skills and lead to millions of “40-year-old virgins?” What are the impacts on natural selection? I’m not sure where my foundational bias lies in asking these questions, but I hope McGonigal touches on these subjects (considering the fact that her plan involves revolutionizing the world [that we all live in] with gaming).

This leads me to my last question: is her plan realistic at all? After only reading the first 4 chapters, this whole concept seems a bit lofty. Her reality fixes, like “emotional activation” and “more satisfying work,” sound great in theory, but how in the hell are they possible? Yes, gaming instantly creates satisfaction. But do these satisfactions realistically translate into real word scenarios? And if so, are giving up anything important in the process? Everyone craves more satisfying work. It’s one of the drivers of our ambitions. But to suggest that revolutionizing the world with gaming can lead to more satisfying work is a tough sell, especially if she doesn’t address some of the negative aspects of gaming. I’m very much looking forward to the details of her grandiose vision.