Thoughts after class
Here're some of my thoughts during the lesson discussion today. Well, i found it kinda hard to speak up cos ideas were tumbling out from everyone at break-neck speed! Ah well.
1. Some guy was talking about google as a "new media". Well, juz to add on, I notice that when u enter the google search site, there are tabs like "search within singapore" tab and "I'm Feeling Lucky" search tab. It's offering variability (however random :P) even in the way u want ur search 2 be conducted.
2. Besides Friendster, there's this W.A.Y.N. network (Where Are You Now? see http://www.wayn.com/) which is kinda like a global platform for pple of diff nationalities to "come together". When WAYN members migrate or immigrate or the like, I will get notices about these individuals.. like "Samantha is coming to Singapore!" (how exciting...) Well, see the cultural implications? I could simply click on her photo and profile and send her a msg to interact with this new 'global' fren of mine.
3. There are other Friendster imitations like 'The Green Group' (nah, it's not an environmentalistic group, nor is it some vegetarian club!) which requires pre-members to provide TEN more friends' email address to the compulsory field before they become members. Hmm.. wonder if it turned pple off. little wonder it's seldom heard of. haha.
4. On adventure books, I thought it pretty cool that someone in class shot back, "Are u interacting with the book, or are u interacting with yourself?" Man, his thought gears spun at least 10 times faster than mine..
Yup, I think series like the "Usborne Adventure Books" create the illusion that you are part of the 'detective' team cracking all those puzzles as the plot unfolds.. (well, if u cant stand solving 1 puzzle for every 2 pages, then u can jolly well flip to the back where the answers are and oh-so-casually proceed on to the next page)
My point is, a book is juz a book. No matter how much u have seemingly "interacted" with the activities prescribed by the author, it is basically still the little movie projected in ur mind when u read the book really what u had found tobe so interactive. The contents from the book merely aided the general template of flow..
Dont agree?
Ask yourself, then, for instance, when u read, "The house rested in a valley, a sunny little place where flowers blossom.", what's your mental painting of this? The picture projected in my mind can be radically diff from yours. Was it a red-brick house, or was it a dilapidated wooden one? Well, u get the picture..
5. At one point of time, someone commented that there's no need to define "new media", for it changes from generation to generation, from areas of affluence to the not etc. My immediate thought was "Yeah, why dont we label media with media 1.0, media 2.0 etc.." But what a bad idea, so glad I didnt open my radio mouth. That implies a new definition for each media version, and the whole rah-rah debate on definition again! erm, no thanks..
6. Just a side note, Mr Mitchell was talking about how play "involves pushing against the limits of movement within a structure". I was drawing upon this concept to "new media". Like how people these days are coming up (or trying to come up) with this so-called brand new, more intense depth of interactivity, be it in games, messenger etc. Sounds a lot like Mr Mitchell's aforementioned statement - pushing boundaries... (see next point)
7. But I beg the question - WHY? To get a more sensational experience for the user? So then, what? I mean, true- this new media thingy has cast a weighty influence on the social level, banking on this super-interactive hype. But it has also made us less personal. Come on. Think about impersonalized form of communication, via popular sms, msn, email etc. Unless we know one another like God knows you or me, u cant really tell how genuine things are over such new media. U might elicit a "Oh, u are such a funny person!" response via e.g. msn. But hey, for all u know, the person might be thinking "yeah right". If u had been talking in person with him/her, u can prob tell from facial tell-tales or .. i dunno, i'm not a psychologist. (aha! maybe his/her tone?)
Point is, u cant beat human to human interaction. at least for me. Human interaction vs Media-mediated interactivity. The former is a real experience, whereas the latter is more a virtual reality. Is virtual reality ever close to real? Maybe. But it's virtual reality afterall.
Good night. =)
1. Some guy was talking about google as a "new media". Well, juz to add on, I notice that when u enter the google search site, there are tabs like "search within singapore" tab and "I'm Feeling Lucky" search tab. It's offering variability (however random :P) even in the way u want ur search 2 be conducted.
2. Besides Friendster, there's this W.A.Y.N. network (Where Are You Now? see http://www.wayn.com/) which is kinda like a global platform for pple of diff nationalities to "come together". When WAYN members migrate or immigrate or the like, I will get notices about these individuals.. like "Samantha is coming to Singapore!" (how exciting...) Well, see the cultural implications? I could simply click on her photo and profile and send her a msg to interact with this new 'global' fren of mine.
3. There are other Friendster imitations like 'The Green Group' (nah, it's not an environmentalistic group, nor is it some vegetarian club!) which requires pre-members to provide TEN more friends' email address to the compulsory field before they become members. Hmm.. wonder if it turned pple off. little wonder it's seldom heard of. haha.
4. On adventure books, I thought it pretty cool that someone in class shot back, "Are u interacting with the book, or are u interacting with yourself?" Man, his thought gears spun at least 10 times faster than mine..
Yup, I think series like the "Usborne Adventure Books" create the illusion that you are part of the 'detective' team cracking all those puzzles as the plot unfolds.. (well, if u cant stand solving 1 puzzle for every 2 pages, then u can jolly well flip to the back where the answers are and oh-so-casually proceed on to the next page)
My point is, a book is juz a book. No matter how much u have seemingly "interacted" with the activities prescribed by the author, it is basically still the little movie projected in ur mind when u read the book really what u had found tobe so interactive. The contents from the book merely aided the general template of flow..
Dont agree?
Ask yourself, then, for instance, when u read, "The house rested in a valley, a sunny little place where flowers blossom.", what's your mental painting of this? The picture projected in my mind can be radically diff from yours. Was it a red-brick house, or was it a dilapidated wooden one? Well, u get the picture..
5. At one point of time, someone commented that there's no need to define "new media", for it changes from generation to generation, from areas of affluence to the not etc. My immediate thought was "Yeah, why dont we label media with media 1.0, media 2.0 etc.." But what a bad idea, so glad I didnt open my radio mouth. That implies a new definition for each media version, and the whole rah-rah debate on definition again! erm, no thanks..
6. Just a side note, Mr Mitchell was talking about how play "involves pushing against the limits of movement within a structure". I was drawing upon this concept to "new media". Like how people these days are coming up (or trying to come up) with this so-called brand new, more intense depth of interactivity, be it in games, messenger etc. Sounds a lot like Mr Mitchell's aforementioned statement - pushing boundaries... (see next point)
7. But I beg the question - WHY? To get a more sensational experience for the user? So then, what? I mean, true- this new media thingy has cast a weighty influence on the social level, banking on this super-interactive hype. But it has also made us less personal. Come on. Think about impersonalized form of communication, via popular sms, msn, email etc. Unless we know one another like God knows you or me, u cant really tell how genuine things are over such new media. U might elicit a "Oh, u are such a funny person!" response via e.g. msn. But hey, for all u know, the person might be thinking "yeah right". If u had been talking in person with him/her, u can prob tell from facial tell-tales or .. i dunno, i'm not a psychologist. (aha! maybe his/her tone?)
Point is, u cant beat human to human interaction. at least for me. Human interaction vs Media-mediated interactivity. The former is a real experience, whereas the latter is more a virtual reality. Is virtual reality ever close to real? Maybe. But it's virtual reality afterall.
Good night. =)
posted by cpf at 5:01 AM
2 Comments:
Your final point is very interesting. I agree, human-human interaction can't be beat. What's fascinating, for me anyway, is how people are so keen on creating interactivity in new media, as if it didn't already exist without new media.
Although sometimes there are advantages to interacting through technology - the fact that you didn't feel able to speak up during class, but can communicate some very interesting ideas through this blog, is a perfect example. :)
Oh yes, I didnt quite think of that! =) Thanks for leaving the comment!
Post a Comment
<< Home