by Chuck Tryon — Fayetteville State University
February 11, 2007 – 16:57
Thanks for the link, Clancy. I know several others have mentioned the video, but it’s certainly worth highlighting. I’m intrigued by the number of video responses “The Machine is Us/ing Us” has inspired, including this thoughtful critique of some of the standard Web 2.0 arguments.
Hmmm. That critique is thoughtful. On the other hand, the fact of its existence (and, even more, my awareness of its existence) seems to me to undo some of its argument: that one can now respond to a video with a video, and without needing access to the massive, exclusive apparatuses of past media industries (from Gutenberg presses to Edison kinetoscopes to Murdochian megacorps) does strike me as a paradigm shift, if not in the formal structures of what is communicated, then at least in its basic communicatibility…
by Radhika Gajjala — Bowling Green State University
February 12, 2007 – 11:27
Kathleen,
That paradigm shifts and practices of inter-writing, dialogue mediated through specific technologies and social shifts in interaction will happen and do happen - whatever the technology in question is clear but..
While any sort of technology and its use might shift paradigms based on the practices that surround its use, the automatic leap that we tend to make that this is somehow “utopian” and “democratic” or “inclusive” is what is problematic to me.
by Chuck Tryon — Fayetteville State University
February 12, 2007 – 13:31
cyberdiva, I think that lack of critique is what led me to be at least mildly skeptcial of the video. I think it’s clear that Michael Wesch, the creator of the video, is aware of these problems with Web 2.0, but I’m not sure they come across in the video.
I absolutely agree, and I wouldn’t want to suggest any uncritical celebration of claims that the read/write web is transforming the world, nor am I making the automatic move from “paradigm-shift in modes of communication” to “democratic, inclusive, utopian.” It’s certainly worth a much closer examination, not least into the degree to which the web’s sociality is actually affecting the structures of social power. On the other hand — and this was my point about the response to Wesch’s video — I think there are more substantive critiques to be leveled at claims of a web-2.0-utopia than that ‘it’s all still just text and video’ or ‘it’s all still mediated, and thus pulling us out of “real” experience’…
Comments
Thanks for the link, Clancy.
by Chuck Tryon — Fayetteville State University
February 11, 2007 – 16:57
Thanks for the link, Clancy. I know several others have mentioned the video, but it’s certainly worth highlighting. I’m intrigued by the number of video responses “The Machine is Us/ing Us” has inspired, including this thoughtful critique of some of the standard Web 2.0 arguments.
Hmmm. That critique is
by Kathleen Fitzpatrick — Modern Language Association
February 11, 2007 – 19:30
Hmmm. That critique is thoughtful. On the other hand, the fact of its existence (and, even more, my awareness of its existence) seems to me to undo some of its argument: that one can now respond to a video with a video, and without needing access to the massive, exclusive apparatuses of past media industries (from Gutenberg presses to Edison kinetoscopes to Murdochian megacorps) does strike me as a paradigm shift, if not in the formal structures of what is communicated, then at least in its basic communicatibility…
Kathleen, That paradigm
by Radhika Gajjala — Bowling Green State University
February 12, 2007 – 11:27
Kathleen,
That paradigm shifts and practices of inter-writing, dialogue mediated through specific technologies and social shifts in interaction will happen and do happen - whatever the technology in question is clear but..
While any sort of technology and its use might shift paradigms based on the practices that surround its use, the automatic leap that we tend to make that this is somehow “utopian” and “democratic” or “inclusive” is what is problematic to me.
cyberdiva, I think that lack
by Chuck Tryon — Fayetteville State University
February 12, 2007 – 13:31
cyberdiva, I think that lack of critique is what led me to be at least mildly skeptcial of the video. I think it’s clear that Michael Wesch, the creator of the video, is aware of these problems with Web 2.0, but I’m not sure they come across in the video.
I absolutely agree, and I
by Kathleen Fitzpatrick — Modern Language Association
February 12, 2007 – 14:35
I absolutely agree, and I wouldn’t want to suggest any uncritical celebration of claims that the read/write web is transforming the world, nor am I making the automatic move from “paradigm-shift in modes of communication” to “democratic, inclusive, utopian.” It’s certainly worth a much closer examination, not least into the degree to which the web’s sociality is actually affecting the structures of social power. On the other hand — and this was my point about the response to Wesch’s video — I think there are more substantive critiques to be leveled at claims of a web-2.0-utopia than that ‘it’s all still just text and video’ or ‘it’s all still mediated, and thus pulling us out of “real” experience’…
I posted some thoughts
by Matt Kirschenbaum
February 15, 2007 – 00:56
I posted some thoughts here:
http://www.otal.umd.edu/~mgk/blog/archives/000912.html