WEEK 12 – Generative: Intimate Transactions

“We now live under the enduring mantle of a global crisis, a self-imposed act of unparalleled and seemingly irrational self-destruction, which we misname as ecological – WE are the crisis” (Armstrong 2005). Don’t you worry? Let’s be ‘armed’ with ‘body shelf ’ for Intimate Transactions to combat the crisis!

Intimate Transactions is a dual site network installation for two people. It is designed for the possibility of developing a sense of intimacy with someone across the network when you actually can’t see that person or hear that person. Instead of using hand, mouse and keyboard, Intimate Transactions is processed by being equipped with body shelf and a haptic component sitting on your stomach as well as the back of the book shelf, you use your body, feet, back to interact with the works. Using back, feet and body to feel the vibrations that is passed across the network from the other person during the process of Intimate Transactions, you get a real embodied sense from the works.

Keith Armstrong (2005) applied the approach ‘ecosophical’ for Intimate Transactions to develop new processes for conceptualizing and developing media art works. The purpose of Intimate Transaction is to find out the capacity of such media art works in creating contexts for participants to reflect on connections between the ‘problem of ecology’ and the proposed problem of human subjectivity.

Intimate Transaction makes the world of each individual closer through physically connecting one person with the other. This kind of connection strikes me to think about face-to-face physical communication in real time via network as a form of communication in the future. Just like what Keith Armstrong said, “it’s work about shifting balances, it’s work about ecologies, and ultimately it’s work about relationships and collaborations”. However, as Guattari (1995) suggested, the key question facing us today is the production, enrichment and reinvention of a subjectivity including “our own attitudes, beliefs and emotions”, which might be corresponding with “a universe of changing values” (1995, p.124).

The significance of Intimate Transactions not rests on the incredible high-tech equipment for the experience; instead, the marriage of one’s own life and online interactive space creates a ‘desirable inseparability’, which implies the ecological thinking and action within a networked context.

 

Reference:

Armstrong, K 2005, ‘Intimate Transactions: The Evolution of an Ecosophical Networked Practice’, the Fibreculture Journal 7, <http://seven.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-047-intimate-transactions-the-evolution-of-an-ecosophical-networked-practice/>.

Guattari, F 1995, Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm, Indiana University Press, Bloomington & Indianapolis.

Team of Transmute Collective: Intimate Transaction, Youtube, accessed 19 May 2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQV7nIsgS-U&gt;.

 

WEEK 11 Internet of Things – Gaming can make world better?

Most of people play online games, and just playing with it. Nothing makes them feel necessary to play online games. However, it really impresses on me the way Jane McGonigal (2010) thinks about the potential of online game plays – “Gaming can make a better world” (Ted Talks). Jane states that gaming has the potential to solve the world’s most urgent problems, such as famine, poverty, climate change, global conflict etc. Jane emphasizes that, if we want to survive the next century on this planet and if we want to solve the world most urgent problems, we need to increase the hours of game playing up to 21 billion hours every week. Jane’s statement initially sounds unbelievable to me and even irrational. Because it would be a huge challenge to fill up the gap between virtual world of online games and the real world of our everyday life.

Later on, I found something rational in Jane’s presentation in Ted Talks. She points out four kinds of superpowers that online gamers have based on her research. Firstly, Urgent Optimism- “the desire to act immediately to tackle an obstacle combining the belief that we have a reasonable hope of success” (Ted Talks). Secondly, Social Fabric- lots of research shows that we like people better after we play games with them. Jane said playing games builds up bonds, trust and cooperation. As a result, we build stronger social relationship. Thirdly, Blissful Productivity- we are happier playing games than relaxing, hanging out etc. – “we are optimized human-beings to do hard and meaningful work” (Ted Talks). It suggests that gamers work hard all the time if you gave them the “right work”. Fourthly, Epic Meaning- the second biggest wiki in the world is the World of Warcraft Wiki with 80,000 articles, and 5 million people use it every month. According to Jane, “they are building an epic knowledge recourse about World of Warcraft (Ted Talks).

However, personally, the four kinds of “superpowers” that online gamers have are space limited. It means the optimism, the passion, the productivity and so called epic wins are only well provoked within the virtual space because there is no real-life observation, no real-life judgers and no real-life pressure and intention in the online gaming world. When it comes to urgent real-life problems, the “superpowers” may disappear and the morale may decrease in real time. Just as some follow-up comments on Jane’s blog (you found me.) – “the only way you can compare real life to online games is if humans had ‘superpowers’ and could have as many lives as they want”.

Additionally, although gaming for a better world seems irrational and hard to believe for most of people now, quality online games are capable to train people to solve real-life problems though simulation and collaborative online forums. As a training tool, I think gaming can empower human-beings.

Here is the video clip of Jane McGonigal’s presentation in Ted Talks:

Reference:

Gaming can make a better world, Ted Talks, Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSkA9BDWN-U.

McGonigal, J 2010, you found me., http://janemcgonigal.com/?blogsub=confirming#subscribe-blog.

 

Week 10 – Open Science

Are you willing to publicly share online the findings of your project spending months or years of time to complete with others study in the related field or similar interest for further development? If your answer is yes, then that is pretty much what open science tries to achieve – sharing data online for massive collaboration. Platforms for open science have been gradually emerging, such as ResearchGate and social network for scientific community like LabSpaces.net and Scitable. However, issues around whether open science tends to lead low quality research outcome or simply be a short cut for people who need grant project needs great concerns (Pisani 2011).

In 2009, one of the world most renowned mathematician and also a professor in Cambridge University, Timothy Gowers, used his blog to post a striking question: Is massive collaborative mathematics possible? He was actually proposing to use his blog to tackle an unsolved mathematical problem. He issued an open invitation inviting anybody in the world if they think they had an idea to post in the common section of the blog. Initially, there was no reply; gradually, more and more people replied; finally, the mathematical problem had been solved.  His thought was by combing the ideas of many minds, he can make the easy work of the mathematical problem – he called the method the ‘Polymath Project’ (Nielsen 2009). The idea of ‘Polymath Project’ (Gowers 2009) implies that we can use Internet to build tools that actually expand our ability to solve the most challenging intellectual problems. We can actively build tools that amplify our collective intelligence is similar to using physical tools to amplify our strength.

However, open science debate held in Oxford University on the 29^th February 2012 points out some real problems of open science that worth thinking for its further development. Problems of open science inter-connect with each other, such as quality, credibility and economic barriers. The representative of nature brand journal underlines in the video clip that the inevitable ‘pay model’ is mainly because the rejection rate of nature brand journals is as high as 90% each year. It implies that it is necessary for the full-time editorial staffs to guarantee the quality of the published journals. The representative emphasizes the high price of these editorial staffs. It is unfair for the public to consume the great effort made by the editors for free. So it seems to be a highly challenging goal for the complete open science. More content regarding open science debate can be found in the video clip below:

 

Reference:

Evolution of Science: Open Science and the Future of Publishing, Youtube, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yELZ3kbFj1w>.

Gowers, T 2009, wordpress, http://gowers.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/is-massively-collaborative-mathematics-possible/

Nielsen, M 2009, blog, “The Polymath project: scope of participation”

Pisani, E 2011, ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’, The Guardian, January 11, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing>

 

Week Eight Organize

If Government 2.0 became a widely used tool for governance, it means everyone becomes part of the government, and everyone is available for groups of action. It does not mean everyone has to participate, it addresses on the equal rights of residents’ participation. How are you going to engage with government on the platform of Government 2.0? Think from the trivial part of life, just like what the reading (Styles 2009) guides us to think- ban sticky labels on fruit. People with different expertise can interact with Government 2.0 distinctively. So Govenement 2.0 is more like a collective knowledge ground, where people come together to think, discuss and decide. It is an efficient tool that government can use and benefit from the collective thinking as opposed to hierarchical decision. Just like what Charles Leadbeater (UsNow), the author of We-Think, said in the documentary film UsNow: hierarchy is very inefficient, they concentrate the information and power at the top, and they often deny people’s opportunities to take initiatives to share ideas and seek solutions themselves, rob people a sense of agency.

Another form of Government 2.0 has long been used by government and taken for granted, that is open source software. It is a public good provided by volunteers. The source code used to generate the programs is freely available. Political organisations around the world have been using this kind of source to improve governmental system. the notice here is that the the government fails to expand groups like these volunteers to the whole public as participants in the governmental workings.

Empowering the public and collecting the public intelligence as a way of modern-day governance will relieve the tension of ‘Sleepless in Canberra’ (The Drum Opinion) –  politicians and governors are able to get a bit more sleep and longer life expectancy for a healthy, innovative and efficient governance in the long term.

Reference

Ellis, Bob (2010) ‘Sleepless in Canberra’ The ABC, Drum Unleashed <http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35116.html>

Styles, Catherine (2009) ‘A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the functions visible’ <http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/>

UsNow, Documentary on Youtube, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-M6SiLkBms&feature=watch-now-button&wide=1>.

 

Week Seven (week beginning April 16) – Transversally

In most parts of a person’s life, the general action or state might be pursuing or exploring. Pursuing for something we don’t have, exploring for something we want. When people find a kind of ‘short-cut’ for what they want in an environment like Second Life, an escape from real/first life, will you join the group? People may argue that what they have in second life is temporary and disappearable when there is no electricity, but how about the state of mind of people who play the second life? Will it disappear as well? In the editorial article on transversality written by Murphie (2006), it points out Arnold, Gibbs and Shepherd’s thinking about body-technology relations in an entirely different direction – the importance does not lie in the functionality and affordances of the media technologies, instead, the key rests on how human conceptually and transversally interact with the new media technologies – ‘a kind of fetishism that makes us question basic assumptions about the everyday use of new media – the roles they play in everyday lives, and the new forms of economy they provide’ (Murphie 2006).

Here is an example of a documentary film called LIFE2.0 (life2movie.com). It follows a group of people whose lives are dramatically transformed by the virtual world, Second Life. The virtual avatars and inhabitants enable the digital alter egos, satisfying and exploring something that people are missing in their real lives. This is the focus of the documentary – the transversal and sometimes interchangeable relations between reality and virtual reality, a kind of fulfillment in the second life on what people want to become in the first life. You can see the expanding parameters of ‘coefficient of transversality’ (Genosko in Guattari, 2000: 118) when the love affairs in the second lives are transposing to real lives, a man playing a 11-year-old girl in the second life…in the documentary LIFE2.0 (life2movie.com).

This is an interview with the producer Jason Spingarn-Koff of the documentary LIFE2.0.

‘The results are unexpected and often disturbing: reshaping relationships, identities, and ultimately the very notion of reality. Mixing high drama and quirky humor, the film uniquely explores the promise, perils, and implications of virtual worlds for society at large’ (life2movie.com).

Reference

Genosko, G 2000, ‘The Life and Work of Félix Guattari: From Transversality to Ecosophy’, in Guattari, Félix The Three Ecologies trans. Ian Pindar and Paul Sutton, Athlone, London.

LIFE 2.0, ‘Virtual World, New Reality’, <http://www.life2movie.com/ >.

Murphie, A 2006, ‘Editorial’, [on transversality], the Fibreculture Journal, 9 <http://nine.fibreculturejournal.org/>.

 

Week Five (week beginning March 26): How we know what is real

When we are sitting in the library and looking through the window, how do we know the trees outside are real rather than artificial? The answers vary. For most of the time, it could be the colour, the texture, the growing pattern, the structure and their surroundings. The criteria are based on our knowledge, and depend on our vision or a sense of feeling that helps us to decide whether the trees outside the window are real or not. However, is seeing really believing? My answer is no. Because the physical limitation of humans’ vision fails to fully see what are actually there and tell what is reality. Sometimes illusion creates a sense of reality in which the illusionary scenes go beyond humans’ vision ability. As a result, illusion is considered as reality. Interestingly, people tend to blur the boundary between virtual reality and reality in the networked society nowadays. It seems that reality is no more restricted in the meaning of sense, rather, it has been updated to the affordances of objects. That is to say the functionalities of an agent regarding what can be achieved tend to be considered as the criteria of reality in today’s technology-intensified world. The reading’s example of monkeys only using brain and virtual body to “move an avatar hand and identify the texture of virtual objects”, try to achieve the fully interaction between the world of virtual reality and reality (ScienceDaily, 2011). To the monkeys, the reality is achieved and ‘sensed’ when the monkeys’ consciousnesses simultaneously move with the avatars’ hand.
How about our meaning of reality? Is it similar to the reaction of monkeys’ consciousnesses and avatars’ hand? My answer is similar and humans can do better. Here is an example of virtual reality training for coal miners.

The mining simulation dramatically reduces the potentiality of life risks during mining process, and increases the efficiency of mining. Moreover, if the presupposition of Nicolelis et al. (2011) (the ones did the ‘monkeys-VR’ experiment) became true – i.e. “Someday in the near future, quadriplegic patients will take advantage of this technology not only to move their arms and hands and to walk again, but also to sense the texture of objects placed in their hands, or experience the nuances of the terrain on which they stroll with the help of a wearable robotic exoskeleton,” then what I assume is that some day in the near future, miners will not participate in the underground risky mining process; instead, mining robots will complete underground mining tasks via merely humans’ brain commanding the avatars on the screen.
In this sense, the combination of Neuroengineering and media technology enable us to participate differently in the virtuality of the world, meanwhile, achieving the result that means reality to us is how we perceive reality in the technology-intensified world.
Reference:
Anon. (2011) ‘Monkeys ‘Move and Feel’ Virtual Objects Using Only Their Brains’, ScienceDaily, October 5, <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111005131648.htm&gt;.

O’Doherty, JE, Lebedev, MA, Ifft, PJ, Zhuang,KZ, Shokur, S, Bleuler, H, Nicolelis, MAL 2011, ‘Active tactile exploration using a brain–machine–brain interface’, Nature, 479, pp. 228–231.

‘Roof bolter’, YouTube.com, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lwvuYMe7c&list=UUo31uTgC9TbmPDNBUWTXBFQ&feature=plcp&gt;.

 

Week Four (week beginning March 19): “Global Mnemotechnics”—Globalising Memory, Thinking and Action ; Key Word: Embodied

Think about the historical advancement of mobile phones to the domination of Iphone generations nowadays. Think about the advent of television to the micro-device enabled ‘walking TV’. Think about the numerous chips inserted into a computer to the chip transponder implanted into humankind to be a cyborg… We are constantly in relation with mnemotechnological apparatuses (Stiegler) of all kinds. Human beings themselves update their knowledge and skills of using technologies from zero to interactively immersing into the elements embodied in them. As a result, these technologies become integral parts of human body, which exteriorize the embodied thinking of humans. The tech-devices extend the visible by extending where we are as well as the reenactment of the basics of life and presentation of the mind as socially situated beings (Noë et al., 2008). However, humans’ increasingly dependence on technologies makes them more restricted within the capacity of the tech-devices as opposed to the further growth of memory and knowledge by individuals’ brains. Interestingly, this does not mean the fall-behind of human-beings. Instead, human-beings are now exploring alternative ways to try to upgrade human species by implanting the high-tech embodiment into human bodies.

Here is an example of the world’s first cyborg, Kevin Warwick, a researcher and professor of cybernetics at the University of Reading in England. He implanted a silicon chip transponder into his left arm and connected it to his nervous system in 1998 (Warwick).

What Warwick emphasizes and is trying to achieve is to make the external information physically inserted into human body with the connection to tech-devices to upgrade human species. Warwick implanted a silicon chip into his nervous system with 100 electros, which can plug into the computer and then send neuron signals from his brain to computer to control things. Excitingly, Warwick’s wife also implanted a chip into her neuron system, which link their nervous system together. As a result, their communication is telegraphically − nervous-system to nervous-system. Warwick claimed that “brain-to-brain communication will be the next step”.

One of the interesting point Warwick made is that we may not need schools or universities if knowledge could be downloaded into our brains. If brain-to-brain communication was achieved, individuals could improve or upgrade their own capabilities and intelligence that they were not gifted with by connecting with other better-developed brains. As a result, globalising memory, thinking and action were connected like a ‘global brain village’. Everyone within the globe could communicate super-efficiently through implanted chips, and that would be the legendary human revolution.

Reference:
Noë, Alva and Solano, Marlon Barrios 2008, ‘dance as a way of knowing: interview with Alva Noë’, <http://www.dance-tech.net/video/1462368:Video:19594&gt;.
Stiegler, Bernard (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’,  <http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-and-hypomnesis&gt;.
Warwick, K (n.d.) ‘CYBORG LIFE – Talking to Kevin Warwick’, <http://www.infonomia.com/articulo/videos/110&gt;.

 

Ecologies – Virtual Reality vs Reality

The word ‘ecology’ has been transformed into ‘ecologies’ in many cases, particularly when it comes to today’s networked society. The initial ‘ecology’ meaning living creatures within the ecosystem has been complicated by intertwining the livings with ‘artificial creatures’ (such as Internet and many other technologies) in various ecologies. In this blog, I am going to focus on media ecology and the three ecologies.

Media Ecology

With the advent of the technology ‘Internet’ in 1960s till its advanced application in a global scale, the relationships between human beings and machines are increasingly and dramatically changed throughout the history.  In the arena of media, the Internet affords virtual multi-platforms, known as online media, to facilitate immediate communication. The advancement of online media dramatically shapes individuals’ lives as mostly active online participants in the changing mechanism of media ecology. Meanwhile, the network tends to shift its virtual role into everyday real life. The boundary between virtual reality and reality is blurring. Here is an example of a marriage between a Japanese man in the real world and his virtual girlfriend Nene Anegasaki from a dating-simulation game called Love Plus. Enjoy the video and let’s think whether technological determinism is the main factor for this scenario?  Considering virtual marriage as a section of media ecology, will it facilitate or impede our chances of survival (Postman 1970)?

 

 

The Three Ecologies

Regarding the responses to questions raised above, Felix Guattari’s ( in Anon, 2008) in-depth elaboration and refinement of ‘Steps to An Ecology of Mind’ written by the influential theorist Gregory Bateson ( in Anon, 2008) might provide a more reasonable and well-rounded answer. The concept of the three ecologies exists at the scales of mind, society and the environment. Based on Guattari’s ( in Anon, 2008) reading, in the case of the Japanese man’s marriage with a virtual character, the leading cause of the marriage decision made by the Japanese man could be his epistemological system (knowledge and attitudes towards marriage) based on the understanding of the nonlinear system of online dating-simulation. Moreover, Japan, as a distinctive country, comprises certain cultural background and values leading to certain social change. The technologies afforded environment facilitate the circulation of media ecology, such as the gaming console and Internet in this case.

In a nutshell, individuals play as participants in personalized ways in the circulation of media ecology. Technological determinism is highly biased to understand human-technology relationship in various ecologies. The three ecologies provides a more well-rounded way in thinking ‘epistemological system based on an understanding of nonlinear systems’ ( in Anon, 2008) in terms of human-beings within various ecologies.

Reference:

Anon. 2008, ‘The Three Ecologies – Felix Guattari’, Media Ecologies and Digital Activism: thoughts about change for a changing world, viewed 10 March 2012, <http://mediaecologies.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/the-three-ecologies-felix-guattari/>.

Postman, N 1970, “The Reformed English Curriculum” in A.C. Eurich (ed.), High School 1980: The Shape of the Future in American Secondary Education.

ReutersVideo, Dec 17 2009, ‘Man marries video game character’, viewed 10 March 2012, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=26mWFuOWwuU&gt;.

 

Publishing does not change “his mind” but “outfit”

Publishing is challenging the perceptions of the public. Nowadays the presentations of publishing has been profoundly transformed, which give the public a speechless surprise of the upcoming potentials of publishing in modern times, such as the appearance of skin printers etcetera. However, heated debates are arising from the mutual transformative systems of communication nowadays, which tend to threaten the existence of publishing. in this essay, publishing in itself, which is regarded as the nature of publishing, defines as “make public or generally known …”(OED Online 2003) so as to apply publishing in a modern sense. I argue that publishing, in itself, is evolving all the time with the advancement of the society rather than disruption in a narrow sense. Three arguments are involved: firstly, false impression of disruptive publishing caused by the rapid innovation of publishing technologies; secondly, public reactions triggered social forums enable the continuation of publishing; lastly, humankinds themselves provide continual sources for the mode of self-publishing.

Firstly, what makes the false impression of disruptive publishing is not publishing in itself but impending disruption of technology for publishing. More precisely, it is the selection of the method for content distribution that really matters, a print publishing or a digital publishing or other modes of publishing. The advancement of the publishing technologies enables a rapid updating of diverse ways of content transference and transformation. However, it does not alter the nature of publishing regarding the orientated information dissemination and ideological system. For example, the advent of tablet publishing, such as iPad, Kindle etcetera, extends and articulates the purposes of communication through the tablet-enabled interactivity and vibration of content representation. As well, the aggregations of the applications on iPad, iPhone as such enable the diversity of information consumption via the innovation of tablet technology. Karp (2007) contends that the driving force of the shift from print publishing to digital publishing is that the availability of open-access content facilitates the great potential of online publishing consumption. It was found that “the value of the distribution and the value of the content itself was always deeply intertwined — now it’s separable,” which has shown by the public through the willingness to make a payment for certain digital content, but not for the expenditure on the distribution (Karp, 2007). Therefore, it can be seen that the nature of the publishing content in itself haven’t changed. What alters instead is the value of distribution, which multimedia-enabled publishing platforms provide a wider range of choices for the public’s content consumption.

By contrast, Cuban (2010) argues that aggregation is the crucial component of publishing disruption in a business view.

[T]here are those that believe that any business that is doing business like they always have will inevitably be disrupted by the internet. Change or die. Right? Wrong. If my memory serves me right, the common thread among those industries that were disrupted is that they all sold their products ala carte (Cuban, 2010).

The majority of the successful business model online is the aggregation of the content, which inevitably makes the disruption of publishing industry. Cuban (2010) emphasizes the examples of Apple products and iTunes store: the aggregation of all possible content forces the bundle purchase.

However, in Cuban’s (2010) view, it perceives the definition of publishing in a narrow sense by ignorance the mode of online publishing. He tends to confine the meaning of publishing as print publishing. Moreover, Clarke (2010), who opposes the notion of a disruption process in scientific publishing, realizes that

[N]ew technologies are opening the door for entirely new products and services built on top of – and adjacent to – the existing scientific publishing system (Clarke 2010).

Therefore, the updating innovation of publishing technologies improve the accordance of publishing content to be able to fulfill the ultimate purposes of publishing in the societies to meet up-to-date needs. The upgradability of age appropriate technologies invigorates the continuation of valued publishing rather than disruption.

Secondly, Interactivity between the public and published content continues the nature of publishing in which the social repercussions on the published information slow down the potential disruption of publishing. To illustrate, there has been strong critics about celebrity wearing costumes with national flag pattern in China since the publishing of the photos of the famous actress WeiZhao wore the costume in Japanese navy pattern as an expression of fashion in 2001 (MHD 2010). [See Image B] The majority of the Chinese public criticized WeiZhao as a militarist pursuer, which forced WeiZhao to make an apology and a clarification of the purposes for wearing the costume in public. However, the controversial issue continued although the Chinese celebrities changed to wear costume in Chinese flag pattern. It was criticized as well because people said that the celebrities paid no respect to the national flag, no matter it was a Chinese flag or Japanese flag (MHD 2010). Later on people who were engaged in the issue made a comparison among the celebrities in different countries, who once wore costumes in national flag patterns. It has been found that the controversial but popular American singers such as Lady Gaga, Beyonce etcetera seem to wear the flags frequently but perceive more often by the public as distinctive presentation (Squidoo 2011). [See Image A] So, this example is to show the impact of the publishing content on the public reaction in which the information revealed in the publishing prompts the ongoing engagement from the public. The changing social repercussions and public value on even the same published content through the interactivity with publishing prolong the ‘lifetime’ of the publishing.

IMAGE A

Image Source A: Image Source: thisismiblogg.blogspot.com

 Caption A: This is the camera shot from MTV of Lady Gaga (left)’s song Telephone. Beyonce
is on the right. New costume with American Flag pattern triggers a great number of followers.

IMAGE B

Image Source B: iask.sina.com.cn

Caption B: Wei Zhao, one of the most famous actresses in China, provoked the
Chinese public after the publishing of her photos of wearing costumes with
Japanese military pattern.

Nonetheless, the occurrence of the social repercussion associated with published content may depend on the classification of published content. More specifically, the preference of consumption of certain publishing can cause the disruption of other less consumed publishing content. Slovic et al. (1979) found that it was more likely for the individuals to believe the reality of the terror attacks with high frequency of exposure to dramatically arousing news publishing. The primary reason was that heuristic imagination and reminiscence could be easily triggered by terrorism content. The negative case is that people find way of avoidance for out-of-exposure to certain publishing content that they are emotionally sensitive with, such as the feeling of fear due to the information consumption of terrorism. After the research on the American public’s responses to the terrorism news content, Leventhal (1970) suggested that

Most news reports at this time contained threat cues that could have intensified a person’s level of fear. An individual may seek to control his or her level of fear by avoiding such threat cues (Leventhal 1970, p.176).

Whilst the avoidance of certain content consumption, such as the terrorism, might cause the disruption of less preferred publishing due to negative public responses, the group of highly emotive people cannot represent the relationships between the public as a whole and the publishing content. Salwen et al.(2005) found positive public response to the terrorism:

individuals experiencing high level of fear might selectively expose themselves to news reports about the fight against terrorism in an effort to gain reassuring information or obtain information that may be useful in reducing threat (Salwen et al. 2005, p.168)

Moreover, according to Newhagen and Lewenstein (1992)’s study on the effect of  Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989, positive responses from the people who extensively exposed themselves to the news publishing to be able to stay informed timely.

Therefore, the possibility of publishing disruption cannot be merely determined by the minor groups with highly emotional sensitivity. Instead, the public forums created by the content of publishing facilitate the frequent interaction between the public and publishing.

Lastly, the existence of human-beings is the continuation of a mode of publishing, which cannot be disrupted until the time of humankind extinction. The recognition of aesthetics during the process of humankind revolution is one of the most crucial and critical period in the development of human perception, from naked to wearing something, which by then has become one of the most distinctive features between human-beings and animals (Voland & Grammer 2003). In modern days, people consciously and subconsciously express unique self through self-publishing in which refers to make individuals’ clothing published through wearing them in public to display physical appearance in this context. However, outfit selections in modern times profoundly differ from the simple thought for prettiness in ancient times. Rather, it is a kind of representation for self-identity, social influence, values etcetera (Chaiken 1986). Furthermore, in the research on presentation of self in everyday life, Goffman (1959) indicated that individuals’ concern about self appearance comprised various motivations “for trying to control the impression they receive of the situation” to be able to achieve a successful social interaction. Additionally, many researchers asserted that the tendency for individuals preferring consumer goods in certain categories to others indicated that what they choose was compatible with “their sense of social identity” (Belk 1987, Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton 1981, Solomon 1983) Moreover, self-publishing through clothing is an imperative social symbol because individuals are using clothing in daily activities. Besides, outfits contain a “frequent public display” and “easily manipulatable symbol” (Feinberg et al. 2011, p.18), which enable an up-to-date self-publishing to be appearance appropriate within the realm of current acceptance. So self-publishing through clothing expression and physical appearance could be a reliable source for the continuation of a mode of publishing in the non-stop updating society. [See Images C,D,E]

Identity and purpose through clothing (C,D,E):

Image C     

Image Source C: chinadaily.com.cn

Caption C: A combination image shows delegates from ethnic minority groups wearing
traditional clothing. The different patterns and decorations on their clothing reflects their
minority features and represent which minority group they come from.

Image D

Image Source D: tieba.baidu.com

Caption D: Through what they are wearing, you can tell they are hoopmen. They have a main purpose: playing basketball.

IMAGE E

Image Source E: smh.com.au

Caption E: “body-painted models parade through Sydney’s Pitt Street Mall at the launch of Westfield’s Style Tour featuring How To Look Good Naked.” This is a kind of “clothing” publishing via the painting on the human body. It is not only a publishing of art and fashion via human body, but also it proves the ongoing refreshing accordance of nowadays’ publishing.

However, according to another research conducted by Feinberg et al. (2011) recently, the result turns out that whereas it is noticeable that outfits may carry meaning, the simplicity revealed in the previous conclusion on the correspondence among clothing, self-identity and social influence has been implied. So, the mode of publishing may be disrupted if the interactions between self and the instantaneous public information tend to be isolated. That is to say that disruption of publishing self occurs if individuals do not concern about the current acceptance for clothing, such as alternative clothing groups.

Thus, self-publishing through clothing is on a daily basis. In this case, no matter the outfits are in the social
trend or a tendency for disruption of self-publishing being as an alternative group, individuals are rarely naked in a public view without any self clothes publishing. As long as something is worn, the self-publishing is on the way.

To sum up, albeit the communication through publishing is evolving all the time, what has been transformed or disrupted is the ostensible phenomenon. Throughout the research on publishing, three arguments have been presented to respond and critique whether publishing in itself is inevitably going to be disruptive. The result shows that publishing in itself, the nature of publishing, is not inevitably a fate of disruption because: firstly, the disruption of technologies for publishing due to the rapid advancement and replacement of out-of-date
technologies having formed a false concept of disruptive publishing. Instead, the updating innovations of the publishing technologies ameliorate the availability and accordance of diverse publishing content, which effectively articulates the nature of publishing for information dissemination in the public view.
Secondly, public reactions or responses triggered interactive forums between the public and publishing content prolong the lifetime of publishing in itself. Publishing is for the public. As long as an individual is responding, the publishing will not be disruptive. Lastly, it argues that humankinds themselves are incessant sources, which guarantee the continuation of publishing as long as the existence of human race. This argument is justified by the wider definition of publishing in which publishing self through wearing different styles of clothes for a public view carry complex meanings in a modern society. Outfits wearing are not only for self-satisfaction but indeed for controlling the impression of others. Therefore, throughout the three arguments it can be seen that publishing in itself is not inevitably going to be disruptive due to technology innovation, social repercussion and humankinds as a fruitful source for publishing continuation.

References:

Belk, R 1987, ‘Possessions and the extended self’,Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.

Chaiken, S 1986, ‘Physical Appearance and Social Influence’, In C.P.Herman, M.P. Zanna & E.T. Higgins (eds), Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium,vol. 3, pp. 143-177.

Clarke, M., 2010. Why Hasn’t Scientifi c Publishing Been Disrupted Already?. The Scholarly Kitchen, viewed 5 June,2011, http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/01/04/why-hasntscientific-publishing-been-disrupted-already/.

Csikszentmihalyi, M & Rochberg-Halton, E 1981, The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cuban, M 2010, ‘The Rule of Thumb on Disrupting Digital Businesses aka Why The Internet Is Not Disrupting TV’, Blog Maverick: The Mark Cuban Weblog, viewed 5 June, 2011, <http://blogmaverick.com/2010/10/25/why-the-internet-is-not-disrupting-tv/>.

Feinberg, LM, Richard A & Burroughs, WJ 1992, ‘Clothing and Social Identity’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, vol. 11, no.18, pp. 18-23.

Goffman, E 1959, Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,Doubleday Anchor Books Doubleday & Company, Inc.Carden City, New York.

Karp, S 2007, ‘The Future of Print Publishing and Paid Content’, publishing 2.0: The (r) Evolution of Media, viewed 5 June,2011, <http://publishing2.com/2007/12/06/the-future-of-print-publishing-and-paid-conten  t/>.

Leventhal, H 1970, ‘Finding the theory in the study of fear communication’, in L.Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol.5, pp. 119-186.

MHD 2010, ‘Zhao Wei’s early life, rumours and controversy, commercial work, personal life, charity work’,
Blogspot, viewed 4 June, 2011, <http://zhao-wei-biography.blogspot.com/>.

Newhagen, JE & Lewenstein, M 1992, Cultivation and exposure to television following the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. Mass Comm Review, vol. 19, no.1-2, pp.49-56.

OED Online 2003, Oxford University Press, viewed 4 June, 2011, <http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50191830>.

Salwen, MB; Garrison, B & Driscoll,PD 2005, Online News and the Public,Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, New Jersey.

Slovic, P, Fischoff, B & Lichtenstein, S 1979, ‘Rating the Risks’, Environment, vol.  21, no. 3, pp. 14-20.

Solomon, M 1983, ‘The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionism perspective’, Journal
of Consumer Research, vol. 10, pp. 319-329.

Squidoo 2011, ‘Lady Gaga Clothes’, viewed 4 June, 2011, <http://www.squidoo.com/lady-gaga-clothes>.

Voland, E & Grammer, K 2003, Evolutionary aesthetics, Springer, Germany.

 

Effect of Political Advertising – Breathing in and Breathing out

Voting is compulsory for every Australian resident. How do you make your ‘respectful’ decisions? Are the so-called ‘democratic elections’ really ‘for the people and by the people’?  In this blog, I will focus on the different modes of publishing of advertising for the elections and their changing effects due to various publishing.

During the elections in present-day society, there are two main streams of advertising publishing: print-out and online version. Print-out advertisings, such as pamphlets, brochures, postcards, letters etc., are usually delivered to residents’ living place via mail or distributed on streets. Regarding the online version, it often transforms the static print-out advertising into a more interactive interface, such as animation or graphic design etc., but definitely convey the same information. The main differences between the two streams are updatability and timeliness. In the online arena, advertisers can update their content at any time and audiences can grab new information in time merely by clicking the refresh button in a browser. By contrast, the print-out version cannot be revised once it has been published. People may critique the credibility level of the breathing-out (distribution) information as opposed to the potential impact on the voters’ decisions. It is generally because the public is not 100% sure about the source the advertising groups “breathing in”(aggregation). People tend to contend that the amount of profit the advertisers are able to get depending on how brilliant the presentation of the advertising of a candidate could be rather than the truth of the advertising content.

However, the question is why political parties spend billions of dollars promoting themselves through different modes of publishing advertisements with a definite recognition of the problem mentioned above.  The reason is that all parties try their best in various modes of advertising publishing so as to influence the swinging voters who have less knowledge about political campaign and depend on the advertising to make their final decisions (Errington & Miragliotta, 2007).

Therefore, the political advertisings do have an effect on voters, particularly swinging voters. Also, the extent of impact varies from one publishing mode to the other. The relationship between the publisher and audiences determines the “cause and effect” on how the public interact with the elections.

Refernce:

Errington, W & Miragliotta, N 2007, Media & Politics: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, UK, p.100 – p.110