Tags

Q2.  Manovich suggests a few areas where the most interesting and innovative responses to social media are being produced – what are they, and how might (or might not) these be indicative of new forms of creativity unleashed by digitsation[sic]?
Manovich, L. (2009). The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production? Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 319-331. doi:10.1086/596645

Since Wikipedia is not considered to be a University acceptable source for assignments, due to its editable nature by almost anyone, why are we reading an article that references Wikipedia? How can be certain that the content is truly accurate in its nature, both the content of the Wikipedia article and the content of the Manovich article which refers to Wikipedia.

The numbers of users on certain websites and the apparent location of where those numbers came from (Wikipedia) makes me doubt very much as to the veracity of those statements.  If, as Manovich claims, there really are that many users of these sites, and that many uploads to those sites, then one can almost safely assume that there are at least half of this many internet users again that do not use those sites.  Why then, has the world’s internet not advanced further than what it has? Why does it still seem to be growing and developing? Is it because of the lack of insight of the people who use the internet to advance and further its use and abilities? Or is it more to do with the technological restrictions we still have in place? Restrictions that once overcome will allow for progress to be made. Progress not only in the internet, but also social media in general.

In my opinion, we are waiting for the advancement of the technology, and to do this, we need the current technology to influence the younger generations and to goad them into action for the improvement of the internet and of social media in a wide and varied number of ways.

The advancements made recently with the new introduction of HTML5 and its abilities (including a feature called ‘canvas’), I feel allows for a new age of art to develop. The artist who creates digitally and through no other means. The artist who, by creating a website, can allow others to create their own artworks in the ease and comfort of their own environment.

Does this mean we will lose the “old style” art? No, I don’t think so. There will always be the need for the physical art works to remain a constant. Not everyone enjoys having an artwork that can be easily duplicated over and over. There will always be those who thrive on doing things with their hands, and not with a mouse and keyboard.

The old styles will remain, but the new styles will find their own niche as well.


Comment by Tutor

I just wanted to comment on this point:

Since Wikipedia is not considered to be a University acceptable source for assignments, due to its editable nature by almost anyone, why are we reading an article that references Wikipedia? How can be certain that the content is truly accurate in its nature, both the content of the Wikipedia article and the content of the Manovich article which refers to Wikipedia.

Let me say that I don’t believe in a blanket all-encompassing ban on Wikipedia, nor would I automatically say ‘that’s from Wikipedia so it doesn’t count’.  I do think people need to be careful in selecting what infomration they use from Wikipedia, and in most cases it’s a good general introduction but not a useful primary source (as is the case with most encyclopedias). However, there are instances where it’s a great source – current tech issues, for example, is often one of them. For Manovich, he’s making a political point and the usefulness and creative potential inherent in remixing social media, so using Wikipedia as a source in some instances adds to this point as it is an example of socially produced media that has great practical and, in some cases, creative utility.

-Tama

Advertisements