i'll never again stand in the freezer section searching, in vain, for the pulp free oj i love!
Monday, February 23, 2009
the people have spoken!
hallelujah! tropicana renegs it's new usability-challenged packaging thanks to the internet cries of many.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
the high, the low, and everything in between...according to mcluhan
so i've got this annoying co-worker. very annoying. any mention of movies/music/tv/art/radio/smoke signals/the earth's axis is a challenge to her to educate you on the premier example of that genre. i say i thought memento was good, she says citizen cane set the standard for reverse narrative (ok) and orson welles was way ahead of his time (duh) and i really should see the film if i want to anything about anything (i have. and whatever.) i say i find my mom's shellacked crafts kitchy, she says many of the old masters coated their works in a thin varnish to add a luster to their subjects and preserve their pieces (factually incorrect) and have i ever seen a work by rembrandt or vermeer (...my ba's in art history, thanks) because she will have to take me to the metropolitan museum of art and show me one in person (no thanks. and whatever.).
she is a person who operates on the principal that High and Low are definitive categories... and High is the only one that counts. and sure, i exaggerate to make my point here (except for the taking me to the museum part. that's verbatim.) - namely, that i think this is an absurd way of compartmentalizing life/art/media. nevertheless, i'm convinced that if we spend all our time categorizing the good and the bad we miss out on the fact that all things exist on a spectrum. clueless may be emma dressed up (or down, depending on your take) with "as if's" and "whatever's", fine. and it may say plenty about actors/fashion/slang, but what does it say about the culture in which it came about. why then? why in that form? CONTENT vs. CONTEXT, people!
mounting a high horse in defense of culture is a way of aligning yourself with the important. if you can create/label what others should value you are, in essence, saying that people must value you and your definitive opinions as well. this is my problem with my coworker. and with postman. both assert that the old is better because it's old. everything else is derivative and brings us further away from the serious work of art. this is a value statement (subjective!), says very little about the works in question (you claim, popular television programs aren't as good classic literature, but i still have no idea what criteria lead you to make that assessment) and is, quite frankly, so ego-driven it makes me want to poke my own eyes out.
if new is always bad, developing media will never be good. if i never have to change the way i interpret a work, then media literacy is dead. and if that's the case, then our culture, our narratives, will never change.
luckily, mcluhan saves us from this cultural apocalypse. for him, technology works us over - it changes both the form and the content of our media. he says, "there simply is no time for the narrative form, borrowed from earlier print technology. the story line must be abandoned...[television is]...influencing contemporary literature."
finally, change is good! mcluhan, in speaking about television, leaves room for all the technology to come. he recognizes that information and learning are ever changing and that does not necessarily mean that they are not as valid as what has come before. it is a far more democratic approach to media literacy and one that i can completely respect.
all theory of media aside...i'm off to watch the oscars now!
she is a person who operates on the principal that High and Low are definitive categories... and High is the only one that counts. and sure, i exaggerate to make my point here (except for the taking me to the museum part. that's verbatim.) - namely, that i think this is an absurd way of compartmentalizing life/art/media. nevertheless, i'm convinced that if we spend all our time categorizing the good and the bad we miss out on the fact that all things exist on a spectrum. clueless may be emma dressed up (or down, depending on your take) with "as if's" and "whatever's", fine. and it may say plenty about actors/fashion/slang, but what does it say about the culture in which it came about. why then? why in that form? CONTENT vs. CONTEXT, people!
mounting a high horse in defense of culture is a way of aligning yourself with the important. if you can create/label what others should value you are, in essence, saying that people must value you and your definitive opinions as well. this is my problem with my coworker. and with postman. both assert that the old is better because it's old. everything else is derivative and brings us further away from the serious work of art. this is a value statement (subjective!), says very little about the works in question (you claim, popular television programs aren't as good classic literature, but i still have no idea what criteria lead you to make that assessment) and is, quite frankly, so ego-driven it makes me want to poke my own eyes out.
if new is always bad, developing media will never be good. if i never have to change the way i interpret a work, then media literacy is dead. and if that's the case, then our culture, our narratives, will never change.
luckily, mcluhan saves us from this cultural apocalypse. for him, technology works us over - it changes both the form and the content of our media. he says, "there simply is no time for the narrative form, borrowed from earlier print technology. the story line must be abandoned...[television is]...influencing contemporary literature."
finally, change is good! mcluhan, in speaking about television, leaves room for all the technology to come. he recognizes that information and learning are ever changing and that does not necessarily mean that they are not as valid as what has come before. it is a far more democratic approach to media literacy and one that i can completely respect.
all theory of media aside...i'm off to watch the oscars now!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
the twitter on twitter
well...if david pogue says twitter isn't the time-sucking, ego-driven, of-the-moment internet phenomenon it appears to be...then may i'll reconsider my stance.
my gripes aside, he does raise the same interesting point that boyd did in her article on blogging. namely, that twitter can be "precisely what you want it to be".
pogue defines his twitter as being useful for somethings that would not "merit a full blog or article post." to that i would say, 'does a blog really have to be that involved in order for you to consider posting it?'
having all of these technologies that do, essentially, the same thing (facebook's status message is comparable to a twitter feed, twitter feeds resemble short musings in a blog post...) seems redundant (eliminating redundancies is what i do. i've got the cataloger's gene.). i can justify having a facebook that displays personal information within a network of people who are likely to need that information (it's been a helpful tool for making dinner/drink dates with old friends. whether or not they showed up for those meetings is another story all together.) in addition to having a blog where i upload content (something more involved than that status message). they connect me to people in different ways. the facts are on facebook (name, location, phone, email. leave a brief comment at the sound of the tone), the thoughts are on the blog (the who, what, where, when and why of my life. no character limit).
but, it looks like i've just talked myself into a corner trying to define what these technologies are. in trying to make them distinct things, i've uncovered that, yes, they can be anything.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
new(s) addiction
someone mentioned http://www.cutethingsfallingasleep.org/ as a type of news/medium postman would not approve of. in the interest of (ahem) research, i logged on for the first time today...
i'll never get any work done again. uh oh.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
sticker books don't count
"the campaign for a commercial-free childhood" is mounting a campaign against scholastic inc. saying that book clubs (the single best part of elementary school) should not market video games and other non-book items in their monthly fliers.
susan linn, director of the campaign, says, "The message that children get when books are marketed with other items is that a book in and of itself isn’t enough. And what it does is encourage children to choose books based not on the content but on what they get with it.” (emphasis mine)
judy newman, president of scholastic book clubs counters by saying that "books sold with small items like stickers to help engage children who 'may not be traditional readers.' "
sounds like a good pedagogical brawl is in the works! in one corner: heavy weight james "literacy comes in a variety of forms" gee. in the other: neil "books are always better" postman.
round one: ding ding.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
critical literacy: the what and the how
this week, a lot was said about what literacy is... and what it isn't. and we spent some time talking about the role of librarians as ministers of technology today. And, while i feel that these are important things to define before becoming a literacy minded librarian, i also felt a little left out in the cold. i don't think of myself as a librarian in the making because my interests lie in creating and preserving records - not dispensing them to the public.
that said, critical literacy plays a very different role in my life. to me, critical literacy highlights issues of what information we record and how we interpret its significance/educate others.
the how
friere’s notion of education as a system of economics, and by extension a system of power relations, is fascinating. he describes a pedagogy in which knowledge is capital and it flows only from the top down. and, like hegel’s master-slave dialectic, dominant-submissive roles are constantly reaffirmed by those who participate and never change. students and information are handled as objects, teachers define the scope of our knowledge, etc. but if this system benefits only the few on top (teacher-masters), why do we continue in this way?
how it can change
let’s make the information flow both ways! let’s open our shelves and catalog information according to the knowledge of the masses and serve the greater good…okay, maybe i’m not that radical, but i do believe there is a trend towards truth amongst all those information seeking teacher-students out there. the benefits of developing tools like librarything and wikipedia far out-weigh the drawbacks. we’re much more likely to discover something new by pooling all of the resources we already have. ideally, incorporating a small fraction of the authoritarian 'top-down' method (a content manager at wikipedia wouldn't hurt), while sharing the power between all those who participate, would allow the exchange and evolution of information to happen at unparalleled speeds. (if you don't believe me, listen to ethan hawke and julie delpy discuss collective consciousness. 3 minute mark.)
the what
in 1973, the american psychiatric association decided to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual of psychiatric disorders. to physicians who praticed prior to that date, i'm sure this difference in human desire/behavior was a matter of medical fact (science is, in fact, still trying to find the 'gay gene'). today, however, this episode in history is seen as an example of the influence of bias over the documentation of the society we live in. now, it's easy to make the case for this one considering how much of a hot button issue homosexuality is, but what is an archivist to do when cataloging far less sensitive matters?
what can be changed
the librarian code of ethics prizes professional neutrality above most things, and for good reason. with authority comes responsibility and, as someone who looks to create information, i should feel a great responsibility for changing the content of what people learn by defining its context. this is what critical literacy is concerned with. if i decree that world religions belong in the realm of myth (a la dewey and his decimal system), i am altering a person's world view. if literacy may be loosely defined as the retention and application of information, critical literacy would require me to consider the why (is this here?) along with the what (does this mean?) and the how (do i learn/teach more?)
that said, critical literacy plays a very different role in my life. to me, critical literacy highlights issues of what information we record and how we interpret its significance/educate others.
the how
friere’s notion of education as a system of economics, and by extension a system of power relations, is fascinating. he describes a pedagogy in which knowledge is capital and it flows only from the top down. and, like hegel’s master-slave dialectic, dominant-submissive roles are constantly reaffirmed by those who participate and never change. students and information are handled as objects, teachers define the scope of our knowledge, etc. but if this system benefits only the few on top (teacher-masters), why do we continue in this way?
how it can change
let’s make the information flow both ways! let’s open our shelves and catalog information according to the knowledge of the masses and serve the greater good…okay, maybe i’m not that radical, but i do believe there is a trend towards truth amongst all those information seeking teacher-students out there. the benefits of developing tools like librarything and wikipedia far out-weigh the drawbacks. we’re much more likely to discover something new by pooling all of the resources we already have. ideally, incorporating a small fraction of the authoritarian 'top-down' method (a content manager at wikipedia wouldn't hurt), while sharing the power between all those who participate, would allow the exchange and evolution of information to happen at unparalleled speeds. (if you don't believe me, listen to ethan hawke and julie delpy discuss collective consciousness. 3 minute mark.)
the what
in 1973, the american psychiatric association decided to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual of psychiatric disorders. to physicians who praticed prior to that date, i'm sure this difference in human desire/behavior was a matter of medical fact (science is, in fact, still trying to find the 'gay gene'). today, however, this episode in history is seen as an example of the influence of bias over the documentation of the society we live in. now, it's easy to make the case for this one considering how much of a hot button issue homosexuality is, but what is an archivist to do when cataloging far less sensitive matters?
what can be changed
the librarian code of ethics prizes professional neutrality above most things, and for good reason. with authority comes responsibility and, as someone who looks to create information, i should feel a great responsibility for changing the content of what people learn by defining its context. this is what critical literacy is concerned with. if i decree that world religions belong in the realm of myth (a la dewey and his decimal system), i am altering a person's world view. if literacy may be loosely defined as the retention and application of information, critical literacy would require me to consider the why (is this here?) along with the what (does this mean?) and the how (do i learn/teach more?)
Sunday, February 1, 2009
begin again
the hardest part about blogging: choosing a title.
i got home last monday determined to whip up the best class blog i've ever created (easy, this is the only one) and i couldn't get past the first step. what do i call this thing? it had to be witty (popcultural references a plus, but nothing too obscure/obnoxious). it had to be something i would remember next week (too many accounts, too many passwords for me to remember these days). and, most importantly, it couldn't contain an alias with some combination of numbers and x's (xXLibrARyRocKsTArrXx680, anyone?)...seven days later and i have a blog i'm not too embarrased to call by name.
one might say, "nicole, you obssess over inane details!" this is, of course, true. but i suppose i'm getting at something else here. namely, technology is rewriting the rules of everyday communication. like the unspoken etiquette of email forwarding we spoke about in class last week, technology is changing the ways we communicate with one another on all fronts. social networking sites ask me to add every detail of my life to my profile; my peers determine the socially acceptable format for doing so (hence, my "favorite movies" really have to say something about me as a person and the name "xXLibrARyRocKsTArrXx680" is so 1998).
rumors abound about the negative impact of texting on language use in teens and parents complain that they just don't understand their kids anymore (maybe not a new problem, but predictive texting is getting the blame for this one now).
in any case, i suppose i'll come to terms with being on the tail end of the "me generation." i'll update my myspace/facebook again (because friendster is so 2003), do the blog thing again (my early days of oversharing on livejournal be damned), and work on getting something real out of this blog two[point]oh! sounds promising to me.
...but no twitter.
i got home last monday determined to whip up the best class blog i've ever created (easy, this is the only one) and i couldn't get past the first step. what do i call this thing? it had to be witty (popcultural references a plus, but nothing too obscure/obnoxious). it had to be something i would remember next week (too many accounts, too many passwords for me to remember these days). and, most importantly, it couldn't contain an alias with some combination of numbers and x's (xXLibrARyRocKsTArrXx680, anyone?)...seven days later and i have a blog i'm not too embarrased to call by name.
one might say, "nicole, you obssess over inane details!" this is, of course, true. but i suppose i'm getting at something else here. namely, technology is rewriting the rules of everyday communication. like the unspoken etiquette of email forwarding we spoke about in class last week, technology is changing the ways we communicate with one another on all fronts. social networking sites ask me to add every detail of my life to my profile; my peers determine the socially acceptable format for doing so (hence, my "favorite movies" really have to say something about me as a person and the name "xXLibrARyRocKsTArrXx680" is so 1998).
rumors abound about the negative impact of texting on language use in teens and parents complain that they just don't understand their kids anymore (maybe not a new problem, but predictive texting is getting the blame for this one now).
in any case, i suppose i'll come to terms with being on the tail end of the "me generation." i'll update my myspace/facebook again (because friendster is so 2003), do the blog thing again (my early days of oversharing on livejournal be damned), and work on getting something real out of this blog two[point]oh! sounds promising to me.
...but no twitter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)