Views of the Internet

1. How I respond to each of the 5 different views of the internet, how does my own use of the internet fit into this?
I think that although contradictory these views, from experience, manage to be simultaneously valid. Just a tool Probably the way I approach the internet as I relatively occasional user, I see it mostly as a facilitator for I want to do, for example i have a blog for my creative writing but I think if this option was not open to me I might self publish a 'zine in order to get my ideas an audience. I think the creative population has always sort to exploit any medium, the internet opens up a lot of creative opportunities to a wider audience in its ease of use. This could be seen as professionals vs. amateurs but there have always been amateurs who manage to get their voice heard. The internet opens up opportunities to the less determined. Also I believe the internet is becoming increasingly tool-like and in its bid to appeal to all, compared to the early days of the web, the internet is much more user-friendly and requires less technological know-how. For example, myspace was still quite dependant on ones ability or interest in using html, whereas facebook superseded by removing this barrier and hence appealing to more people. The internet in such ways is becoming less unique and more like an imitation of non-virtual life. Big but becoming dull Once the internet is truly 'everyday' it's impact will be more profound but it will also be less tangible. It will be difficult to define where internet and non-internet begin and end and therefore how to measure its impact. Although this sounds a long time in the future, I do not believe we are that far away in terms of technology but we are in terms of mindset. We have yet to have a generation of adults that have grown up with the internet as we know it and certainly there is a great generational gap between people my age and our parents. Once the population is more homogenised in terms of its internet use, this will be the first step in integration. big but BAD Again these are valid points but as the internet continues to grow there comes the interesting concept of self-regulation, not only in terms of ethics but also in terms of contact. Obviously there is a lot of rubbish on the net but because of the number of people going through it, what is worthwhile starts to rise to the top. In fact as the internet grows and more and more people access it, it becomes more refined. Also in terms of myself and my contemporaries, the internet offers the opportunity for the professionals of tomorrow to communicate and develop their ideas. I don't believe the internet erodes independent thought any more than any other media, we just have to be aware of the ways in which this could happen. big and getting bigger FAST The good aspects of the internet are fairly easy to agree on. What is important is making sure they continue as the nature of the web changes. Powerful people such as Rupert Murdoch are seeking to change the nature of the internet, possibly for the worse. As big business becomes more dominant online we need to be aware of changes that may occur. Also will all this social networking, new conversations, actually help in tackling major issues like environmental problems? This is a good question. The positive attributes of the internet should not cloud the importance of governments and big business in truly shaping the world. big, good - could become bad The idea that the internet needs controls similar to conventional media would completely change its nature. Yes, a lot of problems might be removed but a lot of the unique and good aspects would also be removed. It would become difficult to differentiate between the internet and conventional media and this would therefore diminish the power and opportunity of the net.
2. Is Rupert Murdock correct in saying that there is not enough advertising revenue to go round, therefore news papers and other news providers will have to charge for their content?
I do not think it is necessary to simply start charging for content, nor will this necessarily be the answer. However, obviously conventional models for collecting revenue will have to change. Interestingly we have seen since the growth of the internet a greater desire for what is not easily available online ie live experience. Events like Glastonbury have become extremely popular and financially successful. Newspaper may find revenue in tapping into this desire for live and often shared experience. It is worth remembering also that people buy newspapers not only for news - this is easily available for free on the radio or on television - but because they wish to buy into a brand. I buy a physical copy of the Guardian 3-5 times a week. I listen to Radio 4 everyday so have a pretty good idea what is going on but I like to read from my own political viewpoint. I buy a physical copy even though I could read it online for free because I enjoy reading on paper in a way I don't when I read on a screen. Newspaper must look into non-conventional revenue collection. If they simply start charging for online content, they risk alienating a mass of readership and therefore lessening their importance in the media of the new century.
3. What do you think a Murdock shaped internet would look like in the future if his ideas were successful?
As stated before, the internet would be less unique and more like conventional media. I also think it would become less relevant. Whether Murdoch is aware of this or not I am not sure, perhaps he is willing to curtail its potential as long as he is able to have a majority stake in its power. Actually a Murdock shaped internet would be pretty depressing. Regulation would lead to ghettoisation of what is not 'approved' and therefore a split in the internet and in society to which people access what. Ultimately, big business and those with money would be the ones determining content.

Digital is Dangerous, notes on the art of Keir Williams, Chris Poolman and Jonnet Middleton

- Reflection arising from the ‘democratisation’ caused by digital especially in regards to art and in particular to relational aesthetics or participatory art. Relational aesthetics has always been problematic for me, put in the basest terms I don’t think the act of participation makes the artwork. There is the problem of how to get people to participate and to what extent one should coerce the audience. It seems controlling to determine a certain level of interaction for the viewer. It also questions where the other, physical elements of art fall. Are these really less important? However a social media art seems to fall in more readily with relational aesthetics and is perhaps a way to develop the concept. Social media are by their nature participatory. An art that exists in this space is compelled deal with questions of interactivity. The physicality of this art is also more limited allowing participatory aspects to come to the fore without this seeming contrived. Also perhaps because social media are inherently participatory, it is easier and more natural for the individual user to take part without feeling coerced or placed in an artificial situation.
- A variety of different temporalities are developed through the projects as they exist in multiple forms, and the interesting question arises which will last longer; physical, emotional or technological? The relationships between these are constantly shifting as online and offline share strategies. There is the question to what extent could online communities could exist without the offline? Or where does an online community forge a link with the physical world? Does it require person to person contact or merely the act of say creating a knitting pattern one finds online? There is a feeling that traditional difference between the online and offline are dispersing, for instance most online communities used to be characterised by anonymity and openness, in contrast facebook follows offline protocol in that it uses real names and depends on privacy. Does social media aesthetics play a part in breaking down boundaries between on and offline communities?

Comments On "The Machine is Us/ing Us" and "We Think"

Both of these shorts grapple with how to depict 'virtual' space which does not really exist in 4-dimensions as we think of them. It is interesting that both use a fairly conventional, low tech approach to this in the form of stop-frame or hand drawn animation (admittedly though this is certainly a convenient form for digestion through a youtube pop-up box). In such an 'hyper' space, The Machine is Us/ing Us asks is there a difference between virtually anywhere, anywhere virtual and anywhere virtually? Can it be possible to mark out a dividing line between the virtual and the real when the internet is building itself through our reactions to it? is it a place? or a source? The other notable thing about these shorts is the fact they both have a utopian outlook, the same one associated with the birth of the internet and its early development. "We Will", "You Will", the internet is seen as a place of collective activity. When "we are teaching the machine each time we forge a link, we teach it an idea", and so man and machine become inseparable. However the question "We need to rethink a few things..." continuously looms over this somewhat strained positive outlook. Likewise in We Think the life of ideas is explored, ideas that take life when they are shared. This collectivity is deemed essential for creativity. But it is the web really a mass of such productive conversations? It would be nice to think that following the eras of mass production and mass consumption we are now entering one of mass innovation but we do not have complete proof for this. Has the internet really created more freedom of knowledge, or are we dependant on how knowledge-able we are? Should ideas be free since they undoubtably have a value? Is making them free undermining their worth? And the ultimate question of quality should not be overlooked - "what if wikipedia is crap?"