The Cultural Paradox of the Global Village elaborates on ideas from Marshall McLuhan's philosophies on technology/mediums, making real-world connections to his theories. The article also compares the relationships we have to television versus the ones we have with the internet. In a nutshell, our relationship with television brings the outside world in...it often sucks us in and draws us into it's pull. In contrast, our relationship with the internet takes us out of our homes and into cyberspace; it exposes us to vast amounts of information in limitless amounts of space and time.
Three clear ideas within the readings are 1) That the internet puts us into a world where we can be any version of ourself...ideal, unrealistic or even fantasy versions of ourself (our digiSelf) 2) Convergence is inevitable and 3) We help to move convergence forward by taking media into our own hands.
The first idea is mentioned in the online reading...the article explains that our digiSelf is a very intimate version of ourself which we are putting online for all to see...and that we feel violated when we are victims of any cyberbased crime (identity theft, etc). It also says that "manifestations of our identity exist on the web"...this can be through blogging, where someone is jotting down their every opinion and thought on a subject (ranging from mundane to controversial) or through avatars, where a person can assume an identity that is more ideal than the one they realistically inhabit, or even through creative projects that are posted on the web. Putting ourselves on the internet in a digitial way has many effects, from being able to exhibit creativity in a way we could never do in the real world to becoming so engulfed in our digiSelf that we ultimately cause our body harm (or potentially death). Then there is also the question of ownership of our digiSelf...do we own all rights to this manifestation of ourselves? Or once it is put out into cyberspace does it become open to manipulation from whoever and whatever wants a part of it?
The second and third idea is from the "Convergence" textbook. The author goes into much detail about many aspects of convergence. But something I came away with as a central thought is that convergence is inevitable...and it's happening already. And as we as a society are helping this movement forward (via internet, multi-feature cellphones, gaming consoles or MP3-players) both society and media conglomerates are simultaneously scrambling to figure out how to transition from medium to medium in a way that keeps everybody together. The book reads "Convergence describes the process by which we will sort through those options. There will be no magical black box that puts everything in order again. Media producers will only find their way through their current problems by renegotiating their relationship with their consumers."
The third idea is from both readings, and ties into the other two ideas. The thought that we are helping to move convergence forward is illustrated in our extensive use of all media outlets and our abilities as consumers to gobble up new technology as it becomes available. Both the article and the book mention that we have unlimited possibilites with the mediums that are put in front of us, and it's our growing curiosity and willing to PARTICIPATE in technology rather than USE technology that is forging convergence ahead. The article mentions that more and more movies are marketing on the internet (Blair Witch Project as an example) and as consumers we are interacting and even participating with marketing in a way that we never have before. The book mentions the "yellow arrows" and their website, which facilitates communication between groups of people and allows us to share ideas with people that we never may have communicated with in the first place.
I had some difficulty understanding the online article when it mentioned how the effects of the internet can be disorienting. Unless I was understanding it incorrectly, I think it would only be disorienting to people who are resisting change or who are from a different generation and are past the point of trying to understand new technology.
I think some good topics for discussion this week would be 1) What can we do as a culture in order to more smoothly facilitate convergence? (The book said we have trouble working together). 2) Discuss some ways in which we as a society participate in marketing using new technologies or mediums and 3) Discuss hiding behind our digiSelf.
I found it very easy to connect the real world to this week's readings. A couple things that stuck out at me are things I can relate to as a 23-year old, and they are things you don't think about until they are analyzed. The first is when the article mentioned that marketing for the Blair Witch Project was done almost completely online. This made me think of when the movie Cloverfield came out about a year ago. The first trailer for the movie was about 30 seconds long and was VERY cryptic...just by watching the trailer the audience would have no idea as to the movie title, its plot or premise, the cast, the production company, etc. In order to find out more, there were hidden links online and it became a scavenger hunt in a quest to find out more information about the movie. Their marketing tactic is what's known as "Viral Marketing". The production company was skeptical about using this technique to market the film, fearing it would have an adverse effect...contrarily, it smarked immense amounts of curiosity. TV shows and internet bloggers went back and forth on what the plot or title could be and visitors of seemingly unrelated websites were suddenly given clues to more information about the movie. (Side note, various websites and critics compared this marketing technique to that of The Blair Witch Project).
Another example of convergence (and marketing gone wrong) in the real world occurred to me when I read about the "Yellow Arrows" and how they are left in various places throughout cities. This made me remember an incident that occurred in Boston in 2007, when Turner broadcasting held an outdoor marketing campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force (a cartoon on the Adult Swim portion of Cartoon Network) by placing lit up boxes (picture a lite-brite depicting characters from the cartoons) in various parts of the city. Instead of being a successful campaign, police were called to investigate it being a potential terrorist or bomb scare. I actually watch the cartoon and knew it had to do with a television show and not a bomb threat...but not everyone in the same culture would get the reference...I guess this can tie in to the fact that the marketers and the consumers are not always on the same page when it comes to convergence.
*You can see a picture of the Boston boxes HERE
*You can visit the Cloverfield site HERE and HERE (i'm not sure exactly how, but both sites in conjunction with each other contained hidden links to give consumers clues to movie information)
