 | Humans like to believe they control the tools they use, even if Socrates, Marshall McLuhan and Ivan Illich are among those who have argued that often they do not. From the alphabet to clocks and printing, every major new technology has profoundly altered the way in which humans think. The digital gadgets on which we now depend, Mr Carr explains, have already begun rewiring our brains. |
✖ Via The Economist: “Fast forward. Fear of a fried future” book review for Nicholas Carr’s essay The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember, Norton, 2010, 276 pages An excerpt from this book was published in Wired magazine back in May: There’s nothing wrong with absorbing information quickly and in bits and pieces. We’ve always skimmed newspapers more than we’ve read them, and we routinely run our eyes over books and magazines to get the gist of a piece of writing and decide whether it warrants more thorough reading. The ability to scan and browse is as important as the ability to read deeply and think attentively. The problem is that skimming is becoming our dominant mode of thought. Once a means to an end, a way to identify information for further study, it’s becoming an end in itself—our preferred method of both learning and analysis. (Wired: “The Web Shatters Focus, Rewires Brains” by Nicholas Carr, May 24th, 2010) About Nicholas Carr: Nicholas Carr writes on the social, economic, and business implications of technology. He is the author of the 2008 Wall Street Journal bestseller The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google, which is “widely considered to be the most influential book so far on the cloud computing movement,” according the Christian Science Monitor. His earlier book, Does IT Matter?, published in 2004, “lays out the simple truths of the economics of information technology in a lucid way, with cogent examples and clear analysis,” said the New York Times. He is working on a new book, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, which will be published in 2010. Carr’s books have been translated into more than a dozen languages. (Bio) Three things: 1) It’s yet another good reason to try and differentiate between information and knowledge (one could say that information is to knowledge what grapes are to wine : its raw material); 2) It would be a mistake to think that gadgets or the Internet are changing our brain configuration. Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s an incomplete statement. What then, should one ask, caused the gadgets to change? What caused the Internet? 3) The form of this post can be understand as an illustration of what the content of the post is about. |
• Aug 25, 2010 link notes tagged:
technology
communication
gadget
Internet
epistemology
order
medium
media
tool
McLuhan
apparatus
brain
knowledge
information
determinism
cause
effect
book
author
 | Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got… an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially. […] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And, again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand, those tubes can be filled, and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material. |
✖ Via The Washington Post: “Sen. Stevens, the tubes salute you” by Alexandra Petri, August 10th, 2010 Sen. Ted Stevens who died in a plane crash last Monday is known, among other things, for having coined the phrase “a series of tubes” “The internet is a series of tubes!” This was the gaffe heard round the ‘net, igniting a response that spanned every news outlet from Fark to the New York Times. The phrase became a badge of pride. Stevens’s quote showed up on the Colbert Report and the Daily Show. Experts confirmed it. People remixed his speech. The “tubes” even have their own Wikipedia page. Google briefly incorporated them into a program as an easter egg. They took on a life of their own, ensconcing themselves in online lore. The Internet was not a big truck! It was a series of tubes! And it was proud. (more) |
• Aug 12, 2010 link notes tagged:
technology
metaphor
tube
medium
media
Internet
container
content
representation
analogy
form
epistemology
communication
 | Me: Ugh, what are you watching?
Lady: 30 Rock.
Me: I know, but…do you notice anything weird about it?
Her: No.
Me: You see that big, black border around the whole thing, and how it looks and sounds all cruddy?
Her: No. I don’t.
Me: Really? You don’t see how the picture is all shrunk down in the screen and everything’s a little chunky and blurry?
Her: No. I don’t care.
Me: Okay, watch this. [Goes through the guide up to the 400s where the HD is.] Okay, are you watching?
Her: [Not watching. Playing with the dog and laughing because he did something cute.] Me: Okay, are you watching? [Swaps channels, engulfed in a glorious wave of fidelitous sound and image.]
Her:…
Me: You see that?
Her: No. I don’t care.
Me: …
Her: …
Me: I love you.
Her: [Laughs at the stupid dog.] |
✖ Via lonelysandwich: “A glorious wave of fidelitous sound and image”, August 6th, 2010 Same thing goes with aspect ratio. I know people (whom I love and respect) who are able to watch a whole film in the wrong aspect ratio (they’ll watch 16/9 in 4/3). You’ll tell them: “Those cowboy sure are thin and tall…” and they’ll go “Huh?” Lonely Sandwich is Adam Lisagor Tumblr blog. Alongside Merlin Mann and Scott Simpson, Lisagor runs You Look Nice Today “an audio-based Journal of Emotional Hygiene” (more about it). |
• Aug 08, 2010 link notes reblogged from lonelysandwich [via] tagged:
technology
popular
consumer
television
high definition
HD
aspect ratio
film
picture
culture
humor
media
 | True, the Pentagon does have perhaps the single largest public relations apparatus on earth – spending $4.7 billion on P.R. in 2009 alone and employing 27,000 people, a staff nearly as large as the 30,000-person State Department – but is that really enough to ensure positive coverage in a society with armed with a constitutionally-guaranteed free press? […] But is that enough to guarantee a level playing field? Can a general really feel safe that Americans will get the right message when the only tools he has at his disposal are a $5 billion P.R. budget and the near-total acquiescence of all the major media companies, some of whom happen to be the Pentagon’s biggest contractors? |
✖ Via The Rolling Stone / Matt Taibi’s blog: “Lara Logan, You Suck” Matt Taibi, July 2, 2010 Matt Taibi is Rolling Stone’s chief political reporter. Lara Logan is CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent. She has strong opinions about Michael Hastings’ article (published in the Rolling Stone Magazine). She thinks he’s a bad journalist. Previously on Skandalon: Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal |
• Jul 06, 2010 link notes tagged:
communication
public relation
army
military
press
free press
McChrystal
jurnalism
journalist
Pentagon
media
media image
representation
image
 |
Unlike, say, her performance at the Grammys, which was a perfect fusion of spectacle (a nine-months-pregnant woman rapping in a see-through dress) with content (Maya’s fervor was linked to the music), the video for “Born Free” feels exploitative and hollow. Seemingly designed to be banned on YouTube, which it was instantly, the video is set in Los Angeles where a vague but apparently American militia forcibly search out red-headed men and one particularly beautiful red-headed child. The gingers, as Maya called them, using British slang, are taken to the desert, where they are beaten and killed. The first to die is the child, who is shot in the head. While “Born Free” is heard in the background throughout, the song is lost in the carnage. As a meditation on prejudice and senseless persecution, the video is, at best, politically naïve.
“The video was more than fine with me,” Jimmy Iovine told me later that night. Despite Maya’s efforts, he had seen it. “I didn’t even have a blink.” A canny showman, Iovine knew that the video would get attention, that Maya would get her visa (which she did) and that all the noise was good for business. He has a long history of driving record sales with violent imagery: in the 1990s, Interscope was home to Death Row Records, where Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre and Tupac Shakur made millions rapping about all things gangsta. Iovine also appreciates the outrageous: Interscope’s biggest artist is Lady Gaga, who has melded big-time theatricality with disco-based pop, a kind of love child of Elton John and Madonna. |
✖ Via The New York Times: “M.I.A.’s Agitprop Pop” by Lynn Hirschberg, May 25th, 2010 Excellent article by Lynn Hirschberg and a great follow up on the “Born Free” music video controversy. [UPDATE - August 16th, 2010] Apparently, M.I.A. didn’t like the article by Lynn Hirschberg: MIA is upset about a New York Times Magazine cover story about her, so she tweeted the phone number of the piece’s writer, Lynn Hirschberg.
“917.834.3158 CALL ME IF YOU WANNA TALK TO ME ABOUT THE N Y T TRUTH ISSUE, ill b taking calls all day bitches ;)” she wrote.
Because MIA presented the number as her own, Hirschberg has been deluged with calls from fans wanting to hook up with MIA. (The Huffington Post: “M.I.A. Freaks Out At ‘New York Times,’ Tweets Reporter’s Phone Number”, June 2, 2010) |
• Jun 08, 2010 link notes tagged:
art
video
music
pop
culture
mainstream
entertainment
industry
consumption
critic
integration
representation
revolution
simulacrum
loser
lost
violence
contradiction
controversy
media
 | To take a dose of LSD is all right, and you will have the experience of being more or less crazy, but this will make quite good sense because you know you took the dose of LSD. If, on the other hand, you took the LSD by accident, and then find yourself going crazy, not knowing how you got there, this is a terrifying and horrible experience. This is a much more serious and terrible experience, very different from the trip which you can enjoy if you know you took the LSD.
Now consider the difference between my generation and you who are under twenty-five. We all live in the same crazy universe whose hate, distrust, and hypocrisy relates back (especially at the international level)’ to the Fourteen Points and the Treaty of Versailles.
We older ones know how we got here. I can remember my father reading the Fourteen Points at the breakfast table and saying, “By golly, they’re going to give them a decent armistice, a decent peace,” or something of the kind. And I can remember, but I will not attempt to verbalize, the sort of thing he said when the Treaty of Versailles came out. It wasn’t printable. So I know more or less how we got here.
But from your point of view, we are absolutely crazy, and you don’t know what sort of historic event led to this craziness. “The fathers have eaten bitter fruit and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” It’s all very well for the fathers, they know what they ate. The children don’t know what was eaten. |
✖ Via Steps to an Ecology of Mind by Gregory Bateson, University of Chicago Press, [1972]2000, p. 481 [Google books preview] Think midle eastern wars, energy crisis, Europe financial crisis, unexplainable killing sprees and so forth. Previously on Skandalon |
• May 25, 2010 link notes tagged:
communication
technology
media
ecology
cybernetic
deception
despair
lost
confusion
generation
history
context
politic
economy
energy
war
destruction
murder
killing spree
 | Do the “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” not fit perfectly the status of the MacGuffin? (Incidentally, one of the most famous Hitchcockian MacGuffins IS a potential weapon of mass destruction - the bottles with “radioactive diamonds” in Notorious!) Are they not also an elusive entity, never empirically specified - when, a couple of years ago, the UN inspectors were searching for them in Iraq, they were expected to be hidden in the most disparate and improbable places, from the (rather logical place of) desert to the (slightly irrational) cellars of the presidential palaces (so that, when the palace is bombed, they may poison Saddam and his entire entourage?), allegedly present in large quantities, yet magically moved around all the time by the hands of workers, and the more all-present and all-powerful in their threat, the more they are destroyed, as if the distraction of the greater part of them magically heightens the destructive power of the remainder? As such, they by definition cannot ever be found, and are therefore all the more dangerous… Now that none were found, we reached the last line of the story of MacGuffin: “‘Well,’ said President Bush in September 2003, ‘then that’s not a MacGuffin, is it?’ |
✖ Via “The Iraqi MacGuffin” by Slavoj Zizek, Nov. 4th, 2003 |
• May 18, 2010 link notes tagged:
art
politic
Iraq
WMD
simulacrum
Baudrillard
Zizek
philosophy
representation
movie
cinema
film
plot
media
technology
war
critic