Archive | Uncategorized RSS feed for this section

Essay in lieu of exam: The Publishing Society and it’s Struggles

13 Jun

‘It makes increasingly less sense even to talk about a publishing industry, because the core problem publishing solves—the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public—has stopped being a problem.’ (Clay Shirky, ‘Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable’)

Clay Shirky (2009) stresses an interesting point. And in this essay I will be stressing the notion that the publishing industry is becoming more of a publishing ‘society’ with the push of digital and networked media. However, to say that the incredible difficulty, complexity, and expense of making something available to the public has ceased, I find, an overstatement. In fact, what I see is the core problem of publishing becoming ever more relevant in this unforeseeable future. In fact, that issue will remain the core issue as publishing becomes more prevalent and confused in the network of things and free sharing; because the public is changing at an unpredictable rate, and will not cease to exist but change indefinitely.


The dismantling and shifting industry

The publishing industry has changed significantly over the years, specifically with the rapid rise of digital and networked media. From the traditional forms of publishing such as newspapers, books, and the television, there was a strong sense of ‘making something public’, an act performed by intermediaries and companies that someone without that power could not achieve. This was because making something widely available to the public was expensive, and strongly attached to the politics or culture of the time. For example, in the 1980’s political oppression meant most Korean networks’ news media was identical. This inferred a kind of broadcast society, which like the apparatus theory suggests that the structure of the medium inherently maintains and imposes ideologies on the viewer (Baudry, 1986). In this case like cinema, the television modeled spectatorship. This gave little power to the public and its limit for creative expression. This powerful industry chose what the public should hear or read, and gave a clear definition of who was a publisher; it was a profession. However digital and networked media have given rise to ‘internet freedom’ with the ability to post whatever you want, wherever, whenever, in this growing circus of data. Digital media made it particularly clear the visibility of content and how user friendly the content becomes. For example, Lehrer (2010) illustrates that despite books being time-tested technologies that endure, reading is going to adapt and accept ereaders because digitization means the format is more legible such as fonts and visuals, that the reader will be more comfortable with. Networked media particularly means ‘Everything is open and free’ (Mindmeister, 2009) in the connection of new media platforms, distribution methods, mediums, products, and overall connectedness to all parts of data. No matter what, this free content will be preferred to society than having to pay for it. Therefore, as the amount of data continues to proliferate online and over many different mediums such as facebook, ereaders, professional magazines, government websites, the public is continuously shifting in nature. Arguably the public are now more concerned with the visibility of publishing rather than the content itself, like it was in the past (Lehrer, 2010) and the distinction between professional publishing and self publishing is being blurred or mixed in the crazy mess of digitization and networked media. Here I would like to stress that the industry of publishing is being dismantled however not replaced but changed. The process in which it is unavoidably changing can be understood by the struggle to preserve the old technologies.

Shirky’s article (2009) highlighted the fact that publishers were trying to solve the problem of a shifting public who wanted free content and free sharing, by trying to instill the traditional technology better; more stringently. This meant for example payment for publishing platforms, payment for creative work or exclusive access. However, all this proved was the increasing demand of publics to ‘free themselves’ and established new black markets such as piracy, and therefore declining sales. For example, the rise of illegal digital downloading and torrenting popular drama and music. Hence, in this inevitable dismantling of the publishing industry and growth of a new public, there was a sense of conflict and even media panic; the notion or skeptics that one cannot trust the medium because they believe it wont result in reliable information (Drotner, 2006), which made the transition difficult. For example, questions on whether tv shows were good quality or articles were legitimate such as Wikipedia. Yet, the skeptics of older generations such as stopping young people ‘facebooking’ (yes, it has been appropriated into a word) because ‘it’s taking over our children’s lives’ would only fuel a passionate and potentially reckless generation to demand free rights. In fact, you could say it encouraged more piracy and ‘illegal’ free publishing as it was particularly easy under the light of trillions of data platforms around the internet, all networked together. Hence attempting to save old publishing technologies rather than save society potentially damages society. Changing and emerging publishing tools bring about these changes in publishing and the social (Mrva-Montaya, 2012).

Furthermore, with the publishing industry erratically shifting towards a publishing society of free sharing, we can witness the integration of both professional publishing platforms and social or personal publishing platforms. This merging or potential to be fully integrated into our lives suggests a society shifting towards an internet of things, the semantic web 3.0, and djing just to name a few commons that the industry, is becoming. I further stress then, that the publishing industry is not being replaced but shifting and evolving into a publishing society.


The publishing society and what it is becoming

The fact remains that in this transition and dismantling of the traditional structures of publishing, in its form of broadcasting and, to an extent, dictatorship, we are seeing publishing change from being an industry through which mediums connect the public, to a publishing society where free file sharing and publishing are in control of everyone from anywhere. However in saying so, it must be understood that the nature of the publics are significantly changing, and that it still implies great difficulties, complexities and expenses in making something available to the public. In a digital and network society, information can travel faster over space and time, whilst rendering the intermediary irrelevant. This can be seen in the Actor-Network Theory which models that all human and non-human actors within a publishing system have equal agency and relational ties. Thus if one tie is changed, the entire assemblage is affected. In this model it becomes evident that a change in the network, by anything or anyone, can make significant impacts on publics and publishing technologies. However more importantly this has stressed the importance of distributing and aggregating technologies; such as archiving and visualizations, as relevant to how publishing is achieved as an assemblage. Networks can become very complex and confused, with the overload of data available. There is a strong need for infotention systems (Rheingold, 2009), or other forms of meta-communication as the public becomes less concerned with publishing content and more concerned with how to make the data more visible, how to distribute and aggregate, and therefore publishing systems of archiving, visualizing, and types of media platforms. We can see this with the semantic web 3.0.

The Semantic Web 3.0 refers to how the internet needs to take a more ontological approach and focus on how to organize and aggregate data from the web, rather than create new data. In this sense the semantic web 3.0 forms a whole new ontology of publishing for the sake of organizing rather than competing for ‘better’ content. This is because the semantic web understands how the overwhelming nature of data is creating new attention and distraction systems, or moreover distorting our perceptions. To elaborate, Steigler (2010), outlines how our attention to certain data is under siege because publishers are trying to create consumers rather than citizens. The medium itself distorts and changes our perceptions of data and influences what we take in as data. The Semantic Web 3.0 attempts to clarify what data we want to take in so we, as society, are back in control.

We can also see that the need for careful structures of aggregation is affecting our everyday lives through the growing ‘internet of things’. The internet of things revolves around how the internet is becoming incredibly connected with our everyday lives as it attaches itself to our everyday objects, off the computer screen. For example, running shoes can send messages to social media outlining where one is running and how far they have run. Networking and digitalization have brought this compatibility between physicality to the Internet as the nature of the public desires more ‘real-time’ and real-life publishing (Kopetz, 2011). Here the collection and gathering of data takes place in the physical environment through the footsteps in the shoes, while the distributing is posted online to social media, further aggregated into effective archives and visualizations on the Internet. Innately, humans are ‘hunters and gatherers’ who distribute and aggregate and desire more and more compatible and easy mediums for living. This shift in the public to mark the significance of data distributing and aggregating between the physical and digital world, highlights the new agenda of real-time and real life publishing as new difficulties for the publishing society.

Example of shoes tracking when you pass the start and finish line

Example of shoes tracking when you pass the start and finish line

Therefore, such publishing systems attempt to solve the difficulty of what we are really seeing because it is invisible, the complexity of what we actually see because of our distraction and attention systems, and the expense of powerlessness due to the current inability to fully maximize and organize data intuitively, as publishing entities continue to compete to become the most coherent distributor and aggregator.


New difficulties, complexities and expenses: Visualizations and Archiving.

Therefore, publishing by nature is very competitive. It has always been about visibility, and making the invisible visible in the most appropriate or relevant way to a publishers desired goals and the publics desires and needs. This calls for the increasing need for better mechanisms of attention and distraction with all the trillions of data online and the advance of digital and networked media. Bernard Stiegler (2010) points out that “intelligence must wage a battle for intelligence” as a disorderly array of systems attempts to control and capture attention. This can be achieved through effective and appropriate visualizations and archiving.

Visualizations structure new relationships and new forms of knowledge from images drawn from data. Usually there are aesthetic pattern recognitions that shape the data we see, as people hunt for patterns. Then there are patterns as method, which uses aesthetics to pinpoint patterns  (Shermer, 2008). For example, the use of dotted lines to draw an invisible dimension to 3D objects, has a different connotation to a single straight line. This means it becomes extremely critical to capture attention to the patterns that the publisher intends, particularly through appealing visualizations that capture the target market and making sure that the ideas in the visualizations draw appropriate conclusions. This is increasingly difficult with the various methods to visualize data such as abstractions in video, infographics, photos, 3D maps, writing, and graphs. Therefore this adds new dimensions to the difficulty of publishing. Another new example is Vjing as a visualization, which is a form of music and real-time moving visuals played together, to create a whole new immersing experience. This new form of publishing understands the notion that capturing attention is becoming more brief and fleeting as attention spans are seemingly becoming shorter with various converging technologies and publishing tools in this networked and digital society we live in.

Archives are also providing new difficulties and challenges as the publishing world finds itself overwhelmed by the amounts of data. There is a sense of archive fever as the public strive to control their own attention and organize data, such as constantly re-arranging one’s iTunes playlist. But in conjunction, since archiving has the ability to store past, present, and future information, it also means it can choose which information is more visible in the structure of the archive. For example, one cannot access what mood configures with the song on iTunes. This is why competing publishers such as a ‘Stereomood’ can access your mood and choose songs suitably. This shows the new difficulty of competing archives to store data as archives lay the basis for authority and politics in data.

Furthermore a shift to a publishing society underscores the fact that ownership and copyrights are diluted. There are arguments between who owns what and what necessitates a commons.

Therefore the publishing industry is being dismantled in old publication technologies like the newspaper and books. However digital and networked media technologies have formed and changed the publishing industry rather than replace it. There is a changing nature of archiving, visualizations, and media platforms that brings about changes in the public. Digital and networked media like the web 3.0 and the internet of things change ways in which society shares data and publishes data freely, more organized, in real-time, which is integrated into our everyday lives.

The fact is, we don’t know what will happen to publishing. It’s nearly impossible to predict but we know it will be changing. Most likely, publishing will be paving the way for great distribution and aggregation systems that capture attention both beneficial to the publisher and public. It will make increasingly less sense that the public are seen as consumers rather than as citizens. As long as we don’t try to preserve the old, I assume societies relationship with publishing will be striving for the better of humanity. However, this difficulty, complexity, and expense will never stop being a problem.




Baudry, JL, Rosen, P, Williams, A. (1986), ‘Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology’,  A Film Theory Reader, Columbia University Press, New York.

Drotner, K. (1999), ‘Dangerous Media? Panic Discourses and Dilemmas of Modernity’, Paedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp 593-619.

Kopetz, H. (2011), ‘Design Principles for Distributed Embedded Applications’, Real-time Systems, 2nd edn, Springer, pp. 307-323.

Law, J .(1992), ‘Notes on theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity’, Systems Practice, vol. 5, issue. 4, pp. 379-393.

Lehrer, J. (2010), ‘The Future of Reading’, Wired, viewed 12 June 2013, <>

Mindmeister (2009), ‘Ccalpssalon openeverything’, viewed 13 June 2013, <>

Mrva-Montaya, A. (2012), ‘Social Media: New Editing Tools or Weapons of Mass Distraction?”, The Journal Of Electronic Publishing, vol. 15, no. 1, viewed 5 June 2013, <–social-media-new-editing-tools-or-weapons-of-mass?rgn=main;view=fulltext&gt;

Rheingold, H. (2009), ‘Mindful Infotention: Dashboards, Radars, Filters’, SF Gate, viewed 7 June 2013, <;

Shermer, M. (2008), ‘Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns in Meaningless Noise’, Scientific American, viewed 10 June 2013, <>

Shirky, C. (2009), ‘Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable’, viewed 10 June 2013, <>

Stiegler, B. (2010), ‘Taking Care of Youth and the Generations’, Stanford University Press, pp 30.

Yang, F.I. (2012), ‘From Korean Wave to Korean Living: Meteor Garden and the Politics of Love Fantasies in Taiwan’, Korea Observer, vol. 43, no. 3, Autumn, pp. 419-445.


Wk 11 – my last post y’allll :(

25 May

Sorry everyone, I’ve been so busy with my assessments I havn’t been blogging recently.. 😥 I’LL MAKE IT UP TO YOU GUYS. I PROMISE. —–<-@ here you go, please accept this flower? 🙂

So this is our second last lecture and I’m really going to miss blogging to everyone. Maybe no-one at all ever read this 😦 But hey! You know what, it’s published and I really like wanted to help you guys 🙂 One day, maybe someone will appreciate my GENEROSITY! haha I’m kidddding! I really am happy and grateful if anyone’s been reading this (including you Adam!).

I really don’t know if any of my work made sense, but this blog really was about my interpretations of each lecture and expressing it in an easy form online. It’s my publishing and well oh my gawd I’m proud to say I made it all myself. YEAHH BABBY.

So like everyone lets sum up week 11 easy peezy style! Good luck for week 12 but ive got too many assignments and sRZZLLY cannot do it!



But just for you guys ❤ here it is again.

  • Distribution is like breathing out
  • Aggregation is like breathing in

Inhale, exhale! Think of aggregating as collecting things together, you know how we collect music from our distributors etc. Now everyone remember this definition: Gathering, combining or bringing ANYTHING that can be DISTRIBUTED into a NEW RELATIONSHIP or a WHOLE.

So why is this relevant to publishing again? Firstly because he said so haha, but also its like all about the way we like interact with publishing. I mean traditionally broadcasters and such were the ones distributing and we were like the aggregators, collecting in all the information we can. How simple minded we were aye!!! Well NOW TIMES ARE A CHANGING mmhmm. And we’ve proliferated the need for distribution and aggregation (increased needs for both because we are always searching for more and more, it’s in our blooood to love this stuff)

I love the analogy used in the lecturers to describe this relationship “we are hunters and gatherers’. I guess they’re trying to say its our ‘animal instinct’. Geez way to make us sound so primitive but it’s still a daaaang good analogy. 😛

So with this increased distributing and aggregating, everythings more complex, more relational, and theirs ongoing changes to modes of distributing and aggregating. ongoing. Because fundamentally we are always changing and technology brings change.

Another way we looked at it was how in the past, the focus was on content and it’s quality. Now look at us! The focus is on meta-technology and ways to leverage content through distrib and aggreg methods. Ouch, no wonder quality’s so bad these days. Sometimes I think I’m reading s** on the news! golllyyy. 😡

So guys you should check out the readings too but kickstarter was such an awessssoooome way to see a contemporary form of publishing. Really increased aggregating and distributing means we now share files, we upload, they upload, its a mixed community of helpers and givers. 🙂 I like it. Working together and creating harmony and equality for alll!!!

Anyways I hope you guys go okay in week 12, sorry I missed week 10 too. I love you guys like soo much. Please don’t be a hater and hate my blog but understand I just wanna help. ❤ PEACEEEE MWAH xxxxoxooxxoox


11 May

Yes you heard me! It’s like everyone has their personal x-ray making us transparent as ever. We are a visualisation, oh, a spectacle to see! :\

So my lovely publics and publishers ❤ ❤ <3, visualisations we learnt are secret forces that make the hidden appear, presto! And in this weeks lecture, we’ve now learnt more about the effects of being visible, ‘naked’. It’s the fact that we are in many ways controlled by the visual. In effect, we are exposed by it and transparent as ever! BUTTT is this bad?

Let’s look at the “Cinematic Apparatus’ example. It’s an idea of society as a Spectacle (you know, like a show?). We perform like its a movie, we have a projector in the back of our heads forming images which we indefinitely respond to, like a machine! This particularly happened in the broadcast society of billboards, television, movies as we become a passive force…Like we don’t have a brain or something?? Like we are stripped of our identity and formed one by technology! AHHHHHH. So yeah, visualisations shape our social body.

But yeah, as you can see, thats a pretty big generalised statement. In fact, with all this new hubbub of technologies like the mobile and tablets, our societies definitely changing. Don’t you guys reckon??

Like, we are totally involved and not passive at all! We’re in fact, open for experimentation by technology and through technology. This brings us to a more VJ like society. VJing (I had to google what it was because I still didn’t understand after the lecture!!) is like those club visualisations with music in the back forming those funky ass shapes projected on the walls or something. I kind of think of it like those plasma globes, we touch it shape it and it shapes and fuzzies up our hair. YEW!

AND THIS as the lecturer points out guyss :O –> is the new effects of remixing. lots of reconfiguring, modulating, transduction (I don’t really like these technical terms, so iffy to learn!) but here’s the trick: just remember it all means remixing at the end of the day. WOOWIE !

So what id like to add, is that as visualisations change…publics change and interact differently. A clear example of how traditional media visualisations infact like portray “opinions” that dictate our view and like ‘act as a spectacle’ is with the polar bear example that our lecturer put in the reading material. I found it hilarious to be honest, is that cynical?? :|……… Well why? Because of the images of the polar bear on those dear old small ice caps! It really showed the link between their extinction as a endangered species and the impact of global warming and climate change…But so many people are arguing CO2 levels aren’t causing climate change…particularly through this awesome infographic contrasting people opposing CO2 as a reason for climate change, and people supporting CO2 as a viable like reason for climate change. Like seriously! So many arguments and tension in that infographic, but I learnt so much! I suggest you guys all go to your readings and check it outtt yooo~~! I mean, like theres one part of the infographic that like showed a diagram of global warming measured as a hockey stick shape (apparently its famous by Al Gore guys, I didn’t know either don’t worry haha!) But what opposers argue is that this was only one representation of it. If you look at other measurements and even more developed indicators, they dont have that much of a shape and a more regular pattern. It’s funny isn’t it? How a simple visualisation can persuade a nation. But in that respect, those supporting reasons for global warming raised their own opinion and well honestly, I ended up siding with CO2 emissions being a reason for global warming. Those visualisations really helped!!

So sum this up, be careful!!! Be careful what visualisations are showing you…don’t take it for granted…because it’s exposing and even though theyre moving towards transparency…like VJing and real-time (realtime: just incase you miss my word blog adam)…maybe..its not so good for the social. The fact is…the social will change…

Making the invisible visible

4 May

Well hello beautiful people! It’s a great day today and I’m super duper excited to be posting you today. ESPECIALLYY because this topic was soooo AWESOME! I mean, it wasn’t content heavy, and we got to see a lot of examples of visualisations. (yayyyY!)

Now, ‘visualisations’, seems pretty obvious what its about, you know those pictures and pretty images or moving images that show data. But REALITY was that they are more important and functional than that! yes they really are!!!!

Visualisations ARE the persuasive factor. They ARE the influencer and more surprisingly, they ARE the filterer of making the ‘unknown, known’.

And honestly, for me, I had no idea how invisible data was and how much of an effect like visualisations made. Like personally, when I think of ‘data’ I IMMEDIATELY imagine a table filled with data. But little did I realise, I’ve already created a visualisation. That data was invisible but I made it visible. Weird how we assume phenomena without consciously being aware of what our smart brains actually created aye? 😉

Also another interesting point from the lectures Id like to highlight! Well, its how visualisations are linked to archive fever. We really like to organise data and visualisations are another way of doing so. As the lecturer pointed out, like, in today’s modern age of web 3.0 and what not, we’re even using visualisations to plot our own lives rather than the more traditional climate forecasts or ‘historic events’ etc. What I’m trying to point out is that this ‘filtering’ system through visualisations are showing what is important to our lives, and what WE BELIEVE is important. For example, in the past, you could say visualisations were more like Florence Nightingale’s, relevant to significant global issues or phenomena. Now, we’ve got visualisations on dietary habits and food consumption. Like that one I saw on the internet, showing 200 kl of food intake compared across different foods. A 50g peanut butter slice had 200kl compared to broccoli which was like 300g! CRAAAZY! Well I guess kind of expected, but the visualisation reallllyyyy brings it out. It looks crazy, and see, thats the effect of powerful visualisations. BAM.

So guys I dont want to have to keep bringing in all these random points butttt I hope I don’t sound off tangent! It really all does relate! Well visualisations thus structure new relationships i.e. bringing different data together to form a visual that shows new data. Example? Well heights of dogs and what type of food they eat. Let’s say I found all that data, put it in a graph, and VOILAA THERE’S A RELATIONSHIP! The taller they are the more meat they eat. Now, let me just add, this is entireeellylyyy theoretical haha! Who knows if this is true!:)

But this new discovery of patterns is really what visualisations highlight, and that’s why they;re so important! If we could already see the pattern, what’s the point of a visualisation! Each visualisation strives to show something that would be different to what another visualisation would show, a different pattern or abstraction. Who knows:) And you know what this can only lead to changes. CHANGES in identity, CHANGES in management of health, CHANGES in perspective of healthy and unhealthy food, I love visualisations!!


19 Apr

Okay guys lets get serious for once. I found this really hard to understand 😦 I mean simply put I understand yeah the commons is a place for sharing and collaboration for social needs, it makes everything free for everyone to change, code, and design. BUT, what I’m really struggling with…is it’s relation to attention. I dun comprehendoo!

I don’t really see how they connect..but I’m writing to let you know what I think it means, after millions and millions of reading and brain spasms I’ve journeeeyed across. Tell me if it’s wrong and like a common, we can work together and share our information to enhance each other’s knowledge and productivity ;D

So LETTUCE BEGIN (ahaha?:)

The commons. In many senses this concept seems so archaic. It’s like when the world first began, everything was free. Dinosaurs ate whatever they want and did whatever they wanted since it was all free. We operated on a basis of ‘free for all’ and were individuals inside a collective. By that I mean, we worked for our own desires and since everyone was doing it, it formed a society itself. What’s funny, is how we’ve kind of reverted back to that civilisation. Like as they put it, ‘return to the commons’. It’s like we developed and then somehow we got confused and did stupid things, now we want to go back.

My mini timeline ❤

Dinosaurs –> Cave men –> Political Supressors –> The Media Saavy –> Justin Bieber (Yes let’s go back, this is not called evolution! haha)

So what went wrong with the world? Well we put too many restrictions. After the dinosaurs we were all like ‘hey, lets be socialist and make everyone the same’. Then it was ‘hey, now everyones quality of life sucks and not just mine, whoops. Let’s be all capitalist and work for our money. No more freebies, we need money and you have to pay for our awesome ideas’. And now, thanks to technology’s push, its like ‘hey, everything’s not free and it can be..lets improve our lives so we can actually afford things and make society better at the same time. I demand a return to the commons!’

This return sounds hard didnt it? Well it probably was. All these small individuals fought for it and you bet they’re achieving it. People are realising that the read only culture limited creativity and could only be reached by a select amount of people who could afford it. Now a read/write culture promotes sharing information, we all work together to keep producing and using information which could only expand everyone’s horizons right? In fact, this increase in the amount of people allowed into the commons (since ANYONE can enter), could only mean more small firms can enter the market and even share their great discoveries with big firms. It’s a great society working together to improve oneself that consequently helps everyone 🙂

BUT DUN DUN DUN. Yeah guys its really hard you know, to keep a common. Because attention and distraction has proliferated (gone cray cray). From what I’ve read and what I’ve deduced, I think with more creativity, input and ideas, it seems like attention has become so much scarcer. Bringing in media convergence and interoperable netwroks, everything’s become messy and blurred the lines between what we can organise and control vs what information’s really being fed to us i.e. useless junk.

So guys, if we want THE COMMONS to rise up again, we need to be careful. We need to create appropriate attention systems like the one Howard Rheingold suggested (‘infotention’, turning info overload into knowledge navigation through awesome techno systems), because we’re too accustomed to habits of attention and distraction. But yes, ironically, this opens opportunities for innovation and organisation doesn’t it? When else would we get this opportunity to be creative in our attention and develop society 😛

So guys that concludes what my thoughts about commons and attention. I hope I’m getting it right, and sorry for this dodgy ass post. I want to be a teacher but looks like this blog is turning into a teach me blog. hahaha but you know, if you can explain it to me, then you’re helping yourself right! That’s why, I love the commons. ❤



15 Apr

Hello friends and pumped individuals 🙂 I’m so happy to be blogging again, once a week just isn’t enough! (I don’t want to get you guys sick of me hehe)

So, guys, remember like last week how I was talking about how some people go crazy with over personalising and playing with archives? well in today’s lecture it was clearllly pointed out it was ARCHIVE FEVER. (baby baby baby oooh like babeeh haha sorry couldnt help it :\)

People go totally cray cray over archives! And apparently they ‘rework’ experience. What does that mean? Well I guess theyre trying to say the wayyyys we archive shape our culture. You know, our experiences in life. For example like instagram I mentioned last week, we are obsessed. And the thing is, this obsession is changing the event itself into a new meaning…Think about it. At your dinner table with friends, everyones taking photos of the food. Is this still hanging out or some photo taking club??? It’s lost some meaning in the value of the food compared to how pretty it’ll look on instagram…Maybe even the value of the friend is gone 😦 me… 😥

SO please be careful about archive fever. It’s good because it conserves and I mean I love it still. Organises my life man. But please don’t be destructive with it…even though maybe…it’s inevitable….. :O

Gabby xxoxoxo mwah! PS. INFOTENTION. Just got to bring up that word 🙂


30 Mar

It’s week 4 lovely people and this lecture didn’t delve too much into theories as much as they defined ‘theory’ hhaa! I thought it was funny 🙂

So anyways, I actually didn’t want to focus on the definitions and theories and practices, that’s boring and you we’re at the lecture, like you know what it’s about.

I wanted to go more into how like important archives are. And like me, I’d like to think most of you guys struggled with the concept of archives just as much as me!! :\

So what are archives? Well I think they’re like the behind-the-scenes folders storing memory and keeping things structured. Well here’s my examples: Table of contents, forum blogs, books, television program guides, brands of clothes, etc. YES. These are all archives!!! In fact, here’s a clearer BREAKDOWN of the function of archives 🙂

  1. Archives preserve things, as they iffily put it ‘technical memory’ (like my photos on instagram always make me nostalgic..or hungry :3)
  2. It is a form of content and expression (like the fact im clickin my camera and putting cutie pie pictures of my dog on instagram)
  3. It’s a form of distribution (like all my friends see my photos and I can be private if I want, it’s awesome publicity for restaurants too if you tag them)

An AWESOME dog (i DESIRE) instagrammed!

Now remember that fantasy sea sponge story they were telling in the lecture? Well the sea sponge applies to this list too. Any archive will! So remember to use this as your model if you get stuck on defining archives (because I sure will :\)

Basically what the sea sponge and my instagramming did, was pre-empt. Yes, pre-empt! What I’m saying is archiving can change the future, it has the power to influence possible actions like the fantasy of the sea sponge was kinda brought to reality with the possibility of archiving sound and hiding it for privacy. Maybe that’s what brought about this toy I have that records sound but only when you press the button hidden in it’s tshirt, will it replay it. (It’s mega cute)

Maybe the fact I upload so many dog photos have pre-empted a need for dog competitions or like cute dog clothes companies and more dog parks or restaurants! I hope so!

So can you guys now see how important and POWERFUL archiving is now? Archive fever is based around this where people go crazzy for archiving. This is the modern world and trust me, everyone’s obssessed with personalisation and organising their archives. Think about itunes playlists!! Let’s say as im writing this wordpress blog im archiving my itunes folders (omg i actually am btw). I’m trying to play some more calm like classical music and create a playlist with beethoven and those other classical guys and label the folder ‘study’.

This ‘technical memory’ definitely makes me feel in power but you know what, the power all came from the ability to archive!! Now whenever I study I just click that button on itunes and I’m set to go. So I guess we can say archiving structures data and controls provenance (in this iffy way the lecturer put it :P). In my terms, well think of it as YOU make what YOU want. My playlist is what I made and I wanted. Bam thats power for ya!

Screen shot 2013-06-04 at 6.11.52 AM
Example of a playlist, my playlist….hurrhurrhurr..

So yeah this clear fact we archive and its so customized has so much potential and influence on our lives! Even the future of our lives! So guys pay importance to archiving because it can shape our futures too!

Peaceee out, love you all
Gabby xxxxxx

PS. have the greatest easter and mid-sem break lovelies ❤