Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Interactive media object
GROOVESHARK
Grooveshark is a search engine for streaming music that categorizes the search results into a really nifty format and lets you make a playlist of the tracks you find. It succeeds as being interactive because you provide input and the search engine brings back results that you then interact with further. What's particularly successful about this site is the nifty layout that I mentioned. I used to use Seeqpod for the same reason, but then that died and I found Grooveshark. Seeqpod only gave a list of songs that were in some way related to the search query, but also had the playlist feature. Grooveshark, on the other hand, has an awesome interface that gives you options on how to sort the files that get returned, so you can even enqueue an entire album with one click. I use it for all my music discovery needs.
I also really like this as a "media object" because it brings back more media...objects.
Grooveshark is a search engine for streaming music that categorizes the search results into a really nifty format and lets you make a playlist of the tracks you find. It succeeds as being interactive because you provide input and the search engine brings back results that you then interact with further. What's particularly successful about this site is the nifty layout that I mentioned. I used to use Seeqpod for the same reason, but then that died and I found Grooveshark. Seeqpod only gave a list of songs that were in some way related to the search query, but also had the playlist feature. Grooveshark, on the other hand, has an awesome interface that gives you options on how to sort the files that get returned, so you can even enqueue an entire album with one click. I use it for all my music discovery needs.
I also really like this as a "media object" because it brings back more media...objects.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Further responses to Bolter Questions
From Dan's blog:
With the merging of mediums or changes in mediums, like new media, what effect does this have on culture? or does the culture change the medium?
My response:
Media and culture seem to have a mutual influence on each other. There are different things driving change in each of them, but the changes that take place have influences on both. Technology has an influence on what types of media are available, but culture can determine which media are actually utilized. After making this point, it seems like media is poised to have a larger impact on culture than vice versa. What a culture expresses is determined by the manner in which things can be expressed, so while culture influences what media are used, the media has a say in how that influence is made. I might not be explaining this very well, but I'm going to say that media has the larger impact in the mutual relationship of media and culture.
With the merging of mediums or changes in mediums, like new media, what effect does this have on culture? or does the culture change the medium?
My response:
Media and culture seem to have a mutual influence on each other. There are different things driving change in each of them, but the changes that take place have influences on both. Technology has an influence on what types of media are available, but culture can determine which media are actually utilized. After making this point, it seems like media is poised to have a larger impact on culture than vice versa. What a culture expresses is determined by the manner in which things can be expressed, so while culture influences what media are used, the media has a say in how that influence is made. I might not be explaining this very well, but I'm going to say that media has the larger impact in the mutual relationship of media and culture.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Response to Bolter Questions
From Crystal's blog:
1. In the reading, hypermedia and transparent media both desire to get past the limits of representation and to achieve the real. Yet, all media is remediation. Do you think that remediation detracts from the ability to achieve reality?
My response:
This brings up an interesting question concerning what we perceive as reality. Really, in recreating experience, there is no other option but to resort to remediation, but in some senses maybe remediation can begin by simply emulating reality and end with a new type of reality. To quickly answer the question, it is the only way that we can achieve reality without true experience, even though experiencing something that is remediated is in itself a real experience. If remediation eventually creates something similar enough to what we now perceive as reality, then there would essentially be no need to say one was more real, only to differentiate between the two as maybe separate, and equally legitimate, realities.
1. In the reading, hypermedia and transparent media both desire to get past the limits of representation and to achieve the real. Yet, all media is remediation. Do you think that remediation detracts from the ability to achieve reality?
My response:
This brings up an interesting question concerning what we perceive as reality. Really, in recreating experience, there is no other option but to resort to remediation, but in some senses maybe remediation can begin by simply emulating reality and end with a new type of reality. To quickly answer the question, it is the only way that we can achieve reality without true experience, even though experiencing something that is remediated is in itself a real experience. If remediation eventually creates something similar enough to what we now perceive as reality, then there would essentially be no need to say one was more real, only to differentiate between the two as maybe separate, and equally legitimate, realities.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Bolter Questions
1. Bolter says "Media need each other in order to function as media at all.", but what do you think he would say about the very first media?
2. I find this passage confusing: "Mediation is the remediation of reality because media themselves are real and because the experience of media is the subject of remediation." How can mediation be a remediation of the real when remediation needs a prior mediation in order to take place?
3. Bolter says that "remediation is reform in the sense that media reform reality itself." Can you think of any examples where media have done this?
2. I find this passage confusing: "Mediation is the remediation of reality because media themselves are real and because the experience of media is the subject of remediation." How can mediation be a remediation of the real when remediation needs a prior mediation in order to take place?
3. Bolter says that "remediation is reform in the sense that media reform reality itself." Can you think of any examples where media have done this?
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Response to Ede Questions
From Sheena's blog:
So do you believe that a text can be studied with out considering the author whom wrote the text?
My response:
Yes. I think it's fairly easy to take a piece of writing for what it is without considering who wrote it. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that any argument or point the author intends to express should be evident without the reader having to know anything about the author. It's very likely that having knowledge of the author will provide additional insight, or at least a different perspective on the writing. That said, it may even detract from the reader's respect for a work of writing to find out who it was that wrote it. Previous conceptions of the writer are, in my opinion, unnecessary and, more often than not, harmful to the writing because the reader's preconceived notions about the writer can falsely add to or detract from the writing as it stands and can stifle new, creative interpretations of the text.
So do you believe that a text can be studied with out considering the author whom wrote the text?
My response:
Yes. I think it's fairly easy to take a piece of writing for what it is without considering who wrote it. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that any argument or point the author intends to express should be evident without the reader having to know anything about the author. It's very likely that having knowledge of the author will provide additional insight, or at least a different perspective on the writing. That said, it may even detract from the reader's respect for a work of writing to find out who it was that wrote it. Previous conceptions of the writer are, in my opinion, unnecessary and, more often than not, harmful to the writing because the reader's preconceived notions about the writer can falsely add to or detract from the writing as it stands and can stifle new, creative interpretations of the text.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Ede Questions
1. In "Intertexts", Ede and Lunsford have a fairly clear theme behind the quotations used there. Regardless, the authors neglected to make their own comments on the text and therefore their intentions with the work remain unclear. Do you think this is acceptable, or that an explanation is necessary?
2. How do you feel about the possibility of completely doing away with the concept of "author" due to a philosophical understanding of knowledge and creativity being attributable to no one person?
3. As a writing teacher, would you focus on the importance of the writer or the reader in relation to text? Explain the faults in the view that opposes yours.
2. How do you feel about the possibility of completely doing away with the concept of "author" due to a philosophical understanding of knowledge and creativity being attributable to no one person?
3. As a writing teacher, would you focus on the importance of the writer or the reader in relation to text? Explain the faults in the view that opposes yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)