Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Spring Break
Needless to say, i'm looking forward to spring break. However, i'm not just excited for the week off of from classes and i'm not going anywhere sunny and warm. What could possibly have me so excited about spring break then? I managed to get tickets to brewers opening day last saturday morning. Hell Yeah. I've never been to an opening day before as you may remember if you read one of my first posts and when i saw that this years game was on the monday during spring break, i knew it was destiny. It didn't come without its obstacles though. On the day before tickets were going on sale, i saw this press release on the brewers website. There would only be about 2000 tickets released for opening day, most of those being standing room only tickets. Naturally my expectations for actually getting tickets took a hit but my friend nick and i would not let it deter us from trying. So saturday morning we were both online trying to get tickets and calling the brewers at the same time. Nick finally got through and we were able to get standing room only tickets. Having an actual seat would be nice, but i figure just being in the park will be more than adequate. Hopefully we'll be getting to Miller Park early to do some tailgating and then going inside the stadium early to try and get a good spot to stand. My personal preference would be on the outfield terrace on the fence, where bill hall will be hitting a home run directly to me. I figure my first opening day might as well be the day i catch my first home run ball (i've never had a foul ball either).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Grids and Networks
I found the Mark Taylor reading "from grid to network" pretty interesting. I really liked the way he put together the first paragraph, saying that seemingly "unrelated developments, which had been gradually unfolding for years, suddenly converge to create changes that are disruptive as they are creative (p 19)." That basically sums up his overall message, that change happens over a long period of time but we can’t always detect that change until it is here and causes a disruption in our society, making it more complex. This complexity does not create chaos, however. Taylor states on page 23 that change is "bringing everything to the edge of chaos. This is the moment of complexity."
I thought his example of the fall of the Berlin Wall as a decisive moment when we saw the shift of an industrial society to an information society was very helpful in understanding his concept of change. The events that finally led to the wall coming down took place over years, but no one really saw it coming. People didn’t just wake up one day and say ‘hey, that wall is kind of a pain, let’s just knock it down,’ it took time and the day it finally came down was just the beginning of a drastic change our society has been going through ever since, from a grid culture to a network culture. This change is also evident, as Taylor said, in architecture.
You can see Taylor’s point about architecture here on the UW-Madison campus if you look at some of the older buildings compared to some newer ones. I think Van Hise and Humanities are perfect examples of a grid building. You can easily see it in Van Hise just by looking at it from the outside. It is very uniform and geometric. Humanities is more of a confusing, annoying grid in the way it is built. Then, looking at some of the newer or newly remodeled buildings and you can see more of a network feel. I think a good example is the fact that Sterling Hall is connected with Chamberlain Hall. Both are fairly old buildings but this connectivity between them is a good example of today’s culture.
I thought his example of the fall of the Berlin Wall as a decisive moment when we saw the shift of an industrial society to an information society was very helpful in understanding his concept of change. The events that finally led to the wall coming down took place over years, but no one really saw it coming. People didn’t just wake up one day and say ‘hey, that wall is kind of a pain, let’s just knock it down,’ it took time and the day it finally came down was just the beginning of a drastic change our society has been going through ever since, from a grid culture to a network culture. This change is also evident, as Taylor said, in architecture.
You can see Taylor’s point about architecture here on the UW-Madison campus if you look at some of the older buildings compared to some newer ones. I think Van Hise and Humanities are perfect examples of a grid building. You can easily see it in Van Hise just by looking at it from the outside. It is very uniform and geometric. Humanities is more of a confusing, annoying grid in the way it is built. Then, looking at some of the newer or newly remodeled buildings and you can see more of a network feel. I think a good example is the fact that Sterling Hall is connected with Chamberlain Hall. Both are fairly old buildings but this connectivity between them is a good example of today’s culture.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Cool.
I found the first two chapters of "Writing About Cool" to be pretty thought provoking on a couple of levels. One of the first things I found interesting was seeing a definition of the word "cool." I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a definition of "cool" before that didn’t reference temperature. Even in my Webster’s Dictionary, there is no mention of anything popular or rebellious, or aloof, which are some of the key terms to describe the definition of the two kinds of "cool" in the book (prophetic and philosophical). And this is for a word that is used by everyone, everyday. My grandmother uses it, my parents use it, everyone our age uses it and my 6 year old cousin uses the word, yet is there really a concrete definition? I would say no. "Cool" is something that almost has to be defined by each person that uses it in their own way, because it means so many different things to different people. Without that personal meaning of the word, I think it would lose its effect. The weird thing is, though it can have so many meanings, it is known by everyone to be a desirable trait to have or be associated with. No one wants to be seen as uncool, whatever that means, but that roaming definition of the word can be a security blanket to anyone who is said to be uncool, because uncool to one person can be the coolest thing in the world to another.
The other part of what cool was said to be in the book was the "ideas representing a popular perception of cool: Independence and Rebelliousness (p. 10)." I question whether these are still ideas that would define "cool." I just have a hard time believing that "cool" is just "rebellion" and "independence." My personal belief is that this rebellious and independent nature of cool is more applicable to the 1950's perception of "cool" than current perceptions. In that sense "cool" has changed. It can certainly still be a part of what "cool" is, but I think there are so many more ideas of what "cool" means today, just because it is used so much.
Another aspect I found thought provoking was chapter two, especially showing how much the word is used on the internet. I guess I’ve just never paid that much attention to it, at least consciously. It makes me wonder how many times I’ve gone to a site because it claimed to be "cool" or just had "cool" in its name. It also makes me think about all of the things I may have bought in the past because it was advertised as being the "cool" thing to have. I’m sure it has happened many more times than I would care to know or admit. I also wonder how much longer this can go on. Will "cool" be with us forever, or will it lose its luster? Is it’s replacement out there already, or will there be a new word? I probably won’t be around to find out, or I’ll be too old to admit that "cool" isn’t cool anymore.
The other part of what cool was said to be in the book was the "ideas representing a popular perception of cool: Independence and Rebelliousness (p. 10)." I question whether these are still ideas that would define "cool." I just have a hard time believing that "cool" is just "rebellion" and "independence." My personal belief is that this rebellious and independent nature of cool is more applicable to the 1950's perception of "cool" than current perceptions. In that sense "cool" has changed. It can certainly still be a part of what "cool" is, but I think there are so many more ideas of what "cool" means today, just because it is used so much.
Another aspect I found thought provoking was chapter two, especially showing how much the word is used on the internet. I guess I’ve just never paid that much attention to it, at least consciously. It makes me wonder how many times I’ve gone to a site because it claimed to be "cool" or just had "cool" in its name. It also makes me think about all of the things I may have bought in the past because it was advertised as being the "cool" thing to have. I’m sure it has happened many more times than I would care to know or admit. I also wonder how much longer this can go on. Will "cool" be with us forever, or will it lose its luster? Is it’s replacement out there already, or will there be a new word? I probably won’t be around to find out, or I’ll be too old to admit that "cool" isn’t cool anymore.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
cool-ing
I have have two classes that can be "cooled" fairly well since they are both in the political science department and focusing on international relations. One of them is International Law and the other is China in World Politics. Politics is a word that obviously comes up in both classes, especially in respect to foreign policy, but also in respect to domestic policy issues. Rhetoric is a term that floats around pretty freely in my readings for those classes and also, obviously, in this class: rhetorics of network culture. Culture is another good example that comes up in all of my classes, be it in reference to political culture, network culture or Portuguese/Brazilian culture.
Monday, February 12, 2007
"Blogging as Social Action"
A number of interesting subjects came up in the reading "Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog" by Carolyn Miller and Dawn Shepherd. In general I found the evolution and explosion of the weblog very interesting. More specifically I thought the most interesting topic in the reading was about why people blog and the ideas of mediated voyeurism and mediated exhibitionism. I probably never would have been able to come up with a real good reason as to why people blog prior to reading this piece but these topics were new, interesting and connected a lot of things in our society that I otherwise wouldn’t have thought to connect.
The main connection I learned about was the emergence of blogging and the 1992 presidential election in which Bill Clinton had a groundbreaking campaign strategy: to look like a real person. In doing so, he and MTV (with shows such as "The Real World" and the town hall debates for the presidential election in 1992) seem to have opened the door for a cultural revolution in which "American Culture became obsessed with both making celebrities into regular people...and making regular people into celebrities..." This is something that has intensified over the last decade and has not only given people things to blog about, but has most likely driven people to blog, with hopes of, or the potential to become a sort of online celebrity.
That want or need for people in today’s culture to want to look into other people’s lives and have other people look into their live’s has led to the blogging explosion. Along with this explosion came the expectation of truth in blogs. This is another aspect of online networking that I had never really thought about. In reading about the woman that blogged assuming the identity of a teenager with leukemia, I can’t say I was surprised. I was, however, surprised when I read that it cause an outrage with those who had followed the blog believing it was a real person. Perhaps it’s because I’m more cynical about the world, especially the online world, which is a trait I think a lot of people my age have. This topic was brought up in class, though I don’t remember by whom, but people our age have used the internet as more of a tool for entertainment so when we see something like the story of the fake blog, we don’t take it as personally as others, most likely people only a few years younger than us. Though I would say there are some moral issues involved in purposely misleading that many people, but that’s another issue.
As I continue to think about it, this article really made me realize how prevalent blogging is, even if someone doesn’t have a true blog. Many people blog, according to the article, for many reasons, one being to build social networks. Social networking is everywhere online. What’s the difference between updating your blog and updating your facebook or myspace page? I would say not much, probably nothing. This showed me I’ve been blogging for a lot longer than I thought. I figured I starting blogging when this class started, but really it was when I joined facebook. Go figure.
The main connection I learned about was the emergence of blogging and the 1992 presidential election in which Bill Clinton had a groundbreaking campaign strategy: to look like a real person. In doing so, he and MTV (with shows such as "The Real World" and the town hall debates for the presidential election in 1992) seem to have opened the door for a cultural revolution in which "American Culture became obsessed with both making celebrities into regular people...and making regular people into celebrities..." This is something that has intensified over the last decade and has not only given people things to blog about, but has most likely driven people to blog, with hopes of, or the potential to become a sort of online celebrity.
That want or need for people in today’s culture to want to look into other people’s lives and have other people look into their live’s has led to the blogging explosion. Along with this explosion came the expectation of truth in blogs. This is another aspect of online networking that I had never really thought about. In reading about the woman that blogged assuming the identity of a teenager with leukemia, I can’t say I was surprised. I was, however, surprised when I read that it cause an outrage with those who had followed the blog believing it was a real person. Perhaps it’s because I’m more cynical about the world, especially the online world, which is a trait I think a lot of people my age have. This topic was brought up in class, though I don’t remember by whom, but people our age have used the internet as more of a tool for entertainment so when we see something like the story of the fake blog, we don’t take it as personally as others, most likely people only a few years younger than us. Though I would say there are some moral issues involved in purposely misleading that many people, but that’s another issue.
As I continue to think about it, this article really made me realize how prevalent blogging is, even if someone doesn’t have a true blog. Many people blog, according to the article, for many reasons, one being to build social networks. Social networking is everywhere online. What’s the difference between updating your blog and updating your facebook or myspace page? I would say not much, probably nothing. This showed me I’ve been blogging for a lot longer than I thought. I figured I starting blogging when this class started, but really it was when I joined facebook. Go figure.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
"academic" writing
The images from my last post really show my experiences in writing, especially my college years. The image that probably needs the most explanation is the photo of the police. My reasoning behind that is "academic" writing tends to be so structured and forced that it sometimes feels like if you stray from what is expected to any degree, the police will chase you down with their riot gear and dogs. In my experiences, little to no creativity is involved and the entire writing process is something that drags along and I want to put it off as long as possible.
I think incorporating more new media writing would take away the bland, boring nature that writing has come to be for most college students. I believe a lot of students would initially feel a little nervous, but once they became familiar with what new media writing would consist of, I believe the change would be welcomed. Learning a new style of creating a "paper" would be very rewarding and much more exciting and I think a more modern form of writing classes would create a higher interest level in writing classes. I have avoided a lot of classes that I know are writing intensive but if there was something unfamiliar or exciting to get out of one of those classes there would have been a much greater chance that I would take it.
I think for a lot of smaller colleges and universities, funding and availability could be an issue. For most larger colleges though, I think everything needed would be readily supplied in order for students to learn the basics of using the programs and equipment to create a new media project for a writing class.
I think incorporating more new media writing would take away the bland, boring nature that writing has come to be for most college students. I believe a lot of students would initially feel a little nervous, but once they became familiar with what new media writing would consist of, I believe the change would be welcomed. Learning a new style of creating a "paper" would be very rewarding and much more exciting and I think a more modern form of writing classes would create a higher interest level in writing classes. I have avoided a lot of classes that I know are writing intensive but if there was something unfamiliar or exciting to get out of one of those classes there would have been a much greater chance that I would take it.
I think for a lot of smaller colleges and universities, funding and availability could be an issue. For most larger colleges though, I think everything needed would be readily supplied in order for students to learn the basics of using the programs and equipment to create a new media project for a writing class.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Monday, February 5, 2007
Yancey Article
I’d like to spend this post giving my views on the Kathleen Yancey article "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key." The basic gist of the article is that our society is currently in a communication and technological age that has changed the fabric of what writing is and offers a view of how writing and english classes should be adjusted to take full advantage of current technology.
There was one passage in particular that caught my eye and I think it adds to the direction of the discussion we were having in class. The quote used in the article is from Elizabeth Daley, the dean of the University of Southern California School of Television and Cinema:
"No longer can students be considered truly educated by mastering reading and writing alone. The ability to negotiate through life by combining words with pictures with audio and video to express thoughts will be the mark of the educated student (Yancey 305)."
I happen to agree with Daley in that the skill to get an idea across by using more than words and through multiple mediums is becoming more important each and every day. The issue brought up in class discussion about this, and the overall point of the article, is that these skills need to be formed and developed before college and for many kids the opportunity isn’t there because access to computers, internet and numerous other resources don’t exist in every school to the same degree. So in order for this goal of requiring students to learn and be proficient in some of these more technological subjects that are being suggested, which is a worthwhile goal, there would have to be some sort of policy change that gets schools, from elementary to colleges, adequate access to the necessary equipment in order for there to be any sort of equity of opportunity.
As I have already said, I believe these subjects are very worthwhile in pursuing on a national level but it really brings to light a much more pressing issue in the problems with our educational system as it is right now. There is already a huge gap in this country between the "haves" and the "have nots" and I wonder if this new idea of what it means to be "truly educated," according to Elizabeth Daley, will help reduce that gap or if it will widen it further. I’m not really sure what I think the answer to that question is. I would probably lean towards the gap widening until there are some fundamental changes made in the way education is funded and prioritized.
There was one passage in particular that caught my eye and I think it adds to the direction of the discussion we were having in class. The quote used in the article is from Elizabeth Daley, the dean of the University of Southern California School of Television and Cinema:
"No longer can students be considered truly educated by mastering reading and writing alone. The ability to negotiate through life by combining words with pictures with audio and video to express thoughts will be the mark of the educated student (Yancey 305)."
I happen to agree with Daley in that the skill to get an idea across by using more than words and through multiple mediums is becoming more important each and every day. The issue brought up in class discussion about this, and the overall point of the article, is that these skills need to be formed and developed before college and for many kids the opportunity isn’t there because access to computers, internet and numerous other resources don’t exist in every school to the same degree. So in order for this goal of requiring students to learn and be proficient in some of these more technological subjects that are being suggested, which is a worthwhile goal, there would have to be some sort of policy change that gets schools, from elementary to colleges, adequate access to the necessary equipment in order for there to be any sort of equity of opportunity.
As I have already said, I believe these subjects are very worthwhile in pursuing on a national level but it really brings to light a much more pressing issue in the problems with our educational system as it is right now. There is already a huge gap in this country between the "haves" and the "have nots" and I wonder if this new idea of what it means to be "truly educated," according to Elizabeth Daley, will help reduce that gap or if it will widen it further. I’m not really sure what I think the answer to that question is. I would probably lean towards the gap widening until there are some fundamental changes made in the way education is funded and prioritized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)