Advolution

After the lecture on Wednesday and the discussion of the increase in the use of flash technology in websites over the history of the internet, I was reminded of a seminar which I attended at work a couple of weeks back which was all about Advertising Innovation and the term that was being thrown around was "Advolution" - refering to the evolution of advertising. (article on 'advolution')

Alot of the focus was on the fact that the Broadcasting Media are losing control to the audience in advertising and that consumers are demanding more and more interactive type material with which to be 'preached' to with. A couple of examples that were used were one that involved the downloading of almost flash type material to cellphones for example the 'VS Sassoon campaign' which involved people downloading wallpapers, games etc which involved a cat like character. This was interesting in that the campaign was aimed predominantly towards the female audience but males also became hooked under the campaign due to the sexual portrayal of the cats... link to article.

Another campaign that was also mentioned was Lexus China's launch of 2 high end model cars which were first launched through cellphone channels direct to consumers see article.

Just thought that these examples were particulary interesting anyhows :)

~Lauren

Best Use of a Flash Site I've seen

Best use of flash technology to sell fashion i've ever seen, to see the shop you wouldn't think it would have such a flash site.

Intriguing I say, Intriguing

Lonely my space

After starting this class, I decided to experiment with MySpace. I'd tried LiveJournal - did a search to see how many people out there were like me (confirmation) that I'd want to talk to. Didn't find any. (Is that good or bad...? I'll let the sociologists and psychologists study it.) So now I'm trying MySpace. Started a page, spent a whole day writing up what my interests were, movies, music, who I want to meet - who do I want to meet...?! And then I spent another whole day 'pimping my profile' and trying to get lame code to work that wouldn't - I did manage to get the view counter on, but it was only me that was keeping it ticking over every time I viewed a new layout. Then I found another site that had even more profiles that were even cooler than the first ones so I had to spend another four hours choosing which one I liked the best. Then I gave my friend my url and she left a message. Then she left another message. I had to stop going to it cos I was losing hours that I couldn't account for and I wasn't even meeting anyone. And now my page just sits there. Oh, Check Out This Dick asked if I wanted to be their friend the other day.

I'm bringing sexy back, how about bringing real music back

So Justin Timberlake is back and with it his new song 'Sexyback', which is just a fusion of electronic devices, distortion and muffled vocals. It draws similar comparisons to Madonnas song 'Hung up' and Chers 'Believe'. "The use of electronic devices and the use of components like low power systems, transistors and integrated circuits" have had a huge influence on music today. The acceptance of electronic music into mainstream via the influence of electronic dance music , inspired by raves and nightclubs. I realise electronics are nothing new, but the way which they have been incorporated into mainstream music seems to be a growing trend. I guess alot of people are re-releasing old songs, by iconic artists, putting in a little bit of techno and they think they have a hit and call themselves an artist and even established artists are using electronics. I do understand on the dance scene DJs are just mixing it up and it has been apart of club culture and that people are just capitalising on this trend and the evolution of music and what is appealing to consumers. But I guess seeing talented artists that can actually sing, using electronics to change there voice creates a sense of detachment, inauthenticty and takes music away from its natural state. I am not saying Madonna can sing that well, but in her 'hey day' she wasnt so bad, but Cher she has got some great pipes and Justin he can sing. These are just to name a few. I just like authentic music (Go Bob Dylan!!Lynard Skynard!!).
But then again music caters for various tastes and that is why it appeals to so many.

Simulation/ Viewing/ Immersion

The reading by Ron Burnett on Simulation/ Viewing/ Immersion held some interesting points about the notion of the interdependence of humans and machines, particularly the importance of the part users of virtual spaces and games have in creating the sense of real space, actions and objects. This interaction goes beyond behaviour interaction of, to take his example, skiing down a slope in a game by moving on a platform. The user’s own perception and interpretation influences construction and experience of the virtual space.

Burnett points out that the participant’s contribution works within limitations and barriers. He takes as an example Char Davies’ all encompassing, high sensory and subjective virtual spaces, which give the participant a great sense of autonomy, but in fact the users are unable to follow a different path from what is made available by Davies. However because there are many options made available, the user is likely to feel they have a lot of control over the images and actions within the virtual world.
I thought that it was an interesting point of view to look at the subjectivity and influence of the user of virtual spaces and games rather than just seeing the simulations as having complete control.

Shifting attitudes to human-technology boundaries

It's interesting how there has been a shift in people's attitudes towards technology in the last few years, especially in regard to the boundary in the human-technology dichotomy. If you look at pop culture from pre-millennium(ish), intelligent technology was viewed as a potential threat, eg. Terminator, 2001, Star Trek (the Borgs one), and heaps more that I wouldn't know. This threat was linked to a perceived power struggle between human and machine, where the increasing autonomy of computers was viewed as a challenge to human authority and autonomy.
These days, people appear more comfortable with technology's continually increasing ubiquity, and are happy to expand the definition of what is human to incorporate technological elements. This may be the result of virtual consciousness presenting a friendly face, as with virtual companions, as opposed to the cold computer impersonality of '2001'. Also, biotechnology is increasingly able to augment human abilities, without taking away from our 'humanness'. The organic and technological are harmoniously interconnected: the boundary is barely visible. Even ipods are like prosthetic attachments; extensions of the body not intrusions into it. People's acceptance of this blurred boundary is visible in ads, for example those ones for shoes (Nike?)where shoe and human combine. Also, that terrible movie where Robin Williams is a robot-servant.
I wouldn't say that the shift is anything like instantaneous or complete, but I sense the winds of change a-blowing.
Sam

The future, four years ago.

I came across an interesting article while actually searching for something else to write about in the blogg, but this made me change my mind. It's written four years back, in 2002, just when MMS was coming on to the consumers market. It's interresting to see how people thought MMS was going to take over the whole "low-tech" text-messaging system.
It talks about how with this wonderful new technology you could get a hamster or even Kylie Minogue to read out loud your messages instead of having to read them yourself. In one way they were right, you do get funny animations and stuff being sent round, but on the other hand it hasn't taken over txting.
I guess this article also sort of reflects general thoughts about what new technology is going to be used for. Some think it's going to take off, some think it's not. This can also be seen in the commentaries at the bottom of the article, Hegemon says "Of course, this is a great idea.... kind of like a blending of technology.... a melting pot of ideas and a great way to communicate words, text and images. I think the world will embrace the talking rodent phones." And then on the other hand Saul says "(...) I see it being used by companies for marketing, but not extensively by individual users. "
It will be interesting to view this blog in a few years time to see how our thoughts about the new technology were right or not!

Emily

Man and Machine

Drawing from Ron Burnnetts reading 'How images think' the relationship between man and machine, which looks at the significance of autonomy and and importance of this element in the relationship that humans have with the digital machines. I think humans will always have more autonomy than machines, as machines need humans and can not act without human intervention. Humans designed and made machines, they are the creators of machines and can easily destroy machines. Through the powers of which they possess. This is examplified in the "Terminator", Skynet, a computer system fights a losing war against the humans who built it and who it nearly exterminated, but the system gets destroyed by the humans, but they manage to send a machine back in time the "Terminator".Throughout the movie and the sequel the humans still seem to be smarter than the machine, I do realise it is a movie, but the underlying idea that humans designed machines the blueprints to the construction of the machine, so they understand machines and they can easily create and easily destroy machines. The element of autonomy in the relationship between man and machine, may be challenged and tested, but Man is always the superior to Machine in the end. Machines have been made to do human activities and make life easier for man. There is the idea that as "machines become more capable of autonomous reproducing through software the fear of human activities being taken over". But this will be under the autonomous control of humans, for their benefits and through their intervention. Humans can continue to develop software and will, but it will be for their consumption and at their disposal and control.
(For more information on Terminator http://imdb.com/title/tt0088247/plotsummary)

Over the Internet?

So, I'm officially over the Internet.

I mean, I hung in there. I spent my early years in the old Microsoft Chat rooms. Days and nights were spent in the MSN Movie Chat, having film trivia competitions while the Movie Soundtrack audio companion played over the top. But, alas, the vast internet predator menace has seen the end of the Microsoft chats. So, I moved onto my next hobby, Online Gaming.

I started from the bottom, playing Runescape or Neopets, because the price was right. I soon grew bored of the witty banter of 14 year olds, and moved up to Quake 2 and Diablo 2. But while I stayed in my neat little isometric, faux-3D world of Doom 2 everybody else moved into their basements and onto World of Warcraft.

I took to Webcomics next, starting off with The Parking Lot is Full, moving on to The The Perry Bible Fellowship, and finally settling on The Toothpaste for Dinner. But they no longer amuse. Has the internet stolen what little sense of humour I once had?

So, we get to the Golden Age of my internet usage. I was a Something Awful addict, browsing their Forums for days, my fingers glued to the CTRL, C and V buttons as I filled my hard drive with wacky Photoshops. And daily I got my news from the blog Fark.com, where news of the world is submitted under various headers, ranging from scary to silly, and the Forum dwellers are as geeky as they come. I was there as the Flying Spaghetti Monster was born. I was there as "Snakes on a Plane" began its unusual journey to becoming the next Rocky Horror Picture Show. I got the Gmail account, bought crap I don't need from Trademe and mined Fanfiction.net of all its good Pokemon tales.

But now, I find it hard to stare at Google without feeling tired. My internet habits grew more nefarious as I tried to burn myself out. My downward spiral left scores of Wikipedia articles vandalised, and innocent people seeking honest information on The Mongrel Mob were left puzzled. Yesterday I started a new account on Runescape and jumped on. Thirty minutes later I awoke, having actually fallen asleep on my laptop out of sheer boredom. Youtube and Google video ran out of old obscure Japanese wrestling matches for me to watch, and has now been cast aside. And don't even get me started on the Flash archives of Newgrounds.com.

So, I am utterly bored of the Internet. Nothing on it interests me. Is there no help for me? Is there no new fad I can ride, no wacky website I can manipulate, no online lifestyle I can lead? Have I done everything there is to do on the Web? Can somebody save me from this Xtra-hosted depression?

Oh well. I wonder what's on TV?

A Right To New Cultures?

Internet and digital video camera's could be one of the greatest resources that we have seen in bringing the world closer together like telephones once did. Now we can watch documentaries about lost tribes and strange cultural actions we wouldn't dream of here. But at what cost?

I remember a show 'Who Dares Wins' that dared a person to partake in a sacred ritual that has been dubbed the 'birth of bungy jumping' by leaping off a huge bamboo structure with vines strapped to their feet. The day after this aired there was an article in the paper about how dangerous it was and what we should do (here in NZ) to stop these people doing it.

Recently I saw a documentary about the last cannibal tribe in the world that they got to on many boats with small digital cameras. They documented the people eating their fellow tribes people if they believed they were consumed by the devil and the latest person to be blamed, a small boy.

On YouTube there has been a proliferation of videos of strange cultural acts from Asia and south America where people partake in ritualistic sacrifice or fights etc and someone is holding a camera phone.

As I watch in mild disturbance at these actions and find myself agreeing with the white people on the scene that want to stop it I find myself thinking "who are we to judge?". We invaded their culture, we disturbed their peace. So why do we have the right to dictate their culture and beliefs even if we find it inhumane or contrary to our own western beliefs? All because we have the technology to capture it on film? Just because we can post it on the internet and a lot of rich people will get annoyed with it?

If we showed them videos of mass bombings in Iraq and they asked "what's it for?", what would their reaction be when we said "well, oil mainly".

Luke is NZ's blog god.

According to the news last night - Luke is NZ's blog god!

gmail and beyond- socially acceptable?

I was talking to a friend a couple of months ago about Gmail and it's increasing ability to mold around our daily existance.

I read an interseting online article about Gmail & what is doing and where it endeavours to go:

"It's like finding yourself in the dystopian universe depicted in the recent film Minority Report: everywhere the characters go, they're scanned for personally identifying information and accosted by holographic ads that address them by name and offer to sell them Gap pants in the proper size."

Basically the idea of Gmail's future is that it will be able to somewhat customize a persons life and creating convenience.
But do we really want that feeling of surveillance, the big brother type?
How far can they go in terms of personal privacy?

We don't really know how our information is getting used, it can be deemed a primary tool for marketers. But what does privacy mean in the virtual realm? I guess actions are provoked with own risk but i think we need to start thinking more seriously about the sorts of information we freely emit through sources such as Gmail. Including ideas and concepts that could be intercepted.

Would you like to be notified where the nearest sushi vendor is? or the nearest McDonalds?
It has it's up sides and down sides... but how far will they go?
time.. and technology will tell.

CLICK HERE for the article


~Sarah

Watching the Match

This blog entry draws on the August 21 FTVMS 200 lecture, which addressed the mediation of sports spectacle through film and television.

When you watch a sporting event on television, the camera angles and camera shots are pre-selected to create a narrative structure for the game. The wide angle shot is for context, the panning shot for suspense, the close-up for drama, etc. Viewers are taken by the hand and led through the dramatic events of sport with the assistance of a pre-fab narrative: the running commentary of experts. Specific responses are encouraged through the depiction of the actions, interactions, and reactions of both athletes and fans. Watching a game live is a very different experience. Rather than being led through the game with the interpretive assistance of television, one must write the story of the game themselves. The live viewer has to follow plays- ‘zooming in’ and ‘panning’- with their own eyes. They narrate the game in their own head or in conversation with the people around them.

On Saturday night I went to the All Blacks v. Australia match at Eden Park. Though I was right there in the stands and the players were right there on the field, I watched a lot of the match through the lens of my digital camera. Sure, as a first time rugby fan I was ignorant to the rules of the game and was thus unable to follow all the action and build a proper understanding of what was going on, but mostly I just wanted documentation. Lots of spectators around me- even the die-hard rugby fans- held digital cameras in front of their faces too. Even as we all paid to see the game live and got ourselves revved up about being there, we chose to watch the game on hand-held screens. Ironically, just in order to prove that we were there to take in the raw, unmediated spectacle of sport, we mediated our live experience with technology.

Acting or CGI?

what is more sought after by movie goers? CGI or acting?
its a question i've been pondering lately. Most of the new action films of the past few years has had amazing special effect sequences which i think has gone past the acting as the most salient image when watching a film. The matrix is a good example. although i could not stand Keanu Reeve's 2D acting i am still a massive fan of the film, and although the characters comes up with the most cliched things to say, i was still very satisfied just by watching the awesome fight scenes cheographed by CGI.
I guess CGI works well with films like the matrix is that it complements things like story line and characterisation.
what do you guys think? is there any movie where the acting is so terrible that no matter how good a story line there is or how much special effects is used, it is still a crap film to watch?

Deep Dish: Redreaming “Dreams”

Toss some Stevie Nicks vocals and an infectious dance groove into a Power Mac G5 and what do you get? A progressive house track that pleases your soul as well as your feet. Click here for the full article by Dustin Driver.

the popularity of the digital cinema

There are some "MTV award parody" videos from Youtube.com, and those funny short videos are changed from the ordinary digital films, such as "Matrix" and "Spiderman".
The special effects are the very important element in "Matrix" and "Spiderman". As a consequence, in those short videos, they chose the most influential digital cinema aspects in each films and re-edit them.
But what I want to say here is not what those special effects are, but popularity of the special effects, instead. In Lev Manovich’s essay, he thought that digital cinema is “a visible sign of this shift is the new role which computer generated special effects have come to play in Hollywood industry in the last few years”, and in fact “many recent blockbusters have been driven by special effects; feeding on their popularity.” It is really hard to define whether the digitization is good or not, but we can observe that it becomes a very important aspects in Hollywood film industry and is accepted by many audiences.