å Monday, September 7th, 2015

Dree-el Simmons

IAS 31168 – Digital Media & Society

Prof. E. Bullock

August 29, 2015-08-29

(submit on time via email due to technical issues)

Taylor Hybrid:

My personal interpretation of Taylor’s quote would be that, in our social structures, technology is not purely good or bad; rather, the intent behind its employ is what determines and distinguishes its role, place and function.  It is the same dynamic as with a firearm.  A gun, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad; but rather, it is the use and the intent of its wielder that gives the tool its ultimate purpose.  In the hands of an officer of the law, or anyone that is using a gun to protect and safeguard the lives of oneself or others, this tool can be regarded as good, for it can be said to be servicing a higher and more noble purpose; however, the reverse is true when a gun is in the hands of someone set to cause destruction and devastation; then, the same gun is interpreted as a weapon of great violence and/or sinister intent.

Conceptually, technology is a tool created to make the lives of people in society easier by rendering long and/or tedious chores to be faster and simpler to accomplish.  This is not to say that, technology has not been created and employed to cause great or mass destruction and harm.  Yet, even such technologies cannot, in and of itself, be identified as the cause or impetus of its design and/or use.  However, an argument can be made that by the inherent nature of what technology is, it creates a detachment from the immediate and visceral effects of actions, leading to an environment where such tools can be misused.  Therefore, we have to be diligent and mindful of the intent and use of the technologies we employ in all aspects of our society, today and in the future.

Taylor’s definition of free information has to do with the fact that there are proponents and opponents to Net neutrality. Proponents believe that Net neutrality will allow the internet to become an open platform, where all users have access to free information. It has frequently been argued that this open network will ensure the the equal treatment of all data, but it fails to address the fact that net neutrality applies to cable or DSL service at home, but not your cell phone. Smartphones have given us the ability to search for information, and since people are frequently on the go, this is primarily their means of searching for information. Proponents of net neutrality believe that openness and free information will eliminate discriminatory behavior, and prevent companies from spiking traffic to their own websites. There is a commonly held belief that this access to free information will level the playing field and allow everyone to obtain success, especially those in arts and culture. However, these proponents fail to acknowledge the commercialization and consolidation of the digital sphere, as well as the market’s role in shaping our media system. In other words, free information which is seen as the tool that levels the playing field for all, is actually a myth because the corporate giants are still the ones who inevitably profit since most individuals do not have the money to invest in their success like huge corporations do.

In this new economy, the two realms of which Taylor speaks of are very much present. It seems as though we are loosing all of our creativity just to be able to get a sustainable job. We constantly have to choose if we want to do something because we love it/genuinely want to do it or we have to because we are told to and we must comply with the rules set forth by those in higher positions.

Unfortunately, for those who believe their work serves the “public good” it’s difficult to choose between their job and whatever sparks their creativity or somehow choose to do both. For artists, I believe that they try to the best of their ability to be creative. However, the problem is not that they aren’t capable of it, it’s the economic part of what they do that vacuums any spark of creativity. Musicians are starting to become this way. It’s hard to find any type of meaning behind the most popular songs today. There is no creative spirit flowing through the tracks. If there happens to have a song with meaning, it isn’t difficult to find another song with a similar meaning. There used to be a time where I can sit down, listen to a whole album and each song had a different and deep meaning that would take a while to understand because the artist implemented his/her creativity with language. Now, they do what is told by those who are above them. Every decision is made by the authoritative figure.

I think these two realms have become known as the two realms that create challenges because of the hierarchy system of today’s economic world. The lowest class of this system is those who are hired. These are the teachers, the artists, the activists and the others who have a role in serving the “public good.” It is rare to find a teacher that uses his/her own technique to teach nowadays because of the imposed changes by those with more power. Should that person be creative with their job, do things no teacher has ever done before or should that person just do what they are getting paid to do and just teach straight from the textbooks? Activists can’t just speak out on an issue they feel strongly about. There are laws and guidelines on how to correctly protest.

Is this the kind of future we have to look forward to? Will our input or ideas matter anymore?

Assignment #2 – Deborah Markewich

There have always been challenges for artists and others who view their work as serving “the public good.” For artists, the need to create vs. the need to be financially stable is not new to the digital age. Artists are more often than not forced to take “survival jobs” while pursuing an artistic career such as theater, music, fine arts, etc. Even within the artist’s field there is the challenge of balancing love and money: the actor who will do a TV commercial for a laxative so that he can do an off-off Broadway play he believes in for no money at all; visual artists who work at ad agencies by day and paint by night; musicians who cover pop songs at Bar Mitzvahs so they can play their own music at bars with a tip jar.

In the chapter “For Love or Money,” Astra Taylor speaks about the “millions of people who contribute user-generated content without promise of remuneration or reward.” (Taylor 2014:48) Many, but not all, are artists and do this as a way of getting their work seen or heard. In some ways this is a good thing. It is rewarding to be recognized for doing something well or contributing culturally to society. And if this is an easy way to make one’s voice heard, it is certainly understandable that so many artists take advantage of it, since it is a readily available outlet. There is also the hope that it will eventually lead to a profitable opportunity (fame and fortune!)

Those who are passionate about teaching or improving society face a similar struggle between love and money. Teaching is an oft-used example. The people we trust with educating our children are paid less in a year than what a trader can make in a minute on Wall Street. Our society has devalued teachers by paying them so meagerly when compared with most other professions that it is remarkable that young people still want to enter the teaching profession. But while there is a troublesome teacher shortage, there are still those people who are so passionate about teaching children that they will choose to do so over a more lucrative career. Thankfully, the same holds for other so-called “do-gooders” such as social workers, public defenders and community activists who have chosen to make a societal contribution over a larger paycheck.

One of the ideas I found interesting in this chapter is that “the psychology of creativity has become increasingly useful to the economy.” (2014:58) Where it has long been accepted that artists will work for no money to pursue their creative passions, creativity is now being used as a reason to pay workers little or nothing in other professions as well. Taylor states “creativity is invoked time and again to justify low wages and job security.” (2014:59) Employers are taking advantage of free labor by comparing their workers to artists who should be happy for the opportunity to work for their company. If they can be convinced of this, they too will face the challenge of working for love or money.