Perrin’s Itinerary: 13th August – 1st November
Wednesday 13th August 2008:
1300 depart Brisbane for Hong Kong
2000 arrive Hong Kong
Thursday 14th August:
Hong Kong Island Tour
Friday 15th August:
Shenzen Adventure Tour
Saturday 16th August:
Macau full-day Tour
Sunday 17th August:
0945 depart Hong Kong
1555 arrive Heathrow
Monday 18th August:
London: hop-on hop-off bus tour, and sightseeing
Tuesday 19th August:
Discovering London tour
Wednesday 20th August:
Greenwich, Leeds, Canterbury and Dover tour
Thursday 21st August:
Oxford, Stratford upon Avon and the Cotswolds tour
Friday 22nd August:
Windsor Castle, Stonehenge and Georgian Baths tour
Saturday 23rd August:
Oxford and Cambridge Universities tour
Sunday 24th August:
0730 depart London on Contiki Ultimate European Tour
(London to Paris)
Monday 25th August:
Paris
Tuesday 26th August:
Paris
Wednesday 27th August:
Paris to Beaujolais Wine Region
Thursday 28th August:
Beaujolais Wine Region
Friday 29th August:
Beaujolais Wine Region to Barcelona
Saturday 30th August:
Barcelona
Sunday 31st August:
Barcelona to French Riviera
Monday 1st September:
Monaco
Tuesday 2nd September:
French Riviera to Venice
Wednesday 3rd September:
Venice
Thursday 4th September:
Venice to Florence
Friday 5th September:
Florence
Saturday 6th September:
Florence to Rome
Sunday 7th August:
Rome
Monday 8th September:
Rome to Corfu
Tuesday 9th September:
Corfu
Wednesday 10th September:
Corfu
Thursday 11th September:
Corfu to Athens
Friday 12th September:
Athens sightseeing
Catch overnight ferry to Ios
Saturday 13th – Sunday 14th September:
Ios
Monday 15th - Wednesday 17th September:
Santorini
Thursday 18th September:
Santorini to Athens
Friday 19th September:
Athens to Kavala
Saturday 20th September:
Kavala to Cannakale
Sunday 21st September:
Cannakale to Istanbul
Monday 22nd - Tuesday 23rd September:
Istanbul
Wednesday 24th September:
Istanbul to Sofia
Thursday 25th September:
Sofia to Belgrade
Friday 26th September:
Belgrade to Budapest
Saturday 27th September:
Budapest to Vienna
Sunday 28th September:
Vienna
Monday 29th September:
Vienna to Austrian Tyrol
Tuesday 30th September:
Austrian Tyrol
Wednesday 1st October:
Austrian Tyrol to Munich
Thursday 2nd October:
Munich to Swiss Alps
Friday 3rd October:
Swiss Alps (PARAGLIDING AND SKY DIVING TODAY!!!)
Saturday 4th October:
Swiss Alps to Rhine Valley
Sunday 5th October:
Rhine Valley to Amsterdam
Monday 6th October:
Amsterdam
Tuesday 7th October:
Amsterdam to London (arrive back at Royal National 6pm)
Wednesday 8th October:
London to Edinburgh (via train)
Thursday 9th October:
Edinburgh
Friday 10th October:
Edinburgh
Saturday 11th October:
Depart Edinburgh on Haggis Island Explorer (tour of Scotland): Edinburgh to Perthshire to the Cairngorns National Park, Culloden and Loch Ness. Stay at Highland Castle tonight.
Sunday 12th October:
To Orkney Islands via John O-Groats, stay at Kirkwall
Monday 13th October:
Orkney: free day to see Scopa Flow, Skara Brae, and Ring of Brodgar
Tuesday 14th October:
To Ullapool: ferry to mainland, to Tongue and west along coast to Ullapool
Wednesday 15th October:
Ullapool to Lewis: see Callanish Standing Stones, Gaelic Settlements and explore the island.
Thursday 16th October:
Isle of Skye and Loch Ness, explore Harris’ beaches, Eilean Doonan Castle.
Friday 17th October:
Back to Edinburgh: Loch Ness, Glencoe and the Wallace Monument. Train from Edinburgh to Lockerbie (stay with relatives)
Saturday 18th October – Thursday 23rd October:
Stay at Norman and Janet’s.
Friday 24th October:
Leave Lockerbie for Bognor Regis (Southern coast of England) via train.
Saturday 25th October – Sunday 26th October:
Bognor Regis and Portsmouth
Monday 27th October:
0820 depart Heathrow for New York
1200 arrive JFK International
New York
Tuesday 28th – Friday 31st October:
Contiki Big Apple Explorer
Saturday 1st November:
1840 depart New York for Brisbane
0645 arrive back in Brisbane
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Blogger Act 2: Back at the keyboard
So I'm still keeping up with the facade of a rookie blogger. At the moment, the sheer purpose of this post is to procrastinate from my New Media Wiki Proposal. I intend to propose that geocaching (see earlier post) represents an exemplar for online gaming, convergent uses of new media technology, and online communities in general. However, what I currently lack, is the willpower to sit down, concentrate and write. Ah ha! There's the problem.
This major bout of procrastination started last Friday, the final day of week 13 of Semester One. It was official, no more classes, just study week, exams, and then five weeks until I'm off overseas. Woot, no more study. Guess again.
The content I learned about in Virtual Cultures was absolutely fascinating, relevant, and I thought was of high importance. But do you think I can force myself to sit in front of my laptop for a few solid hours and get this damn assignment done? No. I've beat around the bush, I've had sporadic bursts of productivity, where I've done a lot of good quality research. Everything's all mapped out and coherent in my head, I just can't seem to get it on paper... ahem, woops, Virtual Cultures, I mean, I can't seem to get it typed into Word.
QUT's had another bright idea, they've made their own Wiki ( https://wiki.qut.edu.au/display/newmedia/Home ). It's the Creative Industries Faculty's answer to our first bike with training wheels, preparing us all for making a half-respectable/productive contribution to more prominent Wikipedias that exist.
And without failure, Dr Axel Bruns is most definately the most published contributor to the New Media Wiki. Either Axel secretly did his PhD in time management, or he's done a lot of copy and paste from his printed works.
The articles that exist on the New Media Wiki are well written, and as university students, the authors or contributors I should say, have gone to extensive lengths to allow further networking to different, but related topics that exist both externally away from the wiki, and in other articles.
When I first heard the university had created its own wiki, I thought it would just be QUT's answer to a highschool Intranet page, but I was pleasantly surprised.
Alas, it's 12.40am, and I'm typing an incoherent blog entry about what flippant things are zooming in and out of my decaffinated head. Upstairs I trek to the kitchen for some hot Milo, and biscuits. Pip pip.
This major bout of procrastination started last Friday, the final day of week 13 of Semester One. It was official, no more classes, just study week, exams, and then five weeks until I'm off overseas. Woot, no more study. Guess again.
The content I learned about in Virtual Cultures was absolutely fascinating, relevant, and I thought was of high importance. But do you think I can force myself to sit in front of my laptop for a few solid hours and get this damn assignment done? No. I've beat around the bush, I've had sporadic bursts of productivity, where I've done a lot of good quality research. Everything's all mapped out and coherent in my head, I just can't seem to get it on paper... ahem, woops, Virtual Cultures, I mean, I can't seem to get it typed into Word.
QUT's had another bright idea, they've made their own Wiki ( https://wiki.qut.edu.au/display/newmedia/Home ). It's the Creative Industries Faculty's answer to our first bike with training wheels, preparing us all for making a half-respectable/productive contribution to more prominent Wikipedias that exist.
And without failure, Dr Axel Bruns is most definately the most published contributor to the New Media Wiki. Either Axel secretly did his PhD in time management, or he's done a lot of copy and paste from his printed works.
The articles that exist on the New Media Wiki are well written, and as university students, the authors or contributors I should say, have gone to extensive lengths to allow further networking to different, but related topics that exist both externally away from the wiki, and in other articles.
When I first heard the university had created its own wiki, I thought it would just be QUT's answer to a highschool Intranet page, but I was pleasantly surprised.
Alas, it's 12.40am, and I'm typing an incoherent blog entry about what flippant things are zooming in and out of my decaffinated head. Upstairs I trek to the kitchen for some hot Milo, and biscuits. Pip pip.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Bounty ahoy, thanks to my Navman
The traditional Robert Louis Stevenson-style treasure hunt has now become obsolete. With the development of new media technologies such as GPS (global positioning systems), an online community of modern-day treasure hunters has evolved. Known as geocaching, participants use GPS navigation systems to hide and seek containers (called geocaches or caches) around the world. Once hidden, participants who call themselves cachers, record the geographical coordinates from their GPS device online on geocaching websites such as Geocaching Australia for other participants to find, record, contribute to, and rehide. This free online community was formed by like-minded individuals who found a new creative use for existing technology, and remixed it to suit their pastime.
A typical cache is a small waterproof container containing a logbook and “treasure”, usually toys or trinkets of little value. According to Geocaching Australia, well over 650,000 known caches are subtly hidden around the world for adventurers to find. Ranging in size, a geocache can be as small as a film canister up to the size of buckets and large containers.
Geocachers tend to isolate themselves within this secretive online community, and refer to non-participants as “muggles” – playing on the Harry Potter term for non-magical folk. If a geocache has been vandalised or stolen, it is said to have been “muggled” or plundered. If this occurs, it can be logged online as needing maintenance, which alerts the cache owner so it can be repaired, replaced or archived (removed).
This is an excellent example of how online and offline communities can overlap and interact with each other, and exist only through users’ content contribution. However, the existing technocultural framework of geocaching is not wholly stable. This online community is not immune from impersonators proliferating disinformation. There have been examples where the genuine interest in geocaching has caused conflict in the offline community. With increasing concern of terrorism, some caches have been mistakenly destroyed by Police bomb squads for explosive devices.
Geocaching, at its most fundamental level, promotes an outdoor treasure-hunting game, mediated by new uses for technology. Geocaching communities, like other online communities however must adapt and improve their safeguards to cope with diverging individuals attempts to pirate what was initially developed as an adventurous, good-natured activity.
Geocaching, on another level, is also a fine illustration of produsage. Following the emergence of social software, and the ‘Web2.0’ environment, Bruns (2007, 1) argues that the production of ideas takes place in a collaborative, participatory mode, which dissolves the boundaries between producers and consumers, and enables all participants to simultaneously produce and consume information and knowledge. To define the concept of ‘Web2.0’ in a geocaching context, it is the revolution “in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on the new platform” (Bruns. 2007. 1). In a Web2.0 environment, geocaching has harnessed networking effects to remix the prescribed use of GPS technology, the internet, and orienteering, as a creatively remixed and modern form of hunting for buried treasure.
Overall, the creative value of geocaching in the New Economy is significant because it harnesses collective intelligence, making use of new technological platforms to extend human communication and entertainment.
References:
Bruns, A. 2007. The future is user-led: the path towards widespread produsage. QUT: Brisbane.
Geocaching Australia. 2008. Geocaching Australia Homepage. http://www.geocachingaustralia.com.au (accessed 1 May, 2008).
A typical cache is a small waterproof container containing a logbook and “treasure”, usually toys or trinkets of little value. According to Geocaching Australia, well over 650,000 known caches are subtly hidden around the world for adventurers to find. Ranging in size, a geocache can be as small as a film canister up to the size of buckets and large containers.
Geocachers tend to isolate themselves within this secretive online community, and refer to non-participants as “muggles” – playing on the Harry Potter term for non-magical folk. If a geocache has been vandalised or stolen, it is said to have been “muggled” or plundered. If this occurs, it can be logged online as needing maintenance, which alerts the cache owner so it can be repaired, replaced or archived (removed).
This is an excellent example of how online and offline communities can overlap and interact with each other, and exist only through users’ content contribution. However, the existing technocultural framework of geocaching is not wholly stable. This online community is not immune from impersonators proliferating disinformation. There have been examples where the genuine interest in geocaching has caused conflict in the offline community. With increasing concern of terrorism, some caches have been mistakenly destroyed by Police bomb squads for explosive devices.
Geocaching, at its most fundamental level, promotes an outdoor treasure-hunting game, mediated by new uses for technology. Geocaching communities, like other online communities however must adapt and improve their safeguards to cope with diverging individuals attempts to pirate what was initially developed as an adventurous, good-natured activity.
Geocaching, on another level, is also a fine illustration of produsage. Following the emergence of social software, and the ‘Web2.0’ environment, Bruns (2007, 1) argues that the production of ideas takes place in a collaborative, participatory mode, which dissolves the boundaries between producers and consumers, and enables all participants to simultaneously produce and consume information and knowledge. To define the concept of ‘Web2.0’ in a geocaching context, it is the revolution “in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on the new platform” (Bruns. 2007. 1). In a Web2.0 environment, geocaching has harnessed networking effects to remix the prescribed use of GPS technology, the internet, and orienteering, as a creatively remixed and modern form of hunting for buried treasure.
Overall, the creative value of geocaching in the New Economy is significant because it harnesses collective intelligence, making use of new technological platforms to extend human communication and entertainment.
References:
Bruns, A. 2007. The future is user-led: the path towards widespread produsage. QUT: Brisbane.
Geocaching Australia. 2008. Geocaching Australia Homepage. http://www.geocachingaustralia.com.au (accessed 1 May, 2008).
Friday, April 25, 2008
Access instead of ownership: new economy trend
Furthering discussion on the creative economy, I think it is necessary to examine how access has become a prime influence of change in this new paradigm. At a nuts and bolts level, the role of property and ownership needs to be reassessed. Like Bruns' (2007. 1) view that the definition of production as we traditionally accept it is no longer appropriate in a climate where individuals can simultaneously produce and consume information (produsage), the terms property and ownership of economic inputs now surpasses industrial parameters of plant and materials.
The rise of the creative industries, the knowledge economy, and other corresponding phenomena has seen too, the rise of intangibles. Intangibles are objects, that aren't of the physical form.
Hartley (2002. 118) defines intangibles as "assets such as knowledge, competence, intellectual property, know-how, the people in a company, its research and development brands, reputation, customer relations, etc." Intangibles are far more valuable a commodity in the new economy than tangible assets such as plant and land.
Returning to my original view that defintitions of property and ownership should be revised, the new economy has facilitated a trend away from traditional bricks and mortar "ownership", in the sense that it is no longer necessary to "own" assets like physical buildings, machinery or materials, or buy and sell them to make money. In the new economy; ideas, knowledge, intellectual capabilities and initiative are what increasingly makes money.
Jeremy Rifkin has argued that in the new economy, both physical and intellectual property are increasingly likely to be accessed by businesses instead of exchanged through sale (2000. 5). Ownership of physical capital, he argues, which was central to the industrial way of life, has become marginal in the new economic process. Modern companies are tending to see physical capital as an operational expense rather than an asset, with a trend toward borrowing rather than purchasing (Rifkin. 2000. 5). Intellectual capital, such as intangible assets, are coveted drivers in the new economy. "Concepts, ideas, and images - not things - are the real items of value in the new economy" (Rifkin. 2000. 5).
According to Rifkin, who takes a critical view of the new economy, intellectual capital is infrequently exchanged, rather it is closely monitored by the suppliers (owners) and leased or licensed to other parties (users) for their limited use (2000. 5).
It is noticeable everywhere that businesses are already in transition from owning to accessing. Real estate is being sold off, inventories are being reduced, equipment is commonly leased, and outsourcing has become a regular business activity.
Rifkin's view (2000. 5), which is supported by Howkins (2001. 19) is that where the traditional market used to consist of buyers and sellers, now there exists a trend towards suppliers and users. Rather than buying and selling transactions in the business marketplace, such arrangements like strategic alliances, agreements and cooperation exist. The access trend has seen companies share their resources, which has created large networks between suppliers and users.
Therefore, this trend away from owning assets, to merely having access to such assets, has seen a reconstitution of economic power. While "cheap, durable goods will continue to be bought and sold in the market, more costly items like appliances, automobiles, and real estate will be held by suppliers and accessed by consumers in the form of short-term leases, rentals, memberships, and other service arrangements" (Rifkin. 2000. 6). This change demonstrates how ownership of products has been redefined and "everything is becoming a service" (Howkins. 2001. 201).
References:
Bruns, A. 2007. The future is user-led: the path towards widespread produsage. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed 25th April 2008).
Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: the key concepts. 3rd ed. Routledge: New York.
Howkins, J. 2001. The Creative Economy: how people make money from ideas. Penguin: Camberwell.
Rifkin, J. 2000. The Age of Access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming modern life. Penguin: London.
The rise of the creative industries, the knowledge economy, and other corresponding phenomena has seen too, the rise of intangibles. Intangibles are objects, that aren't of the physical form.
Hartley (2002. 118) defines intangibles as "assets such as knowledge, competence, intellectual property, know-how, the people in a company, its research and development brands, reputation, customer relations, etc." Intangibles are far more valuable a commodity in the new economy than tangible assets such as plant and land.
Returning to my original view that defintitions of property and ownership should be revised, the new economy has facilitated a trend away from traditional bricks and mortar "ownership", in the sense that it is no longer necessary to "own" assets like physical buildings, machinery or materials, or buy and sell them to make money. In the new economy; ideas, knowledge, intellectual capabilities and initiative are what increasingly makes money.
Jeremy Rifkin has argued that in the new economy, both physical and intellectual property are increasingly likely to be accessed by businesses instead of exchanged through sale (2000. 5). Ownership of physical capital, he argues, which was central to the industrial way of life, has become marginal in the new economic process. Modern companies are tending to see physical capital as an operational expense rather than an asset, with a trend toward borrowing rather than purchasing (Rifkin. 2000. 5). Intellectual capital, such as intangible assets, are coveted drivers in the new economy. "Concepts, ideas, and images - not things - are the real items of value in the new economy" (Rifkin. 2000. 5).
According to Rifkin, who takes a critical view of the new economy, intellectual capital is infrequently exchanged, rather it is closely monitored by the suppliers (owners) and leased or licensed to other parties (users) for their limited use (2000. 5).
It is noticeable everywhere that businesses are already in transition from owning to accessing. Real estate is being sold off, inventories are being reduced, equipment is commonly leased, and outsourcing has become a regular business activity.
Rifkin's view (2000. 5), which is supported by Howkins (2001. 19) is that where the traditional market used to consist of buyers and sellers, now there exists a trend towards suppliers and users. Rather than buying and selling transactions in the business marketplace, such arrangements like strategic alliances, agreements and cooperation exist. The access trend has seen companies share their resources, which has created large networks between suppliers and users.
Therefore, this trend away from owning assets, to merely having access to such assets, has seen a reconstitution of economic power. While "cheap, durable goods will continue to be bought and sold in the market, more costly items like appliances, automobiles, and real estate will be held by suppliers and accessed by consumers in the form of short-term leases, rentals, memberships, and other service arrangements" (Rifkin. 2000. 6). This change demonstrates how ownership of products has been redefined and "everything is becoming a service" (Howkins. 2001. 201).
References:
Bruns, A. 2007. The future is user-led: the path towards widespread produsage. http://produsage.org/files/The%20Future%20Is%20User-Led%20(PerthDAC%202007).pdf (accessed 25th April 2008).
Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: the key concepts. 3rd ed. Routledge: New York.
Howkins, J. 2001. The Creative Economy: how people make money from ideas. Penguin: Camberwell.
Rifkin, J. 2000. The Age of Access: how the shift from ownership to access is transforming modern life. Penguin: London.
The Creative Economy
In 1999, the creative industries globally generated revenues of $US2.2 trillion (Flew in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344). Within creative ‘hotspots’ such as London, the creative industries now rival business services as the key economic sector; having over five hundred thousand Londoners either working directly in the creative industries or in creative careers in varying other industries (OECD. 2001. 12).
According to Hartley (2005. 5), at the core of the creative industries concept are characteristics of innovation, risk-taking, new businesses and start-ups, intangible assets, and the creative application of new technologies.
Leading creative industries theorists; Charles Leadbeater, John Howkins and Richard Florida, have discussed at length about how to generate creative cities and regions and incorporate the creative industries as part of national innovation strategies in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong (cited by Flew in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344).
These thinkers, particularly Richard Florida (cited by Flew in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344) has proposed that we are now in a creative economy, where capitalism is being transformed from within, “from an older corporate-centred system defined by large companies to a more people driven one” in which innovation and new ideas are paramount.
Through a growing importance of innovation, education and training, research and development, investment information communication technologies (ICTs), it becomes clear that in this new economic paradigm there exists a distinct relationship between creativity and innovation. There is also a correlation between this relationship and the development of new products, services, organisational forms, and business processes (Howkins. 2003. 213).
Flew advocates that this innovative environment has most clearly bared fruit in the form of developments of ICT software (in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344). Further, these developments, such as the speedy diffusion of the Internet, generated an assumption that a new economy has emerged - whose makeup was entirely different from that of the industrial economy of the 20th century.
Therefore, for us the individual creative practitioners to participate and add value to this new economy, we must supply the growing market demand for innovative new ideas. To enrich our society and make a contribution, it has become our responsibility to supply our ideas and collaborate with our peers to expand horizons and capitalise on the vast array of creative opportunities that will spawn from such interactive environments.
References:
Hartley, J. Introduction. In Hartley, J. (ed.) 2005. Creative Industries. Blackwell: Carlton. pp.1-41.
Flew, T. 2005. Creative Economy. In Hartley, J. (ed.) 2005. Creative Industries. Blackwell: Carlton. pp.344-361.
Howkins, J. 2003. The Creative Economy. Penguin: Camberwell.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2001. The New Economy: beyond the hype. OECD: Paris.
According to Hartley (2005. 5), at the core of the creative industries concept are characteristics of innovation, risk-taking, new businesses and start-ups, intangible assets, and the creative application of new technologies.
Leading creative industries theorists; Charles Leadbeater, John Howkins and Richard Florida, have discussed at length about how to generate creative cities and regions and incorporate the creative industries as part of national innovation strategies in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Hong Kong (cited by Flew in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344).
These thinkers, particularly Richard Florida (cited by Flew in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344) has proposed that we are now in a creative economy, where capitalism is being transformed from within, “from an older corporate-centred system defined by large companies to a more people driven one” in which innovation and new ideas are paramount.
Through a growing importance of innovation, education and training, research and development, investment information communication technologies (ICTs), it becomes clear that in this new economic paradigm there exists a distinct relationship between creativity and innovation. There is also a correlation between this relationship and the development of new products, services, organisational forms, and business processes (Howkins. 2003. 213).
Flew advocates that this innovative environment has most clearly bared fruit in the form of developments of ICT software (in Hartley (ed.) 2005. 344). Further, these developments, such as the speedy diffusion of the Internet, generated an assumption that a new economy has emerged - whose makeup was entirely different from that of the industrial economy of the 20th century.
Therefore, for us the individual creative practitioners to participate and add value to this new economy, we must supply the growing market demand for innovative new ideas. To enrich our society and make a contribution, it has become our responsibility to supply our ideas and collaborate with our peers to expand horizons and capitalise on the vast array of creative opportunities that will spawn from such interactive environments.
References:
Hartley, J. Introduction. In Hartley, J. (ed.) 2005. Creative Industries. Blackwell: Carlton. pp.1-41.
Flew, T. 2005. Creative Economy. In Hartley, J. (ed.) 2005. Creative Industries. Blackwell: Carlton. pp.344-361.
Howkins, J. 2003. The Creative Economy. Penguin: Camberwell.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2001. The New Economy: beyond the hype. OECD: Paris.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Potential of New Media Technologies
After reading an excerpt of Terry Flew's New Media: an introduction about new media as cultural technologies, it became apparent that there is a defining line between those who see technological advances as positive, and those who do not. After reading Flew's article, which I thought to be a very balanced argument, I thought I would continue the discussion from the corresponding week's tutorial.
With the proliferation of the Internet and other technological advances, there has been a development of new media technologies. Terry Flew noted that new media technologies have had strong impacts in social, economic, cultural and political environments, and therefore these technologies should be understood from multiple perspectives.
By this, Flew argues that if used incorrectly, new media technologies have the potential to disrupt social equilibrium. For example, Lyon (in Flew. 2005, 22) noted that new media technologies could lead to economic dualism, deskilling of middle classes, job loss to IT, increased job insecurity, "Big Brother" surveillance and information control, and heightened inequalities between 'have' and 'have-not' nations, leading to cultural imperialism.
Lyon's take on what the Information Society could develop into highlights that there is an over-reliance on technology, and as a people, we have started a trend of social fragmentation, leading to a loss of community.
While these negative images paint a dark 1984-esque portrait of what this new era could bring, I agree with Flew's latter argument, that when used correctly, and responsibily (like all good things), new media technologies hold the potential to improve our society.
This potential for advancement has in some cases already resulted in a "Global Village" - decreasing geographical, social, and economic barriers. Further, it would prompt and facilitate the 'have-not' nations to become on par with their advancing peers. This would allow for enourmous expansion in open access to extensive information.
I feel that as a citizen of the Information Society, we are all as individuals, responsible for the uses and ramifications of new technologies. The Internet, cable television, mobile phones, instant messaging, networked communication, whatever our choice of technology, if used correctly, has the potential to enrich and develop our culture and our lives. Therefore, like the Apple Macintosh commercial, new media technologies depend on the initiative of the individual to self-govern in a decentralised, loosely-controlled, almost-borderless environment.
Reference:
Flew, T. 2005. New media: an introduction. Oxford University Press: Melbourne.
With the proliferation of the Internet and other technological advances, there has been a development of new media technologies. Terry Flew noted that new media technologies have had strong impacts in social, economic, cultural and political environments, and therefore these technologies should be understood from multiple perspectives.
By this, Flew argues that if used incorrectly, new media technologies have the potential to disrupt social equilibrium. For example, Lyon (in Flew. 2005, 22) noted that new media technologies could lead to economic dualism, deskilling of middle classes, job loss to IT, increased job insecurity, "Big Brother" surveillance and information control, and heightened inequalities between 'have' and 'have-not' nations, leading to cultural imperialism.
Lyon's take on what the Information Society could develop into highlights that there is an over-reliance on technology, and as a people, we have started a trend of social fragmentation, leading to a loss of community.
While these negative images paint a dark 1984-esque portrait of what this new era could bring, I agree with Flew's latter argument, that when used correctly, and responsibily (like all good things), new media technologies hold the potential to improve our society.
An increase in access to technological hardware and software could spawn a more skilled workforce, flatten social and corporate hierarchies, empower consumers, increase leisure time, and facilitate a two-way decentralised communications infrastructure.
This potential for advancement has in some cases already resulted in a "Global Village" - decreasing geographical, social, and economic barriers. Further, it would prompt and facilitate the 'have-not' nations to become on par with their advancing peers. This would allow for enourmous expansion in open access to extensive information.
I feel that as a citizen of the Information Society, we are all as individuals, responsible for the uses and ramifications of new technologies. The Internet, cable television, mobile phones, instant messaging, networked communication, whatever our choice of technology, if used correctly, has the potential to enrich and develop our culture and our lives. Therefore, like the Apple Macintosh commercial, new media technologies depend on the initiative of the individual to self-govern in a decentralised, loosely-controlled, almost-borderless environment.
Reference:
Flew, T. 2005. New media: an introduction. Oxford University Press: Melbourne.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Christening the Blog
Welcome, welcome, welcome.
So I've been coerced into writing an initial blog entry, just go get the figurative ball rolling. Never had a blog before, so this is definately a learning curve. Never had a blog, never kept a journal growing up, nothing, nada, zip. So this whole notion of making my thoughts tangible is a bit different for me at the moment.
I've been watching all of the YouTube videos, and how what sorts of ends some people are willing to go to so that their message is creatively passed on. I mean, for example, Lee LeFever's videos on blogs and RSS was humourous and engaging.
For anyone who doesn't know who I am already, my name's Perrin, and I'm a 21 year old university student from Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA!
I'm studying a double degree in International Business and Creative Industries at QUT, and this is my fourth year at uni. So far I've loathed every single minute I've spent at uni, but on a flip side, I've learned a hell of a lot, and it's kept me coming back for more... Go figure...
Creative Industries particularly is like an onion I'm finding... There are literally so many links, layers, extensions, sidestreets, tangents, whatever you want to call them, it's such a broad and far reaching phenomenon. For example, I've studied how the popularity of the Internet and increased pursuits of individuals has given rise to a myriad of online communities, forming 'virtual cultures'. It's opened my eyes to the expanse of creativity in life.
I've been roped into creating this blog for an assessment for KCB201 Virtual Cultures, so from now on in, all my posts will be related to my take on content we learn in classes.
So, I'm not going to appologise in advance if you get bored, you're the dummy that's kept reading, when you could have gone off some other tangent and kept surfing. So suffer.... scroll down...
So I've been coerced into writing an initial blog entry, just go get the figurative ball rolling. Never had a blog before, so this is definately a learning curve. Never had a blog, never kept a journal growing up, nothing, nada, zip. So this whole notion of making my thoughts tangible is a bit different for me at the moment.
I've been watching all of the YouTube videos, and how what sorts of ends some people are willing to go to so that their message is creatively passed on. I mean, for example, Lee LeFever's videos on blogs and RSS was humourous and engaging.
For anyone who doesn't know who I am already, my name's Perrin, and I'm a 21 year old university student from Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA!
I'm studying a double degree in International Business and Creative Industries at QUT, and this is my fourth year at uni. So far I've loathed every single minute I've spent at uni, but on a flip side, I've learned a hell of a lot, and it's kept me coming back for more... Go figure...
Creative Industries particularly is like an onion I'm finding... There are literally so many links, layers, extensions, sidestreets, tangents, whatever you want to call them, it's such a broad and far reaching phenomenon. For example, I've studied how the popularity of the Internet and increased pursuits of individuals has given rise to a myriad of online communities, forming 'virtual cultures'. It's opened my eyes to the expanse of creativity in life.
I've been roped into creating this blog for an assessment for KCB201 Virtual Cultures, so from now on in, all my posts will be related to my take on content we learn in classes.
So, I'm not going to appologise in advance if you get bored, you're the dummy that's kept reading, when you could have gone off some other tangent and kept surfing. So suffer.... scroll down...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
