Creativity and New Media

Don't have the slightest clue where I am, and evidently the most "normal" looking avatar turns out to be a vampire although I was able to manage to upgrade to a nice pair of jeans before I became impatient with the appearance editor. I was quickly saddened to see this jersey-shoreite sharing space with me.

Creativity

While some argue that there are more detriments than benefits to this idea of new media, one of the premiere examples of a benefit is the creativity that has spawned from it. We find creativity embedded in nearly all facets of new media, but the one I want to focus on is in the music industry. In an English class I had taken a few semesters ago, we discussed in great detail the drawbacks of mashup music created by anyone at a computer. That I won't elaborate on, but instead discuss why new media allows for this free flowing creativity.
     
Some say music is "dying", and some say it's getting worse. Personally, I don't think it's changed one bit. Similarly to the transition from old media to new media, one in which the shift is simply a natural progression, this idea of mashup music created at home is simply the next phase in a logical process. The internet has wildly broadened the spectrum of what's possible. No longer do we need to know how to sing or play an instrument to make great (debatable) music. With a full featured personal computer, we can mix and match songs that we enjoy and instantly make them available to thousands of people. In the article "The New Math of Mashups", the author makes an extraordinarily accurate point (in my opinion): "Armed with free time and the right software, people are rifling through the lesser songs of pop music and, in frustration, choosing to make some of them as good as the great ones.". Basically the author is saying that through the eyes (and ears) of the world's music listeners, we can sort of alter the music into a form that's potentially appealing to everyone . 


Another component of creativity generated by new media is the idea of feedback. "Twitter Serves Up Ideas From Its Followers", we gain insight as to how Twitter actually got to the point where it is today. While many people think that companies and their executives come up with all of the innovative ideas, it's actually quite the opposite. The article mentions that it's actually the consumer or end-user who suggests most of the ideas. For instance, the @ function and the # function on twitter were user generated, and consequently two of Twitters' iconic trademarks.


The main idea is that while new media could possible have it's own drawbacks, this idea of creativity that has spawned from the embracing of new media far outweighs the detriments in my opinion.  

Modeling Reality with Virtual Worlds

As if there isn't enough going on in the world these days, we now have an "escape" via virtual worlds. A virtual world is a platform in which users can communicate via avatars in either realistically modeled environments such as Virtual Lower East Side (vles.com) or fantasy worlds like Warcraft. Although these virtual worlds come in many different flavors, they all serve the same general purpose. Sometimes these virtual worlds are used for entertainment purposes and sometimes they're used by companies to train their employees. In the article "I've Been in That Club, Just Not in Real Life", the author describes a virtual world used for entertainment purposes in which users create avatars to socialize at clubs and bars modeled after their real-life counterparts in the lower east side of Manhattan. While in theory this may be a good idea, native residents to the area complain that this mimicking of their beloved nook strips the allure of the neighborhood. By the same token, companies use virtual reality to allow its employees to collaborate outside of the office. As discussed in "Going to the Virtual Office in Second Life", during turbulent economic times companies are always looking to cut costs. Travel expenses are higher for some than for others and companies with high travel costs are generally the ones taking advantage of virtual reality to get things done.

Virtual worlds foster creativity through the idea that one can really be whoever he/she wants to be...an idea not available in real life. Whether this is good or bad is truly subjective. Personally, I think it's a way for people to pretend to be something they're not, which I've never been much a fan of. In other ways though, such as in the business environment, I see virtual reality as an immensely useful asset. 

The future of virtual reality, if I were to guess, would be generally geared towards enterprise use. With more and more resources available online to companies, organizations are able to cut costs more efficiently than ever before. If the current trend continues, I expect virtual reality to be a mainstay. 

Blog About Twitter

Twitter vs. Blackboard, well that's easy. As one of the most disliked platforms amongst students, blackboard is quickly taking a backseat when pitted against the likes of twitter for discussions. As students, we're often crunched for time and just want to get things done. With a complicated portal like blackboard that either doesn't ever load or takes forever, Twitter is a welcomed change. If we can get our point across in 140 characters, we're more than happy. Where I think Twitter comes up short, is vs. an in class discussion. Fewer theaters offer the same kind of connection that a classroom does. A classroom fosters an environment for learning and constantly challenges it's occupants. Twitter, although represented by those same students is somewhat limiting in that it's responses are so short and can often be cluttered when conversing with many students. Classroom discussions have a sort of set of rules that allow a respectful experience while maximizing input.

Social Networking Sites

Many of us have go-to websites where we get our social networking fixes. For some it's Facebook and for some it's Google +. But what about each different social networking sites makes it appealing to someone? In my opinion, user base is the most influential factor. How many people do you know that use Google +? Probably less than that of Facebook. Human connection is one of the fundamental human needs and despite the fact there isn't a physical connection on Facebook, it's somehow comforting to know that 700 million other people are using it.

Facebook, once a closed social networking site for college students has quickly turned into a free-for-all. Boasting the largest install base, users can connect with almost anyone. One can share pictures and memories as well as connect with old friends. Myspace, the once pinnacle of social networking has sunk into oblivion. But what makes it still relevant in a way? I say music. Myspace is the only social networking site to really place emphasis on music. Band pages can be littered with original music to be played at the discretion of anyone. Additionally, tour dates and news are also on these pages. Twitter is, in my opinion, the fastest rising social networking platform. Conversely, I also feel it will die out quickly. Twitter is a way for people to send/get information to it's followers via 140 character messages. Extremely safe and efficient, Twitter does away with the elaborate UI of Facebook. No built-in photo storage allows Twitter to maintain relatively free server space. But what about it makes it so appealing? It's quick, mostly accurate and free. By the same token, all sorts of technology need to innovate to stay relevant and that's where I feel Twitter will fail. How much more can they really do? Finally Google + (G+). The newest entrant into the social networking world is a promising one. Offered by the advertising giant, Google, Google + offers a similar experience to Facebook with far more security. On G+, users organize their friends, family and coworkers into circles and share only specific information within those circles. The nice thing about G+ is it's connectivity to the rest of the web. There are these things called +1's which in essence recommend a website, story or picture with anyone whom you want. It's only natural that we share new experiences in our lives, and Google + takes advantage of that.

Social Networking

Social networking, a term coined by the ver people in which it encompasses is simply put: the use of a dedicated web site to communicate informally with other members of the site through message posting, etc. I'd be curious to see who doesn't interact with at least one form of social networking every day. I know I frequent several social networking websites daily. In a world where companies seek to leverage the masses to maximize profits, social networking is record profits handed to them on a silver platter. ADditionally, social networking and it's main purpose (exposure) can be used for other general purposes.

Advertising, once a glamorous profession in which brilliant minds would understand how the consumers mind worked and persuaded them to buy a certain product. It's very different now. Gone are the days of billboards and tv commercials. Do you want to reach the most amount in people in the most efficient way? Sure you do. Enter, social networking. Two of the most popular social networking web sites are Facebook and Twitter. Collectively boasting over one billion users, social networking is the best way to reach the most amount of people for the least amount of money. But how exactly do companies leverage this enormous user base to maximize profits. Special "member" pricing, coupons and general awareness all contribute to the increased revenues companies have enjoyed as a result of creating a simple Facebook fan page. In turbulent economic times, consumers are constantly looking for the best deal and on social networking sites, customers can share the best deals...ultimately benefitting both parties. Again, exposure is the name of the game. Said exposure comes in many different forms, and social networking has given rise to some now household names including my least favorite "musician",Justin Bieber. In the article from the Wall Street Journal, "Moguls of New Media", the author provides examples in which social networking has increased exposure enough to lead to some sort of material gain. Companies have never had access to this many people at one time and it's been amazing to see how they utilize it.

Companies aren't the only ones who benefit from social networking. Society as a whole is more connected than ever in this age. Communication is the fundamental component of survival. Without it, the world would be a much different place. Some generations are saddened by the direction in which communication is headed, largely a result of social networking. To think that I can instantly chat with someone in some extraordinarily obscure country in the convenience of my own home is truly amazing.

Like anything, there is always downside to every upside. Given the sheer size of social networking platforms, opinions are easily manipulated. By that I mean that it's easy to lose a sense of identity in such a vast virtual world. In some cases this may not always be seen as a bad thing, but to many (including myself) it is. Take Kony 2012 for example. Look at how quick that video spread. Equally quick, take a look at how many previously uninformed people suddenly have a vesting interesting in Uganda...many of whom I'd be hard pressed to believe actually know where Uganda is. Despite it being a worthy cause, like anything, the facts need to be looked at. Social Networking is great for what I mentioned earlier, exposure. Social networking exposed the issue of Kony 2012, but it's up to each one of us to formulate our own opinion and not just assimilate. In "Can you Trust Crowd Wisdom" by Kristina Grifantini, she elaborates on the point that mass recommendation could actually be skewed by very few. She uses Amazon's rating system as an example, but the comparisons are undeniable.

Blog vs. Wiki

To provide factual information or let creative juices flow, is often the question to consider when differentiating between wikis and blogs. Historically, wiki's have been go-to sources for quick, complete information. Although rarely recognized by academics as credible sources, wiki giants like Wikipedia have extraordinarily high accuracy rates. Wiki's differ from encyclopedias in that a penguin could post on a wiki page, if it so happened said penguin could type in a language supported by wikipedia. The point is, there aren't strict requirements as to the derivative of the knowledge-a characteristic of encyclopedias. For instance, if the same penguin wanted to post in an encyclopedia, references from reputable academia would be required to verify the accuracy of the information provided...quite a difficult task. So it seems wiki's are a great thing, nearly unlimited knowledge at your fingertips. But what happens when the validity of the information is in question? Suddenly free isn't so free. "Wikipedia: No longer the Wild West" explores this very idea in detail and makes mention of the idea that people will govern themselves. In my opinion, a silly notion. Pardon my interest in history, but throughout history people have never been able to govern themselves without some sort of policing agency. Self -interest is a characteristic of humans that's been around since the beginning. I can't comment on the nature of Wikipedia's policing activities, but as of 2009 they provided editors for only certain pages. A neat feature would be to have public pages within the original wikipedia page where readers can contribute their own ideas to the topic at hand.

Freedom of ideas is the idea that has progressed humanity through the dark ages into a time where we know more about the world (and other worlds) than ever thought possible. When we regulate the creative capacity of human beings, the progressive nature of society is crippled. Why should we just stop at the "right" information? There must be a new media outlet where human beings can creatively express ideas in a manner that could benefit our fellow bipedal friends. Enter, the blog.

The blog has been a topic of much discussion over the past ten years, whether it's because of the monetization of public blogs, or just the idea of creativity in a new vehicle remains to be seen. One thing is for certain is that the blog acts as a gap filler for the shortcomings of wikis. Remember the wiki-writing penguin? This same penguin can now write a blog comprised of the same information while providing an arctic twist-exemplifying his creative nature. Perhaps the information isn't entirely accurate (who would have known that penguins aren't the best mathematicians?), but the accuracy is to be taken with a grain of salt by the reader and is expected as such. Societal progress has always been a chain reaction, using previous ideas of someone else and expanding on them. This very idea is discussed in "How can we measure the influence of the blogosphere?", where the author makes note of the bilateral communication between the author and the readers through the use of comment exchange. Let the reader decide what's right and what's wrong.

In conclusion, albeit both forms of new media, blogs and wikis wildly contrast. Blogs capture the creative essence of human beings, where as wiki's attempt to distinguish between right and wrong. Neither is wrong per se, just different.