Week VI: The Commons - Collection and (re)Distribution/Assembling Attention

 

A man multitasking, using his phone, two laptops and desktop computer simultaneously, thus demonstrating the beginnings of Continuous Partial Attention. Source: Flickr, https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8292/7835857294_118c24cc6f_z.jpg

In order to handle the information that is coming from different directions, people have had to do more than multi-task. Continuous Partial Attention (Stone in Jenkins, 2010) describes how attention does not just shift from task to task; rather, attention is hyper-alert, processing information while completing a number of tasks simultaneously.

As I complete the readings for this week and write this blog post, I am also listening to music, checking Twitter, texting and snacking on cookies. This is just one personal example of CPA that now occurs in everyday life. The requirement of ‘deep attention’ has shifted to ‘hyper attention’.

The concept of an ‘attention economy’ (Goldhaber, 1997; Erard, 2009) goes well with our contemporary digital media landscape – our attention is scarce, forcing the plethora of online content to compete with each other. From an economic perspective, namely the supply and demand of content/resources, the things we pay attention to can influence what can be commonly accessed.

The digital commons promote the distribution and shared ownership of online content to anyone with access to the internet, demonstrating how interconnected society is on a global scale (Meretz, 2010). They are an archive in itself, organised so as to maximise public consumption of online content. Consider the way that hyperlinks and recommended sites lead to related content, slowly but surely weaving a tangled web (pun intended) around the individual. Thus, the internet has facilitated accessibility, reaching a wider audience than ever before.

But what determines which content should be made commonly available to the public?

Public demand is not, and should not be, the only factor. There are obvious reasons for why company information and personal e-mails should remain private. However, with published works like academic journals, paywalled news articles and geo-blocked videos, the ethics become blurred. One must acknowledge intellectual property and payment for information and services provided. Conversely, there is also transparency and equal opportunity to access knowledge that must be considered. There doesn’t seem to be a clear-cut answer, but establishing a standardised approach across all publishing platforms could be the first step.

References:

Erard, M. 2009, ‘A short manifesto on the future of attention’, Observatory, 8 December, accessed 29 August 2014, <http://observatory.designobserver.com/entry.html?entry=10297>

 

Goldhaber, M. H. 1997, ‘Attention Shoppers!’, Wired, weblog post, accessed 29 August 2014, <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.12/es_attention.html>

 

Jenkins, H. 2010, ‘Multitasking and Continuous Partial Attention: An Interview

with Linda Stone (Part One)’, Confession of an ACA-Fan, weblog post, 19 November, accessed 29 August 2014, <http://henryjenkins.org/2010/11/multitasking_and_continuous_pa.html>

 

Meretz, S. 2010, ‘Ten Theses about Global Commons Movement’, P2P

Foundation, 1-2 November, accessed 30 August 2014, <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/ten-theses-about-global-commons-movement/2011/01/05>

Week V: Archives and Archive Fever

In a society that has become fascinated with immediacy and the here and now, the past exists almost as an afterthought. It is strange to think just how much the information we do choose to archive away can have a wider social impact. Archives have the power to influence how we interpret history, what values are upheld, how people view others and themselves. Therefore archives can dictate culture.

The role of archives is to provide structure to our past experiences, which therefore has some influence on present and future actions. The importance of archives can be seen in multiple ways. For example, e-mail, chat logs, bank statements all make the lives of individuals easier, while recorded history and law assist with governing society. Thus archives can be traced back to any aspect of everyday life and our wider world.

 In the diagram above, I have attempted to explore some of these connections by applying the mindmap-like structure that was used last week to explore assemblages and actor-network theory. While there are similarities, I’ve also decided to include network nodes such as time, past and present, which don’t fall neatly into either the human or non-human actant category.

“Archive fever” refers to the constant need to create more archives in order to document information, history and memories. In our contemporary technological landscape we are presented with countless ways to archive every aspect of our lives; each device has a separate archive, online accounts archive customer information, emails have a backlog, social media platforms broadcast and store away evidence of different activities, Google makes note of web searches for advertising opportunities, etc. There is an archive for virtually anything.

With so many ways to document the self, it is possible that playing around with so many archives can have an adverse effect on an individual’s self-awareness. This could result in choosing to store away content that is flattering or neglecting to record undesirable content, warping our perception. Thus, I don’t believe that archives and the subject being archived are one and the same. Each archive serves a different purpose and each individual or organisational body is more than the sum of its recorded parts.

Week IV: Actor-Network Theory

Actor-Network Theory (ANT) refers to the relationship between the material and the semiotic and how they come together as a whole. In order to do so, ANT considers the contributions of both human and non-human ‘actants’ to be equal, thus creating a state of generalised symmetry. These actants are described as existing in a network; however, I found it more beneficial to consider these actants as part of a constantly shifting and evolving process that must be performed (delukie, 2009). Once this process stops growing and developing, the individual components can no longer interact and act out their roles, thus causing the entire network to disintegrate.

As with any theory, there has been critical analysis. The main criticism is that intentionality should not be given to non-human actants because that aspect is what distinguishes living beings from inanimate devices. ANT scholar’s response that non-human actants perform agency without intentionality undermines their concept of equal material-semiotic contribution. Sandra Harding in Banks (2011) brings up an interesting argument that through ANT’s equalising concept, social factors such as race, gender and class are considered irrelevant when in fact these qualities are incredibly influential. Thus ANT cannot explain or challenge phenomenon, it merely describes them.

Despite this, ANT is a social theory and research method that has been applied to various sociological fields to encourage new ways of thinking in areas such as politics, history, science and technology. It has also been useful to apply ANT to exploring identity and subjectivity, addiction, feminism, anthropology, economics, health studies and organisational analysis. The material-semiotic approach is highly flexible, therefore allowing various interpretations which allow such widespread application.

In publishing, ANT can be a useful framework for analysing different media, particularly how the relationship between technological advancements and developers has nurtured what publishing is in contemporary society. One example that springs to mind is radio, since it would not be possible for radio content to be published without radio presenters and sound engineers working with recording equipment to transmit messages across airwaves. Another is Twitter, where software developers created a program where individuals could publish short blogs, not expecting that it would evolve into a platform that facilitates debate and social change. The idea could similarly be applied to YouTube, where the creators couldn’t foresee how grassroots media producers could work with video content to establish new ways of information and entertainment dissemination. The possibilities are endless.

References:

‘Actor Network Theory’, Wikipedia, accessed 17 August 2014, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actornetwork_theory>.

Banks, D. (2011), ‘A Brief Summary of Actor-Network Theory’, Cyborgology,

2 November, accessed 17 August 2014, <http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/12/02/a-brief-summary-ofactor-network-theory/>.

delukie (2009) ’Actor-Network Theory in Plain English’, online video, Youtube.com, 16 November 2009, accessed 17 August 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2YYxS6D-mI>.

Week III: Techniques & Machines - From Scrolls to the Codex to Ereaders to Contemporary Events

The publishing scene has recently undergone several changes. Society appears to be slowly moving away from print towards digital sources that promise quicker and easier access to information. However, we are still currently navigating a middle ground between print and digital.

The adoption of digital and mobile communication methods has given individuals the platform to publish to more people than ever before. It’s surprising just how quickly digital media has become the norm.

 

Image displays shifts in publishing and communication tools and methods by interpreting the classic ‘Evolution of Man’ illustration. While it touches on publishing history, it highlights how digital and mobile devices have changed the ways in which individuals can access published text.

Source: Chris R Becker, http://chrisrbecker.com/thesisblog/evolution/

In terms of disseminating information, Twitter and blogs are the most popular tools for publishing current events. The appeal of these tools is that they don’t have to echo the sentiments of any publication and they can also publish work outside of the standard news cycle, so news can break almost as it happens. It’s a different way of consuming news compared to the formulaic approach offered by broadcast TV, as is hilariously shown by Brooker (2010).

Traditional news outlets have had to shake things up to compete. Journalists have struggled with how to differentiate themselves from citizen journalists. If anyone can air their opinion or share information online, it now becomes the journalist’s role to provide original content and solid fact across a number of platforms (Shachtman, 2002).

There has also been debate regarding the introduction of paywalls in order to combat declining revenue from advertising in print publications. While I understand the reasons for limiting content to paying customers, I think the business model of allowing access to articles from web links is a good compromise (Kafka, 2011). It shows that reputable media companies realise the sense behind differentiating between publics that are loyal readers and visitors, those who prefer print articles and those that favour online, multimedia publications.

For audiences, navigating through a plethora of multimedia has become both exciting and daunting. Who can we trust to give us the unbiased truth? Which publications will we turn towards? Readers and viewers are forced to be more selective of what content they consume. A critical audience that expects thoughtful, high-quality content, no matter what platform they engage with, is a step in the right direction.

References:

Becker, C. R. 2010, Evolution, drawn image, Chris R. Becker, accessed 11 August 2014, <http://chrisrbecker.com/thesisblog/evolution/>

Brooker, C. 2010, How to report the news, online video, accessed 7 August 2014, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI >

Kafka, P. 2011, ‘Q&A: New York Times digital czar Martin Nisenholtz on the paywall, pricing, Google and Apple’, All Things D, 18 March, accessed 7 March 2014, <http://allthingsd.com/20110318/qa-new-york-times-digital-czar-martin-nisenholtz-on-the-paywall-pricing-google-and-apple/>

Shachtman, N. 2002, ‘Blogs make the headlines’, Wired, weblog post, 23 December, accessed 10 August 2014, <http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2002/12/56978>

Week II: Publishing, Publics, Selves: history and social impact

Publishing has become ingrained in our everyday lives and it is easy to forget the impact that publishing has on society. We rely on the publishing process to deliver information and entertainment at our fingertips. With technological advances and the rise of the digital era, there has once again been a shift in the way these materials are ‘disseminated’. From its early beginnings to some exciting future prospects, the contribution of publishing is exciting and diverse.

Public consumption of information simply would not be as widespread and immersive as it is today without the developments of publishing. In 1439, Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press signalled mass reproducing of print texts, allowing people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds access to information. The process of recording and reproducing content followed, further enhancing the reach of publishing. This extended to a worldwide scale with the advent of the internet in the twentieth century and a globalisation boom.

My preconceived assumption of publishing before starting this course was narrow and simplistic. Yes, the dog-eared novels on my bookshelf are published works, but so too are films, YouTube videos, posters, songs, tweets. Therefore the medium itself, whether it be print, visual or audio, is not as significant as the information that each text presents to the audience.

The possibilities for publishing are endless, but one question keeps coming up. How will new developments affect the consumer experience? Several of the readings (Lehrer, 2010; Kendall, 2014) discuss the idea of information retention, expressing concern over just how much attention an individual pays to texts given the plethora of articles that can be accessed. Soon apps like ‘Spritz’ (Spritz, 2014) will greatly increase the speed of data intake (but not necessarily appreciation). Today, the dissemination of texts appears to lean towards flooding people with data, data, data; this abundance of choice, in my experience, leads to publishing and sharing works becoming both social and individualised. 

It is clear that the future of publishing is synonymous with digital and online publishing. E-readers make books easier to access and transport and paperbacks are set to become nostalgic novelty items (Lehrer, 2010). Giant publishing houses now have to share the scene with online grassroots projects since the public can now self-publish their compositions on sites such as Amazon, YouTube and Soundcloud. However, 3-D printers are not quite mainstream and 4-D printers are a far-off phenomenon for the Average Joe.

However, the future is fast becoming the present and through this course it will be interesting to see where the publishing industry will go.

For the resources specifically referenced:

Kendall, L. 2014, ‘Actually reading’, Medium.com, accessed 4 August 2014, <https://medium.com/best-thing-i-found-online-today/actually-reading-7333481c0b1a>

Lehrer, J. 2010, ‘The future of reading’, Wired, accessed 4 August 2014, <http://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-future-of-reading-2>

Spritz 2014, Spritz, accessed 4 August 2014, < http://www.spritzinc.com/>