Take one mask off and put another on… the question lingering is whether we show different persona’s and personalities online and offline. Many may argue we do as we project a certain mask through social media platforms to the global community, specifically projecting what we want others to see. However this may not be our real-world persona.
William James, an american philosopher and psychologist once suggested “We have as many personalities as the number of situations we are in. Although our digital identity may be fragmented, it seems clear that our various online personas are all digital breadcrumbs of the same persona; different symptoms of our same core self.”
As masks are a ready made identity they have played an important role throughout society and still continue to nowadays. Look back 1000 years when masks were used for many different reasons such as films, theatre performances and public events conveying a specific persona to the audience much like that of today. However masks were seen as a item in which an actor would wear within a play to disguise their true selves and create a different persona to the audience. For example Ancient Greek Theatre masks were used to distinguish different types of roles, stories and characters. Flashing forward to nowadays masks are still prominent throughout movies and theatres for very similar reasoning although ‘masks’ can be identified predominately through online mediums. Take a look at the movie ‘The mask’ a movie which depicted two different persona’s through the use of a mask.
Masks enable and allow us to be our true selves, another example can be identified through the rise of recognising individuals as cos-players. Their costumes represent and portray a ready made identity of a specific character. The rise of cos-players throughout societies has depicted the contemporary notion of persona’s and the versatility of them as they are regularly being alternated to adapt to a forever changing and advancing society.
Take one look at this iconic character who has now generated a new persona within society.
Here’s a go of my first youtube video, on the different persona’s of the Kardashians. Sorry about the picture quality i don’t know what went wrong..!
And.. there you have it the last blog post for BCM112, catch you on the flip side, I’m out!
The driving device philosophy of apple, is to create a preprogrammed device in which individuals can not change, nor interact with the hardware or operating systems. Apple has generated a fully centralised network approach in which they insist to create among the consumers. This approach can be identified through Apple’s ‘Wall garden of apps’ the apple store in which is a curated experience. Apple has complete control over the platform, the content and your possible choices, limiting users access…
Lets just take one look back at what the primary way of adding and integrating music to the iPod was in 2001. Apple made users go through the process of iTunes to download music, and many may ask why in this generation??? Think about it… it’s all about CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL. Or even just think about how every few years Apple will bring out a new device which supersedes recent devices rapidly, making us to upgrade to the next ‘big trend.’
Apple holds it’s control through these changes by implementing small changes on the devices. Think back to the change and advancement from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 5 in which saw the modification of the size of the charging port on both devices. Shortly after the iPhone 4 was dead in the eyes of the consumers. These devices are restrained to the maker (Apple) in which are designed for pure consumption.
On the other hand generative platforms have a diverse driving mechanism as they allow for innovation and unlimited freedom. Just take one look at Twitter in which shifted from a locked platform to a generative as a result of individuals creating content and innovations then sharing it to the rest of the world through this particular medium. The use of a generative open platform creates a user empowering philosophy allowing for individuals to foster their creativity. Take a look at this ted talk from Evan Williams who states how generative open platforms can lead to creativity and innovations as a result of freedom and control.
Although the overall question consumers are left pondering is which philosophy is really empowering users? Locked appliances or generative platforms.
Henry Jenkins defined transmedia storytelling as, “Transmedia storytelling is the ideal aesthetic form for an era of collective intelligence.” However simplifying his definition we can articulate and define transmedia storytelling as the art of conveying messages, themes or storylines to the audience across multiple media platforms. The scattering of one story over multiple channels. Here is a video explaining and clarify transmedia storytelling.
Transforming from a generation where individuals immersed themselves in one interface a ‘pre packaged’ closed of medium such as TV with one beginning and one end. Now-days advancing to a technologically society where stories are not tied to one channel has generated the incline of transmedia stories across multiple channels and platforms. The multiple interfaces within society today has generated a immersive and interconnected world stemmed from rich storylines. The endless storyline with no closed beginning and end has seen the potential of a storyline to start in one medium and flow to another creating a new kind of narrative leading to an array of products across multiple platforms. This has generated individuals to flow and immerse themselves in multiple media platforms at once. A example of transmedia narrative is Avatar.
Film: Avatar first began as a film in cinemas in 2009 being the first 3D film.
Books: After the film was released, the film was then repurposed to generate the publications of several different books. One of the books in which was released was called ‘The movie scrap book’ which was based around the biological and social setting of the fictional Avatar world.
Comic Books: Following the film was the creation of a comic book series which was released in 2015.
Gaming: Avatar games became available on consoles such as Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Wii, Nintendo and on online browser games.
Merchandise: Merchandisesuch as action figures and toys of characters from the film were distributed with the McDonalds happy meals. Backpacks, cups, clothing and also limited edition Avatar stamps for mailing services were other elements of their merchandise.
Theme Park: Disney has also developed an Avatar theme park in America which will be open in the American summer of 2017.
Although Avatar was not a huge transmedia storytelling success, it has however created ‘Fan fiction’ which has assisted individuals to generate their own platform to create further fiction together, to suit their individual desires.
From a generation where the notion of owning an idea as obscured, where creators had no claim on their intellectual work. Producing it to be modified or sold by other creators. To nowadays with the strict rules and regulations surrounding copyright. The implementation of laws(1) such as the Statute of Queen Anne (1710) to the Berene Convention (1886) advancing to the current US copyright law, stating a monopoly right for 70 years after the author’s death. These laws have been enforced to prevent and minimise copyright from occuring within societies.
Although many would argue that the copyright laws are too rigid. The real question lies are they? Here’s a little insight into the brutality of the current law. Khloe Kardashian(2) has been sued for $200,750 by a paparazzi agency for posting a picture of herself on her own social media platform. What has this world come to?? The paparazzi agency stated that she took a photograph they snapped of her while she was out in pubic and posted it to her own social media account without permission or consent. However does she have to be granted permission to post a photo of herself which was snapped without her permission, i’ll leave that up to you to decide. Although with large corporations and industries controlling ideas and content now days it generates us to re-evaluate whether our ideas are ours any longer.
However ill leave you to ponder on this thought, without copyright we would not have fairytales or memes..
Flashing to present day society the rise of remix culture has generated everyone to be able toremix anything at the touch of a button(2). Photos, videos, music anything can be remixed to create and produce a new project and meaning. With no expensive tools and no distributor only just skills needed has depicted the ease in which individuals can remix and distribute something globally at the touch of a button within modern day society.
The implementation and the ease of the ‘copy tools’ within todays generation has generated a large majority of remixes within society. For example on the music side of remixes it is illustrated through the band ‘Sugar Hill Gang’ in particular the song ‘Rappers Delight’ which the base line from the song has been used in dozen’s of other songs. Such as, ‘It’s all good – Will Smith’, ‘The adventures of grandmaster flash- Grandmaster Flash’ and ‘Everything gonna be alright- Father Mc’. Another significant example is Led Zeppelin. The opening line for ‘Stairway to Heaven’ is pulled from ‘Spirit- Taurus’.
On the other hand the remix of films are generally built and remixed on other books, Tv shows, plays and toys. For example the ‘Flash Gordon’ series was a huge influence on the creation and foundation of StarWars in which was articulated to be the updated series. However without George Lucas copying material and ideas then combining and transforming them to create a different meaning there would be no StarWars as‘creation requires influence’(3).
Everything we make and create is a remix of a existing creation whether we know it or not. Our lives and the lives of others also have significant influence on our remix culture.
Heres a link to a youtube clip of personal favourite remix by Gramatik & Ramzoid remixing flume’s song ‘Wall Fuck’.
And… here is a example of my first remix made through garage band.
Will the future generations even know what legacy media was? Throughout today’s society we are witnessing the diminishment of legacy media through the replacement of a new model; The internet. This can be articulated through the one to many – many to many models(1).The reason in why we have seen the decline of legacy media(2), is due to the fact the internet has become the most efficient medium to match demand and supply to the audience. For example this can be depicted through the way in which individuals sell and buy their cars nowadays(3). Cars are mainly sold through the internet on websites such as Gumtree and Carsales, in comparison to legacy media of advertisements in newspapers.
Lets be real who has the time to post an add to a newspaper such as The Sydney Morning Herald, with associated high costs of entry and issues of dealing with gatekeepers to express your message. The result of the closed off finalised for consumption nature of legacy media has depicted little to no control of the message and interpretation presented within the media in comparison to the internet. The New York Times states ‘All the news that’s fit to print’ we control which is fit and which is not fit to be distributed. Publishers brand provides authority and guarantees authenticity.
The change from legacy media to the new distrusted media can be identified through the quantitative data in the image below, articulating the slow death of legacy media(4).
Leading to the interpretation and depiction that the internet has become the dominant medium within this generation. The change from a closed source to a open source of matching demand and supply for all, has generated us to become our own gatekeepers(5).
The real question is how do we articulate the difference between ‘fake’ and ‘real’ news within todays technologically advancing society. The shift from analogue to digital and changes in technologies has altered and transformed us individuals from passive consumers to active makers, users and participants within society. This can be identified through the one to many relationship, which articulates one broadcaster to many individuals having minimal control. The technologically advancing society in which we live has lead to the change in models predominately focusing on the many to many relationship. It expresses several broadcasters to numerous individuals, having optimal control as a passive listener. View a visual representation of the models here.
Leading to the emergence of individuals broadcasting their own messages as their voices are seen equal to the news online. For example this can be identified through the apparent use of drones. Individuals are using technological devices such as drones to connect individuals to real life issues and to minimise ‘fake’ news with live coverage. People are capturing and reporting a news event and streaming live footage, for people around the world, capturing events such as war. For example the footage captured from the IS attack in Syria was reported and placed on numerous dialogic media platforms. However through this form of news, their is no perceived storyline as it is straight from the source pushing us to articulate our own interpretation and perception of new stories. Axel Bruns states; ” A shift from dedicated individuals (Journalists) and teams as producers to a broader -based distributed generation of content by a wide community of participants.”
The use of drones to capture real world events can be compared to the monologic news of ‘White Helmets’.The White Helmets was a staged news event helping a man in a bomb accident, however this was captured by the public eye and leaked on a global scale, causing them to be held accountable for the non- credibility of their source.
Is there an answer to stop fake news? Has the use of drones minimised the rise of ‘fake news’ as a result of credibility coming straight from the source? This has seen the start of a new outlook for our technologically advancing generation.