Here are the blog posts I have written so far this semester.
- Things to Know about Aleesha
- Thoughts about How Moby Dick Fits into Digital Culture
- E-books or Printed Books
- Modern Gam = Skype
- QR Codes for Headstones
- Accepting New Technology as Tradition
- Does a Company's Presence Online (or Lack thereof) Affect their Credibility?
- Long Tails, and Machines, and Algorithms, Oh My!
- Peer Reviews through Digital Media
The themes I seem to be the most interested in are the themes that center on how we are shifting traditions from physical to online. Although there are pros and cons to this, the benefits seem to outweigh the problems. A universal culture has developed, but it's all digital. People seem to like it for a myriad of reasons. It's easy and more convenient to access this information. And other times, it's about the kind of information people can access or the types of audiences they can reach.
People can collaborate with one another to make something completely new and different, just like Eric Whitacre's virtual choir. People can get information on any subject they can think of and they don't have to physically go anywhere to get it. People can be self-taught on any subject. People can send messages and connect with friends or family instantly, no matter their locations. The list can go on and on. The point is, we would not be able to do this (at least, not very easily) without the help of the digital culture that is available through the Internet.
We have adapted to this new culture. Kylee, Ariel, and Greg both mentioned that technology has become an extension of ourselves, which can be good and bad, like Derrick discusses in his post. In a way, we are now the product of transmedia; we are adapted and changed for another medium.
The questions I wish to ask are as follows: Are all of these changes necessary? And why do we tend to change when we represent ourselves online?
People can collaborate with one another to make something completely new and different, just like Eric Whitacre's virtual choir. People can get information on any subject they can think of and they don't have to physically go anywhere to get it. People can be self-taught on any subject. People can send messages and connect with friends or family instantly, no matter their locations. The list can go on and on. The point is, we would not be able to do this (at least, not very easily) without the help of the digital culture that is available through the Internet.
We have adapted to this new culture. Kylee, Ariel, and Greg both mentioned that technology has become an extension of ourselves, which can be good and bad, like Derrick discusses in his post. In a way, we are now the product of transmedia; we are adapted and changed for another medium.
The questions I wish to ask are as follows: Are all of these changes necessary? And why do we tend to change when we represent ourselves online?
It's interesting that you talk about a universal culture because we can now use media or digital culture to learn more about people who are different from us and about other cultures like never before. I don't think everyone changes when they represent themselves online. I suppose I would compare our self-representations to art in a way. You alter the way you approach expressing something in art depending on which medium you use. I think it's the same way with people. When you express yourself in person, online, through photos, video, memes, etc., you alter your approach to express yourself the way you want. This doesn't necessarily mean you have changed; you are just taking into account medium and audience. I hope that makes sense. I like your questions about transitioning from the physical to the digital.
ReplyDeleteSince Mary addressed the idea that not everyone changes on the internet (which I agree) I'll focus on your question on if these changes are necessary; I think that maybe they are necessary, or if not necessary at least inevitable. These different personas or projections of ourselves do not just happen on the internet, but in real life in every day interactions with people and different social situations. If I'm at school, I'm a student. With my closest friends, a little silly and comfortable and outgoing. With acquaintances, I'm quiet but polite. At work, respectful and working. These changes come naturally even if we aren't purposefully changing who we are on the inside. It might be a lot easier to change who you are online, but I think that even if we made efforts to keep as closely to our core personalities as possible, we'd never be able to replicate everything that makes us who we are. Just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great observation. The idea of audience goes back as far as Horace and Longinus, and I think in the digital world, we're maybe just seeing the intersection (and resulting contradiction) of different auditoriums. Thanks for a really thought-provoking comment!
DeleteI think people self-represent themselves in a different light in everyday life as well. On a first date, people tend to over compensate for their weaker areas and try to highlight their strengths. Same goes for an interview. So I think we approach things online the same way we do in life. We don't need to be cynical and doubt everything, but we should be cautious and through genuine connections, whether that be online or in life, we can usually figure it out!
ReplyDeleteIn some sense, we present a better version of ourselves because we want others to see us that way. But in another sense, maybe it's more for ourselves, so that we can have something toward which we can strive. I don't know if I necessarily consider that to be hypocrisy, because part of becoming who we are and who we're not is in defining what we project to the world and what we hold up to ourselves as our personal identity.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people consider their online selves MORE true to their real self. It would be interesting to see numbers on how many people consider their true self online or in the physical world. That might be interesting point of insertion into the topic.
ReplyDelete