Blog #9: Extending my proposal

This is the third of three makeup blog entries where I missed the original deadline.

---

After bouncing around among three potential topics, I finally settled on arguing for the implementation of an in-school program. This program addresses many of the issues discussed in other classmates' paper topics. There are three issues in particular that the program aims to address: Access, knowledge, and safety on the Internet.

Kessler, Jason. "Principal to parents: Take kids off Facebook." CNN.com. CNN, 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 5 May 2010. Path: http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/30/principal.facebook.ban/?hpt=Mid.
This is a recent-breaking story out of New Jersey that addresses one of the existing needs my program targets. Principal Anthony Orsini wrote that "the main problem is that tweens do not have the resilience to withstand internet name-calling." And the problem with this is that kids do not have the education or the know-how to resist name-calling and other examples of cyberbullying. "They are simply not psychologically ready for the damage that one mean person online can cause," he said. Through cyberbullying awareness lessons, students will be armed with the skills to "just say no" to online meanness and pettiness, so they can ideally prevent the damage from happening in the first place.

NCSL. "Sexting Legislation 2010." Ed. Pam Greenberg. National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2010. Path: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?TabId=19696.
This is a list of state legislation that addresses sexting, which is a component of my modules on Internet literacy. Legislation in 15 states aims to educate young people on the risks of sexting, deterring them from engaging in it at all, and developing appropriate penalties to those who do engage in the act.

National Council of Teachers of English. NCTE Search. NCTE, 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2010. Path: http://www.ncte.org/search?q=k-12+internet+literacy.
NCTE is a JSTOR-like resource for English teachers. I was directed to this site by an English professor on campus, and plan on pulling from the various links for my exhibit of a 30-minute lesson plan on K-12 Internet literacy that I would hand out to potential volunteers.

• CyberAngels Internet Safety Program. Guardian Angels, Inc., 25 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2010. .
• i-SAFE Inc.. i-SAFE Inc., 25 Apr. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2010. .
• WiredSafety: the world's largest Internet safety, help and education resource.. Wired Kids, Inc., 22 Jan. 2010. Web. 25 Apr. 2010. .
These three sites are online Internet safety resources that I visited to see what kind of curriculum already existed. These three were the most detailed and thorough resources I could find on the topics I wanted to cover. They give me a good base to build upon, and also gave me an idea of what topics were lacking coverage and still needed to be addressed in a new program. Further, these resources are limited in their physical scope; two exist solely online, while another has limited in-class exposure. Additionally, these resources approached the information from the standpoint of a parent looking for information on how to protect their children online. I want my program to include the idea of peer accountability and be in classrooms across the country, similar to the existing DARE program nationwide.

To flesh out my research on how prevalent Internet usage is in the 8- to 13-year-old range, I'll be pulling data from Pew Research Center. I will be looking at educational resources from PBS for my exhibit as well. I will also look for information regarding two media-focused teenage suicides that resulted from alleged online bullying from peers. However, I want to stay away from a lot of sensationalism and try to present a clear, logical argument for why this program needs to be implemented in the classroom, and how it can benefit students as we go ever-more virtual in our day-to-day interactions, particularly with regard to sexting, digital overshare, privacy and information/Internet literacy, since these issues seem to be most pressing for our younger users.

Blog #6: Where hierarchal standards originate

This is the second of three make-up blog entries where I missed the original deadline.

---

In Lev Manovich's dicussion of esthetics and professionalism in computer animation, the subtitle of his article "'Real' Wars," he hits on one very important note in the beginning: The visual result of a product is a hybrid of client desires and the talent of the designer. He focuses in on 3D computer animation for this particular article.

3D animation is special because of its ability to simulate meatspace reality that eventually become indistinguishable between the virtual and visual (see James Cameron's "Avatar" for a recent example of this). Illusionism is key, and in computer animation it can be the combination of network logos, virtual elements, real environments, the simulation of real-world interactions among space, light, atmosphere and environment (among others), and how it is interpreted through the computer's interpretations of the elements of meatspace cinematography (lighting, lens, movement, etc.).

Though the aim of illusionism, one could say, is to ultimately (but kindly) fool the viewer into believing that what they are seeing on the screen is more than just the representation of reality -- that it IS reality. The fluidity and difficulty of the motion, image smoothness, lack of pixel edging are not only more persuasive in achieving this goal, but signal just how good the designer behind the screen is. They become trademarks of designers, and their tools for industry-wide competition.

Manovich brings Bourdieu's argument in 1984's "Distinction" into the article, to highlight the aristocratic consumption of cultural items and how every social class distinguishes itself from the classes on the rungs above and below by adopting "particular esthetic values." Manovich argues that this serves to give separate classes identity and reaffirm casteing.

This argument, Manovich continues, carries into the working world and levels of professionalism among designers. Computer animation and its esthetics are where the distinction of the rungs separating the professionals from the amateurs is most likely to be true.

Computer animation and its illusionistic ways can be traced to earlier photographic and film technologies, which Manovich goes into to further distinguish the distinction between the amateur and the professional in the design industry.

Could the user of these technologies see a return on their investment through their work? If not, more likely than not they were an amateur. Could users meet the technical standards? Did they have the means to access the tools needed to advance in the industry? The quality from FCC-specified NTSC equipment to home-brewed equipment may not be significant, but the cost is, and that's where the separation of these two classes seems most noteworthy.

But it goes beyond the tools that define amateur and professional. The unspoken esthetics do their part as well in this distinction. Smoothness of color transitions, aliasing, texture, complex movements and environment interaction simulations can all be achieved across varying levels of tools, but only the high-end (and thus more expensive) tools can properly simulate, render and display these elements at their highest qualities. To an extent, Manovich argues that even the more complicated steps for animations (utilizing multiple elements, for example) further separate the professionals from amateurs. Anyone could potentially make a 3D logo swoop in from off screen and fly around with the right software, but the high-end animations are defined by their intricate layers and details achieved through the many pieces that interact with one another like plates on the earth's lithosphere.

So Manovich lauds the abilities of the professionals to make multiple objects interact realistically with one another in a virtual environment. But then he gets into the esthetics behind choosing the medium of computer animation itself. By simply choosing this medium over all other media, there is already an implied element of prestige in your project. At the time of writing this article, 3D computer animation was the most expensive video effect. But beyond the financial aspect, it signified that this company was technologically savvy and on board with the advent and innovation of computer-based media.

Ironically, you run into designers that accentuate the artifice of their design by request; the photo-realism potential of computer animation tends to eliminate the symbolism of using this medium. Manovich cites the use of super wide lenses in animations, rollercoaster-like camera tracking, object placements, abstract design, exaggerated reflections, and even using over-the-top geometric design to downplay technical possibilities. By simulating that Tron speedbike look, designers sneakily acknowledge the full potential of the software and hardware at hand.

Was the use of unnaturally-bright and -colored objects in "Avatar" intentional not just to convey the alien-ness of the planet Pandora, but as a nod to computer animation sequences of years past? The electric colors were reminiscent of "Tron" in some scenes, which once was seen as the height of computer-based animation. The range of motions, of emotions, the visual reality sought by the illusionistic ways of the medium in this new world indeed achieved a rather photorealistic experience for viewers (save for the 8-foot-tall blue cat people on screen), but there also was an acknowledgment of the fantastical details that could only be achieved through 3D computer animation.

I feel that this supposed acknowledgment, intentional or otherwise, does more to separate the professionals from the amateurs. And yes, the quality of the animations also further distinguishes this separation of experience in the field. And Manovich wraps up his argument thusly: "the standards of the smoothness and complexity in three-dimensional computer animation effectively serve to protect the status of professionals because they are perceived as esthetic ideals rather than as weapons of professional competition."

These standards, it seems, aren't tools within the industry to promote one designer over another, but rather they are an acceptance and perpetuation of the standards already established within the system. Further, these standards are not only embraced by the professionals within (harkening to a sort of "good ol' boys club" almost), but a reflection of the expectations of the paying clients -- the people who are financially backing the continuation of these esthetic standards. It is an industry where, perhaps, the professionals embrace these standards not only because it elevates them above the amateurs, but because they also are paid to perpetuate these rules as the standard of excellence.

When the money changes the expectations, so will the talent level of the professionals. Innovation comes with money. As long as the money is demanding photorealism in an abstract environment, then that is what the designers will continue to give to the average consumer.

As I learned in the paper industry, it's not the consumers who determine the trajectory of medium development, it's the advertisers.

And to tie everything back to that key point I highlighted in the first paragraph, this, I feel, was also the underlying message of Manovich's argument: The standards determine the professionals, and the money determines the standards.

Blog #4: Giving the underdogs a chance

Ed. note: This is one of three blog entries that I didn't write by its initial deadline.

---

In the January 2007 issue of Wired magazine, Lawrence Lessig takes on the Department of Justice ruling against Microsoft and its OS monopoly in "I Blew It on Microsoft" (Source).

In 1997, Lessig says, the US Department of Justice filed an antitrust case against Microsoft. Four years later, the US Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the OS giant had unfairly (and illegally) used its size, power and market domination to maintain its hold on said market. Its aggressive behavior in the market, the courts asserted, minimized new efforts from the competition. Lessig contests that the Dept. of Justice was hesitant to file a lawsuit, but that it collectively admits it had no idea how to otherwise rein in Microsoft and its Windows-based monopoly. Potential competitors asked for restraint from the US government. If they wouldn't step in, who would?

Lessig goes on to say that it was a difficult issue to address in the first place. He indicates that Microsoft Windows was in the lead in the OS market because an OS is a standard and that "over time, one tends to dominate." It would seem that it is in a business' best interest to continue to be the best, one might argue (and Lessig does). Could the government stand a chance against a business model? And how do you regulate a giant like Microsoft?

Lessig reluctantly wanted to regulate the big businesses. He also figured the market would take care of it, as the natural cycle of the market is wont to do. But, he admits, he is a lawyer, and wasn't trained to see things in the light of "how will this make me money?" In a way, he indicates, this is where the underdogs like Linux come into play. Sure, they aren't commercially a huge success, but they had figured out how to create a system where everyone was a volunteer and no one had absolute power over said system.

It's neo-socialism in an open source world. (My words, my interpretation, not his.)

He ties all this into the still-ongoing "network neutrality" debate that still pops up on the radar today. Again, Lessig runs into the issue of being a reluctant regulator on how networks determine was is and isn't going over their wires. And it seems unlikely that any new underdog developer will come from behind to completely overtake the popularity of such services providers as AT&T.

That being said, he admits, there are "forces mucking up the game" for those who would seek a monopoly on access to the Interwebs. Linux-like volunteers and local governments are establishing neutral networks where anyone and everyone can work to further "blisteringly fast" broadband networks. Many more volunteers are building free wireless protocols that are legal and don't shift control to the bigger parties.

These activists, as Lessig calls them, recognize the truth in an economic principle: private ventures owned by users create different business models.

Lessig remains skeptical as to whether or not these homegrown ventures stand a chance at checking the powers-that-be or powers-to-come, but also points out that they at least have the big guys scurrying to encourage states to shut down these municipal broadband providers.

So, Lessig says, those who oppose net-neutrality regulation a la Microsoft and the OS market should oppose the regulation of last-mile broadband's most important competitor: the little guys. "Municipal competition won't kill commercial broadband any more than Linux has killed Windows," he says, and I agree 100%. But just as Linux may have changed the business model of Microsoft, so could city government competition with last-mile broadband.

After all of that, Lessig's argument boils down to this: If we want the broadband system and its business models to be self-regulating -- from today through tomorrow as we had desired in the recent past -- then the government cannot interfere and label these underdog ventures as crime. The government must not regulate from a legal standpoint; rather, they would do well to allow the market to regulate itself as developers come and go and come up with innovative approaches to issues such as widespread network access. To interfere on behalf of Big Business, as Big Business is frantically wishing to happen, would allow the Big Business monopolies to thrive and continue their vise-like grip on the market.

I think that this is an issue that is pertinent even today, particularly with the development and dispersal of services such as Google WiFi. It even could tie into the contract-based monopoly AT&T has with Apple's iPhone service. It seems worth noting, though, that underdogs figured out how to jailbreak the formerly service-bound phones to bring them to other networks. This has not gone without notice, as Apple is claiming that jailbreaking the devices could pose a threat to national security (Source).

Who knew AT&T and Apple took its competition so seriously? The act of jailbreaking and unlocking a phone must pose more of a threat from the underdogs than we give credit.

Or it could just be an attempt from the Big Guys to shut down the Little Guys before they get too far with their development of removing the tethers of crappy service and sharing that fire with the rest of the world. Since when has competition done Big Business any favors, anyway?