Jonny's New Media Cultures

This is just a very brief little comment i wanted to make on both MP3's and the iPOD.  With it being the last year of uni, and getting ever nearer the dreaded dissertation deadline!!!!!! many of my hours are now spent in the university library.  On reflection, one of the things which keeps me sane and able to stay in the library so long is my iPOD.  Like anything, it has become something used so often in my daily university routine that it is almost used subconciously.  It got me thinking about how influential and iconic the iPOD has become.  There are many MP3 players on the market, but almost everyone refers to MP3 players as 'iPODs'.  It reminds me of how Sony became iconic for its 'Walkman'.  Again other makes were called walkmans by people when in fact this was the name designed and used only by Sony.  Take for example Hoover, people always say they are going 'to hoover the house', when in fact they are going to vacuum it.  Hoover is actually the make of a type of vacuum but it was adopted as the general term for the actual action carried out.  The iPOD was one of the first MP3's on the market at the time of the digital music revolution, but this is not why it is still the market leader.  It is still a market leader because to go alongside the new technology, is the fresh, easy to use, no nonsesnse style which epitomises the 21st Century itself.

In my eyes, the iPOD has undoubtedly got to be one of the greatest icons of the 21st Century and will be even 20 years from now.  Its white headphones and innocent look are likely to have influence for years to come- a CULTURAL and DIGITAL revolution! 

(My random rant is now done! thank you!)

This blog looks at the idea of globalisation through the digital age.  Modern society is no longer confined to local or national behaviours.  Through the growth of the digital age, boundaries have been broken down globally.  This globalisation can be seen on different fronts.  These include globalisation as; interdependence, capitalism and westernisation etc.  Interdependence is how the world economy is now interlinked, in that if a downturn occurs in one part of the globe, others become more affected elsewhere.  Globalisation as capitalism is more controversial.  The ideology behind this is that globalism is merely a legitimisation of capitalism on a global scale.  Martin Khor suggested that "globalisation is what we in the third world have for several centuries called colonisation."  The most common perception of globalisation however, is in terms of westernisation.

Globalisation has led to the spread of Western culture and practices.  It has also allowed western icons to gain worldwide popularity, from sports stars such as David Beckham, through to pop stars such as Eminem.  They themselves have become a commodity and brand.  The most recognisable and widespread icon of the west is undoubtedly that of McDonalds.  Its very presence in places such as Indonesia etc. Highlights the spread of Westernisation.

A 'modern way' of doing things is spreading worldwide, but this modernisation I believe to be merely Americanisation in disguise.  Benjamin Barber states that "Globalism is leading to a homogenised 'McWorld' in which American popular culture and consumerism is overtaking the globe" 

A great deal of this globalisation mentioned is to due with the growth of digital technologies worldwide.  Undoubtedly the advent of the internet has had the greatest impact.  Information, data, entertainment, consumerism etc. can all be housed within the internet globally.  A blog written by someone in China for example could be viewed by myself at the click of a button.  Technologies such as the one i use now to create this discussion are like a global message board.  E-mails mean that documents and messages can be delivered to anywhere in the world within seconds.  Satellite technology has also helped this growth of globalism.  The satellite has meant that many televison and news stations could be setup and viewed globally.  By increasing the medias spread and capabilities, again the world becomes smaller as a result.  Everything we see and do can now be shared, regardless of divisions of sea and land, but at what price?

Through globalisation, mainly thanks to new technologies etc, we have also created a world in which the rich get richer and the poor poorer.  Sweatshop factories etc, are used by large Multi National countries as a way of increasing profits, but at the detriment to somebody elses labour and resources.  Although going global has many positives, there has to be a balance.  If we have created a world in which boundaries no longer exist, then surely we have created a world in which we are all one community?  If so, are actions should change accordingly. Treat others how you wish to be treated yourself!

I am just writing a brief blog on how the advancements in mobile phone technology and features in recent years has began a whole new culture of 'mobile reporting'.  News broadcasting on television has advanced immensely since the age of satellite broadcasting began.  We have numerous news broadcasters which air 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with all the latest news and bulletins.  What struck me about the evnts of 9/11 was the vast amount of footage which was aired at the time, and amongst it footage from peoples mobile phones.  Nearly all mobile phones now come with a digital camera and video recording feature.  In the earlier days of this technology, the quality was obscure and extremely unclear.  However, now the footage we can obtain from mobile phones is increasingly clear and long thanks to higher memory capabilities.

As a result, news agencies and broadcasters around the globe have latched onto the idea of mobile reporting.  They have numbers in which people can send their footage of certain events (whether it be movie or still footage) through a multimedia mesage.  The result is that even in the most obscure of places, or during events which happen without warning, there is almost always public at hand to capture the moments.  News broadcasters no longer even have to have cameras or reporters at the scene before they begin to air footage.  The public have now been given the roles of reporters themselves

In the events of 7/7 in London there were numerous television broadcasts on the news of mobile phone footage within the underground stations attacked etc, which cameras could not reach.  It brought a new, gritty and at times more emotional footage than provided by the real television cameras.  This was real people, actually part of and affected by the events which surrounded them. They were caught in the moment which could be shown better than any staged, rigid news report could.

Along with these benefits, the culture also brings drawbacks.  It has also created a more sadistic culture.  Many videos now circulate of things such as executions of hostages in places such as Iraq etc. The fact that we have become part of a mobile culture, also means it becomes harder to regulate.  News broadcasters are regulted by various organisations, but how can people and their own mobile phone footage be monitored in the same way?  There have been laws put in place, under the terrorism act, which mean that anyone showing material of this nature in public or caught with it can face imprisonment.  This is hopefully a deterrent.  One such story hit the news within the last year when a male in a bar in Scotland was arrested for showing disturbing footage to a bar worker. 

There are obvious benefits, but like most things today there is a flipside!

This blog is a look at the culture of surveillance and security in contemporary society. 

Everyday when we walk through and around Newcastle city centre, or even the University Campus for example, we are being monitored.  Our daily lives are surrounded by CCTV systems aimed at the security of commercial premises or even just public streets themselves, to monitor social behaviour.  In contemporary society it has become the 'norm'.  Before having to look at this subject in some more detail for this module, I can say that forms of surveillance blended into the world around me.  I knew they were their, but i just accepted this without much thought.  Since taking this module however, I now walk down a street such as Northumberland street in Newcastle and consciously look to see where cameras are etc.  

Once you start to think about the idea more, you become more and more aware of the extent to which we are surveilled.  CCTV is the most obvious and common form of surveillance, but we are in fact being surveilled when using a cash machine, or paying for things in a shop with a debit card, or when browsing the internet, or sending e-mails.  Even our mobile phones are being used as a way of locating and mapping society.  Surveillance has become such a subconcious environment within our daily lives that it is rarely questioned or resisted.  This has definitely become even more of the case since the events of 9/11 in New York, and 7/7 in London.  Security within western societies is at an all time high.  This is obviously an automatic consequence and reaction to such attacks, and one which I believe is needed.  I dont believe that whether we should have security and surveillance is the question facing us now.  I believe that the real question is whether security and surveillance cultures have moved from a state of 'care' toward a state of 'control'.  Who ultimately has the power to be the surveiller?  The extent to which commercial sectors of our society are involved in surveillance also worries me.  I can understand the state having to create a sense of safety and security, even if their methods aren't always necessarily the right ones, but to have businesses that we may never have been in contact with know our credit histories, medical histories, personal details etc.

The digital age has brought with it the problem of digitising information.  Unlike having medical records in a doctors surgery filing system, they are now being placed on a nationwide digital datatbase.  Immediately the risk of information being accessed by unauthorised personnel etc., is increased.  The proposed ID card for the UK will even store all our personal information on a 'smart' chip.  However, a report showed how already criminals had the technology to access and download data from the cards, wirelessly, just by standing within a near radius using handheld technology.  Technology is a great thing and should keep progressing, but some things are sometimes better left to 'old fashioned' systems, as if there is a technology to allow something to happen - there will always be a way of using technology to counter it.

By automating everything within society,we are moving further into a society like that of Jeremy Bentham’s Penitentiary Panopticon. Bentham envisaged and designed a circular prison intended to be self regulating.  The design incorporated a central section, with a tower running from top to bottom and surrounding it, an outer ring of cells which were all in view.  This design allows an observer from the tower to observe all the prisoners.  Key to this however, was the idea that the observers weren’t visible to the prisoners.  This meant that the prisoners, even if not being observed, would believe or worry that they were being observed and as a result police their own behaviour.  Jeremy Bentham said himself that it was “a new mode of obtaining power of mind over mind” 

If surveillance and security continues on the path that it has over the past few years, I believe we are in danger of creating more problems.  Society will become a place where trust no longer exists.  It will lead to “cultures of control and of suspicion to be augmented.”  We will become suspicious of our neighbors and as a result we will never be free.  We will feel separated from one another, and no longer feel as though part of a community.

The past Century has seen the growth of scientific and technological research into cloning. In 1997 we were hit in the media by the story of Dolly the sheep. Dolly was the first successful cloning of a mammal. This cloning technique is that of 'reproductive cloning'. Many people think of cloning as being only this, creating an exact copy of another existing animal or organism with the exact same DNA. however, this picture has been painted mainly by the media who generally only focus on this one aspect of the field. There are in fact two other types of cloning which include: recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning and therapeutic cloning.

Recombinant DNA technology or
This process of cloning is "the transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid."  This process is used in fields concerning genes and can be used to try and cure various genetic conditions.  This is one aspect of cloning technology which i agree with and feel would bring great benefits to society and in particular people who may suffer from genetic conditions.  Technology which potentially saves lives, is a good thing in my eyes.  The process however, is also used in the production of genetically modified foods.  This area of cloning i am still very dubious about.  Why would we want to modify crops and foods which we have eaten for thousands of years? clearly so far they have done us anything but harm.  In this instance i see it as a technology of greed! large corporations see the benefit of yielding larger crops etc from the same area of space as previous. They may be 'safe', but I am still very pessimistic about the long term effects of eating GM foods.  

Therapeutic cloning

This process of cloning involves " the production of human embryos for use in research. The goal of this process is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease."  In recent years, this process has been developed to help heart disease.  Scientists have found that by using somebodys own stem cells from their bone marrow, could treat heart disease.  Tests have already been caried out and said to be successful.  Again this is where the technology is of real benefit to humans, if it means bettering, curing or prolonging someones life. 

It is reproductive cloning such as that with Dolly the sheep, which worries many people, myself included.  The natural progression for scientists is to carry out human cloning (creating exact replicas from somebodies DNA) One of the issues this raises is that of who actually has the right or power to decide on whether the process is of benefit to society.  The example of Dolly the sheep was by no means a complete success.  What we forget is that Dolly was created after 276 attempts.  Once created she survived roughly six years less than the average for that breed of sheep.  One issue which became apparent was that Dolly may have in fact inherited her donor siblings age.  This means that at birth she may in fact have been 6 years old already.  She did successfully breed through natural methods, but it still remains to be seen whether even her offspring may have inherited Dollys age.

Overall, the process has been no where near perfected.  There is still much to be perfected.  However, even if perfected i still disagree with the cloning of human beings.  The technology is fantastic hfor helping cure illnesses and genetic conditions or for even helping endangered species of animal etc, but to take it to the level of actually cloning another human would be too far! Having said this I still believe that there will come a day when cloning humans will be permitted, and just like the phenomenon of plastic surgery will become the 'norm' over time.

Advancements in technology cease to amaze me.  We are continually offered things which in some way make our lives 'easier' or more 'enjoyable'.  We are now able to do many things more efficiently, quickly, accurately etc. and in particular, whilst on the go.  As time progresses, everything we do moves closer to our bodies.  This has gone to the extent where even our bodies themselves have room for improvement and technological advancement.

There are people who now spend time looking into transforming our bodies in a way which will enhance it, develop it and make it more efficient or even change its aesthetics.  This area is also known as transhumanism, and "is a philosophy that humanity, can, and should, strive to higher levels both physically, mentally and socially." 

Stelarc is an Australian performance artist who ventures toward trying to eveolve the human body through the use of technology.  In a modern world he believes our bodies aren't built to cope with the demands that we now have to face day to day.  As a result he has carried out projects which have involved using technological prosthetics.  These prosthetics in some cases plug straight into the bodies nervous system.  One such project involved the use of an artificial hand, "attached to the right arm as an addition rather than as a prosthetic replacement, is capable of independent motion, being activated by the EMG signals of the abdominal and leg muscles."  In the same way that technology has become a normal state outside our bodies, Stelarc is trying to create this same idea of the "norm", within the body itself.  

Someone else who looks to manipulate the body is the French artist Orlan.  Like Stelarc, her art is delivered in the form of a performance.  In these performances she undergoes plastic surgery whilst still awake as she comments on the process.  Some of her performances have even been aired live on television, and she has kept momentos in the form of bloody swabs or even deposits of fat taken from her body whilst in surgery.  The idea behind her work is to try and look at what it is to be 'beautiful'.  In doing so she changes the aesthetics of her body not to become "beautiful but rather to suggest that the objective ( beauty) is unattainable and the process horrifying."  Orlan herself  defines her art as"Carnal Art," which she explains as "a self-portrait in the classical sense, yet realized through the technology of our time."

When comparing the two artists i find both bizarre.  However, I see the logic in some of the works of Stelarc although at times a little cringe worthy.  They remind me of the science fiction idea of cyborgs whereby technology is used alonside human attributes to become more advanced.  Some of his ideas seem far fetched at the moment, but already we look to technology to help the body.  Look at Pacemakers for example! 

In today's society we constantly consume the media. It is the TV that we watch; the newspapers and magazines that we read; the radio that we listen to; the advertisings we interact with; the internet we browse...it is all around us.

"The new media are not bridges between man and nature; they are nature."
Eric McLuhan 1969

We live in a digital age where many of our views, opinions and discussions amongst family, friends and colleagues etc, involve the media and is influenced by it. It shows no signs of slowing down and will continue to expand at prolific rate, bringing with it more new technologies and more importantly more new cultures.

"Today we are beginning to notice that the new media are not just mechanical gimmicks for creating worlds of illusion, but new languages with new and unique powers of expression."
Eric McLuhan 1957

It is for these reasons that the area of New Media Cultures is open to widespread discussion and reflection; they provide us with a greater deal of convenience, but possibly at the expense of value? something i hope to discuss with this blog.

Please feel free to leave any comments.