September 28, 2006

Hot Text: Pay Attention (Chapters 3 and 4)

"As the eyes and ears of the spirit, attention is what we communicate" The second to last line in Chapter 4. Now, about this line, i thought, personally, and from everything else Price has said thus far, that we needed to pay attention in order to communicate. I don't think the attention is what we communicate to our audience. Rather, we need to pay attention to our audiences, their needs, what they would be interested in, in order to compose a readable text. For example, our audiences needs could be presented in a bulleted list, thus making it easy for them to find and causing them to pay attention to the text in front of them. The text then communicates with them, which is also the author indirectly communicating with them.
I also agree with Chapter 3 and how text onscreen gets fuzzy and realizations such as that. I speak from personal experience when last year, before Christmas break, i had so many papers to write that i had a headache for about four days straight simply from staring at the computer screen for hours each night. Right now, even as i stare at the computer screen it is fuzzy. And text onscreen is harder to concentrate on due to all of the other distractions on the screen. There are advertisements, links, menu buttons, tons of things to be staring at, which is one reason we as writers for the web need to make sure our text is clear, concise and noticable. I think that a web writer should feel free to express themselvs and be creative, which Price also suggests, but it is the most important thing to remain relevant to and serve our audiences. They are the ones we are trying to communicate with, thus everything we can do to insure their understanding should be done.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 10:18 AM | Comments (0)

Hot Text: Not so hot. (Chapters 1 and 2)

On the very first page of Hot Text, Price says, "We are beginning to think structurally as we write." I think this quote is the sole description of what i am learning right now in all of my classes. For New Media Projects we have been working with interactive fiction. You, as the writer of the game, have to present the words in such a simple, structural way so that the computer will be able to understand and interpret them. Also, in many of my classes we are working with identifying our audience, thus having to write with some sort of structure and focus in order to prepare material that relates to that specified audience. There are also parts of text in chapter 1 where i feel as though Price is writing in a sarcastic sense. On page 6, the entire segment of "Information consumers are pushy." How to write for these consumers is presented in several blocks, labeled things such as "Remember me" and "Don't waste my time". Although I'm sure Price is just trying to be forceful and understanding, i think these segments take on an almost sarcastic tone, making fun of the consumers we are supposed to be writing for. The entire chapter deals with pleasing a specified audience whom you have to first identify. I am learning this technique in almost every single one of my classes, which means that i have to learn about all sorts of audiences and vary my writing for each one. So while chapter 1 was really nothing new to me, it was a nice glance at the audience i can expect to have when writing for the web.
Chapter 2, however, i found quite uninteresting. I think that it is somewhat important to learn about the coding and how much it has grown, but i feel that the whole chapter didn't really fit in with the rest of what we have been reading. It seemed like the entire second chapter was a history lesson on HTML. I don't feel that there were any identifiers on how to better prepare your website for readers.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 09:44 AM | Comments (0)

September 24, 2006

Actions Speak Louder than Words

Underneath the link to the postings concerning permanent public records, Jeremy and Tiffany commented on the privacy. Yes, an employer should know all about you, they are hiring you to do an important job (more than likely anyways) and are therefore qualified to know your experience, speak to references etc. However, i dont' think it is a very fair judgment when one would base it on something a student wrote for a class. Yes, they may or may not be your future employee, but they have a life too. I'm sure employers aren't perfect and most of them have done or said something in their past that they shouldn't have, but it didn't stop them from getting to such a rank in the hierarchy that they have substantial power over people. So, because i don't agree with something and i blog about, you wont' hire me? Am i not permitted to have my own opinions? And furthermore, does the constitution not support the expression of those opinions? Blogs are opinions. Of real people. Sometimes formal, sometimes not, a blog is considered an expression. True, if something is posted publically than one can't exactly deny it if the employer asks about, whereas if it weren't posted, than the future employee could say that it hadn't occured or been said, but do you really want someone working with you who is dishonest? Employers need to respect the differences between people and their varying opinions. What if someone decides not to hire a gentleman (or woman) because of a certain thing they said or talked about doing on their blog? The employer may have possibly lost someone that could be beneficial to the company due to their quick judgement. Let the person work for you. Determine whether to hire or fire them based on that. I mean, that is why employers hire people right? To do a damn job, not to be or act a certain way. Of course, their is certain rules and regulations that must be followed once accepted into a company, but something they said is not directly related to how they are as a worker. An employee could go out and express thier opinons at a bar, or even a restaurant, why should they have to keep to themselves in fear of not being hired? Publically dissing your boss or your company would not be advisable but if you hated so and so awhile back or slipped a curse word into your entry on a blog, how does that affect with who you are several years down the road? Why can't it be looked at as a progressive thing? A tracking of how much a person has developed and changed? What if a reference says, "Bob was such a great worker. He was always on time, he worked hard, he was friendly, etc" and an employer finds out that Bob did something they deem "unacceptable" on his blog. I'm sorry, but who are you to tell Bob what he can and cannot do? Bob is his own person, he is not a robot specifically based off of you. It is almost disgusting that an employer would sacrifice the quality of work over mere words on a page. Maybe you dont' agree with Bob, but no one is going to fire you over it, so why should you not hire Bob? I think it is a pretty sad thing when employment is being determined based on these things. Try basing it on the things that matter, oh, you know, that actually have to do with the corporation? Judge the person based on their quality of work. A few unacceptable entries say nothing about the persons' capability to do the job at hand, therefore, judging someone based on that is neither very smart, or ethical.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 07:57 PM | Comments (0)

Going Live with Seib (1 and 2): How live is TOO live?

Drawing on what we discussed in class last week, I don't think there is such a thing as "going too live". As far as television is considered, the device serves several purposes whose importance may vary based on the audiences. However, whether those audiences are using television as their news source or not, they still may be subjected to incidents similar to those Seib describes on the first page. Take September 11, for example, the entire world, or at least the portion tuning into the news that morning/afternoon, got to see a significant event of history happen right in front of their eyes. Many would think there is something wrong with this, due to the fact that younger viewers may be watching. Some would say this sort of material is not appropriate to certain age levels. My argument for that is those certain age levels can be subjected to violence or emotionally striking events in their towns, or even in their own homes for that matter. Not to mention fictional violence such as video games and movies. I think that all people need to be aware of these occurences, regardless of their destructive and emotional content. What people see on TV is real, whether or not it is happening close to their homes or even in this country, someway or another it is still going to affect their lives to an extent. There is no reason it should be censored or children should be sheltered. They need to be aware of what is going on in the world as much as adults do. What happens now is going to affect the lives of these children as they grow older, why shouldn't they be aware of it? If they have questions or concerns, parents should try sitting down with their kids and talking about these things. Awareness of what is going on around (you) is an important concept. Without that awareness there would be so many naive people wondering and be confused and scared by things that happen as consequences of certain tragic events. Even if younger viewers are sheltered from these things now, they are going to be exposed to them at a later date and wind up confused and upset, and perhaps with no one to talk to concerning their feelings about the tragedies. If a child can be exposed to pornography and child molestors on the internet, what is so bad about them be exposed to aspects of their own world? Their findings on the internet may not be true even if they are truth based.
At least when one views the television, they know that what is happening is real because it is going on right in front of them. They can then discover the truths and falsifications of the matter. Also, there is no chance of the media presenting things as biased because they haven't had a chance to edit the material as they see fit, which holds a possibility, although a slim one, of presenting the material in a biased way in an attempt to make people think certain things or develop certain feelings. Raw, live news coverage enables a person to see the whole picture, which sequentially enables them to come to their own conclusions rather than seeing certain segments and being forced to make a conclusion on that. Their conclusions are properly based, seeing as how they have all of the information available to them.
I personally, would rather see the whole lot of the action rather than being presented with snippets. I would wonder, "Well, what aren't they showing me? How do i know i am even getting the whole story? What were these reactions of these people based off of?" Live news presents a better understanding of the subject matter and also may help people to have a stronger belief that the incident actually occured. A newspaper article, an internet article, or even a videotape of "live" coverage could all be tampered with. Even though it is unethical to do so, it is still done. The coverage could be edited to the point where it would support or deny an argument so vehemently; if this happened, people would believe it because it is the media, it is supposed to be a reliable source. The only reliable source in my eyes is me. I would rather see it, then i would be able to believe it in its' entirety because i witnessed it with my own eyes. I am all about the exposure, i mean, why not? It is the truth, it is real, and people need to know.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 07:35 PM | Comments (0)

September 20, 2006

Are you always a hypocrite or is it just a fad? (Continued)

So, as i mentioned previously, Boyd pissed me off. Heres why. Let's start with this quote: "While many did not come to Friendster to get laid (just as they say they don't go to bars to get laid), places where large numbers of hott singles hang out are bound to attract other singles, regardless of whether or not they want to admit that they're looking for sex." I really think that is an assumption that Boyd is not of qualification to make. So just because a bunch of people are on a site where they can meet new people they are looking for sex? I don't think so. I have 85 or so friends on myspace. I know every single one of them and interact with them, whether it be regularly or irregularly, but they are still a part of my life and I'm not trying to sleep with them. Nor do i try to sleep with the random people that try to friend me.

Next: "Young people follow music and celebrities. Other young people follow the young people that follow music." I don't "follow" anything. I like music. I don't live for it. It is not my sole concern, nor is it my life. I just happen to thorougly enjoy it and i think it should be on everywhere and all the time. It just simply provides for a better atmosphere.

Yet more generalization of the public into certain specified terms: "Freaks, geeks and queers all invaded Friendster..." Anyone who has an online profile is a freak, geek, or queer? While i may be a little strange, i highly doubt i can be considered a "freak". I'm certainly not a "queer" and as for geek, probably not one hundred percent, but in certain areas, perhaps.

Boyd says that the sites are for people to identify themselves, to form their own personal boundaries, etc but yet continues to use such categorized and degrading words? So, pretty much, Boyd is saying all 20 something year olds are freaks, geeks, or queers who are looking for sex and following the crowd. Nice generalization. Yet, at the end, she seems to be defending these young people? So many of her aspects contradict each other. The entire time i was reading i was going back and forth between "Oh, she thinks myspace is good." "Oh wait, maybe not." Pick a defense, or hell, even offense, and stick with it. In the mean time, i will work my hardest to become a music following, nymphomaniac queer.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 10:28 AM | Comments (0)

September 19, 2006

HTML Me, Please. Or not.

What we have been reading in Castros book is really nothing new to me. I was a member of the first class to have blogs....that gives me four years to have discovered HTML and how to use it. I think i have done just fine on my own, thanks. Okay, in nicer terms, Castro isn't really teaching me anything. I mean, i do enjoy reading it, there is some new things and a few things that are being tweaked in my knowledge of HTML, but it is more of a refresher/tweaker than anything. The only thing i really don't like is the fact that it is all pictures. Castro doesn't really explain things at all. For example, i would like to learn a little more about headings and the significance between H1 and H2, other than their visible differences. She tells you what to do, but there is no why. I need to know why. I must just be one of those people. Either way...I'll keep reading....and anyone who has HTML trouble, if you need me, i will attempt an assist.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 10:59 PM | Comments (1)

Are you always a hypocrite or is it just a fad?

Boyd pissed me off. Look, i said pissed in my blog. Degrading, hypocritical, and not quite sure who the hell she was defending, i was more irritated by the degrading things Boyd said and the assumptions she made regarding myspace and its variety of users. Definitely the interesting piece (in my eyes) of the readings due for tomorrow, but it was also the only one which raised any sort of emotion out of me. So, question is: How did Boyd make all of you feel?

More of my thoughts later...once i stop being pissed and get them organized.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 10:49 PM | Comments (0)

September 14, 2006

When Seeking Comfort is Selfish (Continued)

Again, although a day later than i planned on having it up, i raise the question:: Is it such a bad thing for a student to feel comfortable enough with a teacher to share their personal problems? I really don't think so. Take into consideration all of the people that commit suicide and claim they've got noone to talk to. Several companies have an open door policy...why shouldn't teachers? I mean, a student sees more of their teacher than their parents in most cases. If a student can actually confide in a teacher, although this is a bit of an extreme, it may save their life. I think if a student can reach that comfort level, a professor should maybe take advantage of that even if all they do is suggest the student see a counselor. If they trust you, the student might just listen and not get offended by your request.
Now, as far as teachers being available 24/7, i don't really think that is necessary. I think a teacher should specify both orally and on the syllabus exactly what their email standards are. That way, noone has a chance to get confused or "get confused" as an excuse. Teachers need time for themselves and with their families just like everyone else. I don't think they [teachers] necessarily expect a student to email back ASAP and a student should equally respect that a professor may actually have things to do that aren't school related. I do agree with some of the others though that if a teacher bothers to check their email at an undesignated time, then rightfully they should answer the email if they have time. They just have to strike a balance between promptness and their own lifestyles.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 08:09 PM | Comments (5)

September 12, 2006

When Seeking Comfort is Selfish

Professor@University.edu desmonstrated exactly how open students are being with professors:"Michael Greenstone, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he once received an e-mail message late one evening from a student who had recently come to the realization that he was gay and was struggling to cope."

Is it necessarily a terrible thing that a student feels comfortable enough to confide in a professor?

I also would like to discuss my preference of Online vs Classroom based classes. I hope this topic comes up in class tomorrow, it will be similar to the paper vs. live news discussion we had in our Media Lab class.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 08:34 PM | Comments (3)

September 11, 2006

Family Values

As Haddock states in Online Danger Zone, "The Internet once was seen as a golden "information superhighway" transporting the next generation to the Promised Land. Now it may feel more like a minefield -- seductive on the surface, but seeded with subterranean hazards." By all means, i believe Haddock is right, the internet can be a dangerous thing. Key word being can. Yes, predators, bullies, and maybe even just people looking for a laugh, have a tendency to use whatever resources they can to draw in innocent victims. But think about it....before the internet, what did parents teach their children? Don't cross the street alone. Don't walk alone at night. Don't tread home on an unfamiliar path. Don't take candy from strangers. Don't get into a car with strangers. Parents struggled to keep their children safe from any and all maniacs roaming the streets. Parents instilled values in their children. Why does all that have to change now that predators are seeking their victims online? How hard is it for parents to sit down and say, "Listen sweetie, we want to trust you and we want you to know that we appreciate you as a person and therefore want to give you the freedom to determine things on your own. However, there are a few things we think you should know." Followed by hours of lectures. I think that would be a hell of a lot better than parents stumbling across their children's online sites and having no idea that they are there. Be aware. Be enough of a part to your child's life to know what they are doing. And instruct them on how they should go about it. Explain, explain, explain and then let your child determine what exactly they want to do, say, show, or post, on their website(s). I think the root of the problem is parents not spending enough time with their children or in their childrens lives. I cannot say it enough: Teach your kid some freaking values. Teach them what is right and wrong and then trust them to make decisions on their own. Ask them about their lives. Listen with an open ear. Don't immediately spout off on a tangent about what they are doing wrong. Perhaps media is taking a look at the wrong side of things. Asking the kids questions and what they did and how they do it is one thing. Has anyone talked to the parents? Were Joe's parents around to help him grown up to be the man they have always wanted him to be? Or was he left to amuse himself for countless hours while mommy and daddy had dinner parties and played golf?

Posted by Lori Rupert at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)

Hello, Let's teach our children some values

Generally, my first response to the readings, is to teach your children some values. That is all for now.

Note: While it may be less than 24 hours before class, forgive me, i worked all weekend. A full blog post will follow prior to tomorrows class. Until then, my first response is left to be pondered.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 01:41 AM | Comments (0)

September 08, 2006

Communication Revelation

I have been thinking alot about communication. I reached the peak of my interest and actually managed to piece my thoughts together this morning in my Communication Theories and Technologies class. The first real occurence of my Communication Revelation happened in my New Media Projects class. The main thing we will be doing in this class is discussing aspects of video games and eventually producing out own computer games. Upon my first instance of contact with the interactive fiction designing software, i was ready to quit. I had trouble determining what exactly the computer wanted me to type in order to move on within the game. The sensation i had was similar to one i had felt previously. At some point during my school career, i remember having an assignment about writing instructions. We had to write instructions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We even had to include specific things that one would assume someone knows how to do. For example, we had to write open the jar. As students, we had to be so literal in our instructions to our unnamed audeince. Interactive fiction reminded me of this. When writing the actual code for interactive fiction, you have to be extremely specific with your commands and you have to sequentially use commands the gaming system understands. Upon realizing this, after some one-on-one play with the software during class, i really began to think. Having to pay attention to such small details and actually write them out instead of just pushing them out of your head, really causes one to think in a simpler manner. Maybe it even helped my breakdown/analytical skills.

Previous to the interactive fiction realization, i had to do an excercise in my Communication Theories and Technologies class. In order to sharpen our communication skills, Dr. Klapak, showed us a shoe. Pink, purple and white. Seeing only the show, knowing nothing else, we had to determine our audience and write a set of instructions on how to tie said shoe. After we all had finished, Dr. Klapak had some students read their pieces aloud and demonstrated each with the shoe. Of most of the pieces he had demonstrated, none of the authors had thought simply enough. This is how my New Media Projects class related to communication for me. We had to think in simple enough terms, remembering that our audience was a computer.

Later in this same day, more like early into the next day, a friend of mine and i were talking and he said, "You have to know your enemy to win." I thought, wow, that really relates to communications. To be able to overcome an enemy, you have to know what fuels them, their weaknesses, their where abouts, you really do have to "know" them in a sense, to be able to destroy them. Or at least beat them. Communications can be seen as one and the same. In order to please your audience, to make them your customers, you must know them inside and out. You must know as much as completely possible about your target audience in order to communicate with them properly.

I was excited about the fact that i was able to connect these thoughts. I guess various aspects of my mind are learning to properly communicate with the others in order for me to tie three separate situations together and relate them all using their core: Communications.

I wonder though, are Communications professionals the ones who write goofy warnings on tags? Such as seen on my step-sisters curling iron: Do not use while sleeping.

It could be interesting to see what kind of things i can come up with that enable me to communicate fully with my audience.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 11:50 PM | Comments (1)

Is it really deserved...or just funny as hell?

Karissa made a very good point in her blog entry pertaining to Laura K. Krishna. I didn't even begin to think of the entry or the actions Nate Kushner made as being a hoax. I'm glad for the alternate point of view that Karissa has presented, however i don't agree with it. Reading the entry that Nate made was quite an enjoyable experience for me. I laughed, and i thought that i probably would have done the same thing. Or at least i would have thought about it...and then decided against it for whatever reason. I think that what Nate did was the climax of plagarizing in Lauras life, if the entire thing was indeed true. I don't understand how everyone is ragging on Nate for what he did, when really, Laura is the one at fault. There are 225 comments on Nates blog from various people who were either bashing Laura:

"I work at a university library and plagiarism is my biggest pet peeve. I hope this student learns her lesson ... a lesson ... anything at all from this.

(Great job on the paper, by the way. I especially liked the part about "Dharma and Greg".)

Posted by Halsted

Or Nate:

"I think your action is even more reprehensible than hers. She may have felt under great time pressure and needed help, even if she did go about finding it in the wrong way. If you had wanted to make some kind of moral statement and teach her a point about plagarism, you could have done so without torturing her. Her motive may have been need - your motive was cruelty and ego. You action is nothing tantamount to pulling wings off flies. Yes she should be ashamed of herself, but you should be even more ashamed."

Posted by Keith. Keith doesn't have a link to his blog on his comment, however the link is to his email address. His comment is the 12th one down on the original "Laura K. Krishna is a Plagarist" post. It is not on the thread.

Personally, i don't think that Nate is the one at fault. Let us recap. Laura solicits A PERFECT STRANGER for the sole purpose of writing her a paper so she can pass a class. This is a dean's list student, more than likely a second or third year college student. She did tell Nate that she could fix the citations so we have to assume that she has learned something from whatever amount of time she has actually spent in college. We also have to assume that at some point she has done her own work to learn how to do these things...on the other hand, no we don't. It is very possible that is the only thing she learned how to do so that she could solicit people to do her work. Hmmm.

Anyways, we all know how dangerous the internet can be these days, you know, with people stalking you just because you have your address on myspace or any other preffered online communication site. Why in the hell would she ask someone she doesn't even know? Ask someone you know! Laura went about things completely the wrong way. I guess her parents never taught her that she shouldn't trust strangers. Hopefully Nate taught her this useful lesson along with the lesson of why one should not plagarize. Laura was not smart about this at all. I mean, since we are assuming and all, she could be a very bright girl, perhaps she is just lazy. However, she has now given the world, via the internet, the impression that she is not bright. At all.

Nate did the honest thing, the right thing. He turned someone in for plagarism. He just happened to make an ass out of her when he did it. I know people who have turned others in for plagarism. They believed they were doing the right thing, and so did Nate. We, as English majors, teachers, authors, writers, whomever, have to respect that.

Notice how Nate has a much shorter paragraph....

I really think that i would have at least considered doing the same thing. Laura just messed with the wrong person. There are some people in this world that are amused by such twisted actions. Whether or not i would have actually done that...i probably wouldn't have used the person's real name, rather used a pseudonym on my blog, but still have turned the person in.

Another thing to take into consideration though is the fact that Nate may have done just that. Who says he used her real name? Who says he used her real school? Maybe he turned her in to her professor and wanted to extend the lesson thus far, but saved her humiliation by publishing with a false name.

Regradless, I don't think the entire thing was a hoax, after all, in the comment that Karissa quoted on her blog:

"I was not entirely truthful in my story" and then later states an apology to: "the real Laura K. Krishna. I didn't know there was one when I chose that pseudonym."

So perhaps he did only lie about somethings, one thing...the real name. He never reveals the entire post a hoax.

The last thought i have on this topic: Yes, Laura K. Krishna may have been on the deans list, but when she is desparate enough to solicit a complete stranger over the internet to write a paper for her, how the hell do you think she got put on there in the first place?

Posted by Lori Rupert at 10:54 AM | Comments (0)

September 07, 2006

Interactive Fiction...I'm not so sure...

Yes, i am an English major, Journalism and Creative Writing to be exact, and i love to write...stories/fiction are a big part of my life...but i'm not so sure i want it incorporated into a video game. I know how to play video games, i enjoy them, but this interactive fiction business..i'm not so sure about. I started to play both "pick up the phone booth and die" and "9:05" but i didn't get very far before getting frustrated. I typed in several commands which were stated as "not recognized". Okay, so what the hell do you want me to type? I tried typing what i thought was fit, finally, i get one right, except i forgot to remove my clothes before i tried to jump in the shower and the game yelled at me. I also forgot to get off the bed....and take my possessions out of my pocket...and tell the game which direction i wanted to move....it reminded me of when i had this class and we had to write exact instructions, including things that people would assume they had to do. Why couldn't my character just shower? Can't he assume on his own that he needs to remove his possesions from his pocket? It just seems to move so slow to me, that i have to provide such step-by-step instructions. It got frustrating and boring to me after awhile...i think i'd just rather have a real video game where i know what i have to do and how to do it instead of the interactive fiction puzzle where i have to think, type, be rejected, and then retype before i finally move on. I dabbled with all of the games, but didn't get very far on them because it really just wasn't interesting to me. I don't really know if i like this idea of interactive fiction. Give me a book or a video game, but please, don't try to give me both in one.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 01:14 PM | Comments (0)

September 06, 2006

They're just stupid pieces of punctuation!!!

This is a parentheses (. Now one of the other persuasion,) This,., is a period. Punctuation is punctuation is punctuation. Put them together and what do you have? A bunch of random punctuation slapped together in an interesting looking shape. I guess I'm really neither an optomist nor a pessimist...is the glass half empty or half full? It's half of a glass of water, that's what it is. Okay, so Iím going to end my emoticon rant, but I still think they are just slapped together pieces of punctuation. We the people give them the power to show emotion because we imagine what emotion it is that they represent. Okay, I swear, Iím done with the emoticon rant, this blog is supposed to be about my writing and how technology has affected it.
I can tell you that in my previous writing years, there were no such things as emoticons....okay, seriously. I'll never forget senior year of high school when we had to turn in our research papers but they were supposed to be typed and double space. The problem was, we didn't have a computer, which means that I had to go to my dadsí house to type up and print out my paper. Everything else in high school I wrote. Rough drafts got written and revised and then typed either at school, at a friends, or at my dads house.
Typing was not the norm for me, more than likely due to the fact that i lacked the resources to continuously present typed work. Going into college has thrust me into the technology curve and I have had no choice but to keep up. Now, instead of getting written first and typed last, all of my papers get typed immediately, get the read through until I determine they are finished and then finally printed out, where they are usually read again and revised again.
Now, my computer is my center for everything: School work, workstudy, classes, keeping in touch with people, checking my bank account...I uses my computer for as much communication as I can. I email my mother daily, even though she is usually the only one with whom I am exchanging this type of communication. I talk on AIM rarely, but yet am always on there, just away...I am a frequent visitor to myspace and facebook, I won't deny that, and I also text message quite a bit. Thing is though, I didn't have any of these sources of technology in high school, and now that I do, I think I should be permitted to be a little cuckoo over online/internet communication. It was denied to me for so long, and now I have it, and it is just so much simpler.....

Posted by Lori Rupert at 09:57 AM | Comments (0)

September 05, 2006

Art V.S. Entertainment

So art, what really, is the technical definition for the term? I hesitate to even link to such a thing, and i didn't really want to look at it because i wanted to discuss art on my terms. In means of writing an education thought provoking blog, however, i looked at the definition...and i linked to it. The definition i found describes art in exactly the same way as i would have. I swear, art to me is creative expression, a meaning of presenting a segment of ones individuality to a variety of people. Uniqueness is another quality that i consider "art" to have. How fine are the lines that determine whether something can be considered art or not? Is that even a possible question to answer? Consider paintings, for example, they are based off of something real, anything made, painted, photographed, photo shopped, they are all based off of something that already exists in our society, the work is just usually a different take on one of these mediums. Taking that into consideration, is art really art? For example, Susie paints a tree, but it isn't just green and brown. It's rainbow and not proportionate to anything we would realistically see standing. Has Susie made art? Why yes, she has utilized the creative process, inviting all to enjoy her take on the specific tree...but wait, trees have existed for years, you can't go a day without seeing one; therefore Susie has simply revised and reproduced something that already exists. She is adapting, changing, if you will, but has yet to produce anything entirely new.

*If someone paints a paint-by-number using different colors than those specified, is it art?

*If someone reforms something that is already there, such as Susie, is it art?

Sometimes we also have to ask the question of "Who is the artist?"

Ballerina vs chereographer: Who is the artist?

Writer vs Reader(of a speech aloud): Who is the artist?

Movies vs Video games: Are they both art? Are they both entertainment? Perhaps neither of them have the specified qualities to be labled "art". A movie consists of a story, complete with a plot, characters interacting with each other, rising action, falling action and various other components. The audience is simply watching, able only to observe and speak of their interpretations of said movie. There is no interacting, no building on the creative process. Video games have some of the same criteria: story, plot, rising action, falling action, characters interacting with each other, except in this instance, the player gets to interact with the game, gets to be a part of the scenario instead of a witness. Gamers are building on the creative process of the game by developing their own techniques, and their own specifics. I think that video games are more likely to fit a description of "art" than movies. And as far as movies being purely entertainment, paintings entertain too, they cause people to discuss, to wonder, to think, thus playing a factor in the development of the creative process. Games more so than movies relate to the typical art that we think of. In my mind, games are art, any and all creative processes, whether or not they have been done before, are all an expression of art. They are all unique within themselves. Sometimes something is art to one person and not to another, it is all a matter of opinion, which i have pretty much decided is the way i feel about the question, "What is art?" Art, is a matter of opinion. One cannot be right, one cannot be wrong. Despite what the "technical" definition is, people still may not consider something art although it fits all of the specified criteria. Art is art, creative, unique and unexplainable.

Posted by Lori Rupert at 07:39 PM | Comments (2)