Throughout this course, the internet is repeatedly shown to facilitate the autonomy of the individual. The effects the net has in relation one’s social life can be seen as no exception to this rule as well. In “Wealth of Networks”, Benkler explains how the net can be used to strengthen pre-existing relationships (particularly the weaker ones), and break down hierarchies of interaction, allowing for a greater diversity within one’s social network. However, whether it ends up enabling our social lives, once again, is up to its user to decide. In my own experience, the internet has been both useful and problematic.

Although I had friends in highschool, blogging communities allowed me to diversify my social pool beyond the school grounds. I got to know people in different parts of the city, who I still have strong relationships with even now. Back then, despite socializing with these friends being limited to the weekends, this was not an issue. What we missed out on face to face, we made up for online. However, over the years, as we moved into neighborhoods closer to one another, the internet often did not work in favor of us socializing.

“In the daily humdrum of their lives, individuals do more of what is easier to do than what requires great exertion” (Benkler, 372.) This statement rings true for what came of our interactions. In the beginning, we met up at the house that was most central to everyone. However, as people began to all live within equal distance of one another, getting folks to leave their homes became difficult. It seemed everyone was always eager to have someone over, but unwilling to leave the house themselves. No one could agree on (nor was interested in) going to one place, which meant more often than not, everyone would opt to stay home.

The benefits of going out to socialize appeared lesser or equal to the benefits of staying home and “hanging out” online. The internet brought us together, but also allowed us to stay apart through easily facilitating our relationships to be maintained digitally. However, this story is not to be taken as emblematic of all online interaction. Rather, it exemplifies how the net can bring together people based on shared interests, which (in the case of my social circle) included an aversion to expending too much energy.

Learning how films are created changes the way one watches movies. Understanding production and all the “ignored” components renders the culture behind films transparent, and opens up space for critical, self-conscious re-visioning. This is s similar (if not same) logic provided in Benker’s chapter on cultural freedom. Presumably, understanding film is just like understanding “meaning” (or shared assumptions) and getting to know its conventions and practices will, not only, make one more media literate, but also more capable of critically examining the language used, which might alter how one re-articulates it as well.

As a life long movie-watcher, the way i viewed films changed along with my knowledge of cinema.   As my comprehension of shared cultural assumptions grew, so did my ability to critically address those assumptions.  It is then (through this type of examination) that conventions or “meaning” can be subject to re-articulation. After that, what becomes important is the freedom to make such revision to culture. As a film maker, copyright is something I always have to be thinking about it, and have to agree with Benkler on; it does limit my “understanding” of the world (298.) So much of the culture which surrounds me is not free to be taken and re-contextualized, or remixed in any way. Legally, I cannot change the bulk of cultural texts I encounter and then release it back into the public sphere, so that others may do the same. Not only does this limit the ways in which one can understand the world, but also inhibits those who are subject to it, making critical analysis and reform of copyrighted culture extremely difficult.

Woo-woo & phew… what a relief!  I was half worried this wouldn’t be done by the end of the semester.  However, contrary to my anxieties, here is my finished contribution to our group project.  Mm, …which (If anyone is interested in) is a part of our Ning Community on “Masking Making” as well.   More people + their methods & maskies can be found there 

Boo, but in any case:  here is my “how to/done” for this mask…

Step 1 – Make Mask out of Plaster Caster Bandages: I had no concept sketches or exact idea of what i wanted to do, so i went with what i was already familiar with, and started by making a base-face out of plaster bandages. (I made a how-to instructional video for this component of the process… How to make a mask out of plaster bandages – a youtube video)

Step 2 – Add Cardboard to Level the Surface: The only thing I knew for certain was I didn’t want this to take FOREVER, so I decided to work with spray insulating foam. I’ve worked with the medium in the past, and its always been fast and fun, so…. I prepped the mask for its application by adding cardboard, so I’d have a more level surface to work upon.

Step 3 – Make teeth out of foam wall insulator: In a well ventilated space, on top of a drop-sheet i didn’t mind destroying (cause this stuff will ruin EVERYTHING it touches and is impossible to get out of clothes), I sprayed the foam into small teeth-like shapes.  As they expanded, i used a knife to make small alterations to them. (However -WARNING- before this step I also made the mistake of buying the slow curing type of foam, which takes an hour to dry. It was a gigantic, sloppy mess and barely expanded at all. I ended up having to return to the store, to buy a new can of the yellow, fast-drying type, because it doesn’t transform into a shapeless puddle…  geez! Unless thats the effect you’re going for:  save. your. money.)

Step 4 – Create cardboard “skeletal” structure: when the foam had set, I taped together cardboard strips, to create the “skeletal” structure of the mask.  This would determine the basic form of my project, and (as you can see) originally included eyes down by the teeth.

Step 5 – Paper Mache: However, when i began the process of putting on the paper mache, I ended up ditching the eyes-at-the-side, and going for something more stereotypically sinister instead. I also didn’t bother to be “DYI” on the paper-mache paste either, and used wallpaper paste in combination with the newspaper strips. (sorry, no instructional on “how to paper mache.”  if you can’t find it on google & never did this stuff as a kid, well… YOU’RE DOOMED.)

Step 6 – Add elastic strap: When the paper-mache had dried (which can take up to 24hrs) I used a glue gun to add an elastic band to the back.  This makes the mask more functional, by keeping it snugly held in place while being worn.  Yay.

Step 7 – For fun and functionality, ADD FABRIC: Afterward, to the inside of the mask, I glue-gunned pieces of black semi-translucent fabric over the eye-holes. This way, I could still (partially) see out, but no one could see in. To the outside of the mask, I added white fun-fur, and used to a glue gun to stick ‘em in place as well.

Step 8 – Do details with paint: I rubbed paint around the edges of the eyes, and dabbed it in between the teeth, to add depth to the face. Increasing the tonal range was important, because I planned to “mask” it in the next step…

Step 9 – Get Criminal & stretch sheer stockings across face: Just like the bank robbers in  the movies, I put a pair of women’s panty-hose over the face. However, I did not use the entire stocking like they do.  Rather, i cut-out a large section from the tights and stretched it across the mask’s face.  By doing it this way, i gained more control over the material’s tension and could distribute it evenly across the piece.  Once again, my trusty glue gun secured all of this in its place, on the inside of the mask.

Step 10 – Customize with accessories, and you’re done: The final step was, well… being finished! (Click here for none-compressed image) I just plopped a wig on top, and the character was complete.

Boo, …but yeah! For sure, this isn’t my favorite mask, as it isn’t the most original of characters, but I suppose that’ll come to be appropriate in some scenario or context?  Or not.  Either way, I was half thinking it’d be fun to dress up in really standard, “sexy” women’s Halloween costumes while wearing this soft-skull face. I think It would negate the “attractive-factor” that so many “hot costumes” supposedly supply to those who wear it, which would make me happy-like.  Mm, either way… hope you enjoyed this blog! Any comments or criticism, feel free to leave ‘em.  As well, be sure to stop by the Mask Making community if you wanna see what everyone else is up to, or have mask-isms to contribute yourself 

-Allison

]]> http://bigwigswhatywhaty.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/standard-halloweeney-skull-the-process-final-product/feed/ 3 whatywhaty Step 1 - Plaster Caster Face http://bigwigswhatywhaty.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/patrolling-for-phedophilia-pushers-in-publish-spaces/ http://bigwigswhatywhaty.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/patrolling-for-phedophilia-pushers-in-publish-spaces/#comments Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:54:23 +0000 Allison Bigwig Barker http://bigwigswhatywhaty.wordpress.com/?p=97 ]]> When I was informed my friend’s room mate had been arrested on charges related to child pornography in the past, all I could think was “Shit, what type of social-filter is my buddy using?” I figured anyone who was known to commit those types of acts wasn’t worthy of being anyone’s room mate- unless they were sharing a prison cell. However, as it turned out, my friend felt the same way. I eventually got the full story and even came to agree; his and his friends arrest for “distribution of indecent pictures of children” on the internet was pretty absurd. As well, their story just went to show; to an extent, the public sphere online will monitor itself and extreme acts of government regulation can be an enormous waste of the tax payers money.

The internet is a democratic tool which enables its users to be active participants and contributors within a network public sphere. These democratic properties help create a space which does need to be controlled in a way centralized way. This is because through peer production, the internet’s users can create a type of a “public watch dog” (Benkler, 264.) The costly task of trying to gain power over the internet (for reasons of regulation) seems unnecessary within democratic communities. However, not all the members of democratic communities agree. When the British government ran an investigation which lead to the arrest of my room mates’ friend (along with two others) its actions were an evasive maneuver against a public sphere they felt was not capable of regulating itself.

Their operation consisted of two swat teams (of 6-8 officers each), who simultaneously struck two separate locations, to make arrests and gather computer evidence- before it could be destroyed by the alleged child-porn pushers. Three teenage boys were taken into custody for “indecent distribution of indecent images of children.” These charges were based on the two images found on the site’s public server. The authorities suspected these images, which they classified as “pseudo photographs of children”, were just the tip of the ice-berg. However, someone probably should have informed them earlier: there’s no need to go under water to find the rest of these types of pictures – just remove your filters on Google image search and type in “Lolicon” instead. Unlike the confiscated computers found in the raid, Google’s search engine will produced loads of “incriminating evidence.” However, neither will result in finding child pornography that isn’t animated- especially in a realistic way.

The law defines “pseudo photographs of children” as “images of photographic realness of a child being molested.” The two images found in the “free porn” section of the boy’s comedy website were not only pinched from other sources (and mostly forgotten about amongst all the other appropriated material they had), but were also cartoon depictions of sexual acts involving under-aged Anime girls. This style of art is a far cry from photorealism, and ultimately rendered the government unable to convict the boys of the charges they were arrested for. In the end, the entire investigation and 2 years of prosecution was an enormous waste of money, which might not be surprising considering their site had over 80,000 hits a day.

With that many people viewing the site daily, had the peer produced “watch dog” of its patrons smelled child pornography involving real, live humans – the likelihood of it barking and notifying the authorities seems enormous. Perhaps someone did raise issue with the police, which might serve to explain how they came to be interested in the website to begin with. However, democratically, the morality of unrealistic cartoon images depicting sexual acts with minors had already been decided within this public sphere. Its existence online was socially permitted, legal, and didn’t need a few government officials to step in and start making arrests. The internet may be presented by mass media as something needing to be monitored and controlled, to prevent pedophiles from utilizing it as a tool to commit crimes, but at what cost to the taxpayer, who are capable of monitoring the public areas of the digital domain themselves?

ANYWAYS…

On a note completely unrelated to anything having to do with sex with children (animated or otherwise)…  Here is my vlog on the basics of making a mask out of plaster bandages.

Getting the project together and organized was a lot easier with the help of the internet. A Google search quickly provided the script and the enormous cast was easily filled through social blogging sites. If there was something everyone needed to know, a blog post quickly informed all those involved. Had we spent more time researching “continuity style editing” online, a lot of aesthetic short comings could have been negotiated as well. However, perhaps failing to meet with Hollywood’s standard was part of our statement. The project was a blatant mimicry of the mainstream, and for everyone that took part; poorly reproducing a big budget movie was a lot of fun, as well as a exercise in the potential of digital technology to facilitate autonomy.

Browning’s “Freaks” exemplifies the limitations of the past: film production is expensive. Its high costs limited those who could participate in it, perhaps, also serving to explain why a movie which (extensively) exploits people with physical deformities could ever be made. With increasingly easier access to digital technology and information, greater opportunities for people to become informed, capable of participating, and less likely to be exploited are made (Benkler,130.) For “Freaks Remake”, technology like digital cameras and the internet lifted some of the restraints typically put on people producing movies. Our ability to come together and actualize ourselves autonomously enabled the project to happen, but ultimately, could also be seen as a factor in the project’s status as “incomplete” as well.

The bulk of the cast was committed to the project, but the not everyone’s independent choices lead back to the group. Last minute cancellations and failures to show up to set (for reasons such as “partying too hard” the night before) eventually brought things to a halt. The freedom from external restraints which made the production possible could also (abstractly) be viewed as what ended it. Of course, the limitations of autonomy are not directly a product of tools like digital technology and the internet. However, one cannot help but wonder the full implications living with tools which promote self determination. As people become increasing capable self governing, what types of culture will be produced? How will one’s sense of autonomy affect one’s sense of duty to something “outside” of their themselves? Is there an answer to this question which isn’t wrapped up in subjectivity?

In the book, Benkler talks about how technology has the ability to enable society to create culture that is more democratic, self reflective and participatory, but whether or not it will is dependent on what people end up doing with this technology (18.) However, what people end up doing with technology will be determined by the parameters the technology places on the individuals, as well as how easy it is to use (17.) After having my hard-drive die on me this final point was not taken lightly. The wording “easy to use” should be extended beyond user interfaces, and be used to describe the how easily it can be financially obtained as well. I mean, the internet isn’t free. Yes, limited access is offered through community centers and libraries, but for an “at home” set up there are costs. Once you’ve paid for the hardware (and software, if you’re not an e-pirate) you still have to pay for the monthly access. Once you’ve paid for the month access- beware: your computer still has an expiry date, which varies depending on your usage. Either way, this adds up. When Benkler talks of the web having the potential to create decentralize culture and media, its worth considering the limitations of changes when they come with a dollar sign attached.

*Off note: Here is my podcast, inspired by a back spasm…

(The Relationship Between Stress & Our Shoulders)

As we slowly move into a collaborative economy, the ideology of closed capitalism may be more difficult to leave behind.  Notions of “individuality” and “individual ownership” still underpin many mainstream conceptions of cultural production.  Authorship (or “A name”) is still prized in relation to artistic works.  It remains an alluring image to pursue for many artistic practitioners, and potentially, a component of capitalism which will discourages the full switch to Wikinomics.

While engaging in a collective production and sacrificing the ego for a greater good might have its appeal, the monolithic relationship of “the artist” to “their work” is still popular and often sought after.  However, this much is understandable.  Tapscott and Williams describe this reluctance to actively participate in the principals of Wikinomics as being a part of “Tarzan Economics”, where one must continue to hold onto the “old vine” (or business model) until the new one is fully grasped (271.)  This theory is reinforced when taking a Marxist approach to the matter as well.

If the economy informs the superstructure, then how cultural work is produced, distributed and consumed must first change, to facilitate people thinking differently about the system and their roles within it.  The marriage of “individuality” to cultural production may slow down the transition to Wikinomics, as people cling to old models.  However, if being open, peering, sharing and acting globally is rewarded and encouraged, the already out-dated model of “The Artist” may completely disappear from art.

The status of SL as a Prosumer Community has allowed it to flourish as a virtual world. It is a place for creation and not just consumption where users can not only upload new content, but also engage in the game’s own e-commerce (as explained in “Wikinomics”, P.127.) However, what makes SL’s economy interesting is its “virtual” currency, the “Linden”, which has value outside of the game itself. By creating and selling virtual items (such as clothing and houses), Prosumers of this world can acquire Lindens, which can then be exchanged for other currencies, such as the Dollar. By allowing the Linden to be transferred outside of the game, the possibilities for how this “virtual” money is used becomes as diverse as the intentions of the people within the game.

Not everyone creates new SL content just to “make money”.  For my friend, Megan, creating new clothing and throwing virtual fashion shows (complete with auctions) has become a vehicle for charity. She designs new outfits, finds users willing to model them, organizes details (such as music and show announcements), advertises for the event, and then puts the items up for auction- all for charity. Generous users can attend these shows, and bid on the items knowing exactly where their money is going. The combination of her time and other user’s money has made these charity fashion shows a great success, raising thousands of dollars for “The American Cancer Society” and “MSF/Doctors Without Borders.” Incredible, at one event, a dress sold for over 1000USD.

Although not all SL Prosumers are as charitable as Megan and her patrons, her story still exemplifies the enormous possibilities within this Prosumer Communities. Not only does she use and consume the product, but also contributes to it (through her clothing designs) and even shapes the culture of the game through her generosity. Her story changed the way I think about the game, and shows that Second Life is a place for consumption, creation and whatever else its users feel it may need.

Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED) have much in common. They both pride themselves as being a wealth of information. As well, the two sites are both a result of peer production, which is defined by Tapscott and Williams as the process where egalitarian communities of volunteers self organize, and come together to create a shared outcome (67.) However, how they differ can largely be found in their intentions as web sites. Where Wikipedia strives to be accurate and objective, ED does the opposite.

As the ED’s “About” section explains, readers should be ready for “blatant, biased lies, and expect boring truths to get deleted quickly.” They strive to create satire and parody of the internet (which ED claims is “a series of tubes on a giant truck”), and simultaneously, mock Wikipedia’s aspirations to be “accurate” too. By fully embracing and exploiting their misinformation, ED parodies sites such as Wikipedia, which “fall victim” to open-source communities’ inability to always render “accurate” information.

Yet, whether ED is actually “funny” is still subject to debate. However, its credibility for being un-credible cannot be disputed. Unfortunately, for sites such as Wikipedia, the possibility of being a “credible” authority for information will always be elusive- if one were to believe what the Encyclopedia Dramatic has to say about it.

If a musician writes a records and doesn’t upload it onto Myspace, does it make a sound? Well, sure it does, but before the advent of the internet (for the average person) this sound was limited in the distance it could travel and number of ears it could reach. However, now with online communities and the easy transference of digital information, people can create music and have it heard by almost anyone with a computer all over the world- assuming they network as well. Being online isn’t enough. It’s necessary to share and connect to one another- not only open up the possibility of finding a larger audience, but also to create opportunities to socially collaborate with others, something I learned first hand through using Myspace.com.

Although this networking site lacks a decent search engine or efficient tagging system to classify its musical content, the “Top Friends” section (a selection of links to other people’s pages) makes up for a lot of the organizational short-comings. I’ve found if you enjoy one group’s music, often someone in their “Top Friends” will suit your fancy as well. Using this method of browsing by association has lead me to numerous bands I really like, including a one man industrial act out of Los Angelas, entitled “Birth!” After “randomly” finding his profile on Myspace I became an avid fan, and looked forward to the chance of seeing him perform live in person. Eventually, an opportunity for this did arise. However, my involvement with this show would not be passive as I originally suspected. He was hoping to do a West Coast Tour and asked for my help in organizing a show in Vancouver. Having the summer off and needing something to do with my time, I decided to go beyond helping out with just one in town show and ended up touring with him as a “Roadie” from Portland to Vancouver instead.

(clip from a show at pub340 in vancouver)

Despite what Oprah tells you about online strangers, this turned out to be a great decision and the entire trip ended up being a lot of fun. Naturally, we had our mini-disasters along the way, including having to cancel a show due to a medical emergency, which also cut short our time to work on a music video together. However, I’d still consider the entire experience a success and a good example of the possibilities of collaboration over the internet, made possible through linking. If Tapscott and Williams believe that obscurity (and not piracy) is the real problem for artists, then my story affirms this. Sharing your work, being open and connecting to one another online can lead to opportunities you’d never come across when refusing to engage at all. We may not have found the financial gold mine talked about in “Wikinomics”, but that’s alright. Since when does adventure and friendship have to be an economic endeavor?

]]> http://bigwigswhatywhaty.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/making-sound-travel-sharing-linking-on-myspacecom/feed/ 5 whatywhaty