New Media- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Although I am a subscriber, purchaser, user, and proponent of new media and technology, I believe that new media has single handedly destroyed personal and societal interaction. Yes we can reach distances tens of thousands or miles away at the click of a mouse, but we never have to interact with people sitting eighteen inches away from us. New Media has led us to live in neighborhoods without knowing the names of our neighbors and care more about the characters on reality TV shows then the characters in our real lives. The bank teller, the mail man, and the store clerk are on their way out, leaving room for the e-statement, the email, and the e-shopping that can all be done in the comfort of the home, without one second of that tedious conversation with another human being.

When discussing the demise of the human interaction, I like to cite the example of my college dorm room. My Freshman year of college, I lived in a triple room, probably ten by ten feet, with three beds, three desks, and three eighteen year old girls. However, instead of staying up all night chatting about boys, class, and res-hall drama, I watched my two roommates chatting away on their laptops to people anywhere else in the world. Sure chatting online makes communicating with far away friends much easier, but it also prevents people from making friends. Whenever we were all at our desks studying, an instant message would pop up from one of my roommates sitting no more than three feet away. I would always answer back out loud, slashing through the silence, and thus becoming the deviant of the room; the deviant in search of social interaction. So I left my room, walked out into the hall, and though each door was propped open with a book or a chair so that others were free to come in and visit, each desk was occupied with another college freshman chatting on AIM with people anywhere else in the world. This was not everyone, but it was funny to see it as such a phenomena throughout everyone I met, be it pre-meds or football players. The funniest was seeing the star of the Defensive Line chatting with his buddies on his T-Mobile Sidekick,

Myspace: another technological phenomenon that brings me to another funny and paradoxical example. A few months back I was working at a nonprofit community center that housed an after-school program for at-risk youth in the Mission District. When Myspace first starting blowing up, we began to hear about conflicts that were arising amongst the youth because of Myspace. Through a little investigating linking through our own personal myspace pages, we found that kids were threatening each other, arranging meeting places for fights, posting explicit sexual content, and framing themselves for crimes and violence right in their inboxes and on their comments wall. Myspace received a great deal of media attention because it became a breeding ground for sexual solicitation and pornography, and schools began blocking the site. We were in a dilemma whether or not to follow the lead of the schools and block the site. We didn’t want to be the access point for kids use myspace and start fights, but we also did not want to limit kids creative expression and communication with their friends by denying them of myspace. We also knew that with teenagers, when you take something away, it only makes them want it more. Our solution was to have a group conversation with the entire after-school program to discuss what was going on with myspace and agree as a group that we did not want to be involved in it. All and all it was pretty successful.

At the same time, myspace has also been used by urban youth as a tool for organizing. While the media can be faulted for not advertising social movements and being a forum for organizing, recently youth have turned to other forms of media. In 2006, Oakland school walkouts were advertised, promoted, and therefore extremely successful because of organizing that took place on myspace. The ability to reach large networks of people in particular age groups, neighborhoods, or schools allowed youth to spread the word and get their message out. Youth were able to connect and communicate with people they otherwise may not have been exposed to or have had access to and they were able to represent themselves politically (Yang, 15). This ability to reach people easily and quickly to promote an important message, I feel, is the greater good and counters any argument against myspace.

Often times things can, and do have, multiple meanings. Jus as myspace can serve as a breeding ground for sex offenders and at the same time a hotbed for political organization and activism. Art can serve multiple functions in society. We return here to the paradox of the modern world. In the Stone Age, cave paintings made by the people at that time were offerings to the Gods and were made for spiritual reasons (Benjamin, 10). Later when they were uncovered by anthropologists, they were looked at as ancient forms of art. Although this may not have been the original intention, by modern standards, something painted is considered art or artistic expression. A similar phenomenon has occurred recently with Native American “art.” In the present day, art is generally created to be displayed (exhibition value) and appreciated by the public (cult value); and to be bought and sold in the capitalist market . Weavings and paintings created by Native American tribes for religious and spiritual purposes are not considered by their creators to be art. They are not meant to be admired nor are they meant to be sold. It is not in the Native American world view to participate in capitalism and when tourists try to buy Native American art, they are exploiting the original purpose. Although in some situations people voluntarily sell their creations, it should still be known that these works were not created as art and were only interpreted as art by an outsider.

As always the definition of what is or is not art is loose and malleable. As new technology becomes available and people begin to experiment, new forms of art continue to evolve. Some people say that art is created as a reflection of society or of what people interpret to be the world around them. Others consider it to be an expression of the self and of our thoughts and feelings. I do not think that new technology devalues older forms of art, nor will it take the place of older modes. Painters will not give up the brush for the mouse and convert to digital art if their passion is to paint. Someone who loves the guitar is not going to toss it aside and create music note by note on Studio Pro. New technology often times allows different modes of art to merge together. Benjamin refers to the evolution of the motion picture. First it was a collection of still images, then the images moved more rapidly, then sound was added (Benjamin, 3). As technology evolved, so did the medium of art. Now we have digital editing and sound effects and cinematography; all forms of art that often work together to create one cinematic masterpiece. With the evolution of media arts, programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator combine photography, typography, drawing, video, sound, and writing to create infinite possibilities for artistic creation.

Using self-expression as a definition of art can also lead to controversy. Graffiti and street painting art is a wonderful form of self-expression; but vandalizing the side of a building or home is not ok. Published poetry and spoken word can be powerful and moving; but if offensive or hateful speech enters the picture, a line must be drawn. There is a fine line between self-censorship and knowing what is appropriate for what environment. Most great works of art were not considered greats at their time, and if people didn’t push the envelope, they would never have been produced. However, I find it hard to consider something like feces smeared on to a poster a work of art. Althusser argued that nothing but classical music could be considered art, and that all other works were garbage. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the first sounds of rock and roll were shocking and appalling. After time, it caught on and changed the world.

Now we are living in a society consumed by technology and the Internet. Every time I want to buy something, I look on the Internet to find where it is sold the cheapest. Every time I want to hear a song, I log onto Limewire and try to download it for free. As much as a proponent I am for music production and its artistic value, I have difficulty bringing myself to paying for music. Frankly, I got used to not having to. As Lessig discusses in “Free Culture,” the line between what is free and what you have to pay for has been erased (Lessig, 8) and there is no going back. What does this do to people who are trying to make money in the music business or in any facet of the media production business? I simply do not know. As a future media creator, I want my message to be available to everyone for free, but I want to make a living and put food on the table. No one wants to be the asshole (Metallica) and start throwing down lawsuits, but anyone who wants to make a living creating anything that could be decimated on the internet for free faces a little bit of a moral dilemma.

Town squares used to be the center of political discussion and debate; now most people are hooked into an iPod and mind to themselves. No one talks on the bus or in the subway unless it is to their friend on the other end of the cell phone. We have such a strong desire to be connected; yet we continue to create situations and technologies to isolate ourselves. As technology continues to grow, it becomes accessible to more and more people. This also creates an expectation of knowledge and puts people who do not have or know the new technology further and further behind. Another paradox. As people are brought closer to us, it becomes easier to push them further away.

I’ll admit it, I couldn’t live too long without my cell phone, and if I go three days without checking my email I start to get the jitters. BUT, jeez, if you don’t call someone back within the hour, let alone respond to a “missed call,” or don’t respond to an email by the end of the day, the correspond-er (you being the correspond-ee) assumes you’ve either fallen off the face of the earth or you hate them. I am not sold on our technologically driven and oh so dependent society, and although I could not live another way, I think it is doing more harm than good. I think there is a way to manage and thrive in a world with gadgets and mechanisms connecting people, but I do not think this should take the place of face-to-face communication and interaction. I also think that where and technological access or knowledge is assumed or needed, somehow it should be made certain that everyone everywhere has access to it. Without leveling the playing field, it does not matter who is connected to whom. Without truly connecting the world, all of our advancements serve no purpose.