Amazing conversation here between two great sportswriters, discussing fame in the digital era. It mainly focuses on LeBron James, and this quote about him really jumps out at me:
He sneezes and it’s a trending topic on Twitter. He is a fascinating study because he’s really the first and most seminal sports figure in the information age, where everything he does is reported and dissected and second-guessed many times over and he handles everything with an amazing grace and patience that I don’t know if other superstars from other areas would have been able to handle.
Here’s the link to the rest of the conversation. Enjoy!
In class on thursday, we talked about the remix culture of the digital age. It was discussed how individuals will take a video or a work of art and change it in order to add their own personal touch, and repost that work onto the internet. For me to understand this concept, I used the metaphor of taking a glass of water with red dye in it and pouring that dyed water through a strainer over and over again until that water finally turns clear again. The point I’m trying to make here is, at what point can something be “remixed” and not considered to be original art?
Remixing can take many forms in our digital age. Of course there is the example of music, in the case of Radiohead’s “Nude” in which the band gave the people the option of changing the tracks to their song and creating a new version of their single. To me though, there has to be a point in which the song is no longer a remix, and it takes on an identity of its own. There are many examples of this in the modern world of music. One which comes to mind for me is the song “Bring em out” by the rapper T.I. . The song title, and the hook in the chorus are taken from the song “What More Can I Say?” by famous rapper Jay-Z. Mr. Z’s words are directly taken out of context and put into the song by T.I., but what Jay-Z is trying to say in his song is not at all what T.I. is rapping about. Is that therefore, considered a remix to a Jay-Z song? I think not, because there was not enough of the original piece of art in the new work for it to be considered anything more than a small cut-copy-paste-job. In fact, im not even sure if the lyric/voice stealing would be enough for copyright infringement consideration. Keep this in mind the next time you hear or see something based on someone else’s work. It is not always a remix to their work because the reference can be so acute. Perhaps it is more of a tribute to the artists who came before the contemporaries.
Is Facebook’s Newest Instant Messaging Tweak Not the Shadiest Thing of All Time?
I really liked what Emmet had to say about survellance in modern culture, especially about the fact that we as people essentially have nowhere to hide anymore. The digital world has created an alternate universe in which we lead different lives, and perhaps feel more comfortable interacting with others behind the “mask” of technology.
Facebook Chat is probably one of the most popular online creations for my generation, especially amongst Erasmus students here at Radboud. Recently, Mark Zuckerberg (or whoever he pays to do his job) created a new aspect to the facebook chat in which the sender of a message can see when the person on the receiving end has read it. This to me is absolutely absurd for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, it brings down yet another wall of privacy. If I send an important message to someone and can see that he or she saw it 2 hours ago and has yet to respond, that creates an unnecessary degree of tension in our relationship. If there was anything that could have been done to reinforce the stereotype that Americans are impatient, than this is it. The art of conversation is all about patience, and on facebook it should be amplified as opposed to sped up. Thanks to this new addition of being able to tell when someone reads your message, jealous ex-girlfriends across the world will be downing martinis and eating quarts of ice cream while watching “sex and the city”. (Insert male equivalent of that joke here).
The digital age has brought a plethora of technology and devices which make it increasingly difficult for individuals to stay anonymous. It is not only security cameras or other typical ‘surveillance’ equipment which typifies the day to day paranoia of citizens searching for anonymity. We have bought into forms of mass communication, which merely spreads our individual presence and information out into the wide world. Cell phones, social networking, and gaming can all be seen as forms of privacy invasion, but we chose to spread out our influence. The world is a better place because of it, although there are downsides to this ‘electronic leash’ mentality. You are reachable virtually whenever and wherever you are across the globe. And even if you turn off your cell phone and shut down your computer, the people trying to reach you know that you have this technology, and are merely waiting for you to reboot in order to re connect with the rest of the world.
Surveillance of the population is nothing new, but integrating individually held technologies with surveying is. Companies can collect mass amounts of information effortlessly, making surveys of the population a daily occurrence. We previously discussed cyborg technology in class, and I think the video posted at the top of this post is a great example of what may potentially happen in the future. It blends the ideas of cybernetics with surveillance provided by digital technologies. Companies which gather personal information through their technology? Sounds like the companies of today.
The possibility of remaining anonymous in this world still lingers, but it is getting harder and harder to remain within the bounds of normal society while being unknown to those who you do not know in person. You can refrain from using digital interfaces of course, but your access to information will be severely limited. This is the dilemma of the modern era.
Jesse, I am jealous of your camp nou adventures. I plan on visiting it myself one day. The stadium itself is an art form, and the players who play in that stadium act out a sort of art on the field. FC Barcelona, although the world grows tired of them, play the purest and most beautiful football on the planet.
Today I would like to talk about the portion of my Barcelonacation when I traveled to Camp Nou, which is perhaps the most famous football stadium in all of Europe. I was told before I had arrived that it would be an amazing experience to see the stadium from the inside, because it was the largest stadium in the entire continent. When I arrived inside the stadium, I was at first a bit surprised that it was not as luxorious as some American stadiums I had traveled to previously. There were only two TV screens on either end of the pitch, something which would be considered “2nd rate” back home in the states. The seats were made of cheap plastic, and the design was not particularly elegant at all …
it was one of the most amazing places I had ever been to in my life.
Why do you ask, was it so amazing to see Camp Nou from the inside, even though there was nothing particularly special about it from a asthetic standpoint? I believe this question can be answered in the same way many art enthusiasts explain the significance of paintings such as the Mona Lisa. Camp Nou was buzzing with history. The way I felt while I was inside of this cathedral of a football arena cannot be put into words. One must take into account all the amazing events which took place here, all the players who passed through the locker rooms, and all the passion, energy and money fans have spent in order to see these moments take place. This to me is what makes places so special - the moments and the history in which it took to make it the place that it is. Why is the Mona Lisa so cool? Its tiny, its not that incredibly creative. But there is something about its mistique which makes it so breathtaking for onlookers. This is how I felt about Camp Nou, and this is how we feel everyday when we see highly regarded works of art.
Over the past weekend, I traveled to Barcelona to meet my parents. One of the highlights of my trip was going to the Sagrada Familia, a stunning church made by the artist formally known as Gaudi. The inside of the church (as well as the outside) was abssolutely stunning, and unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my life. Gaudi had a creative mind unlike anyone in his generation, and his open-mindedness was shown through his daring architechture. Emmet Talks about different ways an artist can interact with his audience, and I believe that Gaudi was trying to send a message to his audience with this fabulous work of art. Take a look on google at some of the pictures of the church, and you will see what I mean. Once in a lifetime, a person comes along and “rewrites” the book on everyone we previously knew before. Gaudi is one of those people.