Poorly Disguised Narcissism

Before starting this blog, I rarely checked Facebook, never posted online journals and didn’t have a Twitter account. Nine weeks later, this has clearly changed.

Media Studies has introduced me to many technological fads and has forced me to think critically of the world around me. As I’ve interacted with these various forms of media, a nagging question has consistently come up.

Is new media facilitating cleverly disguised narcissism?

Let me explain. Beginning with MySpace, the internet generation has gravitated towards sites that allow them to speak their minds. This in and of itself isn’t a bad thing. In fact, there’s no doubt that the internet has improved many aspects of 21st century life, among which include increased communication, new ideas gained through collective intelligence and the ability to post journals, blogs, pictures etc. around the world in real time.

However, this freedom to do and say whatever one wants, whenever one wants has led to many people choosing to talk about themselves. On Facebook and Twitter, people update their statuses, sharing some of the most mundane parts of their lives with the world. Blogger and WordPress are filled with rambling blog posts about the writer’s feelings. YouTube is packed full of bad videos of people attempting to be the next viral video star.

It seems to me that the internet promotes communication between people just as much as it promotes self advertising. My generation goes to a music concert and tweets during the middle of it. Late at night, I go onto Facebook only to see twenty new status updates informing me of the latest thing to happen to a friend.

Through the internet, people are trying to share the experiences that happen in their lives on a daily basis. However, it seems like we may be neglecting real world interaction in favor of online self promotion. Instead of watching concerts, people Tweet during sets (a trend that I was upset to see while watching a band at Gillette Stadium). Instead of meeting with friends in person, people write on Facebook walls and go on AIM. We’re increasingly relying on technology to get our gossip (Facebook stalking, anyone?) and to share our own personal stories. But do people publish their opinions online for their own enjoyment or for the chance to share their feelings with an anonymous group?

It’s probably a mixture of both. However, I can’t help but feel like we’re heading down a narcissistic road, one where we are constantly updating our online statuses to inform everyone around us of our generally mundane activities.

So, what do you think? Is the internet really creating a generation of kids who are more obsessed with their online profiles rather than their real world work? Comment below…

"Hi"

Hi from Multitouch Barcelona on Vimeo.

"Happy Up Here"

Happy Up Here from Röyksopp on Vimeo.

The Kindle Revolution

If you haven’t heard already, amazon.com has lofty goals for its electronic reader, the Kindle. With a sleek, white design and a simple interface, the people behind the Kindle are hoping to revolutionize the way we read books and newspapers in the same way that the iPod revolutionized the music world. To many, this is the future of reading, the epitome of simplicity in an e-reader.

However, don’t expect the revolution to come any time soon. Curiously, this device is lacking a lot of key features, like a backlight, a color display and a smooth, well crafted voice reader system. For a machine that costs a hefty $359, most people certainly aren’t willing to splurge on a half-baked electronic reader.

The Kindle’s biggest feature is obviously its online library. At the time of writing this, the Kindle library contains 299,952 books available for immediate download. Every day, this library expands by an estimated 500 books, giving customers more variety to choose from. However, with an approximated ownership of 1/10 of 1% of the American population, the Kindle isn’t catching on like wildfire. That is, not yet.

The Kindle is now planning on releasing textbooks through its online library, hoping to tap into the valuable college market. In Amazon’s perfect world, the Kindle will replace physical books in just a few years. Instead of lugging around bulky textbooks, college students can carry their textbooks in a slim machine. Instead of having bookcases filled with yellowing pages and stiffening spines, we could keep our Kindles on our nightstands. After all, books deteriorate. Kindles don’t.

There’s also the idea that buying a Kindle will ultimately save you money due to the reduced book costs. Never mind that one would need to purchase about 50 books before the Kindle becomes a profitable investment. Amazon insists that this is the future of print media and we would be better jumping on the bandwagon now than be left behind.

The Kindle does open up many possibilities within the print media realm. There’s been talk that the Kindle could revive the dying newspaper industry by providing up-to-date, paperless subscriptions to the world’s most famous newspapers, giving people the impetus to begin reading the daily morning paper once again.

With all the possible benefits that come with the Kindle, there’s an interesting problem that’s just beneath the surface. Most books through Kindle’s online library are priced at a reasonable $9.99. While this is great for consumers, book authors will find it increasingly difficult to make a living off writing in a Kindle based world. You see, book authors get most of their income from royalties that are partly paid up front. Publishers attempt to determine how many copies a certain book will sell, and then they determine the amount of the royalty based on that number. Once the target sales goal is reached, the authors are then paid roughly 15% of the cover price of each book sold after that. However, in a Kindle world, this model would change. It is speculated that authors would simply receive 10-25% of online sales. Once one does the math, it becomes evident that an author would have to sell many more Kindle books to make the same profit as he or she would off of a hardcover sale. Essentially, the Kindle would economically harm authors, forcing them to take lower profits simply by selling their books’ rights to the Kindle library. If the world of print media goes the way of the Kindle, then it would be much harder for authors to make a living off of writing. This in turn would discourage more and more people from writing, effectively hurting the quality and quantity of books being released to the marketplace.

The Kindle offers a convenient alternative for consumers. However, the Kindle system ultimately hurts the authors that allow for the existence of the Kindle in the first place. As we go into an increasingly technological world, I personally hope that the Kindle doesn’t become the next big thing. Besides enjoying the experience of reading a hardcover book and the feeling of ink on paper, I can’t help but worry that the Kindle could do more harm than good. For now, we don’t have to worry; price and design issues are preventing the mainstream acceptance of this electronic reader. But, sometime in the near future, it is quite possible that we could see the widespread dissemination of the Kindle. If that’s the case, count me out. I’ll be sitting in the corners of Barnes and Noble, reading my choice stories from a bounded book.

"Sorry I'm Late"

Sorry I'm Late from Tomas Mankovsky on Vimeo.

Cameras for Change

In a culture where pictures are uploaded to the internet every second and YouTube is a household name, the possibilities for visual journalism are nearly endless. Indeed, many social justice groups and nonprofits have started investing in expensive cameras and video recorders in hopes of documenting the stories of the unheard and unseen.

As technology becomes cheaper and people around the globe have increased access to the internet, the ability to spread a social activist message to millions of people grows on a daily basis. Here are just three groups that are taking advantage of this new visual culture to give a voice to the voiceless:

WITNESS:: On WITNESS’ main page, a slogan immediately informs visitors of their goal. “See it. Film it. Change it.” It’s a simple message that provides the basis for a unique social activism project. WITNESS’ members travel around the world and film human rights abuses in action. WITNESS was created in 1992 by activist and internationally famous musician Peter Gabriel in collaboration with the Reebok Human Rights Foundation. Founded on the idea of visual media as a tool for change, WITNESS sports a simple but ambitious mission statement:

WITNESS uses video and online technologies to open the eyes of the world to human rights violations. We empower people to transform personal stories of abuse into powerful tools for justice, promoting public engagement and policy change.

WITNESS is for filmmakers and artists, activists and world travelers. However, it is not an exclusive group. Instead, the project supports a sense of inclusive participation, welcoming all human rights groups to join in what is now a global initiative for social change. WITNESS provides equipment and training for filmmaking in hopes of empowering victims of human rights violations. WITNESS understands the importance of telling a compelling, well-made story, one that will tug at the heartstrings of people around the world, making sure that its YouTube videos garner millions of hits. At the moment, WITNESS has had major successes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.S., Senegal, Mexico and Sierra Leone, exposing the stories of torture, landmine victims and a corrupt juvenile prison system to name a few. As a tool for social change, WITNESS has learned how to maximize the viral nature of videos, bringing real attention to global problems.



Camfed:: Unlike WITNESS, Camfed does not mainly focus on filmmaking as its modus operantis. Camfed’s mission is to “eradicate poverty in Africa through the education of girls and empowerment of young women.” Camfed subscribes to the belief that only through education will a group of people be able to truly enhance their quality of life. However, Camfed realizes that video has the ability to educate large groups of people in a shorter time span. So, efforts have been initiated to teach these girls video editing software and basic filming techniques.

As one of the members said, “Advocacy video is not about filmmaking. It’s about change.” Camfed has already created one award winning documentary entitled Where the Water Meets the Sky. The documentary follows a group of Zambian women as they learn how to make film and to speak about their lives through visual arts. It’s a sort of meta-documentary – a documentary on the importance of advocacy documentaries. Camfed is the perfect example of a nonprofit that is starting to use filmmaking as a tool to support their cause in the 21st century.



The Skid Row Photography Club:: Taking a step away from filmmaking, The Skid Row Photography Club gives still cameras to people living on "Skid Row," an underprivileged part of downtown L.A., and teaches them how to compose an image. Through workshops, the participants learn about lighting, angles, color, framing and more. Then, these people are then allowed to roam the streets, documenting the things they identify with and witness. The images they create are quite often astounding, featuring subjects that most people ignore while walking down city streets.

Last November, the Skid Row Photography Club displayed the work of these artists in an upscale art gallery in L.A. Through this exhibit, the uncensored images of L.A. street life met the world of high end art, exposing the upper class to the struggles of the lower class. This photography might only reach a local L.A. audience, but it was still a huge hit. During the opening evening, it was estimated that 500 people saw the exhibit. Considering the success of Camfed and WITNESS, it seems likely that the Skid Row Photography Club could make a large impact within the Los Angeles community.



In all of these examples, regular people outside the realm of high end art and Hollywood production companies are using visual arts to expose a world often unseen by the upper class. A perfect example of participatory culture, visual advocacy can impact so many lives. The amazing thing about this art is that anyone with a camera and a message can go out and begin documenting their story; it’s a genuinely democratic form of art and communication. As we become more and more dependent on sites like YouTube, we can expect to see more visual advocacy promoting dialogue around the world. From a human rights standpoint, that’s a truly progressive thing.

"Sofia's People"

Sofia's People: Canon 5dmk2 25p from Philip Bloom on Vimeo.

Commercialized Angst

Back in 2004, the aging punk rock band Green Day released a high concept album filled with teenage angst and anti-Bush sentiment. Featuring heady lyrics and sweeping guitar rifts, American Idiot was, to the surprise of many, a huge hit. In the five years since its debut, American Idiot has sold over 5 million albums domestically and an estimated 12 million internationally. At the 47th annual Grammy Awards, Green Day picked up the statuette for Best Rock Album in addition to being nominated for Record and Album of the Year. For a “Fight the Man” rock opera, American Idiot certainly garnered a lot of critical and commercial success.

Roughly five years later, Green Day released their highly anticipated follow-up album, 21st Century Breakdown, on May 15, 2009. Since then, the rock trio has already sold about 215,000 albums. In an age where CDs are quickly going the way of the Dodo, these sales numbers are sure to make artists and record executives take note. Indeed, with sales like that, Green Day is a musical force that’s dominating the rock music world.

21st Century Breakdown, like American Idiot, is a disillusioned rock opera. In the first single, “Know Your Enemy,” lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong wails this anarchic chant:

Overthrow the effigy
The vast majority
Burning down the foreman of control

Silence is the enemy
Against your urgency
So rally up the demons of your soul

Do you know the enemy?
Do you know your enemy?
Well, got to know the enemy, wah hey

For a band of thirty-something white multi-millionaires, Green Day’s music is unusually angry, feisty and brutally critical of corporate America. Green Day markets itself as band trying to bring down the establishment, attempting to defy consumerist culture. After reading the sales statistics on Green Day’s two most recent albums, however, this angsty message is made ironic and almost comical. Green Day promotes the destruction of the very institutions that facilitated their success in the first place. It’s a little counter intuitive, to say the least.

Green Day is just one example of what has been a trend in America for decades now: the commercialization of teenaged angst. For years, social revolutionary movements have created images and slogans to promote their causes, only to have those same images trademarked by corporate America for financial gain.

Just look at some American fashion. Hats and shirts emblazoned with pictures of Che Guevara and “Rage Against the Machine” logos can be purchased at most malls. After being sold in chain stores, do these items hold any revolutionary weight?

No. They don’t. If anything, buying these goods supports the very establishment that “anarchic” consumers are looking to overturn.

Corporations have an amazing ability to strip power away from these defiant movements simply by selling their messages to the masses. While allowing these items to float through the public marketplace may spread opposition to “the man,” it ultimately puts dinner on his table night after night.

In an age when most goods and images are controlled and distributed by huge conglomerates, how can seditious groups truly fight back against corporate America?

Of course, they have the internet. Grassroots movements have sprouted up around the globe, only to find support in the anonymous masses that congregate on the World Wide Web. But even still, rebellion through the internet has its disadvantages. In such a huge virtual world, many ideas (particularly the radical ones) get lost amidst the clutter.

The truth is that we live in a homogenized society that is structured to make genuine rebellion difficult. “Burning down the foreman of control” isn’t nearly as easy as buying a Green Day album or wearing a Che shirt. Instead, that is the lazy way of showing support for a revolution. It’s the commercialized way, and, in an ironic twist, it often hurts the movement that it is supporting.

Green Day has proven time and time again that they can sell millions of albums and make millions of dollars by commercializing their anarchic message. But there is nothing really anarchic about Green Day; Green Day simply promotes a false sense of defiance, a faux-revolt against corporate America. Rebellion can’t be bought in Hot Topic. Angst can’t be satisfied in the aisles of Newbury Comics. In the meantime, real revolutionaries struggle to fight for their beliefs in the shadows, out of sight from popular culture.

Green Day - New Music - More Music Videos

Sources:

Moody, Nekesa Mumbi. "Green Day cd racks up sales without censorship." NewsOK 22 May 2009. 23 May 2009.
<http://newsok.com/cd-racks-up-sales-without-censorship/article/3371538?custom_click=lead_story_title>.

Pareles, Jon. "The Morning After 'American Idiot'." New York Times on the Web 29 Apr. 2009. 23 May 2009.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/arts/music/03pare.html>.

Sung, Mark. "47th Annual Grammy Awards Winners." 14 Feb. 2005. 23 May 2009.
<http://www.monstersandcritics.com/music/news/article_4401.php/47th_Annual_Grammy_Awards_Winners>.

"10 Minutes"

"Oldmeal"

Oldmeal from wartezenstein on Vimeo.

The Beauty of Guerilla Marketing

On a day-to-day basis, consumers see literally thousands of advertisements. Hidden in logos and stitched into our clothing, advertisements invade every aspect of our lives, ingraining their messages into our psyche. In many ways, marketing has become a way of defining oneself and the world around us; ad agencies are always trying to brand products as “cool” or “fresh.” However, with so many ads floating around in the public market place, consumers have begun to tune out. Facing an increasingly apathetic audience, advertisers are desperately searching for new ideas to garner some attention. One of the many tools that marketers are using is guerilla advertising.

Marketingterms.com provides this information on “guerilla marketing:”

Coined by Jay Conrad Levinson, guerilla marketing is more about matching wits than matching budgets. Guerilla marketing can be as different from traditional marketing as guerilla warfare is from traditional warfare. Rather than marching their marketing dollars forth like infantry divisions, guerilla marketers snipe away with their marketing resources for maximum impact.

Guerilla advertising uses the natural environment to cleverly advertise specific products. In the photos above, three prime examples of guerilla advertising show how this type of advertising requires ingenuity and resourcefulness. These ads might not have a direct selling point, but these shows of creativity draw much attention from bystanders. People take notice of these intelligent and witty advertisements. In fact, these advertisements have become so successful that more and more companies are looking to expand their advertising campaigns into a form of guerilla advertising. On the streets of New York, I’ve often witnessed ad agencies sticker bombing locations by planting stylized and artistic stickers promoting a product or brand all over a block.

The trouble with guerilla advertising is that it quickly can become risky and sometimes illegal. On January 31, 2007, Boston police officials were informed of a potential bomb threat in the area. However, when police went to disarm the so-called bombs, they realized it was a guerilla advertisement gone wrong for Adult Swim’s Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Often disguised, guerilla advertisements have tremendous opportunity to be misinterpreted. In this particular case, the ads brought Adult Swim attention, just not the attention it had hoped to receive.

The world of advertising is not going to become any easier in the near future. Many new products flood the market on a weekly basis; advertising in any media simply can’t keep up. So, as advertisers attempt to differentiate themselves from the pack, we’ll probably start seeing large amounts of guerilla advertising in the places we’d least expect to see them.

For some terrific examples of guerilla advertising, check out:

http://www.funnymos.com/guerrilla-advertising.html

http://www.thecoolhunter.net/ads/ADS-ARE-GOING-GUERILLA/

http://www.slideshare.net/manjgura/guerilla-marketing-in-action?src=related_normal&rel=494153

The Eighth Resurrection of 3-D

Imagine, if you will, sitting in a large, dark movie theater. The lights have dimmed. The previews have played. And now, a friendly reminder pops up on the screen, informing you that it’s time to put on your 3-D glasses.

Only a decade ago, that added dimension in cinema might have lead viewers to simply stand up and walk out; those cheap, cardboard glasses would have audience members feeling dizzy and even getting sick for hours after watching a 3-D film. However, we’ve come a long way since those dark ages of entertainment. Now, new technology is bringing back 3-D, and studio executives are hoping it will revive the dying “cinema experience.”

RealD is the company behind this reinvention. While 3-D has come back many times before as a passing fad, RealD is working with movie studios to insure that 3-D isn’t just a fleeting sideshow. The invention of special cameras has led to digital 3-D, allowing for sharper color and depth. Many animation companies are using this technology to give their kid flicks the added boost to stand out amongst the crowds of generic CGI animations. In fact, for the first time ever, the most prestigious animation studio around, Disney Pixar, is releasing a movie in digital 3-D entitled Up.

For a long time, 3-D has been associated with campy films. B-grade horror movies like House of Wax (1953), with all their cheesy, gory, 3-D goodness, attracted huge audience turn-outs back in the day. However, while past 3-D successes generally fell into the “it’s so bad that it’s good” category, RealD and production companies like DreamWorks and Pixar are working hard to legitimize 3-D for mass consumption. The glasses alone have undergone a revamp, morphing from red and blue lenses to hard plastic shades reminiscent of Ray-Bans.

After watching Henry Selick’s fantastic stop-motion 3-D film, Coraline, I know that RealD has truly made 3-D look like the future of entertainment. And, this winter, Titanic director James Cameron is hoping to push 3-D into the spotlight with his highly anticipated, high risk blockbuster, Avatar.

All over Hollywood, directors, producers and actors are throwing their support behind 3-D. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson has said, "At some level, I believe that almost any movie benefits from 3-D… As a filmmaker, I want you to suspend disbelief and get lost in the film--participate in the film rather than just observe it. On that level, 3-D can only help." Oscar winning director Cameron has invested years of his life in 3-D entertainment, asserting time and time again that it is the next big step in connecting the audience to a movie. But why are Hollywood bigwigs putting all of their time and money into a project that’s been done many times before and has systematically failed?

The answer is simple. As online viewership, pirating and services like Netflix begin to dominate the consumer movie market, distributors are looking for a way to draw people back to the cinema. In addition to renovating multiplexes to include plush seating and gourmet restaurants, theater owners are shelling out the cash needed in order to buy digital projectors necessary for 3-D showings. Now, many movies are being released in both 2-D and 3-D in hopes that audiences will pay the little extra in order to see the “improved” 3-D version.

And so far, it seems to be working. On average, a 3-D movie makes three times more money than its 2-D equivalent. This is largely due to the increased ticket prices and the longer runs that 3-D films experience.

But a question still remains: Is this just a passing fad? Only time will tell. While history tells us that 3-D will likely fail (just like it did those past seven times), Hollywood’s insistence on pushing it into the mainstream public sphere might just make 3-D the next big thing. And, if they succeed, we’ll certainly be seeing more and more previews informing us when it’s time to put on our 3-D glasses.

Sources:
Khatau, Chelna. “Film Goes Back to the Future with 3-D.” CNN Online 15 Sept. 2008. 21 May 2009.
<http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/12/future.cinema/>

Quittner, Josh. “Are 3-D Movies Ready for Their Closeup?” Time Online 19 Mar. 2009. 21 May 2009.
<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1886541-1,00.html>

Corliss, Richard. “3-D or Not 3-D: That Is the Question.” Time Online 28 Mar. 2009. 21 May 2009.
<http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1888264,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar>

"Fallen"

Fallen
Uploaded by mikropikol. - Independent web videos.

"This one time..."

This one time... from nelson boles on Vimeo.

Dumbing Down Entertainment

For months now, reports on Ron Howard’s sequel to The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons, have found their way onto internet blogs and television news stations. The very nature of the film – the strong criticism that Angels & Demons aims at the Catholic Church – has caused a world wide discussion to take place. While people have debated the film’s themes throughout the tenuous production process, I have stayed by the sidelines, waiting to see the movie before I form an opinion. After hearing all of the hype, I walked into a crowded movie theatre today expecting Angels & Demons to leave me thinking. Instead, I found myself sitting through two hours and twenty minutes of dumbed down drivel.

Angels & Demons follows the story of Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) as he attempts to solve the mystery behind the enigmatic and vicious Illuminati. Langdon, a world famous symbologist, is blessed with the ability to see clues that are hidden in plain sight, allowing him to follow the trail of crumbs leading to a climatic conclusion. However, there’s something crucial missing in this summer blockbuster hit. There’s simply nothing in Angels & Demons that’s clever or smart. In fact, most of the film is unashamedly implausible. From beginning to end, the plot is riddled with holes and inaccuracies, creating a truly frustrating viewing experience. The problem is that Angels & Demons feeds the audience ridiculous claims and expects viewers to believe it; it treats its audience like it’s five years old, anticipating that no one will think about or question what they are watching.

Utterly bored while watching this film, I couldn’t help but look around the movie theater during the particularly outlandish parts. As I glanced at strangers, I saw rapt faces staring wide-eyed up at the screen. While I felt silly sitting through such an absurd movie, it was clear to me that I was in the minority. As I walked out of the theater, I heard many exclamations of excitement and disbelief; one woman loudly remarked, “I can’t belief that happened. It was just so real!”

My biggest issue with Angels & Demons lies within the fact that it presents itself as a legitimate story with groundings in real life. However, it only takes a bit of critical thinking to see flaw after flaw in the framework.

Changing history and bluffing facts is not a new thing in movies; it’s so common that I’ve come to expect it from the majority of things I watch. However, Angels & Demons takes ridiculousness to a new level, dumbing down its message, expecting the audience to completely, unquestionably buy into what it is selling.

Well, I’m not going for it. I hate it when a movie treats me like an infant. I’m capable of complex trains of thought. So why are so many movies made brainless? Does Hollywood think lowly of its viewers? Or do moviegoers just not want to think when they take a trip to the cinema?

Either way, it’s a disturbing answer. I’m still reeling over the positive reactions this one film received. Maybe my fellow audience members were particularly gullible tonight. However, something makes me think that this is not an atypical response. Dumb summer thrillers do well every year, whether they have a shred of fact in them or not.

We as a society don’t need more explosions and gun fights. We need films to take the time to actually explain real ideas to us. We need movies to use their immense social power to educate as well as entertain. Otherwise, we may see a rise in naive moviegoers instead of active thinkers.

"Hussein's Garden"

Hussein's Garden from Oliver Wilkins on Vimeo.

"9"

9 Nine Shane Acker Short Animation
Uploaded by FrFKmeron. - Watch original web videos.

Internet Art

We all live in a time when the world is conducting the largest social experiment ever -- the internet. Historians and social scientist alike have long wondered what the overarching consequences the internet will have on society as a whole. While most people agree that the internet is connecting people in ways that were never before possible, the effect of this online interaction has yet to be fully understood. And while one can deeply analyze any aspect of internet social mingling, I’ve found myself drawn to internet art.

For a while now, my blog has featured short videos that I personally find interesting. Often, these short films are constructed with the skill and technique of true Hollywood professionals. However, the vast majority of these clips aren’t made in the notoriously capitalistic Tinsel Town. Instead, these videos are made by unknown artists and creative types from around the world. And, more importantly, the films aren’t made to make the creators money. They’re made for art’s sake.

The truth of the matter is that many of these films would never have been created had it not been for the advent of the internet. The World Wide Web has done amazing things for artists and for art as a whole. Now, these movies can be created with contributors living thousands of miles away from one another. Sound clips and special effect files are traded on many file sharing websites, allowing for people who have never laid eyes on one another to work together to create a singular vision. Now, people of all ages, races, genders, socioeconomic statuses and more are flocking to the internet to express themselves creatively with the help other users with similar interests in the creative arts. What is now happening is an exchanging of cultural trends in art, mixing styles and ideas across borderlines.

When a certain video is released, it brings with it the cultural assumptions of its director and its crew. What you now have are websites that collect these different cultural stories, presenting them side-by-side, allowing for careful analysis by its viewers. My favorite video sharing site is vimeo.com. While YouTube has an unusually large catalogue of videos feature adorable kittens and people falling off of chairs, Vimeo features arty, often enigmatic short films. The care and thought that has gone into Vimeo’s videos is often evident, showing that quality art actually can stem from the public internet sphere.

Vimeo isn’t accessible to all. In fact, most of its videos require thought and observation on the viewers’ part, thereby creating a dialogue between director and audience that is absent from many YouTube videos. Vimeo seeks films of higher quality in terms of production, acting and storytelling techniques. Hopefully, websites like Vimeo will inspire other artists to get away from creating videos that will get the most “hits.” Instead, it’d be nice to see a shift away from quantity and a move towards quality. In my opinion, the true success of a film is not how many people see it. Its success is defined by how many people are deeply affected by the movie around the time the credits roll. Maybe the internet will begin to allow this shift to happen.

The Next Disney "Classic?"

For millions of people around the world, childhood free-time is and was spent living Disney culture. Indeed, when I look back on my own childhood, I remember watching Cinderella (the first movie I ever saw), coloring in pictures from Aladdin and carrying around a giant Simba stuffed animal from my favorite children’s film, The Lion King. As a company selling innocence, Disney often defines a part of our youth. And now, Disney hopes to influence a new generation with its latest foray into 2D animation, The Princess and the Frog.

The Princess and the Frog, for the most part, tells the traditional tale of The Frog Prince set in the 1920’s New Orleans. But, there is a twist. For the first time ever, the traditional Disney princess is African American.

At first glance, this should be a proud moment for the Walt Disney Corporation. On a surface level, this film tries to defy claims that the company is a racist one. However, a firestorm of controversy has already begun to center around this film, drawing much unwanted attention to the Mouse House’s biggest risk in years.

So, what is it about The Princess and the Frog that has garnered so much negative press? Well, quite a bit actually. The original name of Disney’s newest cel-animated movie was supposed to be The Frog Princess, featuring a dark skinned princess named Maddy with tight, curly hair. However, after claims that the title drew upon racist imagery that subconsciously told audiences that black princesses were frogs, the film’s title was changed to the less controversial The Princess and the Frog.

With the renaming of the film came a redesign of the main character. Due to concerns that Maddy sounded too much like “Mammy” (a racially charged term), the ninth Disney princess was suddenly renamed Tiana, featuring lighter skin and straighter hair. After looking at before and after photos of Princess Tiana, it’s clear that she was retouched to fit a less “racial” mold, or, in other terms, a whiter mold.

Coupled with this, the latest charges against The Princess and the Frog concern its male hero, Prince Naveen. Instead of being similarly black, Prince Naveen looks white. Voiced by Brazilian actor Bruno Campos, Prince Naveen reminds me of a Ken doll with olive-tinted skin. While some are applauding Disney’s decision to feature a mixed race couple, many are upset over Naveen’s skin color. People worry that The Princess and the Frog’s representation of black men is overwhelmingly negative. Since the movie features a black male villain and a light skinned prince, what is Disney saying about black men? What subconscious messages will kids take away from the movie?

To be released during the Holiday season this year, The Princess and the Frog still has a long way to go before it hits theaters. However, I’m already worried about the film. Pinned as a “new classic,” The Princess and the Frog is supposed to be a leap forward for Disney, a company whose images of black culture have been overwhelmingly negative over the years. However, “classic” Disney films are riddled with racism and sexism, propagating unfair images to mass audiences. Consumers of Disney media look back on favorite Disney movies with a sense of nostalgia. If Disney defined a part of your childhood, it’s hard to admit that these seemingly innocent films could contain such offensive imagery. But, for over 75 years, Disney has continued to release these horribly prejudiced films under the guise of childlike innocence.

I hope that The Princess and the Frog isn’t a new classic. Indeed, I hope it doesn’t have much in common with any of the “Disney classics.” Instead, I hope that Disney succeeds in creating a film that transcends racial and gendered biases. However, with all of the slip ups that have already occurred, I fear we may have another offensive Disney film on our hands come Holiday 2009.

"The Lost Tribes of New York City"

The Lost Tribes of New York City from Carolyn London on Vimeo.

"Happily Never After"

Musical: "Happily Never After" from Stephen Beehler on Vimeo.

"Philips Carousel"

Summer Movie Fever

Around this time of year, the days get longer, seniors anticipate the end of school and another exciting event occurs – the summer movie season finally begins. While this might not seem like a big deal to the average American citizen, studio execs and movies buffs like me gear up for four months of non-stop showings of popcorn blockbusters. In the coming weeks, every major studio releases one potential hit that will hopefully bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in box office revenue. Instead of urging viewers to go outside to play in the beautiful weather, movies studios want you to go to the closest multiplex to see the latest, greatest release.

Year after year, these movies continuously draw in huge crowds; avid fans will wait up for hours just to see the midnight release of their favorite superhero movie. It’s not an uncommon sight to see lines of ticket buyers stretching out of cinema doors and around the block. So why do these movies elicit such an overwhelmingly positive response from the general public every summer?

Of course, there’s one obvious answer. The kids are out of school! Going to the movies is a cheap, easy way for parents to get their kids out of the house for a few hours. To target this audience, studios put out the typical family fare (DreamWorks and Pixar have a corner on this market), as well as many more mature films to please the teenaged and the young-at-heart crowd.

However, the beauty of summer films is that they don’t just appeal to the family group. Indeed, these popcorn blockbusters often hit many different demographics. Both teenage boys and adult men will go see the latest Star Trek film; older girls and their mothers went out in droves to see last year’s mega-hit, Sex and the City. The fact is that summer films hold true to a few rigid formulas. There are the easy going romantic comedies with feel-good plots and some scenes featuring light physical comedy; then there are the fast-paced action films with car chases and fight scenes. While exceptions to these two basic plot structures do exist, the vast majority of box office hits during the hot summer months fall into these categories. And, between these two formulas, the latter of the two is the most successful.

With violence and characters that personify the “masculine man,” action films are quite clearly geared towards a male audience. So why do these films do so much better than the airy “chick flicks?” The reason is simple. Women will watch guy movies, but men won’t watch girly films.

Of course, this is a huge generalization, but it’s a principle that the movie industry holds as a golden truth. Despite all attempts to make a “chick flick” that reaches across gender lines, this generalization has been proven time and time again to be correct.

I doubt that we will see a change in the types of films released during the busy, profitable summer months. Because our opinions on entertainment aren’t rapidly changing, movies like X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Public Enemies will continue to be released to huge opening weekend box office totals, reaffirming studio exec decisions to produce these mega-action hits. And until we decide that we would like to see less machismo culture in our films and more innovative ideas, Hollywood will continue to churn out the same adrenalin pumping action thrillers.

"Everytime"

Oi Va Voi "Everytime" from Katarzyna Kijek on Vimeo.

GE's Own Fairytale "Love Story"

A little while ago, a curious commercial came on the television, interrupting my weekly ritualistic viewing of Lost. Normally, I’d simply pick up my TiVo remote and fast forward through the annoying ads, but something struck me about this 47 second spot. At the time, I couldn’t tell you what the ad was for, but almost 3 months later, this commercial has stuck with me.

This television commercial is for none other than GE’s Healthcare Re-Imagined Campaign. You wouldn’t know that, however, until the 41st second of this commercial. Instead of shamelessly plugging a product for over three quarters of a minute, GE opted to tell a simple love story with their time, creating a truly memorable advertisement.

GE’s ad has a definitive beginning, middle and end. Of course, it’s a straightforward and familiar story, but a complete story nonetheless. In the very beginning, the audience is introduced to a boy in what is assumed to be rural China. From here, we see a cliché story play out: Boy sees Girl. Girl sees Boy. Boy tries to impress Girl, but ends up hurting himself in the process.

But wait! There’s a twist to this story. In the end, Boy is treated by Girl in the local hospital, allowing for the star-crossed lovers-from-afar to finally unite. And, in the last few seconds, some plain text and a familiar voice over reminds the viewers that this happy ending is brought to you by GE’s Healthcare.

This commercial isn’t meant to show its audience the specific benefits of GE’s Healthcare. In fact, it says very little about medicine and medical treatment. Instead, it tries to have the audience feeling good by the time this advertising spot is over, making this a perfect example of affective marketing in action.

While attempting to create an ad that forges an emotional connection with its viewers, GE used some traditional Hollywood tricks to create a fake world that’s glossy and pristine. Both the boy and the girl are attractive people. They’re well groomed and well dressed. While their story plays out, soothing soft pop music plays in the background, providing the perfect soundtrack to what is a dreamy love story. Even the village that surrounds them is very clean and strangely American; from personal experience, I know that rural Chinese villages aren’t that picturesque. This is what many people want to see. They don’t want to watch footage of gritty Chinese life with average people and no back-up music. The pleasant stuff is what’s selling the emotion and ultimately selling GE.

In every way imaginable, GE is carefully crafting an image that Americans want to see. Not only is everything strangely perfect, but it supports many American stereotypes of Chinese life. From the outdoor wok food vendor to the out-of-place goat in the hospital, this commercial feeds its audience stereotypical images that Hollywood has shown the public many times before.

In both story and presentation, GE’s “Love Story” isn’t breaking any new ground. On the contrary, it relies on old, trusted forms of storytelling and a story that's part of America's master narrative. And yet, despite the tired subject material and compilation, this commercial still manages to make people from all sorts of backgrounds to let out a collective “Aww,” proving that these used themes are still effective. Viewers want to see a young, attractive couple fall in love. And if those viewers can associate young love with GE’s Healthcare, that’s all the better for General Electric.

In many ways, GE’s “Love Story” is a quintessential example of affective marketing. In 47 seconds, the viewer is supposed to bond with the couple, bond with their story and eventually bond with the brand that’s being sold. After watching the reactions of a number of people I’ve shared this commercial with, this ad seems to be hugely successful; I’ve yet to hear a negative response to GE’s feel-good marketing campaign.

In the coming months, it will be interesting to see if GE continues to sell their “Re-Imagined Healthcare” in a similar fashion. However, whether GE’s future ads succeed or fail, “Love Story” has already effectively created an emotion bridge with thousands of people around the globe. And, in 47 seconds, that’s a pretty amazing accomplishment.

Muckraking 2.0

Back in the day, before the creation of the World Wide Web, investigative journalists and civil rights groups would try to seek out injustice in our law, government and police systems. However, thousands if not millions of victims of abuses of power fell between the cracks, leaving global citizens disillusioned with “The Man.”

Indeed, there seems to be a natural tendency among many people (youths in particular) to distrust authority. The 60s and 70s saw a rise in the suspicion of public authority figures. Now, with the advent of the internet, message boards and websites have facilitated this distrust.

The internet is filled with stories of heroic police efforts and good news all around. However, for me personally, some of the most lasting images I’ve seen on the web have been those of police brutality and corrupt officials. Victims of social injustice have flooded YouTube with videos and have written many blogs to spread the word of their suffering, allowing for some shocking stories to travel around the world overnight. In fact, the invention of point-and-click cameras and pocket video recorders has allowed for average citizens to capture a moment of authoritative indiscretion and to have said image floating in cyberspace in a matter of moments.

These videos, photos and blogs have the ability to shock people into action. This past April, an American Baptist pastor was unfairly and unlawfully beaten and tazed by U.S. Border Control. Hours after the incident occurred, the pastor had already recorded a YouTube video showing his injuries and telling his story. Less than a month later, this video has over 326,000 views, and many sympathetic viewers have left comments giving the pastor support. Soon, news channels were picking up the story, giving more coverage to this horrific abuse of power. All the while, each news segment was carefully documented on YouTube, furthering the coverage even more.

The internet is full of stories like this. Indeed, more and more people are seeking support in the World Wide Web, often getting retribution due to the sheer amount of flak that is created in the process. The online community is holding companies and officials of all sorts accountable for their actions. Now, it’s harder and harder to get away with anything.

When the whistle is blown on a bad government office or a corrupt policeman, the internet community is surprisingly ruthless in its response. The anonymity of the internet allows for people to speak their minds without filters, often providing some particularly harsh responses to these abuses of power. Because of this, “The Man” is slowly taking notice.

As the internet continues to take over other forms of media, I’m sure that the power that these online flak generators have over officials will increase, creating a cumulative voice that speaks for the general public. Now, anybody with a webcam or a blog can be muckrakers.

Of course, with this increased social power comes a greater potential to abuse said power. In the coming years, it will be interesting to see how the internet uses its social influence and which voices dominate the discussion. There is the possibility that this influence will be manipulated and contorted, taking away the possibility for real social critique.

While only time will tell whether this power to enact change will strengthen or become distorted, at the moment, members of the internet have the capability to bring global attention to social injustice anywhere at any time. It’s the new muckraking for Generation Y.

"World Builder"

World Builder from Bruce Branit on Vimeo.

"Let The Beat Build"

Nyle "Let The Beat Build" from Nyle on Vimeo.

"Oil in Water"

Oil in Water from Shawn Knol on Vimeo.

This Meal Is Brought To You By CBS

Just a few hours ago, his Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama spoke at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, MA. Among other things, the Dalai Lama spoke of peace and happiness that is independent from material gain, a topic that now seems ironic juxtaposed with the exorbitant ads and huge billboards that line Gillette Stadium and brand every inch of every object within that concrete maze. In a corner of Foxborough’s monument to ad culture stands one of the best (and biggest) examples of bizarre brand crossover I’ve ever seen: the CBS Scene.

I had never heard of or seen the CBS Scene until today, but I was surprised to learn that this three-story building isn’t a TV studio; rather, it’s an interactive restaurant and bar.

In a September 6, 2008 press release, the CBS Scene was described like this:

“CBS and The Kraft Group today opened the CBS Scene Restaurant & Bar, a three-story, 15,000 square foot one-of-a-kind entertainment and dining destination in Foxborough, Mass. Located adjacent to the New England Patriots' Gillette Stadium in the 1.3 million square foot Patriot Place lifestyle destination, the venue's spectacular views, upscale casual dining, and state-of-the-art technology ─ including over 135 SONY Plasma, LCD and graphic projector displays showcasing current and classic content from across the CBS Corporation ─ converge to create the next generation in media and entertainment.”

It seems as if CBS is trying to copycat the success of other entertainment restaurants like the ESPN Zone. Both of these dining establishments offer a variety of generic dishes while customers drool over massive plasma screen TVs and life-like High Definition displays. Indeed, the purpose of these restaurants is not to give its customers a quality meal. Rather, it’s meant to be an assault on the subconscious, an attempt to burn the CBS or ESPN way of life into the minds of their customers. While one eats at these restaurants, one can watch a sampling of the hundreds of offered videos and shows, all branded with those tiny logos and overt brand placement.

This entire foray into the restaurant business could be a brilliant move for CBS. If they are successful, customers will leave the restaurant with a new appreciation for all that is CBS. Maybe they order a couple of seasons of M*A*S*H on Netflix when they get home. Maybe they come back once a month to the CBS Scene as a special treat for the entire family. Or, ideally for CBS, maybe the customers return home and begin watching CBS broadcasting while they eat their homemade meals. CBS could very well be trying to give a stronger meaning to the term “TV dinner.”

I’m not sure if the CBS Scene will be a success; it has only been open for a few months. However, if it does manage to become financially lucrative, we could start seeing more and more displays of bizarre brand crossover in the future from every major network. Gone are the days when a TV company was just a TV company. Now, with the advent of convergence culture, these entertainment businesses are branching out into every business imaginable, trying to create lifelong brand loyalists who are willing to eat CBS meals and listen to CBS MP3 players while they watch CBS prime time broadcasting.

This huge jump into the restaurant business seems rather pathetic to me. In no way shape or form is it subtle or clever. Rather, it’s just a behemoth of a building attesting to our reliance on an ad based and branded culture.

And yet, as his Holiness was speaking, I couldn’t help be notice more and more people drift over to the CBS Scene. By the end of the day, a noticeable crowd had gathered by the bar. And while people munched on appetizers and drank frothy cups of beer, their eyes stay fixated on the giant flat screen TVs that line the walls.

As the Dalai Lama’s voice echoed through Gillette Stadium, bouncing off of concrete and billboard ads, these CBS Scene patrons continued to watch their sports games and reruns of once popular shows. I guess his Holiness’ message for a non-materialistic life fell on a few deaf ears.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Press Release:
CBS and the Kraft Group Open the CBS Scene Restaurant & Bar, a One-Of-A-Kind Entertainment and Dining Destination. CBS Scene Restaurant and Bar. 6 September 2008.
http://www.cbsscene.com/CBS_Scene_pressrelease1.pdf.

"Noteboek"

Noteboek from Evelien Lohbeck on Vimeo.

Cult Film Culture

I’ve never quite understood what classifies a piece of pop culture as “cult worthy.” These somewhat bizarre, often eclectic bands, movies and television shows tend to fall under the general public’s radar, but still go on to have active followings years after their creation. Since I’m particularly interested in film, I’ve spent hours upon hours watching cult film classics, trying to unlock the code that gives insight into the lasting nature of these movies. As I continue to watch cult movies, a question keeps popping up in my mind: what features distinguish these films as special among the mountains of pop culture in the market today?

Let me be a bit more specific. I don’t think that cult classics are all the same. On the contrary, there are many different subdivisions in the category of cult classics.

There are the movies that are “so bad they’re good.” Mid-1900s grindhouse horror films are the best example of this. Movies like Night of the Living Dead (1968) and Pink Flamingos (1972) are two films that were hated by critics and were widely considered to be poorly made movies at the time of their release. And yet, fans today love watching the cheesy dialogue and disgusting gore that often defines these movies. In a way, it seems like quality is being mocked in these films, making these movies one giant inside joke between the viewer and the director.

Not all cult classics feature poor production values and awful acting. Indeed, many films that obtain a cult following are known for being amazingly introspective works of art. Both Donnie Darko (2001) and Blade Runner (1982) are constantly praised for being thought provoking and complex; these films transcend social norms and force viewers to consider fairly esoteric viewpoints. Not only that, but when watching these films, it’s clear that the director has poured his or her heart and soul into the project. These films can often have a polish on them that is rarely seen in mainstream cinema.

While both of these categories attract thousands of eager followers a year, the vast majority of people still feel alienated by the films. They don’t get them. The films are "too weird." Most people would rather watch something more manageable, something more easily understood.

So, the few who stick around are left to decipher the meanings hidden deep with the plots of these movies. “So bad they’re good” cinema and esoteric cinema both have subversive qualities that make them unique. They aren’t trying to fit into the cookie cutter definition of a Hollywood hit. Rather, they’re trying to break that mold, trying to test the limits of filmmaking as an art form. And, usually, critics and the general population shove back, unwilling to accept a change to what they know and love.

Are followers of cult classics looking for an active way to subvert the pop culture that rules Hollywood today? It's quite possible.

Now, cult fans are using the Internet to find others like them. Communities on the Internet have sprouted up in support of these subversive forms of entertainment. These cultish followers don’t have to feel alienated from the general public's often narrow definition of art. They can find comfort in chatting with other avid fans, showing participatory culture in action on message boards and in chat rooms.

Can a producer or a director go into pre-production knowing that he or she will make a cult classic? I doubt it. There’s simply no formula to producing these movies. Once a filmmaker tries to make a cult movie from a formula, that movie loses all of its power to defy conventions.

I wouldn’t be surprised if current day advertisers are looking at cult films as guides towards making viral videos. Advertisers want to create a 30 second spot that has the same powerful emotional effect that 90 minute long cult films have. It’s a monumental task and probably somewhat futile. Advertising is the antithesis of subversive culture.

I’m far off from fully understanding the subcultures related to cult classics. However, I’m endlessly fascinated by the idea of them. Cult classics should be looked at as works of art and not just “weird” films. There’s still a lot to learn from these underdog hits.

Selling a School

Around campus, it seems as if everyone’s talking about the same thing: College. With mere minutes before the May 1st decision deadline, I find myself feeling a bit nostalgic. The college process isn’t easy by any stretch of the imagination. Indeed, for an entire year (and maybe more for particularly motivated students), the senior class of 2009 has written application after application, waited for decisions, faced disappointments and victories, all while trying to find the perfect “fit.”

It’s an impossible task, really. The monumental pressure we put on ourselves to go to the best school is enough to make even the brightest of minds break.

As Phillips Academy students, we actively go into the college process knowing that it’s a lot of work, knowing that it’s one huge potshot, knowing that it’s just a numbers game for admissions officers. And yet, many kids seek the Ivy League acceptances with a fierce determination and a focused gaze. In fact, at Phillips Academy, many kids apply to terrific schools they don’t even like; they just want to see if they can get in.

How do Andover students choose which schools to apply to? Is it based on a generic formula where kids only apply to the colleges or universities that are right for them?

Call me cynical, but I’m sure it’s not. High achieving students are sold from the time they complete first grade that the best schools are in the Ivy League or in U.S. News and World Report’s Top 25 colleges. They’re gift wrapped and packaged as the places where the best of the best attend. People are told they have the best facilities and the best teachers. Graduates supposedly lead the best lives and have the best jobs. Right?

Not necessarily. But this is the idea that is generated by the Ivy League hype machine. Through brochures and packets and artfully designed websites, we’re fed an image and a name rather than any substantial information about a specific college. Everything on these college websites has a glossy, plastic feel. I wouldn’t be surprised if the actual college experience is nothing like what the brochures tell you about.

You don’t have to look at colleges to see the advertising of education in action. In fact, examples are close to home. Just visit andover.edu.

The redesign of Phillips Academy’s website features a faux-parchment heading and student spotlights reveling “insightful” comments into life at Andover. As an actual Andover student, the entire site reeks of inaccuracies; life on Andover Hill is nothing like the descriptions on andover.edu that have an eerie, “Stepford” quality about them. In fact, I know many of the featured students on Andover’s website, and they aren’t nearly as perfect or content as that website might make them seem.

But the thing is, schools aren’t trying to accurately portray campus life. They’re trying to sell a prepackaged, processed, homogenized product.

When we fall in love with a school, are we attracted to the actual experience or are we hypnotized by the rose-colored ads? Probably the latter of the two. After all, wouldn’t it be nice to believe that the ads depict the campus in its actuality?

With May 1st almost here, I wonder if my own college choice was based on truth or a mirage that ad companies have created over the years. I feel that I’ve done my homework. I’ve emailed people, read reports and reviews, watched videos on each school’s programs. But I could have just scratched the surface, missing the actual essence of a school.

But that’s the beauty of these ads. How could you ever know?

"Autumn Story"

Firekites AUTUMN STORY - chalk animation from Yanni Kronenberg on Vimeo.

"Parallelostory"

Parallelostory from impactist on Vimeo.

"Fallen Art"

Stay tuned to Current (.com)

While the newspaper as we know it is dying and television news channels are controlled by large media empires with special interests, it’s hard to find a “free” press source. Indeed, Herman and Chomsky would argue that their probably is no such thing as unfiltered new. That could very well be true, but current.com tries to defy that reasoning.

Chaired by politician and activist, Al Gore, Current News is an online news network that works with young viewers to create reports and shows on a variety of subjects. From hard news to movies, from music to technology, Current has something for everyone while allowing anyone to interact with its news.

On current.com, one can upload different video segments about almost anything. There are three different types of videos Current hopes one will make: TV, Pods or Ads.

TV, current says, is the easiest video to make. Using average equipment, one can film, edit and upload a TV segment in less than 10 minutes. It’s a quick and easy process, but honestly, how much quality can one produce in less than 10 minutes? A rushed project usually comes out jarring and hard to follow. Plus, the content is almost always sub-par. If Current is trying to promote the creation of “legitimate” news, they probably shouldn't be endorsing a “produce-it-quick” method towards media programing.

The next segment available to aspiring filmmakers and news anchors is the creation of “pods.” Pods are part of Current’s VC2 initiative (viewer created content). In less than seven minutes, pods tell stories and give a more focused look at a particular subject. Whereas TV is a content creation free-for-all, pods are generally of a high quality. Indeed, Current rewards well made pods with cold hard cash, giving people the impetus to create the best quality videos they can. And, if a pod is particularly good, it might be broadcast into homes around America. Enticed by the prospect of money and momentary fame, people around the world are producing better and better pods on a daily basis.

While both TV and pods give viewers the option to create whatever they want, Current News’ most brilliant idea, Ads, operates a bit differently. Sponsors make a deal with Current TV and create contests in which viewers are challenged to make the best ad for the sponsor as they possibly can. And, if a sponsor likes a particular ad, the creators are awarded anywhere from $2,500 to upwards of $60,000 depending on where the ad airs. Essentially, Current is asking its users to create good, cheap ads that promote anything from ALMAY to McDonald's. What a brilliant idea! People around the world can film their own creative and innovative ads with their friends and family, promoting the product on a local and a global level. Think of the exposure that one sponsor could get from using Current’s advertising method? It has endless possibilities.

Current.com is the definition of participatory culture. Average everyday viewers can create their own news, their own pods, even their own ads. And some pretty amazing content has come from this creative media free-for-all. Vanguard is a weekly TV show that goes in-depth into a variety of topics, anywhere from the political situation in Myanmar to the illegal gun market in the Middle East. With high production values, Vanguard comes out with some fascinating topics that are the pinnacle of Current’s potential quality.

While Vanguard and Current’s other news stories are the foundation of the project, comedy acts and entertainment review shows are also popular. Because of its YouTube-esque nature, Current has something to offer everyone.

With media changing so quickly and so drastically, it’s important to look at media projects like current.com for the future. Who knows? Companies might start following the Current model, giving more control and money to the viewers that ultimately bring in revenue. Hey, participatory culture has lifted American Idol to international success. Who’s to say it can’t help Current?

The First Great Twitter War

I’m more than a week late on the uptake of this story, but I can’t help but comment on it.



On April 13, 2009, television and movie actor Aston Kutcher released a YouTube video challenging famed news network, CNN, to see who could be the first to gain 1,000,000 Twitter followers. At first glance, it might seem like a silly, trivial act. However, Kutcher started the first ever Twitter War.

So here we have two opponents:

In one corner, there’s Kutcher. Young and famous. Representing the youth of America and the power of the Internet.

And in the other corner stands CNN. Long time media mogul. Serious news source. A icon of the antediluvian form of television entertainment (well, antediluvian for technology, that is).

And who steps up to be the face of this television media behemoth? None other than the equally ancient Larry King.



In a video response to Kutcher, King scoffs at the idea that this newfangled Internet could ever upset the balance of power that a major news source like CNN has over the public. It’s ridiculous, he claims. How could a celebrity really hope to one-up a company like CNN?

Why, through grassroots movements of course! Kutcher went online and streamed homemade videos, asking members of the Internet community to follow his Twitter account. And, while CNN used the likes of Larry King and Anderson Cooper to promote the CNN Twitter account on their respective shows, Kutcher was ultimately able to rally his young, tech-savvy fan base on a 24/7 basis, all from the comfort of his living room couch.

On April 16, 2009, Kutcher’s Twitter account reached 1,000,000 followers, only thirty minutes before CNN achieved its million member milestone. In a way, this proves that the Internet is the new media superhero, taking power from the corporations and giving it to the individual.

There’s much more going on here than just a friendly challenge between a media movie star and a media news corporation. The fact is that the public would rather support Kutcher, the goofy creator of Punk’d, over the respectable news source, CNN. It’s mind-blowing, really. And all it took was a cultural war on Twitter to make this fact painfully obvious.

Does this mean that we’ve become completely obsessed with the idea of the celebrity? Has celebrity news really taken priority over news on international policy and sweeping economic reforms?

I certainly hope not.

However, what’s equally shocking to me is that CNN decided to play Kutcher’s silly game. They wanted to take the unnecessary risk and ended up paying a price. While this "war" may be free publicity for it and its Twitter accounts, think about how embarrassing the loss truly is. CNN was beaten by Ashton Kutcher in what is essentially a popularity contest. How supremely disappointing in CNN and the population of Twitter.

Meanwhile, the managers of Twitter certainly aren’t complaining. With the introduction of celebrity Twitter-ers like Ashton Kutcher and Oprah Winfrey, Twitter is gaining more media attention and subscribers than ever before. In the month of March alone, Twitter witnessed at 131 percent growth in accounts. As Twitter becomes more and more popular, these celebrity “tweets” will undoubtedly gain the attention of millions of people worldwide. Kutcher has already proved that.

As for Larry King, it looks like he was wrong. Television and big media are losing their touch. Faster and more interactive, the Internet has revolutionized media as we know it, and in the process, has made television a second-ranked form of communication.

This might be a win for Kutcher and the power of the individual on the World Wide Web.

However, it’s a huge loss for television and respectable news as a whole.

"You Won't Remember This Either" from NYT's Animated Life

Check it out here

This is PrettyMuchAmazing.

Welcome to the new artistic renaissance.

All around the world, filmmakers, musicians, artists and performers are congregating on the Internet to create the world’s largest photo album, the world’s largest mix tape, the world’s largest canvas. And everyone is welcoming the next big “thing” to add his or her handprint to the mix.

In the fringes of this artistic work-in-progress lies a tiny up-and-coming blog:

prettymuchamazing.com

PrettyMuchAmazing has the freshest, trendiest information on the indie music scene, posting reviews, previews and general insights into this hipster music.

But what makes PrettyMuchAmazing so intriguing is the type of music that is regularly placed on the front page. Music aficionados and artists come to this blog to dump remixes and samples for all to enjoy; only the best are chosen to appear as a posting.

These songs are usually covers of current pop sensations, banging club remixes of the Hot 100 or new creations using the samples of older songs. The music at PMA is the ultimate arts-and-crafts project. This is a blog where the old meets the new, and, let me tell you, the new music is consistently unique, fresh and totally entertaining.

The vast majority of featured artists and remixers on PMA aren’t well-known. So, they’re using this website as their own personal mix tape, allowing anyone around the world to stream or download the MP3s of this blended music.

Of course, record companies wouldn’t like the music on prettymuchamazing.com. Artists are stealing old beats and lyrics, creating new songs from the pieces and distributing them on the Internet for free. It’s the ultimate form of culture jamming and a prime example of participatory culture. People are interacting with their music in completely new ways, using programs the likes of GarageBand to twist and warp popular music into underground creations.

From a corporate standpoint, this is all bad. But think of all the talent that’s just hiding in the folds of the Internet, even at prettymuchamazing.com, waiting to be snatched up by companies with multimillion dollar contracts. This is the future of music; the record industry could use PMA for talent scouting and promotional content.

People have long wondered when the record industry would finally fail; CD sales are declining steadily while digital downloads become the consumer norm. The music business needs some life support, and they might just find it in the blogs and remixers that they are trying to stop through lawsuits. Underground music could add the breath of fresh air the industry so desperately needs.

After all, PMA’s name says it all. What’s happening in the Internet’s artistic communities is simply amazing.