So, realised that what i wrote was wrong....

6 weeks of notes are about to come out in a matter of hours... enjoy...





The Rough Magic ... (introductory) 




My notes from this lecture are predominately about the significance of the printing press and how it helped fuel new media such as newspapers and print.....





Lois jacques-Mande Daguerre, Boulevard Du Temple

Incredibly slow exposure isn't for everyone.. just the shoe shiners....

This was the most significant photo i remember as it was almost illustrated due to the posture of the shoe polishers.

I get how this was influential as being one of the first photographs, but in terms of photography its lacking subject and technique... (Bias)

Anyway. Proper blog posts:

Reading the Signs (Semiotics):





Quote from my notes; "The use of signs and symbols and their use of interpretation"

From what i remember semiotics, is how the medium/content of a certain media is percieved throught the audiences eyes/mind.

Nothing New:







Nothing new - atleast the way i remember it, is that nothing is unique or original -  that everything is referenced or paying homage to something that previously been done. this is pretty much present throughout every aspect of media from film, photography even audio (as music) - genres take on influence.

This is much refered to as intertextuality -  for instance the picture i chose to use as an example is that of Planet of the Apes which is - as remembered in lectures as similar to that of used in Madagascar. Havent got the exact quote to hand but "Damn you, damn you all to hell" springs to mind.

Two sides to everything:


So apparantly i missed this lecture and hadn't actually read it until now. However after going throught the slides, i notie parts that i can relate and reference too:

'Uncover the conceptual structures by which various cultures organise their perception and understanding of the world'


It's basically trying to say despite one persons perspective, it doesn't necessarily mean that is how its perceived as a generalisation. It's all down to individual perception and interpretation.

Marshalls Law/ Marshal Mcluhan 


I felt as if marshall Mcluhan was on the right track with understanding media, as he (and Lev Manovich) considered the idealism of it being able to control how people felt and acted. However Marshal chose to considered the means of media at the forefront of the question rather then media as a generalisation. (vague i know, but i feel its better left un answered only questioned)



during the lecture i remember we we're given this image in a slide, and i was told it was fast and a representative of speed. I however did not see it at all, instead i took on board an abstract approach. (Just because the curves and the blurred colour i dont think should instantly correlate to it being speedy, more rushed and insignifianct. (bias)

Sorry for everyone reading if its rambled, and literally makes no sense, it makes sense to me because of my vague notes for justification.

I wish i kept on top of it per lecture, but i wasn't paying attention. (wish i could say these posts were done over a matter of weeks, but with no justification, i only have my notes to rely on.

The Only Way Is Semi-otics...?

Sitting in my room with a load of girls, the common topic of The Only Way Is Essex came up amongst the girls whilst i chose to stare straight ahead at my laptop and ignore them.... (standard)

Then i noticed how there perspective had changed such general topics, which made me think, most people fight the fact that the media changes/controls people...

So why don't people acknowledge it? i may be bias in saying this but; if the media shapes/influence who you are, surely if this has any ounce of truth you can actually shape who you are by what you let in/listen to or watch etc..

For instance, music changes the way i feel and think, almost subliminally or at least unconsciously.


Just wanted to know if anyone has considered that.

Neglected My Duties...

So new update. Came across Lev Manovich and he's concept on New Media, definitely and interesting read and one i had a little nerd moment with in PPD.

Lev Manovich

Lev Manovich - “what was private became public”

What Lev Manovich is saying - not at all in a negative way (for at least how I’ve read it) he’s talking about with new forms of media becomes new understandings, new ways that people can be heard and get there understandings across through new media practice, fundamentally peoples thought have now been externalized into a way which the mass can use breaking the niche.

It’s an extension of your own mind…

  

Lev Manovich - “Interactive computer media perfectly fits this trend to externalize and objectify minds operations” 

People externalise their thoughts through the way they use the Internet, for instance, if you have a blog what you post or reference, from pictures or text, can reflect how your mind works. You may be able to notice this through user association, how they jump from one article or picture to another…. People that tend to blog, tend to surf the Internet simultaneously.

With that said; its just a personal opinion

------------------------------------------------------------------

And a little update and introduction on Ada Lovelace.

Ada Lovelace

Ada Lovelace was a significant part of computer development and science - despite being active in the 1800s - she was responsible for translating and noting Louis Menebrea's Analytical Engine memoir for  Charles Babage, in 1842-3. Which in 1980 the Minstry of Defence named the Computer Language Ada after Ada Lovelace.


Theres a brief/vague introduction to the significance of Ada and heres one for the popular culture:


Enchantress Of Numbers is a film based on the life of Ada Lovelace set for release in 2011 theres not much information about the film, but may be worth a watch to those interested.

Bit of a dense post, but thought it was well overdue.

Peace