“Technologies are never ‘just tools’. They are evocative objects. They cause us to see ourselves and our world differently”, says Sherry Turkle (“Whither Psychoanalysis in Computer Culture” in Readings in the philosophy of technology, 2004). This quote came to mind when I read about the English fashion label Burberry Prorsum that presented its fall collection for 2010 in a 3D show on the runway and simultaneously via live streaming on the Internet. A historical event – fashion goes virtual.

http://www.fashionwiredaily.com/first_word/news/article.weml?id=3100

I found it especially interesting that Burberry no longer offers clothing suitable for the British weather but that they have turned their argument around: The rain has become an important accessory for the outfits. While the show in London was hosted on a rainy day – a perfect coincidence and captured by the media coverage – the runway presentation itself was staged with video projected rain and respective sound elements. The live stream thus becoming a mediated mediation…

http://www.gosee.de/news/fashion/burberry-prorsum-3d-events-und-live-stream-aus-dem-regnerischen-london-8580

In this project we see once again all the aspects that go together with the phenomenon of the virtual space already discussed in this Blog (compare Anne Friedberg’s “The Mobilized and Virtual Gaze in Modernity”, 1998) – for example the mastery of time and space. There is also the concept of remediation included as Bolter has described it (“Remediation: Understanding New Media”, 1999). But how does Turkle’s idea of technologies as evocative objects fit into this?

I find the mediated presentation very impressive – it clearly has reached a new level of invasiveness. I believe, selling the rain as an accessory is only ever possible with the help of new media technology. The spectator learns a really fashion centred look at the world: Burberry is no longer only associated with the UK but more broadly with a natural phenomenon. So we do see the world differently – what about the perception of ourselves? Although the live stream takes us on a virtual journey to other geographic locations, our world also grows together a bit more. We get to speak a more global language as we learn a new common association. The live streaming also enables us to experience the show together with uncountable other people around the world at the same time. We feel a bit more like a part of a truely global community.

http://live.burberry.com/presentations/burberry-prorsum-womenswear-spring-summer-2011-show-1

The possible downside of this: Thanks to innovation in technology and the claim of virtual space, brands become even more capable of shaping our world. Will that be to our advantage?

(picture source: http://www.mod-tv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/bfbaffac-44e8-4c22-9562-84336575a484-e1265635450577.jpg)

The real and the virtual world is really becoming my favourite theme. The movie “You’ve got Mail” from the year 1998 made me think about the meaning we could give to the dial-up ring tone we usually heard back in the days when connecting our computer to the Internet via a 56k modem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0

This typical sound can be understood as a sign for transition – the transition from the real to the virtual world. Like in an elevator that carries one to another floor and inflicts a moment of immobility on us, one could imagine a passageway to cyberspace being established during that dial-up ring tone.

It was a moment where there was nothing else to do but to sit and contemplate. Although it was a short travel, it seems incredibly long from today’s point of view. Broadband has made us get used to websites being loaded in an instance. Everything that takes longer than a couple of seconds leaves us impatient and annoyed.

Leased lines have eliminated the phase of transition and at the same time, the border between real and virtual world has become blurred. We are always “on” and can jump from one world to the next. Mobile gadgets cut our ties to a static desktop computer and screens blend into our environment (compare “The Screen and the User” in The Language of New Media, Manovich 2001). Does that mean the border is in fact vanishing? Do the two worlds eventually will become one or at least completely superimpose each other?

Browsing through different discussion boards shows, that most artists seem to join Social Networking sites because they want to gain greater recognition. In other words, they are mainly interested in diffusion. Quite a few also notice, that the employment of different sites at once helps promoting a central Blog or website. In this case, big networks like Facebook offer the best chances for publicity – artists not only reach their peers but also potential buyers and supporters. “Facebook.com has many, many artists and photographers and broader base of age mix”, they say:

http://www.artbizblog.com/2007/09/social-networking-for-artists.html

Some artists also value feedback and are seeking inspiration. They obviously want to move outside their dense clusters, establish bridges to new groups and thus trigger innovation. It can be noticed that these artists also tend to be active in different networks at once. MyArtInfo.com, Humblevoice.com or StumbleUpon.com are some of the Social Networking sites that are named frequently. But here, artists move within their designated clusters. Bigger networking sites like deviantART.com have developed that offer both, diffusion and innovation. General sites like Facebook, Flickr or even MySpace are recommended too within the artists’ communities.

http://www.blueglass.com/blog/design-art-related-social-networking-sites/

On the downside, sites like the encyclopedia dramatica devalue deviantART as a big Social Networking site. According to it, the platform attracts egomanic attention seekers and fosters the dramatising or blowing up of ideas and thus destroys the original artistic spirit. From the perspective of Network Theory it can be argued whether this is due to people’s reluctance towards change.

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/DeviantART

http://www.dreamhack.se/
(picture: Wikimedia Commons)

Before the background of Anne Friedberg’s famous text “The Mobilized and Virtual Gaze in Modernity” (Routledge 1998) there are different aspects that can be recognized although she analyses early forms of cinematography: The darkened room, the immobility of the spectators, the visual mastery over the constraints of time and space.

What I think most important, is the people’s wish to come together in one place in reality although they could enter the virtual world from any place on earth. Does this draw the two worlds somehow closer together?

People value the cinematic experience not only because of the bigger screen and better sound it has to offer in comparison to home video systems for example. Although they do not speak with each other during the spectacle the mutual presence seems to provide the feeling of a common experience. The same might be true for LAN-Parties.

Furthermore, there is again the aspect of “going there” that seems to make the event attractive. Worth noticing though is the increased degree of immobility that follows: During the four days of a DreamHack event the players barely move. The body is neglected – it even becomes a kind of burden since it requires food and sleep.

People obviously want to spend the as much time in the virtual space as possible. Interestingly enough, Friedberg did not attempt to question why virtuality is so attractive us. Is it the deception? Or the wish to leave our bodies behind that limit our mobility? Or with regard to video games: Do we like knowing (although we actually cannot with over 6.000 gamers attending) who else shares the virtual world with us?

http://www.thenextgreatgeneration.com/2010/09/14/facebook-goes-back-to-school/

I agree with the author but have also been thinking about the development of FB in terms of Mark Granovetter’s theory about “The strength of weak ties” (in American Journal of Sociology, 1973 Vol. 78 No. 6). Facebook started off as a close-knit network with a high density and strong social cohesion – a computer network exclusively for students at Harvard University. The network grew due to weak ties to other clusters, so-called bridges, that brought innovation and established other areas of interest. First, these new clusters were other universities in the United States, than more and more people from all kinds of different networks joined FB.

Granovetter uses the example of a man who is changing jobs and thus establishes those bridges and routes for the flow of information and ideas: “When a man changes jobs, he is not only moving from one network of ties to another, but also establishing a link between these”. The growth of Facebook is closely linked to economic decisions. But if I leave that fact aside, I could also explain its growth with the development of its users. Facebook was founded in the year 2004. A bachelor’s degree can be completed in an average of three years. Those students that moved out of the university’s close circle and into the working world, established new ties and – according to Granovetter – built bridges to other networks. Instead of quitting FB after they ended their studies, these students integrated their new contacts and in this way the network naturally grew extensively.

So, is it really Facebook’s fault that its face has changed so much? If there weren’t the economic reasons that are playing a vital role, we could almost answer this question in the negative. Is “Universities on Facebook” as a network within the network a solution? Maybe. But I would believe that its fate is going to be similar to the parent network’s original history. The above mentioned Blog entry was written on 14. September and it mentions over 5.000 “Likes”. To date, that number has already more than doubled (almost 12.000 “Likes”). I would interpret this as a sign for a new, mighty diffusion. Maybe every generation needs its own Social Network Site?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfX_ZQag1BM

In the light of Mark Granovetter’s theory about strong and weak ties I would argue that Facebook Places helps building and maintaining strong ties. As per definition, those ties form when people spend a lot of time together. The new services help coordinate individual paths in order to make this happen. I have also argued before that personal interaction is necessary for strong ties to appear. Obviously, Places here also creates the prerequisites.

In “Place: Networked Place” (in “Networked Publics”, MIT Press 2008) Kazy Varnelis and Anne Friedberg describe how coffee houses turned from places for public discussion into areas where people do not speak with each other anymore but only interact with their electronic devices. Maybe, location-based services can reverse the trend. Maybe it cannot only influence strong ties but even help to strengthen weak ties. In the case of acquaintances for example that thanks to Places no longer meet occasionally by pure chance but on a more coordinated basis. Additionally, since Facebook also allows for the exchange of information about places, people have the opportunity to discover common interests and thus deepen their connections.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS351075125520100828

If to the advantage of weak or strong ties – I can imagine the new location-based services to help networks to establish and grow in either way. The public discussion about Facebook Places though is very concerned with the issue of privacy because users cannot only communicate their own locations but also those of their friends. As much as I share these concerns I can also see the chance for bridges to be established between clusters. Close friends might just reinforce cliques through the use of Places. But I can imagine that the communication of the location of friends may introduce nodes that have not yet been connected.

The extreme form of this pop journalism is called “borderline journalism”. There is one figure that has coined this term: The Swiss journalist and author Tom Kummer. He triggered a scandal in the year 2000 with his simulated interviews with Hollywood’s stars and starlets. In these interviews, he predominantly made up the celebrities’ answers, widely using quotes from famous philosophers like Baudrillard or Barthes. In this way, he brought across his own messages. The most fascinating thing was, that for a long time, none of the newspapers and magazines noticed the sham. In 2007 he published an autobiographic book about his work and today’s media culture entitled “Blow Up” (Blumenbar).

So far the background details on this interesting topic. The actual reason though for writing a Blog entry on this are the many statements Kummer makes in connection with today’s mediated society and the comments of those, that wrote about his case. Here are some links to recent articles:

http://www.freitag.de/kultur/0931-kummer-facebook-popjournalismus-medien
http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/spezial/kritiken/buecher/76020/index.php

“Kummer’s interviews are frauds of the frauds” is one such quote, meaning that the constructed identities of the celebrities are further modified through Kummer’s invented dialogs. Isn’t this Simulacra (“The precession of Simulacra”, Baudrillard 1994) but in reversed form? Another such quote says: “The fraud can be distinguished from the original because it looks more real”. Again there is the aspect of simulation and also how it is replacing reality. As Baudrillard argues in his text: “It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real” (p. 2). It is also indicated that today’s audiences want to be deceived. Krummer created stories that sold well and that was all that mattered to the newspapers and magazines. In this way, both sides got exactly what they wanted.

“The media constructs reality, by now this is fact. Can we fight this with more objectivity or subjectivity?”, asked the Berliner Zeitung in 2007 after Kummer’s book was published. For Kummer, the answer lies in greater subjectivity – but not necessarily with the goal to achieve a higher degree of reality. According to him, social media like Facebook offers for journalists (and assumingly everybody who likes to think of themselves as such) the possibility to publish opinion and stage themselves how they wish. One could argue that Facebook’s success proves how we happily all participate in constructing hyperrealism. “Art is, if you get by with it”, Warhol once said – today, everything goes and the biggest simulation might even be regarded as art.

http://www.wired.com/table_of_malcontents/2006/12/a_brief_history/

Since then, many more experiments have been started – even attempts to introduce smell-producing gadgets for desktop computers. Experts also research the use of smells in marketing in order to increase sales. Unfortunately, all of these were unsuccessful, visual and sound are the two prevailing attractions.

The wish to create bigger and better sensations seems to prevent experts from stopping their search for possibilities to include smell though. The blockbuster movie Avatar counts as the final arrival of 3D cinema. In Korea, people try to turn it into the arrival of 4D film as well. Moving seats, smells of explosives, sprinkling water, laser lights and wind add to the experience as Variety reports:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118014803.html?categoryid=19&cs=1&ref=bd_int

For me personally, smell is a very powerful sense. Therefore, I cannot understand why its introduction in cinema productions has not been more successful so far. Sure, smell is hard to control – the air in a movie theatre needs to be exchanged quickly. This might only be possible today with the help of modern technology. Also, if smell is not genuine it can potentially overlay all other elements of a film production and thus ruin a project in an instance. On the other hand, for me smell is deeply linked with specific memory. For this reason, a film that addresses this sense could make a very deep impression. The excursion into the virtual world would be even more insistent than light (compare Anne Friedberg, “The mobilized and virtual gaze in modernity” 1998) and sound alone. I am therefore looking forward to experiencing 4D cinema myself.

http://gigaom.com/collaboration/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-facebook/

I found two interesting summaries of applications for collaboration that exist on Facebook. “The Discussion Boards App is about to surpass Farmville in the number of monthly users. Apps like Notes, and Events which can also be used for virtual collaboration are close behind.” Such were the findings of the following Blog:

http://ihop.typepad.com/virtual/2010/06/facebook-applications-for-virtual-work-collaboration.html

But older applications like MyOffice and Huddle have obviously not had the expected success since their introduction two years ago. Students seem to coordinate their different events on the Social Network – even academic ones, as I know from my own experience – but are reluctant when it comes to study groups or the like.

http://www.nudgelondon.com/blog/2008/11/collaboration-on-facebook-serious-business/

User comments online suggest that besides the uncomfortable mix of private and business networks there are also the privacy issues on Facebook to consider as well as the ever changing service agreements. These reasons seem to prevent this Social Network of also becoming a collaboration network. Apparently, there are limits for Facebook to expand to a multi-purpose network after all and separate tools for communication, organization and collaboration such as listed by Barry Wellman (“Computer Networks As Social Networks”, Science Magazine 2001, Vol. 293) are in need.

http://www.argn.com/

ARG’s are not an invention of a TV Series. The above website is dedicated only to news about current ARG’s happening around the world. I can fully understand the appeal of these games. They promise adventure and entertainment. Besides that, interaction with other players is very important – teamwork is an essential part when it comes to solving the challenges. For this reason it is guaranteed to meet new people, in either world. The following article describes the whole phenomenon and points out especially the social factor of ARG’s.

http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/games/0,1518,682315,00.html

I think we can speak about a new culture that has evolved around these games. But is it really games we are talking about? The motto of the ARG community is “This is not a game”. The players are deeply immersed in it and there is no boundary between real life and this alternate reality – quite different from usual video games for example. In the Numb3rs episode mentioned above this was the exact reason for a crime to happen. If we believe that shootings like at Columbine high school were triggered by video games then it is even more apparent what effect the blurred line between reality and virtuality in ARG’s could have.

It is also unfortunate that most ARG’s are created by companies that want to sell. The first game (I just stick to the term for the sake of convenience) was initiated in order to advertise the film “A.I.” by Steven Spielberg. Fortunately though, according to the above mentioned article players seem to ignore the product messages and focus only on the adventure. Nevertheless, if I consider Anne Friedberg’s concept of the virtual gaze (“The Mobilized and Virtual Gaze in Modernity”, Routledge 1998) it is interesting to find that the commodity form plays an important role in the phenomenon. She linked the “Flâneuse” and the static consumption of images with the greater focus on shopping. But then again I can argue against Friedberg: The virtual gaze in case of the ARG’s is much less immobile than in her account of the rise of modernity.

Web 2.0 seems to remobilise the passive spectator. The writer and ARG-inventor Sean Stewart even speaks about an artistic form of communicating: “The Internet basically is about searching for things and gossiping, and we invented a way to tell stories that’s about searching for things and gossiping, (…). It is a much nicer way to deliver art across the platform.” (Grammar mistake as in original text).

http://news.cnet.com/Blurring-the-line-between-games-and-life/2100-1024_3-5590956.html?tag=mncol;txt