Choices: The making of a video mashup

At the beginning of my video mashup, I tried to connect drinking and driving by having the audio related to drinking (the song Shots) go along with both the  still images of drinking (the bottles, people chugging) and the still image of the keys. The short video clip of a car swerving also encapsulates this idea. The clip was brief because I wanted to set the tone of how quickly a mistake can be made, or perhaps how fast a drunk driver might be driving and therefore make a mistake. I put the audio of the crash to add drama to the still image of the crashed car. By placing the audio of the siren I was trying to make give the cop car more presence. Instead of just having an image, the audio makes the police more present in the viewer’s mind.

By putting the audio of the question “have you been drinking this evening” alongside the woman being breathalyzed, I hoped to bring together the ideas that had already come up about drinking, driving, and consequences (such as the cops). I chose to have the still image of the breathalyzer results be silent and not have a Ken Burns effects because I wanted the gravity of this to be suggested.

I included the video clip of the two statements in a commercial (“I can handle my liquor” and “I always make it home after a few” on a grave) to illustrate again the consequences of drinking and driving. I chose to include this grave site rather than a dead body or a body bag because I thought this commercial clip was clever. I also wanted to avoid being heavy handed. Through the use of the audio clip from Grey’s Anatomy clip I attempted to make a statement about the fact that drunk drivers affect other people as well. I had to up the volume on this audio just because it was too quiet to hear clearly.

I like the phone dial because it’s very non-attention grabbing, and suggests taking a pause. That’s also why I chose to leave this image still. I tried to end with a more upbeat song to suggest the positives of taking a cab home, and I also used this song because the lyrics relate to home.

Borrowing from others in mashups and research papers

In an assignment atypical of my usual coursework as an English major, for class I am making a mashup of images to make a visual argument. However, the mashup, though not traditional, has commonalities with the traditional research paper. In “Rw, Revived,” Lessig talks about the writing style of his English major friend, Ben, saying “He succeeded not simply by stringing quotes together. He succeeded because the salience of the quotes, in context, made a point that his words alone would not” (1).  This is true of both the mashup and a research paper. With both, a search is made for material to include, be it pictures or quotes, but the end result is reliant on the careful selection and ordering of material to make a strong point.

One major difference between mashups and research papers is the acknowledgment required. As Lessig points out in “Rw, Revived,” “the cite is always sufficient payment. And no one who writes for a living actually believes that any permission beyond that simple payment should ever be required” (1). While citation is sufficient when using quotes in a research paper, this is often not so in the case of mashups. In “Introduction,” Lessig describes how artist Candice Breitz was informed that “clearance for the use of the actual musical compositions must be secured from the relevant publishers” in order for her to have people singing Lennon songs in her exhibit (6). While this is an example of getting permission to use a song, similar rules apply to the use of images.

For example, I found the images for the mashup I am making using Creative Commons, a website where permission has already been giving. The existence of this website acknowledges the fact that many medias, including the instance provided by Lessig of Lennon’s music, require permission for use.

The way in which words or images are used in research papers or mashups is both similar and different. In talking about Ben, who I mentioned earlier, Lessig explains that when Ben quoted people, “their words made his argument” (1). Mashups are similar in that I am employing images to make an argument for me. However, when someone “quote[s] text from Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls in an essay,” the subject matter to which the quote can be applied is far more limited than with images in a mashup (Lessig, Rw, Revived, 2). While a quote from a book on war will likely end up in an essay on war, death, maturation, dealing with loss, post traumatic stress, etc, an image can be used in a mashup in any number of ways. A picture of a sad person can be used in a mashup arguing against drinking and driving, but it can also be used in a mashup arguing against a political figure that the artist who took the picture actually supports.

Whichever format you choose to make your argument, be sure to learn about the proper way to give credit to those you borrow from.

Check out my mashup:

Lessig, Lawrence. “Introduction.” Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin, 2009.

Lessig, Lawrence. “Rw, Revived.” Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. New York: Penguin, 2009.

To tweet or not to tweet: How does Twitter stand up against Facebook?

Freishtat and Sandlin write of Facebook that it “seeks to craft users with particular dispositions who behave in particular ways online, and… squelches, trivializes, and ultimately disciplines dissent on its site” (505). When examining Twitter rather than Facebook, in some ways it is even more regimented in terms of identity and agency. For example, on Facebook, short posts are encouraged as wall posts exceeding a certain limit are cut off with an ellipsis, but the entire post can be viewed by clicking on it. On Twitter, there is no exceeding the limit. Therefore users are not only encouraged to behave in certain ways, such as by “particular” behavior attracting more followers, but actually required in this case to behave in this manner.

Furthermore, on Facebook, multiple facets of a person’s life are on display: their wall posts, their interests, their home town, their age, and particularly their pictures– all dependent on the person’s choice to share such information. With Twitter on the other hand, the focus is on the 140 word messages people make. Twitter is different privacy-wise in that the main focus is the tweets. Users can create a bio which is limited to 160 words and post their other websites. There is one profile picture, and that means there aren’t albums full of photos for your mother and future boss to look through. For instance, I followed the actress Zoeey Deschanel and there is only one photo presented of her on her profile.

Twitter is  less private than Facebook as far as statuses or tweets. With such a focus on tweets rather than photographs, interests, etc., the things people say on Tweeter become everyone’s business. Furthermore, with the retweet feature something you say can spread like wildfire as people retweet it and it shows up on their timeline. Also, instead of writing on someone’s wall, users put an @ sign with the name of whoever they’re speaking to and the statement  they want to make. This means that everything you say is concentrated on your timeline and readily accessible for viewing. For example, my one friend I’m following had four tweets just within the past 24 hours which were intended as messages to another Twitter user, but that shows up  on her timeline for me to read.

However, along with Twitter’s focus on making tweets public comes the knowledge that this is the purpose of the site. I feel like the way Twitter is set up, with users choosing people to follow and read up on and the appearance of your own statements on your timeline, is a constant reminder that what you are writing is being looked at. Furthermore, the need to make concise statements and attract followers makes it clear that your profile is for public consumption. This can sometimes be easy to forget on Facebook as your followers are “friends” and you can limit your privacy settings (to the 600 people you’re friends with that is).

Who’s got the power: Are you in control while on Facebook?

In “Shaping Youth Discourse About Technology: Technological Colonization, Manifest Destiny, and the Frontier Myth in Facebook’s Public Pedagogy,” Richard Freishtat and Jennifer Sandlin argue that “Facebook uses a rhetoric of control to attract, maintain, and discipline users, and to help shape a public environment that appears to foster, but in fact is hostile to deliberative possibilities” (515-16). As somebody who frequents Facebook far more often than I would be willing to admit, I find that I agree with Freishtat and Sandlin.

Freishtat and Sandlin write that “the discourse surrounding online control of content focuses on users’ ability to manage who sees their information. Users are thus encouraged by Facebook to be willing to allow surveillance as long as it appears to be something they control” (516). Although there is “rhetoric of control,” I know from personal experience that changes in privacy policies are often implemented without Facebook advertising the users’ option to protect their information. More often than not, it is through others statuses or news articles that I learn to search through my privacy settings to protect against advertisers. Therefore although we feel we are in control, looking through settings can be a reminder of the unsettling fact that a number of things may have slipped our attention or may be difficult to change.

Furthermore, as the article points out, “Facebook seeks to craft users with particular dispositions who behave in particular ways” and “is a cultural space where normative behavior is established and policed diligently” (505, 517). While you may be in control of what you do on Facebook, as Freishtat and Sandlin argue there is hostility against this. For example, someone may believe that posting on walls is too public, and therefore choose to stay in contact with friends via Facebook chat or private messages. However, the focus on the wall is unavoidable, and someone may be considered to be unsocial or uninvolved if their wall contains dated posts. Therefore, although people have the control to do as they want on the website, there are a number of ways in which norms dictate what is expected.

Flickr vs. Photobucket

In the competition between the photosharing sites Flickr and Photobucket, as always it’s true that it depends on what the potential user is looking for. However, in my humble opinion, Flickr is the more useful site.

Flickr lists “two main goals”: to “help people make their photos available to the people who matter to them” and “enable new ways of organizing photos and video.” Photobucket’s goals seem related to offering a high capacity for photo and video storage, and the promotion of their “advanced organizer” to organize albums. While the sites feature similar functions, this is a major difference; whereas Flickr says that “the “album” metaphor is in desperate need of…full retirement,” Photobucket is sticking with albums but claiming to have increased its functionality.

I find Flickr’s organizational system more compelling. As the “About Flickr” points out, at a certain point albums become unmanageable and it becomes hard to remember exactly where that photo you want is located. Using Flickr, depending on the tag, a photo can show up in multiple “sets” or “collections” if it is relevant. Photobucket also employs tags, but it seems less comfortable and confident with how to use it. The “Tag your Photobucket” page says, “Tag your friends… Even tag and comment – “fly”, “crunk”, “emo.”” The hedging term “even” makes me unsure as to Photobucket’s prowess at tagging.

I also like the look of Flickr more. Flickr writes about their “elegant interface,” and while this is clearly self-promotional I do prefer their look to that of Photobucket. Photobucket reminds me of Myspace.

In addition, Photobucket describes the ability to share links to your photos with friends and family and even features (although less confidently) the ability to tag, but the website seems to be less about sharing with the community of Photobucket; Flickr on the other hand seems to have a preset group of people that the user does not know who might be interested in looking at his or her pictures as a result of the clearly described (and promoted) tagging system. Photobucket is functional for people looking to save their photos to a safe website, and draw friends’ attention to pictures by posting links. Flickr seems more useful in that they can serve the same function as Photobucket just mentioned, but also foster the capacity for easily browsing others photos related to a particular interest or interacting with other photo enthusiasts.

If you’re interested in joining a photosharing website, be sure to check out Photobucket or Flickr yourself.

A screenshot of the Photobucket homepage

A screenshot of the Flickr homepage

Some thoughts on Bryan Alexander’s thoughts

In reading Bryan Alexander’s article, “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” I was struck by the balance he highlights between openness and selectiveness about accessibility. There is obviously no right answer as to which balance a website should choose, and a lot of that depends on the purpose of the website. As Alexander describes the numerous technologies available to us at the click of a mouse, it became clear that at some point a site must make a choice about features in order to cater to a certain community, such as an academic versus a general audience.

Alexander writes that “some wiki platforms allow users to lock down pages from editing or restrict access to authorized users” (par. 6). This seems like an important feature if a site is going to be used by a scholar. As most students who have written a research paper can attest to, Wikipedia is not a site that a professor would find acceptable on a works cited page. The ease with which web pages can be edited by people who may not have a reliable knowledge source can make legitimate knowledge questionable on certain sites. This might lead one to believe that all sites should screen potential writers. However, as Alexander points out, “a history class could use Blogdex in an exercise in thinking about worldviews” (par. 26). This really cool suggestion is a reminder that hearing a multitude of voices with different opinions is important in thinking globally and expanding our minds. The ability to expand our sources of knowledge makes this an amazing time period to be alive. We just have to take care to take some information we find with a grain of salt, and be smart users of web 2.0.

Alexander, Bryan. “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” EDUCAUSE Review Mar./April 2006: 32-44.