I remember thinking how lame Facebook was when I kept
getting email requests from family and friends to join. Why would I want to be online just to se
people? Why not go to visit the, or call them up on the phone. My former self would laugh and point at me in
the present because, as a busy mother of there young children, Facebook has
become my touchstone for getting to know new friends, keeping in touch with old
ones, and keeping abreast of the general goings-on in the world. We don’t have cable, so we use, Netflix and
YouTube for a lot of our more passive entertainment. Social media has allowed me to manage my
public and personal life in a more dynamic way than I could have ever imagined
growing up with out computer. First and
foremost, I use social media and mobile devices for function. I find variety of
platforms useful depending on the type of interaction I seek, so I release my
information based on this. We always
want to know what people are up to and how that relates to our own needs and
desires. When thinking about using these mediums for surveillance, it is
something I expect to occur where you have copious amounts of people engaging a
medium at any given moment. Whether on a
social or political scale, such surveillance is inevitable. I absolutely agree with the Albrechtshlund’s idea
that the surveillance online social networking provides is not negative, but a
neutral space because of its participatory nature (2008). One might argue the
primary hindrance to accessing information, is based on one’s ability to
understand networks. In other words, if
one knows where to look on the Internet, one will surely find the information
they seek or at least make contact with whom to ask. This is possible because
someone bothered to observe, ask, and respond. Someone bothered to engage and
act.
Along with this active engagement is Sherry Turkle’s
observation that the “windows” by which we access the Internet are the same
vehicles through we access and develop different parts of our character, or in
some cases, we construct entirely new personae (1997). What I find particularly fascinating is the way
the web space has empowered people to be creative. With social network sites like Pintrest,
Tumblr and of course, YouTube, people can literally create their own stage to
express there own artistic insights, inclinations and creations. As a singer, I have the option of taking voice
lessons from any number of teachers from around the world via Skype, and watch
supplementary workshops and master classes on their YouTube channel. Which brings me to the Internet “sensation.” The musical “prodigies” who emerge and are
discovered among a sea of, well, other amateurs. Just because someone is famous, does that
make him or her a star? Social media has made fame that much more attainable
for more people, and for any lover of art and music that should be concerned. While I am a firm believer that the arts are
first and foremost meant to be shared, and the Internet is perhaps the most
effective catalyst for this end, I also believe that it creates a grey area where
the access to media means access to “me,” all day everyday. Suddenly, everyone
who wants to be famous can be famous out of mere exposure. Ms. Turkle further alludes to this
quasi-narcissism as in her TED as the by-product of our digital social
networking culture. TED blogger Ben
Lillie reiterates the three illusions Turkle says our use of this technology
gives us: hey offer us three fantasies:
1) We’ll have attention everywhere.
2) We’ll always be heard.
3) We’ll never have to be alone.
(Lillie, 2012)
Our use of the social media and mobile technologies has made
creating as easily as literally clicking a button. Fame can occur by the same means. How does
this change the way we view the arts? How do we choose whom to celebrate in our
society? How does our access and exposure to those we celebrate shape our
values on art and creativity?
 |
| Photo by Adam Sundana |
No comments:
Post a Comment