I visited the London Knowledge Lab in june. That was exiting. One of the project presented to our group had some interesting findnings about the use of youtube. After going through a large amount of profiles, they found that 0.17% of these users had actually uploaded anything! This means that for everyone contributing, there are at 600 only watching (of course there are possibilities of people having more than one profile and of one profile being run by more than one person). And many contributions, as we all know, are not the result of any creative work, but of riping.
The discussion I’m talking about should circle around how we depict young people on the net. Considering that we use these assumptions when thinking about education, it is important not to base them on obscure examples. Our schools are mainly for the 600 people watching. The relevance of marginal online youth culture must be questioned. We cannot believe that everything we see is an instance of ”early adoption.”
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Lifespace
We appreciate young people’s freedom and creativity, but not seeing or hearing or feeling it outside well established media channels. We like them to be with friends, but loitering is viewed as a social problem. A system called mosquito uses high frequency sound to make people under the age of 25 (approximately) move away from places we don’t want them to hang around. The truth is that the social spaces of many urban areas are heavily restricted. The ideal person in such surroundings is buying stuff!
On this background it’s striking how the picture of the youth’s use of the Internet is often so colourful. They make friends and flirt and chat and quarrel and do all sorts of things in this ‘virtual space.’ Given that we don’t give them any real space, it’s suspiciously convenient to imagine that they have an almost infinite space somewhere else. I’ve heard teenagers talking about hanging on the net. Isn’t that cute?
I realise the importance of the net, but the way we depict it in general, and especially the way we think about young peoples ‘life online,’ should be the object of constant critical inquiry. The metaphors we use should be scrutinized, the architectures of control investigated. To think that most young people today are expressing them selves in new ways in virtual environments is in my opinion far too optimistic. When in a fatalist mood I think it is consumption all the way down.
On this background it’s striking how the picture of the youth’s use of the Internet is often so colourful. They make friends and flirt and chat and quarrel and do all sorts of things in this ‘virtual space.’ Given that we don’t give them any real space, it’s suspiciously convenient to imagine that they have an almost infinite space somewhere else. I’ve heard teenagers talking about hanging on the net. Isn’t that cute?
I realise the importance of the net, but the way we depict it in general, and especially the way we think about young peoples ‘life online,’ should be the object of constant critical inquiry. The metaphors we use should be scrutinized, the architectures of control investigated. To think that most young people today are expressing them selves in new ways in virtual environments is in my opinion far too optimistic. When in a fatalist mood I think it is consumption all the way down.
Monday, April 21, 2008
The coma node
I realize that my blog is in a coma. The posts are like microscopic hand movements, maybe indicating life. But I should not pull the plug on it just yet. For all I now there will be a second wave of blogging and then I can say: “I’ve been doing it for years.” I’m looking forward to that.
These days I’m thinking about how similar the world is despite how much it has changed. Biologically we are the same. Many structures are as strong as ever, and after doing observations in a school in Oslo I see that the classrooms are pretty much the same, too. Not that I expected something radically different, but I spend a lot of time reading the words of ePreachers, putting ‘digital’ in front of everything, so it’s easy to hold some stupid expectations.
The point is not that we are in any sort of stand still. And I do really believe that the network society gives us reasons to change many models and maybe the way we think about education. But these discussions all to soon end up being occupied by screamers: The one side saying everything was better 50 years ago, the other saying we have to change it all to fit some made up ‘digital’ future.
And still young people go to school, getting bored in the classrooms, flirting, fighting, trying to figure out who they are, what they should do and what the point of all this is. If you are an outsider, you might find somewhere to participate on the net, getting the space you are not given in other places. That’s a good thing! If you’re an insider, you probably participate on the net too, using facebook or myspace or whatever, extending, or showing of, what you have elsewhere. And many people do not, lonely or highly sociable, use the net at all.
All of us are never the less affected by the ways new media (new communicational technology) changes the spaces around us. For instance through the impact this has on language (new metaphors, SMS-lingo etc) and in the way physical proximity becomes less important in structuring what you hear, read, say and think about. So both what you say and think, and how you do this, is affected by the tools we use and by the fact that we are linked.
These days I’m thinking about how similar the world is despite how much it has changed. Biologically we are the same. Many structures are as strong as ever, and after doing observations in a school in Oslo I see that the classrooms are pretty much the same, too. Not that I expected something radically different, but I spend a lot of time reading the words of ePreachers, putting ‘digital’ in front of everything, so it’s easy to hold some stupid expectations.
The point is not that we are in any sort of stand still. And I do really believe that the network society gives us reasons to change many models and maybe the way we think about education. But these discussions all to soon end up being occupied by screamers: The one side saying everything was better 50 years ago, the other saying we have to change it all to fit some made up ‘digital’ future.
And still young people go to school, getting bored in the classrooms, flirting, fighting, trying to figure out who they are, what they should do and what the point of all this is. If you are an outsider, you might find somewhere to participate on the net, getting the space you are not given in other places. That’s a good thing! If you’re an insider, you probably participate on the net too, using facebook or myspace or whatever, extending, or showing of, what you have elsewhere. And many people do not, lonely or highly sociable, use the net at all.
All of us are never the less affected by the ways new media (new communicational technology) changes the spaces around us. For instance through the impact this has on language (new metaphors, SMS-lingo etc) and in the way physical proximity becomes less important in structuring what you hear, read, say and think about. So both what you say and think, and how you do this, is affected by the tools we use and by the fact that we are linked.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Old but funny
People talk about remixing as if it was a magic formula, but here we can at least see an example that is realy good (an important point is never the less that Eddie Izzard makes the fun; without him the LEGO animation would loose most of its punch, hence its a "secondary modality" if one likes words like that).
Time to try again
I’ve realized that the concepts of participation and content production as it is understood by some researchers on the field of so called web 2.0 phenomena (user generated content and social software and so on), may make analysis of consumption more difficult. If you treat anything as production, people will come through as extremely reflected and artistic under any circumstances. Reading blogs is interesting, but when hearing that 28% (of American youth) create their own journal or blog (PEW 2007), one has to wonder about the quality level of these “productions” (and in a norwegian context: where are they?) And even more important: One has to ask if the survey separates “have tried to write a blog” from “are writing a blog.” As far as I can tell they are not.
Given the common way of grouping “have tried’s” as “regulars” I myself would be a dedicated blogger. It is in my opinion not wise to lower the threshold this far down (“again with the virtual masochism”). You are then missing out on the fact that consuming media content is still the most important activity (the process of consumption might be more complex and interactive, but never the less…). Then you might also become blind to power structures that are having different, but profound impacts on the next generation of young people. Most of us are consumers most of the time. It might change, but I do not think it has yet. So it’s a long way to walk before media freedom prevails.
Given the common way of grouping “have tried’s” as “regulars” I myself would be a dedicated blogger. It is in my opinion not wise to lower the threshold this far down (“again with the virtual masochism”). You are then missing out on the fact that consuming media content is still the most important activity (the process of consumption might be more complex and interactive, but never the less…). Then you might also become blind to power structures that are having different, but profound impacts on the next generation of young people. Most of us are consumers most of the time. It might change, but I do not think it has yet. So it’s a long way to walk before media freedom prevails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)