HW 15- Triangular Comments 3

To Bao Lin:

This post is great! I was able to identify your tone and your thoughts were very interesting. Also, your post is very organized and clear. After reading this particular post I came to learn more about your perspective on the teenage interaction with electronic devices. Because you looked at this picture as a work of art you were able to analyze it in a different way. This is why out of your post 10-14 I have chosen this post to comment on.

by looking at M.T. Anderson's work as a work of art you identified it as dedicated to the teenagers in our current society to teach them an important lesson. Instead of portraying this lesson as the typical `this is wrong and you shouldn't do it` Anderson made his work in a way to relate to the young readers in a way to make them SEE the consequences as opposed to predicting the consequences. This also causes the reader to feel more comfortable and to connect his own life with the character's for practically living in the same world. However, regardless of how well this peace of art may reflect one's life it may not cause any difference. And this is because art shows not shapes.
Similarly to you I have considered this book as an artistic reflection of ourselves. This could be because I was aware that Anderson's work was mean to be an allegory to our current world. However, it was not difficult to find a connection between this world and the one described in the book mainly because of the speaker's voice. Being a teenager who s experiencing a very similar situation to mine makes it possible for me to understand his world and relate to it.
Your post also reminds me of last year Kinory's class. We dedicated many classes into analyzing art and making connections. One of the paintings we studied was the one with all men walking up the subway escalator probably going to work. They were all facing the same direction and wearing the same clothes. It was as if they did not have a mind of their own and just doing what everyone else was doing, which is similar to feed. The characters in the book are not able to think for themselves and live life according to what they are told is best. By living this way no one is breaking the rules and going to the opposite direction of the subway escalator.

In order to expand your knowledge on this topic I recommend you to connect your ideas to more deeper examples we experience everyday. Such as seeing our surroundings also as a work of art. Specially when we are surrounded by different electronic devices and media. If you are able to identify this book as art then you should also be able to identify your life as it as well for being an allegory. And seeing it this way, we as the "creators" of our lives we could change how this image looks like. In other words we could shape our own reality as oppose to only viewing it as any other visitor in the tragic museum of life.
Also, referring back to your work, although Anderson may have done this in order for the audience to decide how to live our lives I still think that our options are very limited. Yes we may indeed be able to shape our lives after learning how these look like, but I do not think we have the tools necessary to do so. In other words, analyzing this book or analyzing our lives might actually not be enough to make a difference, which is similar to your hammer and mirror idea. I agree with you that it may not even be possible for a mirror to be a hammer, so what do you think we could do in order to change this tragic image of our lives? Should we simply accept the way things are and not do anything about it because we are simply too limited? Or do you think is just an excuse to remain the way we live because we actually like it?

After reading your post I began to consider art differently, specially paintings. I have studied art in the past and I have always found it interesting and communicative, but I have never actually seen how meaningful it is to the creator. As a viewer, if I do not find any relatedness to the painting I do not care about it, but If somehow I find it related to my own life then I find it interesting and meaningful, as if it was telling me something important I was not aware so far. I had the same experience with feed. However, regardless of what the painting may look or communicate it is still something important for someone else. That painting is just one part of a bigger one and it should be appreciated for representing something. But I am aware, even more after reading your post that, art is simply a reflection of something else for me. I do not think that beauty will be able to change anything due to the fact that I considered most things around me as beautiful. I may actually not know the definition of beauty but I do know where it lies, and still is not enough.

Lastly, I would like to truly thank you for writing this post. I really like knowing what you think and I find it very interesting every time. You make me think about things I did not consider before, and although this may take me no where I still appreciate it. Great work!

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

To Richard:

This is a really nice post! I specially enjoyed how you stated Johnson's opinion on television and video games and provided clear examples to understand his point. I understand that you read the long version of the article, and I think you summarized it very well. Your use of tone and language is clear and I can identify your voice on this post.

I understand that you base your discussion on the comparison between books and television and Johnson's view on video games. Currently we are surrounded by all kinds of electronic devices that run our lives. While M.T. Anderson considers this event as tragic, you argue that Johnson actually thinks it will help us in our lives at some degree. As you said, "Although he didn't type it, or I didn't read it, he compares watching television to reading a book, how you follow a complex story but with images, and he then compares games to questions or puzzles and you have to solve them with given information." In other words, there could be a general misconception on what playing a video is or watching TV is. Johnson argues that watching TV or reading a book may actually not be that different from one another. This is because people have a very similar experience while reading a book or watching a movie. However, when reading a book we improve our intellect by developing skills, which cannot be the same from watching a movie.

In order to expand your knowledge on this or to make your post better, I recommend you to take a side. Who do you think is right, Anderson or Johnson? And would you actually begin to think differently after adopting one of their ideas on electronic media? I recommend you to apply both of their theories into your own life and predict how it will look like. By doing so you will have a better understanding of their point and make a decision. If you have previously experienced playing video games and watching TV for hours and consider it as wrong, then why do you originally decided it was "wrong"? If you really enjoyed it then it must had felt right for you at some point, but wasn't society the one that told you that it was actually wrong and therefore you labeled it in such way. This could cause you to be bias against what Johnson has to say. I simply recommend you to be open minded about this entire situation (not labeling what is right or wrong) and choose what is best for you.

After reading your post I began reconsidering the general definition of the effect of playing video games on people. I do not entirely agree with the general idea of how most people think gamers think like. Similarly to Johnson, I consider that gamers face more challenging problems than simply getting across the river. Yes the main goal may be getting across it but there is more to do than simply finding a simple way of doing it. As Johnson said there is a list of different things one must overcome in order to achieve this goal. It is more like solving a puzzle and being strong enough to go across that river. And by that alone as a gamer you must think of strategies. Therefore, similarly to a book, by figuring out the best way to get across the river is just developing one personal skill. Therefore, I personally agree with Johnson that what video games and TV offer is much more than what is generally thought of. However, I do know that these are harmful to one's life in the long run. So, I would ultimately have to agree with Anderson and his idea of our lives being a tragedy. And as much as I enjoy playing video games or watching T.V. or the skills I may develop by doing so, do not reward the incredible amount of time I invested into them. In other words, I have wasted my time.

Once again I would like to say that this was a really nice point. You have me a lot to consider and ponder about. Also I appreciate all your hard work and dedication to this specific assignment. Out of all your assignments from 10-14 I found this to be a summary of your main ideas for involving such strong opinion on electronic media from Johnson and Feed. Great work!

HW 14 - Second Text

Everything Bad is Good for You

This article identifies the pros and cons of video games and acknowledges their benefits at some extent. The author of this artcile, Steven Johnson, also compares video games to books and discusses the effect that these two have on society. He begins his article by providing outside information regarding video games in order for the reader to have a more broad idea on the general definition of playing video games.

George Will said, that the current graphic entertainment ("video games, computer games, hand-held games, movies on their computers, and so on") as infantile. Therefore the article argues that "adults are becoming less "distinguishable from children" for being so consumed to this childish entertainment. Compared to previous generations these actions are considered "stupid" for being unhealthy. However, as technology develops and new devices become available it is inevitable for society to not be intrigued and therefore interested, even if it is stupid.


Another source of information was, Dr. Spock's work. He shared what he had to say about video games and their impact on the users in his work "Revised and fully expanded for a new century". He identifies video games as something that negatively affecting society's mind. Dr. Spock states that " the best that can be said of them is that they may help promote eye-hand coordination in children", and the worst that can be said is the negative impact on a child's behaviour. According to him, children who constantly interact with video games tend to respond more violently than those who do not. Referring to the current definition of video games, according to Wikipedia video games have more positive outcomes than negative. It is true that children's reactions may be affected for playing video games, and it is because of all the constant violence in the video game. When purchasing a video game there is a warning rate provided by the ESRB for people who can play that specific video game. If parents are not aware of this or decided to ignore it then it is not entirely reasonable to blame video games for such negative impact.

Furthermore, this article focuses on the two different social groups that have been formed in America throughout the years of technology development. These two groups are, those who read for pleasure and those who do not. Those who read (less than half of the population) are active and consider life as an "accrual of fresh experience and knowledge" while does who don't " have settled into apathy". In other words, reading books is considered as something better to do than zoning out in front of a video game. However, most American still choose to play video games instead of reading a book like it was used to in previous generations. This could imply that video games are found as much more interesting than reading books, and this theory is also mentioned in the article through an example. If the world had experienced video games for the same time it experienced books then our general perspective on them would be completely different. If books suddenly came into our lives such as video games did at some point, these would be inevitably compared to video games, which have been present for hundreds of years, and we would consider books as something rather negative. This is because as human beings we justify our actions by only looking at the positive side of them. If video games were used for such long period of time is because we found something positive on them that shapes us into who we currently are. However, if books are suddenly introduced to our lives these could be consider as an intrusion of our video game peace.


The author of this article finds immense virtues on reading books and encourages children to read more books, "to develop a comfort with and an appetite for reading". And therefore become intellectual human beings. According to the author the rewards of reading are, "the information conveyed by the book, and the mental work one has to do to process and store that information". In other words we gain information and exercise our minds while retaining and understanding that information. This skills would help us throughout our lives with different situations because of the concentration, effort and attention we develop while reading. However, the author also acknowledge some of the benefits video games provide to the users. He states that "playing today's video games does in fact improve your visual intelligence and your manual dexterity, but the virtues of gaming run far deeper than hand -eye coordination" as Dr. Spock argued. In other words playing video games might be not a complete waste of time. However this article focuses more on the bigger advantages that reading has compared to playing video games. It is simply about making the "right choice".



My personal interaction with video games have led me to think that Video games are not actually as bad as many people may consider. I actually think that video games have great advantages, not only the stimulation of hand-eye coordination. This may be because most of my life I have been playing video games and I am aware of the impact that these have on my life. Based on what people say around me and my school records, I have never reacted violently or
often zoned out during class. In other words, Insufficient information is provided in most articles that state that video games are "bad" for someone. How many hours a day does a child must play video games in order to respond violently? Or How long does a child need to play in order to improve his eye-hand coordination? Perhaps video games have different effect on different people. And this theory is something that is not mentioned in any of the video games articles I have read.

I find this particular article to be bias against video games. This may be because the author makes a life out of wiritng books and is very familiar with the great advantages of reading books. This leads me to think that one must experience something in order to fully discuss about it. I personally do not think that the author of this article has spend more than 30 hours a week playing video games. He just bases his information on studies and investigations regarding video games. Therefore, I do not think that his arguments on video games are entirely valid. This is because the impact of video games on his own life is unknown and therefore his opinion on them might be unreliable.

If considering books and video games as complete opposites and dividing society into those who read for pleasure and those who do not, then it is not possible for us to know and understand both of this sides completely. However, it is possible to have some sense of balance between these two. For example, myself. I love to read books, specially fiction books. This may be because I am very attracted to the unrealistic possibilities due to playing video games since early age. However, a book is still a book. The article does not specify what types of books should be read in order to develop our intellect, therefore I do not consider books and video games to be entirely different from one another. Yes, books may indeed improve our sense of understanding and exercise our minds but the different stories it provides are not real, just like the ones in a video game. For example, Harry potter. The famous book series by J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter also comes as a video game. I have played the video games and read the seven books, and I could say that these two had a very similar impact on myself. I found the books and the video games awfully interesting and time consuming. I isolated myself from others in order to finish my book and to beat my game. I also had to solve countless puzzles to beat the game and improved my reading skills for reading the book. However, the story was pretty much the same and I still distanced myself from reality and from other people.

Moreover, many teenagers today, specially girls, dream of being Bella from Twilight and wait for their vampire Edward to save them from their sad reality. They spend hours and hours day dreaming of a fantasy that will never come. And this was caused by a book. If I spend time thinking of how to improve my character of a video game or how to increase my level is no different from day dreaming of being a character in a book story. Therefore I think that the main problem of video games and books lies more on the unrealistic side of things. It is our need to escape reality the one that keeps on choosing to play video games or reading great books. Even if we learn more from one method than the other the result is the same. In other words, I do not think is important how intellectual we may become when our intellect has less and less room to share in this non interested world of virtually. If most Americans have chosen to play video games it may be because their interest on learning out of the main source of knowledge, a book, continues to diminish. As depressing as it may be it is time to adapt to these tragic reality of ignorance and self deception.


The book feed is a representation of the current teenage world involved with electronic devices. The author portayes this world as something tragic but inevitable. Which is similar to this article
that also communicates the nageative aspects of this consumption. The main factor of these two, the article and the book is people finding what is "fun". And both of these authors claim that dedicating most of our lives to technology devices is not actually fun, but a repetitive bad habit of ours that is considered entretaining. Also both authors agree that reading books is actually better. In the book feed, Anderson portrays Violet as the revolution against this tragic world of technology, and she happent to be very fonded of books. In other words it is those who have knowledge and are more self aware of reality who are able to see beyond that virtual world and consider life differently. Which is similar to what the author of this article is saying.

In conclusion books and video games are in fact two different aspects that are present our current society. Although one of them may represnt knowledge and the other one a waste of time, I think that both of these ultimately offer some attributes to people as well as deficits. These however are simply part of the setting of our lives. It is our choice to do what we want with them. We could blame or give credit to any of these but it would be something that was gained by us after the great amount of time we chose to dedicate to them.

HW 13- Feed B

Art by definition is "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions".

When I think of the book Feed as a work of art I truly become to appreciate his novel. His words describe this setting inside of an inescapable frame. M.T. Anderson paints a tragic world surrounded by millions and millions of devices that control our lives. Perhaps because of his self-awareness of the world he decided to bring and arrange many different factors/elements together and create this book that would fit into the definition of art for being so appealing.


I understand that Anderson was going to for something tragic as he was writing his novel. This is because of the narrator's tone in the story and specific factors that are constantly mentioned throughout the book. Such as, Violet's feed not functioning well, Titus and his friends being so consumed by the feed, Titus' father not being aware of the seriousness of his son's situation or the situation overall, etc. These examples are just small pieces of Anderson's big picture. His work can be imagined as the dark image of our present and our future, but somehow that darkness is illuminated by all the the lights from electronic devices which makes the picture a much more comfortable image for the viewers and the characters in it. In other words, although we may be aware that our current world is a tragic place we avoid thinking about it by purposely become so easily distracted by all electronic devices and technology that surrounds us. It is easier to run away from this rather complicated reality that we have slowly developed, and the feed simply helps us on doing so.


Furthermore, Anderson does not mention the creators of the feed sufficiently to clearly understand his opinion on this matter. It is clear that on his painting we are all the users and therefore the subtle creators of the feed. However, the people who physically and psychologically created the feed does not appear on the painting. We are illustrated as followers but how could we possibly be following ourselves. We must have found something superior to us that made us follow it and be consumed by it. My main point on this argument is that I do not entirely understand the mentality of these people. With what purpose is the feed driving us to self destruction or suicide? Or is the feed more like the setting, and we are the ones who are slowly ending our lives, which sounds more accurate. It is not right to simply blame something or someone for what we have done. And considering the fact that most of us do not even blame someone is because a negative reason to do so was never originally found. In other words the feed is not something seen as wrong. It is seen as a life source that must be kept alive with the purpose of "development" and entertainment.



In this piece of art the problem of our society is clearly shown but not solution is given. I think this is because this is one of those situations where one must found the answer himself. But what if there is no answer or solution for this problem. What if these have grown too much that it is now part of our lives as opposed to an momentary encounter. There might not be a way of getting rid of all these technological devices for these being too available and present in our lives on a day to day basis.

In my opinion we all are surrounded by art, and this is because I interpret it as such. Perhaps M.T. Anderson also interpreted the current world as art and translated through his novel. imagining the world described in the book as a troubling future as opposed to a metaphor of our current world is less complicated. This rather image is mostly misunderstood by most viewers. And this is because it is too realistic.

HW 12- Feed A

Titus and his friends "went to the moon to have fun" because the earth sucked, but it sucked because "the moon turned out to completely suck", so then everyone felt "null" because everything sucked. They just wanted to be entertained for a while. But it sucked that they weren't.

The book "Feed" by M.T. Anderson is a rather confusing book. It is confusing because the life of a teenager is confusing, and the book simply reflects that confusion through the voice of the narrator. The way the narrator expresses himself suggest that he is a teenager who is subtly described to be trapped inside a world of idiocy. This novel is described to be taking place in what we understand as the future. However, the author's purpose was to simply represent the current teenage world as an allegory. Personally I do not think Anderson is on target when he attempts to represent the teenage life. This is because most teenagers do reflect on their own lives and tend to think too much about their surroundings and relationships. Even those who easily conform tend to feel uncertainty about their own world and therefore reflect on it. Anderson describes the main character, Titus, based on a stereotype of the typical American teenager. In other words, he attempts to communicate a whole world though a flat character, which somehow works with the story for being based on stereotypes on what the character is expected to become in his own society. The characters are described to be surrounded by different types of electronic devices which is similar to our current generation. Because of this, the characters in the book are often distracted by all the commercials or ads that their feed provides. In our world the feed which is known to be an implanted chip inside a persons head in the novel would translate to the Internet, cell phones, television, Ipod's, etc that are currently available. I think that the main purpose of the feed is to make life less boring. Or so it is interpreted as in the novel AND in the real world.

This generation being considered as more ignorant and/or distracted than the previous one allows this book to illustrate how teenagers are more likely to be ran by the "feed" as opposed to controlling the "feed" that attempts to run their lives. The feed is supposed to be the mainstream where we focus our minds on. It does not allow us to think for ourselves and often distract us from seeing the world in a different perspective.Perhaps Anderson decided to name his work as "feed" because it is our current life source as teenagers. We depend on it to live our current lives as part of a society and to "function" properly.

Furthermore, it is possible that Anderson chose the main theme of his book as tragedy because that in how he sees the teenage life. Due to our responses to our surroundings and/or our lack of thinking development, we have ended up on a depressing and tragic state. In other words, we do not know who we are but we think we do and continue to live our lives in this manner. For example, Titus being a standard teenager who is consumed by his own feed considers his life to be "normal". And this is because everyone around him is living in a similar way. It is until he is introduced to a different perspective of his own world that he begins to slightly reflect on his current responses. Violet is the one who's feed is not functioning properly in the novel, and this is due to her own resistance of it. This resistance or revolution is rather uncertain. Which causes the feed to be stronger than her and practically destroy her. By introducing this character to the book, Anderson was able to provide that real sense of tragedy. The feed impacts our mental state since early age and it is the one that causes the dissatisfaction we experience throughout our lives.

However, the most outstanding aspect of this book was how the main character was unable to understand Violet or her perspective throughout the entire novel. Although she was his girlfriend and he felt a connection with her, there was no real sense of relatedness in the end. It is rather disturbing how the narrator is unable to see the damage the feed is causing to himself and those around him. Nevertheless, the damage that it caused to Violent should have been enough to make him reconsider his perspective on this normal world he believes is right. This just amplifies the tragedy of this book reflecting our own tragic novel, also known as our lives.

HW 11 - Self-Experiment 1

The experiment that I have chosen to reduce the amount of time I dedicate to the computer is to write letters instead of messaging or e-mailing other people.

I am used to sending e-mails and communicating through the computer with other people , so witting letters to them was a whole different experience. Although I was intending to say the same thing I would have on an e-mail, I kept on adding more to the letter and decorating it.
I was interested in learning how the person would feel if I wrote letters instead of e-mails, so I asked my boyfriend. He has gone to Japan for 2 weeks so I told him that when he came back I would give him all the letters I wrote to him. He said that he would appreciate them more than e-mails. So far I have written three letters and I have taken more than 45 minutes on each.
Personally I find it easier to communicate my feelings through writing rather than speaking, therefore I had too much to say. And because I had taken my time on writing it and making sure the letter looked nice, he would feel much happier about receiving it.


This experiment has also helped me to stay away from the computer. Because I am busy I do not think about going to the computer or distracting myself with any digital device. I realized that my "need" to use the computer is nothing but a reaction to boredom. If I distract myself with something else then I do not even think about my computer. So in other words I can get used to doing something else and eventually not using my computer as much will become a habit rather than a simple experiment.

Writing letters was a great experience. I actually enjoyed dedicating that much time on a letter. I am not sure If I will continue to enjoy it if I keep on only writing letters to others. It is highly possible that I will get bored/tired of it like other things I have done. Most likely I will have to find another way of distracting myself in order to avoid using the computer as much. It somewhat depresses me that I "have" to do something to distract myself from using electronic devices. I do not have the will to simply stop using them. Therefore, if these experiments work I can easily just find another alternatives rather than just depending on my computer to do something. Specially about school. I am aware that I can fall back into this bad habit once again in the future. And this is because computers are extremely available so not considering it as a first option would be quite difficult.

HW 10 - Informal Research Internet

The aspect of digital representational phenomena I am mostly interested in is:

Video Games

Definition, theories, overview, history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game

The most interesting part of the text was the social aspects of video games. Benefits and controversies of playing video games are mentioned under this category. Based on the definition of video games, "A video game is an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device", it is clear that playing video games is interacting with current technology. But what are the pros and cons of this interaction? Ironically this site offers more benefits. Wikipedia, being one of the most used sources of information, can easily influence the user's mind with inaccurate or biased information. In this case the benefits consist of primary developing a better ability to concentrate and to determine objectives. Also video games are being consider as a possible technique of learning provided by the U.S. education system because of its attributes. The negative aspects of video games is that according to the information on wikipedia people have the misconception that users tend to develop bad habits. Because of the constant violence, sexual themes, advergaming people often become addicted and even develop a violent behavior. However, even though these negative aspects are being discussed these are still somewhat excused in the article. It states that, "Various national content rating organizations, such as the Entertainment Software Ratings Board or ESRB in North America, rate software for certain age groups and with certain content warnings. Some of these organizations are optional industry self-regulation (such as the ESRB), while others are part of national government censorship organizations. Also, parents are not always aware of the existence of these ratings" Which suggests that if we are to experience one of these aspects it is because we did not retrained ourselves from playing too much as the software rates warned us to do so. It is also up to the parents to be aware of this rates and supervise the content of their child's video game. In other words we are the ones that have led ourselves to experience these negative consequences not the video games. They were merely the stage/setting.

Overall I found this text to be somewhat bias about video games. Although I find video games awfully attracting I am aware of the negative impact these have on the user, and this is not because of the information that was provided, but because I have experienced these negative aspects in my own life. Otherwise I wouldn't consider video games as something that is driving society into something identified as "bad". I dedicated too much time to video games before, and because of this choice I did not only become unhealthy to my own definition of it , but I tended to react more violently towards everyone. I do admit that I did become better at concentrating and my team work skills improved. This reflected on my academic work and therefore my father saw no valid reason to restrict me from playing too much. I think that the general conception people have on video games is that these are a great entertainment but if used for too long these can lead people to become "no lifes".

Because I am mostly interested on the impact of video games I have researched more about this specifically. The following is an article regarding this topic.

The impact of video games on children
http://www.pamf.org/preteen/parents/videogames.html

Similarly to the text on Wikipedia, this site discusses the pros and cons of video games. However, the cons are most likely due to the amount of time invested into the game or the lack of restriction from the parents. As the following quote suggests, "Part of the increase in aggressive behavior is linked to the amount of time children are allowed to play video games. In one study by Walsh (2000), a majority of teens admitted that their parents do not impose a time limit on the number of hours they are allowed to play video games. The study also showed that most parents are unaware of the content or the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating (see below) of the video games their children play". What is also interesting about this text, however, is that teenagers tend to identify themselves with a character in the video game he or she is playing. Because of this they imitate that character's actions or speech translating it to the real world. In other words this is one of the reason why Teenagers or kids may behave more violently after playing video games. If the character they identify themselves with has a tendency of reaction violently, they will simply imitate it.


Before I was not aware of how video games protected themselves using parents and rating labels as a shield. Virtual gaming is currently one of the greatest business, and it has been this way for the last 3o years. It is important to use different strategies that would keep video games selling. Regardless of the negative impact it may have on future generation the art of making money for companies is much more important. I am starting to think that people in charge absolutely do not care about anything else but the future of his or her own company and income. However I am identifying myself or the purchasers of video games as the victims of this event. We are the ones keeping them rich and functioning. Even though they may be addicted to making money it is not different from us being addicted to play a video game.

After learning some of the impacts video games have on us, what does future hold?

The future of video games.
http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/future.html
This rather interesting article discusses different possibilities of the future of the video games. What are the future plans for making video games? According to Donal the future of the video games relies mostly on the Internet. Also it by drastically improving the graphics of video games and presented on television people may consider video games as something else. Companies are currently targeting this plan which will offer a virtual world where the user will identify as reality at home. The following quote suggests this information, "The makeover craze that continues to inhabit cable television may lead to players creating virtual models of their homes. For a fee, professionals might come into their virtual world and remake it, giving the player ideas for their real-world home. Or perhaps you'll be able to participate in an online amateur talent contest where the winner becomes an overnight sensation like American Idol" This idea has already taken place in our current society. For example, MMORPGs are considered to be as the "one" thing to do at home by millions of people. This is their reality at home, the one that it is still difficult to share outside. However, if Companies are planning to base most video games as online games then that would cause people to feel more comfortable around other people and possibly being able to relate to one another once again.


Although this is not the true purpose of the creators of video games, it is a possible that it may happen. Because the Internet is also identified as a "connection" to other people it is possible that when playing a video game online people identify it as their reality and begin to "live" inside that world. I think many people, specially those dedicated to video games, would like this to happen in a much more higher level. Being able to be American Idol or some famous icon on the Internet because of a video game could sound tempting to some people. As an opportunity of finally being recognized. Because people have this idea of how we are supposed to be or look in order to be someone in this society then it is difficult to live happily. And this is because often we do not fulfill these expectations. But what if video games already game us the Image and we would just have to play it out. And if things are not working then we can just start over from a save point. Without mentioning that virtual characters have a much more interesting life than we do, then there is no valid reason not to consider video games as a chance to escape the cruel reality.

This leads to a more interesting idea. Is it possible to live our lives inside a video game? and if it is how would our real life be affected by it? The next article provides some information about
this.

Life is a video game
http://www.trans4mind.com/spiritual/video_game.html

Ken Ward's main argument is that currently WE live life as if it was a video game already. This interesting article compares different aspects of our lives that are very similar to the ones in a video game. Ward argues that because we are so used to this current game we forget who we are or our purpose of playing. Which would be the same as playing any other game, where there are rules to follow, levels to reach, and even way to cheat. In a game people either win or lose which if seen from this perspective it is no different from our current world. The most interesting argument I encountered on this text is Changing the game. Ward states, "Having decided to play a video game, we have also agreed to certain rules. If we are playing a war game, we have agreed to use certain weapons. We cannot change these aspects of the game. We can imagine that the characters in the game have feelings, thoughts and intentions. We can play our characters according to the rules of the game. We cannot change the basic rules of the game. And if we quit playing, the other players will continue. We can only change the rules of the game by adopting the identity of the player - going into the real world - and reprogramming the game." If we are aware that we might be able to change our game then we would not resign so easily and just follow the rules without enjoying it. If we are disliking the game we could simply change it, but most people just choose to End it by killing their characters or by becoming robots rather than the unique characters they originally were.

My thoughts are the following, If we are able to identify our lives as nothing but a GAME, how would we react? Life is often seen as an obstacle to achieve something else. For example religion. If someone lives as a good person and avoid temptation to do wrong throughout his or her life then that person gets to go to heaven. They do not enjoy the process they would only enjoy the prize. Could video games be actually getting us further from this possible truth? Because video games are identified as video games and NOT a way of life then how can people relate themselves or their own lives with the one in a video game. What would it take for someone to begin considering that life is very similar to a video game and that it is possible to live it as an adventure and to even enjoy it.

HW 9 - Video Project GHIJK

Bao Lin:
Thank you so much for your comment. Because of it I know that you dedicated your time to read my post. The length of your comment and your analysis made me think that you really understood my point and were able to relate your own ecperiences with mine.

The way you restated my arguments showed me that you really understood my point. Although I do find one of them inaccurate. Maybe I was not very clear on explaining this part of my argument, or I misundertood your summary of it. I am aware that this is all debatable, but I do not think that the main issue regarding digitalization comes from people not having as much physical experience after the "boom of digitalization" but from not being able to distinguish the pros and cons of investing so much time to these devices. Thefore not making a difference in their lives. I do think that having a sense of balance is acceptable, but the question is. Is it acceptable to us or to the rest? If it is to us then why most of us are not having this balance in our lives? We have become addicted to it therefore we simply do not know how to make a balance between these two.

Mentioning that I should deepen my point on distingushing the line between the cyber world and the real world was very helpful. Personally I still have some problems with this specific argument. I stated it because I know it is important to consider that there is an actual line between these two and it is almost inrecognizable. However it is true that that line was invented by us, so in reality it does not exist. We believe it does because we often find differences that suggest this line, but becoming aware that thinking this way only draws the line is rather complicated. Therefore we cannot create a sense of balance in our lives because we just do not know how much of our lives is in which side of the line.

I think overall we share a similar point of view. I can relate to what you say of considering these devices as normal. Also how you and your family intereact with this stuff is very similar to mine. I think that this has partly brought us to think the way we do. However our perspectives may be completely different on some of this aspects now. Because I have drastically changed my point of view on this media, or actually just came back to think the way I used to before studying it.
And when I say studying it I mean actually spending time to think and write about it.

Because of the way we are growing up and the things we are learning at school and at home. Have you ever really thought about how will your life look like 10 years from now regarding electronic media? I think that we are both interested in how will the future will looks like. Specially how will we deal with the members of our family who will at some point inevitably interact with these stuff. I think that regardless if we obtain an answer to all these questions and make a plan for our future I do not think we can go against more powerful ideals that society will bring upon us or ours. Therefore it may not really matter how against it we may be because wether we want it or not the mayority will continue on using all this stuff and eventually influence future generations.

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

Richard:
Thanks for your comment. I found it very clear and helpful. I appreciate your time on reading my post and watching my video. I liked how you noticed aspects that were on the "surface" of things, such as the setting of the room or the piano song. I attempted to communicate a message through these, so I am glad you got something out of it.

Your comment about my video was something I did not even consider before. I am aware that it was very dark and I apologize for that. Because of this I was not able to show my facial expressions very well. I was indeed more focused on what I was using rather than how I was using it. I think that I am very familiar with use of these devices therefore there is no need for me to think about how I am going to react. In order to realize something important I think it is necessary for me to observe how I am interacting with this stuff. If it is so "normal" for me then I can focus more on thinking why am I so comfortable surrounded by all this technology.

I am currently aware of the idea that "electronics are taking people lives away" but is this really the case. I have become to think this way because of studying this unit specifically. However, now that I have thought about this statement I have remembered how I used to think before. And now I have come to the conclusion that no, I do not think that this stuff are taking our lives away.
Literally speaking we are alive. We are living our lives 24/7 every month and every year. People just happen to have different concepts of "living", therefore they have come up with this idea. I used to play online games before and many people inside the video game said to other people "you have no life!" when that person was just good at the game. And I used to always think "we all have a life we just chooses the way he wants to live it" and I said it more than once to different people. I have forgotten of what I used to think because I was so consumed by all this "blaming the electronic media" thing I am currently studying. We are no victims and we are not wasting our time. That we could spend our time doing something else like EXCERSISING or READING a book to improve ourselves, to fit in, to make money, or to be healthy but as we studied it last year. We do not even know what health really is.
I just think that if you have some feeling of happiness, as sad as it may actually be just go ahead and do it. I persoanally think there is nothing wrong or nothing right about it.

You and I have mentioned the interesting world the Internet offers in our post. I find it one of the most interesting things about this unit overall. The internet has drawn us to become in a way and we feel comfortable about it. Although we may not like what we are doing or find it depressing at times we do not stop using this stuff. I ignore the reason why this may be, but I assume that it is enough to make us not change our life styles. We share a similar point of view on this specific idea so I hope we can develop our thoughts on it.

Based on this, do you think there is a line between this electronic world and reality? If you think there is why do you think we have drawn such line and what is its effect on our daily lives? I currently would like to learn more about this idea. So I would like you know what you have to say about it. I personally think that there is a line but we cannot distinguish it because we have no sense of balance and most of us consider all this media as our lives rather than part of it.

HW 8 - Comment on Triangle Partners' Videos Projects

To Bao Lin:

Nice video! I can tell you spent time editing, it is well done. I liked how you recorded yourself doing what you usually do while interacting with electronic devices. Your fast forward modification really made me laugh.

I understand that all this technology is part of your life and it is "normal" for you to be surrounded by it even if you are not dedicating time to it. For example as you described how your family enjoys having the TV on while doing something else just because of the noise. Being aware. Despite all this you do not consider your life as wrong. Actually it is the usual thing to do in most families. Having dinner in front of the T.V. or playing music while doing something else are some of the things that most of us do. It is important for us to realize what we are doing so we can make a difference in our lives. No one else can really make us learn something from our actions unless we experience the negative consequences these may bring.

This reminds me of my own experience. Like you I just recently moved and while I was working around the house we had music playing instead of talking to one another. Also because we just moved we didn't have Internet or cable so we were "forced" to socialize during dinner. It was nice for a while, but then it was boring because we kept thinking of what were missing, our TV shows. Because our experiences are a bit similar I can relate to your thoughts on digitization.

In order to expand your thoughts on this topic, I recommend you to write about how your family and you react might when there are no electronic devices around. What do you think you will do or how will you feel because of this. Then analyze your answers to learn more about this stuff impact your life. Because most of us realize the importance of something only when it is missing.
I think it would be a good idea to think about this to reconsider the amount of time you invest to these devices.

After watching your video and reading your analysis it made me think of myself while watching T.V. with my family. As previously mentioned I usually watch T.V. with them during dinner and dinner is the only moment a day we spend time together. By watching T.V I am not really BEING with my family but just sitting on the same room looking at the same direction. I do not know what they are thinking or what they are feeling all I know is what they are watching and that is not enough for me. I didn't realize how electronic media could really severely hurt a relationship between two people or more. We become distant from one another and pretend it is okay because everyone else is doing it as well. It is difficult to understand why we choose to live in such way specially around the people we love. Because just considering the possibility that our love for this stuff is more than the one we hold for our family worries me.

Thank you Bao Lin for your video and your thoughts! You have given me A LOT to think about and to talk to my family.

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

To Richard:

Good work! I liked how honest (realistic) your video was. Although you were doing the same thing for one minute and thirty seconds I imagined you must had a lot going on inside your mind. Because I also spend a long time doing the same thing I can understand that as boring it may seen to others who are watching us, in our perspective we are being entertained.

You consider the Internet as a reason to stay at home for all the interesting things it has to offer; when in reality it is just an excuse for something else. I ignore the reason why you personally choose to dedicate your time to this stuff but I am certain I can relate to that reason.
I understand that thinking about the difference between being the real world and the world digitization offers is quite tricky.

This reminds me of something I have thought about before. Once we realize that we have been watching others having fun or living adventures while we are just sitting and gaining weight we become rather depressed. We have been wasting our time and considering our current lives as boring because we keep comparing our life styles to unrealistic ways of life. This activity helped us see how we looked while we were being drawn by all the aspects of the Internet or T.V. And by seeing ourselves in such way we come to realize something more important.

To develop your thinking on this topic I suggest you to add more analysis to your work. At the end of every paragraph you could add more thoughts about what you wrote. Answering questions of why you think this way? or what has brought you to do certain things regarding electronic media? This will help you expand your knowledge and even come up with ideas that might make you reconsider your current way of life if you are not Okay with it. Isn't this the main point of this unit anyway?

After looking at your video it reminded me of how I tend to forget about my physical state and just focus on something that is unreachable, but at the same time It could not be closer. What I mean is that I tend to get so fascinated by all the things I encounter on the Internet or the T.V. that I forget who I am or what am I doing. Then I am not interacting with these stuff I compare my life with all those unrealistic life styles and become bored. I think that most people learn to fantasize too much while living because of the T.V. and the Internet, and this causes them to being unable to distinguish what is real and what is not. I think this could relate to our dreams. Based on my experience there are times that a person can control his or her dreams during sleep. But this only happens when that person identifies the dream as a dream rather than what things are supposed to be. In other words as normal. I have never been able to control my dreams before. During my dreams I consider earthquakes or erupting volcanoes in NY city as normal therefore I just panic and try to survive when it is not even supposed to be happening. Therefore I have been writing a journal of my dreams for the last 2 weeks and recently I was finally able to control one of my dreams. It was a great experience. My point is that the only way to control our lives is by identifying what is real and what is not. This media has been just communicating unrealistic ideas to us and we identify them as possible. And the wii is one of the closest opportunities we have to experience this idea.

Thank you for your work. You helped me develop new thoughts regarding my way of life around this stuff. I still have so much to learn about it but I think that I might be able to come up with something that will make change my schedule for good.