Contact Me
|
May 8, 2004
I’m not exactly sure what I would like to do for my final paper, but one possibility is to analyse an official website for a film - maybe 'Ocean's Eleven' or 'Fight Club' - and compare it to other media, like movie magazines that cover the same film. Overall, I could ask myself the question why movie websites are created in the first place. Is it just to promote the film, or is it used for other purposes? And does it always have the desired effect? Maybe I could (also) try to find out more about the fan culture surrounding that particular film by comparing the official page to a few unofficial websites. However, it doesn't have to be a film; it might as well be a TV series like '24' or 'CSI'.
Another idea is to compare a website of an independent movie to a website of a big commercial film. Personally, I prefer independent movies, so maybe I could use sites like www.ifctv.com or www.foxsearchlab.com (and of course, www.imdb.com). So, as you can see, I don't really know my case study yet. Hopefully, I'll know more soon.
Posted at 04:50 pm by rg2peters
May 3, 2004
test 2, test
Posted at 10:40 pm by rg2peters
virtual communities - space
Hutchby, I. The Communicative Affordances of Technological Artefacts.
In his article The Communicative Affordances of Technological Artefacts, Hutchby mainly focuses on the relationship between technology and social processes. Although there are many different views, he does not believe that technological artefacts have ‘inherent or necessary features which lead to determinate, social consequences’ (Hutchby, 20). In other words, he rejects the idea that a technological development will have a known and unchangeable social effect. Consequently, according to Hutchby it’s all about what people do with technologies in ordinary life (Hutchby 30). Above all, he believes that ‘different technologies possess different ‘affordances’. This means that technologies have different ‘possibilities for action’, but that there is a limit to how they can be ‘read’ (Hutchby 26).
According to Hutchby, ‘the telephone is probably the most firmly (and globally) established of all technologies for communication’ (Hutchby 30). “But, what about the Internet?" As far as I know the Internet offers even more possibilities for communication and nowadays it is at least as important as the telephone. Millions of people communicate through the Internet in many different ways, through e-mail, chatrooms, webcams etc. So if you look at it like that, the Internet has more than one ‘affordance’. However, I’m not sure if Hutchby believes this is possible.
Dodge and Kitchin. Geographies of the Information Society
In their article Geographies of the Information Society, Dodge and Kitchin talk about how ‘ICT and cyberspace are transforming cultural, social, political and economic geographies’ (Dodge and Kitchin 32). In other words, cyberspace disrupts traditional cultural and social forms of interaction. However, cyberspace is also influenced by existing geographic spaces and communities (Dodge and Kitchin 36). All in all, according to Dodge and Kitchin, cyberspace possesses a spatiality that needs to be further examined. Furthermore, they strongly believe that - the spatiality of - cyberspace has a big influence on the formation of communities and people’s identities. And besides this they see cyberspace as an embodied space (Dodge and Kitchin 64).
Above all, Dodge and Kitchin think that ‘the space (of cyberspace) possesses a spatiality, or a tangible geography quality, that helps develop social relations’ (Dodge and Kitchin 62). "Is this true? And what exactly do they mean by ‘spatiality’?" If I’m not mistaken, what they mean by ‘spatiality’ is the fact that people need ‘a sense of place’. People have to be able to recognize at least certain aspects that are familiar to them, to feel comfortable enough. This can for example mean that cyberspace(s) adopt standard geographic metaphors. But also, that existing power relations and opinions, as well as ideologies are often upheld (Dodge and Kitchin 63). Still, I'm not sure it is always like this and ‘space’ on the Internet is not always easy to define. And then what?
Posted at 07:33 pm by rg2peters
Apr 26, 2004
Virtual Communities - economics
Vogel, H. Economic Perspective
In his article Economic Perspective, Vogel describes different factors that can influence the way people spend their time and money on leisure-related goods and services. Vogel pays special attention to different segments of the ‘Entertainment Industry’ and according to him the growth of these segments can be measured and (e)valuated. Vogel concludes by saying that he has sketched an economic landscape in which all entertainment industries operate and which can be used as a basic model (Vogel 29). However, although he does mention that new technological developments play an important role, he forgets to mention the Internet.
My question here is, “what role does the Internet play in all this?” Nowadays the Internet combines a lot of ‘Entertainment Industry’ segments, and will continue to do so in the future. Most likely it will incorporate virtually all the segments that Vogel has mentioned, like filmed entertainment, TV, gaming, books, recorded music and so forth. Consequently, because the Internet is so extensive, it is difficult to put it in certain categories and samples Vogel uses. So, maybe it’s best to form new models which combine more and different categories.
Castronova, E. On Virtual Economies
In his paper On Virtual Economies Castronova explores gaming and the economy of virtual worlds and he asks himself ‘whether these virtual economies will grow in importance’ and ‘how this will affect real-world economies and governments’ (Castronova 1). According to Castronova the demand for game time can be expresses in an ‘economic model’, although I don’t completely understand this model. Besides this, he thinks it is unlikely that one company or game will dominate the market. He also mentions that nowadays it is not always sure where, for example, assets belong to. Castronova speaks of a new ‘virtual frontier’, but he’s undecided who the new governing authority will be. He concludes by saying that there are quite a few differences between earth economics and avatar economics (Castronova 18).
My question is, “can real-world economies and governments be used as an example or ‘help’ virtual worlds?” Castronova seems to keep treating ‘the economics on earth’ and ‘avatar economy’ as two separate things and doesn’t really answer question like “where do certain assets belong to?” and “who will the new governing authority be?” Even though, he does mention for example the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) that limits the rights of players (Castronova 15), I think it can be beneficial if we look into it more. Maybe with some slight adjustments, some real-world institutions, like the law, can also be used in cyberspace.
Slater, D. Capturing markets from the Economists
Slater believes that ‘culture’ and ‘economics’ are internally related to one another and he feels that if you analyse the ‘cultural economy’ you have to take into account the lived social practices (Slater 61). Slater thinks conventional economists are mistaken in believing that products are self-evident and fixed. He and most advertisers see ‘real’ markets and products as dynamic. At the same time, advertising is often seen as a cultural intervention in the domain of the economics. For example, advertisers usually try to rationalise the market and market relations and form a strategy, so they can sell their product as well as possible. Besides this, advertisers always try to select the best market for their product.
What I would like to know is, “how (do) advertisers on the Internet select their markets?” and “does Internet advertising really work”? If I’m not mistaken, Slater thinks that a ‘market’ cannot be defined as a given structure, but at the same time he sees it as a culturally defined domain with certain boundaries and economic structure (Slater 68). I think this definition is a bit unclear. Besides this, it also seems very difficult for advertisers to select just one market, when the Internet consists of numerous, different, ever changing markets. Even if advertisers succeed in doing so, chances are that it doesn’t turn out the way they planned it. For example, advertisers often use pop ups, but many people find pop ups annoying and throw them away as soon as they can. However, pop ups still exist, so it is likely that somehow they do have the desired effect. How exactly, I do not know (yet).
Allen, J. Symbolic economies: the ‘culturalization of economic knowledge
In his article Symbolic Economies: the ‘culturalization’of economic knowledge, John Allen mentions that ‘Economy’ and ‘Culture’ are often seen as two separate things. Allen, however, believes that they are becoming more and more entangled and that many industries usually combine various symbolic practices in specific ways (Allen 54). According to Allen there is no explicit codification that explains everything. Even though many economists do acknowledge that the ‘cultural’ and the ‘expressive’ are part of today’s economy, they usually want to codify it and make it abstract. Allen believes that you shouldn’t try to ‘codify the uncodable’ and that people don’t need explicit codes to know what to do.
My question here is, “is Allen right in saying that expressive forms of meaning defy explicit codification?”(Allen 42). I do think Allen has a point that the world is not an abstract place and that not everything is clear or can be explained. Still, just because something is implicit or fuzzy doesn’t mean that it cannot be translated into a code. In this article Allen mentions Cassirer’s theory and if I’m not mistaken, the 3 symbolic functions he mentions - expression, representation and signification - can be translated into some sort of (semiotic) schemas or codes. So why does he bring up this theory, if he does not believe in codifying? Maybe a lot of things can be codified, even expressive forms, but for most people this is just not always necessary.
Vogel, H. (2001) Economic Perspectives. In: Vogel, H. (2001) Entertainment Industry Economics - A Guide for Financial Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 5th ed.)
Castronova, E. (2003) On Virtual Economies. See www.gamestudies.org/0302/castronova
Slater, D. Capturing markets from the economists. Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy. London Sage Publications
Allen, J. Symbolic economies: the 'culturalization' of economic knowledge. Gay, P. du & Pryke, M. (2002) Cultural Economy. London Sage Publications
Posted at 07:11 pm by rg2peters
Apr 21, 2004
hello, I hope this works
Posted at 03:47 pm by rg2peters
|
|
|