Antisocial Media

The container concept “social media,” describing a fuzzy collection of websites like Facebook, Digg, YouTube, Twitter, and Wikipedia, is not a nostalgic project aimed at reviving the once dangerous potential of “the social,” like an angry mob that demands the end of economic inequality. Instead, the social—to remain inside Baudrillard’s vocabulary—is reanimated as a simulacrum of its own ability to create meaningful and lasting social relations.

I found the above excerpt from the article What Is the Social in Social Media? by Geert Lovink to be very interesting with the way social media is perceived as a simulacrum. In its simplest form, a simulacrum is a representation of something else, a copy of the real. This got me thinking. Is social media, then, a representation of real life? Or are we as a society trying to make social media simulate life so that is more comprehendible for us? I suppose the word social has a different meaning when it is combined with the word media. Social media has a new set of structures different then the structures we associate with the term social in real life. Social media changes relationships, roles and class structures in society. It is hard to comprehend a new definition for social than the one we already know. So, what does this mean for future generations?

The Revolution has arrived

“Or to put it another way: we are at the end of the beginning of the digital revolution.”

When I read this statement from Nancy Levinson, it dawned on me that we are in a revolution. I didn’t really think about referring this print and pixel phenomenon as a revolution before, but it is. The first part of the revolution is over. The question of preference between print and digital is already irrelevant. It is outdated. This notion was one that was interesting to me as I was reading Print and Pixel. This “revolution” impacts every aspect of our lives.

One notion from the article that I found problematic was what Levinson mentioned about copyright laws. This is a topic that I am very curious about. How is it possible to control copyrights with digital information? How could we possibly regulate this flow of content in the digital world?

And So On and So Forth

Thesis V

The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized

only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be

recognized and is never seen again. "The truth will not run away

from us": in the historical outlook of historicism these words of

Gottfried Keller mark the exact point where historical materialism

cuts through historicism. For every image of the past that is

not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens

to disappear irretrievably. 

-from Walter Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History 

---

It is this excerpt from Benjamin's Theses on the Philosophy of History that struck me the most. Thinking about it in terms of my own research on the past, present and future of language, the past is almost always referenced in the present. If only for a second, we can see a glimpse of the past in the present. This is almost always the case in regards to any subject, isn't it? How can there even be a present of something without its past? If something had no past tense, there wouldn't be a present tense of it either; it would just be. In order to have these distinct tenses, one tense must come before another tense. This is the logic of history; recedings and proceedings. All of Language, now and forever in the future, is based on the past and the established system that was created for language at that one point in history. From the moment the first sound was spoken. Then the first word. Then the first sentence. Then the moment an alphabet was created. Then the first written language. And so on and so forth. Without the past, there is no present. It's as simple as that. We only know of the past by which we see of it in the present and what we can foresee of it in the future.

The Promise of Digital Books

The first thing that Mod says at the beginning of his discussion is that in order to think about the future of the book, we have to think about the future of all content and the connections between the platforms where the content is published.

Two features of the future book defined by Mod, which I found most intriguing, were the authorial shift and the artificiality that takes place in the digital format.

Mod explains that digital books can be constantly updated in real-time. Time itself becomes an active ingredient in authorship, he says. Mod uses Wikipedia as an example of this. Wikipedia is a collaborative form of authorship and it is continuously evolving.

Books on the other hand, have more of a sense of permanence. The words are embedded in the paper, unchangeable once the book is printed. What exists on the pages today will remain there tomorrow and the next day and the next day. Books are reliable.

Does this mean that digital books are unreliable? Mod says once the format changes from print to digital, the books become artificial. Books in the digital format may only exist that way for an instance because they can constantly be updated.

The most memorable claim that Mod makes towards the end is that Digital has more of a promise of shared experiences. This is not to say that printed books do not allow for shared experiences, but the possibilities are greater with digital.

6,909+

Limited Edition for only $9.32. Can't beat that!

>> 6,909+

The Invisibility of Print

In what sense might we say that the medium of print becomes visible just at the moment it is “superseded” by the internet?

I’m sitting here, trying to find an answer to this question. As I repeat it over and over in my head, I feel as though maybe the medium of print will always be superseded by the internet, thus it never can become visible before it is visible on the internet. Since the invention of the internet, print has become second nature. The internet lessens the distance between the time it takes us to receive information while the medium of print is a much longer process. For example, by the time it takes for newspapers to be printed, the news has already changed and one can already access it on the internet, even as it is happening. I’m not trying to say print has become extinct, but in some aspects it has become invisible.
The only visibility of both mediums is the way they structure our interaction with the world around us. Printed books, for example, have structured how we tell stories spatially and how we read. We have even transferred this structure of storytelling into the digital medium with the idea of ebooks. They still have the same structure as printed books do. I suppose, this is an example of how the medium of print could be seen visible still in the digital world. I guess the bigger question I think we need to think about in terms of these two mediums is what does it do to us(in terms of our interactions with them) and how does it change us?

Demand with Caution

Print On Demand undoubtedly revolutionized the world of publishing. Not only has this new platform transformed the printing process, it has also made publishing a more accessible commodity. POD has democratized publishing. Now, it is possible for anyone to be his or her own author. Well, anyone that can generate a PDF, according to Ludovico. In the excerpt Print On Demand from Alessandro Ludovico’s book Post-Digital Print, he discusses the history of Print On Demand as well as the pros and cons that exist within it.

One of the most powerful things that I think POD offers is this notion of democracy. With this format, publishing is no longer just for the elite, but for everyone. This idea does have its downfalls though, described in Ludovico’s passage as “mass amateurization.” Before books were printed, editors carefully proofed them, but by the means of POD, publishing becomes an instantaneous process.

“The Gutenberg revolution is over… It’s going from a world of ‘filter, then publish’ … to ‘publish, then filter.’”

Yes, it is amazing that now it is possible to publish pretty much anything. As Ludovico points out, experimental and innovative books can now be published at a more affordable rate. This is an exciting new platform! But one thing I think we have to be careful of, as designers and as a people, is authenticity and authorship.