Talking about music is like dancing about architecture… Rotating Header Image

Advertising

Shakespeare as Social Media Pioneer

Seth Godin quotes Scott Turow, head of the Authors Guild, as saying that Shakespeare might have had trouble surviving in the world of the web, a place of “speedy, secret transmission of stolen goods.”

Godin points out the ironies of this and the parallels to the music industry:

The irony is thick here. First, Shakespeare never got a royalty check. Second, the only reason most people have even heard of the bard is that his plays can be produced for free, his plays are easily and cheaply found in many forms and editions and people can turn his work into movies without asking first. Shakespeare made a living based on people paying to come to his shows, live. Sort of the way a new breed of successful musicians are doing it today.

The music industry has been transformed by the spread of music online. The industry is reeling, but there’s more music than ever before, listened to more often by more people. No, I don’t expect the folks at Motown and BMG to like that, but it’s true.

The freelance writing industry has been transformed by the rise of blogs as well. No longer can writers expect to earn a living getting paid by the word to write for magazines that were the only way to reach people. I think we can agree that there isn’t a shortage of non-fiction expository writing, even though the industry has changed. Writers don’t have to like that, but it’s true.

Scott and his peers, arguing to maintain the status quo, are repeating the failed strategy of the RIAA and the record business instead of realizing what an opportunity the connectivity of the internet creates. All these readers! All these opportunities to build direct connections with them. All these chances to have your ideas spread…

Scott writes, [progress is] “… the result of abiding by rules that were carefully constructed and practices that were begun by people living in the long shadow of the Dark Ages. We tamper with those rules at our peril.” He’s a much better writer than I will ever be. But he’s a lousy student of history. There are plenty of practices that were invented in the shadow of the Dark Ages that we’re much better off without. Bloodletting, for example.

In a world where attention is the scarce resource, the enemy as Tim O’Reilly put it, is obscurity, not piracy. Particularly for the vast majority of the membership of the Author’s Guild. You can’t sue your way to attention, and we shouldn’t legislate writing back to a world of scarcity.

Brilliant.

Things That Seem Insane That Used To Be “Normal”

Exhibit A:

“It’s just like a mini-mall!” – This Could Be the Worst Commercial EVER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKK-WWwcQME

(via)

This same mini-mall terminology was used in another article I read last week… oh yeah, this one.

Real Christians. Real Preaching. Real Bibles.

Kevin Abell explains everything in this slick video promo for his speaking gig at my church this Saturday night (October 30th).

If you want to hear Kevin speak he’ll be here at 6:30pm.
View Larger Map

Flee the Coming Google Privacy Apocalypse!!! Or Don’t…

In the video below you’re led through the labyrinth of online services that is Google. At first it seems like any other business profile, but about halfway through the music turns from business-profile-cheery to conspiracy-tinged-ominous…


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfV6RzE30

Google… wants to now where you are… what you buy… what you’re reading…. Google wants to own the cables and the electricity to power them.

Google bigshot Eric Schmidt is quoted as saying: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” Oh my! How dare he suggest that? He must be off his rocker. Is he trying to start some brave new cult of transparency and integrity?

Drumroll Please…

But that’s not all… Are you ready to hear the great atrocity Google is positioning itself to commit? What nefarious surprise is this predatory beast waiting to spring upon us – the innocent, unsuspecting public? Here it is: “Google wants to know who you are, where you are, and what you like so it can target ads at you!”

Advertising. A-HA!

Shocked? Dismayed? Ready to run for shelter?

No? Me neither.

This, the narrator would have us believe, is the worst possible way that Google can violate its own “Don’t Be Evil” ethos.

What is laugh-out-loud funny about this argument is that the worst-case scenario for the Google apocalypse is “God help us all, they want to try to sell us things we like!”

Apparently we are a society of servile consumers, void of the ability to choose, with a capacity for fear-stricken compliance unmatched except in a beaten dog.

I can hardly imagine a worse fear: Please don’t show me an advertisement! Whatever you show me, I’ll have to buy! Please, please, please – STOP! I have no control!

“Completely spineless, robot-brained consumers…”

If you are such a completely spineless, robot-brained consumer, you shouldn’t even own a computer, let alone access the internet on it. It’s doubtful you should even be permitted to carry a wallet without supervision.

In the end we are told to be concerned about this Darth Vader evil of a company not because it is attempting to index every movement of humanity for some immoral purpose, but because it might find out enough about us to show us advertising about products we’ll probably like – and be too weak to resist.

Advertising is effective, no doubt, but are you comfortable being cast as a drone that, with involuntary compulsion, buys whatever is put before you?

The last time I checked, before advertising succeeds it requires a willing participant to remove his wallet from his pocket, find some form payment, and fork it over to a merchant.

Here’s a video that makes a better case for concern:

Website Name FAIL

What kind of men?!?!?! Shat terd men!

If this organization wants to do a presentation at your church make sure you add an extra bathroom…

A Detailed History of the Future 1 – McLuhan, Postman, and Source Material

http://www.neilpostman.ru/Photos/Postman,%20Neil.03.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 In the scope of things, Neil Postman is the layman’s version, or an interpreter of Marshall McLuhan. He is more than that of course – he’s a applicator and a developer too, but I don’t think the average person would connect with McLuhan and therein lies the value of Postman. I originally found Postman because his book “Amusing Ourselves to Death” was mentioned and footnoted in so many of the books I was reading. As I began to read more media books I saw the common reference to McLuhan in them and that’s how I discovered him.

Rather than looking to others who were making observations about media, McLuhan’s looked to people like the French philosopher and priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and English painter and author Wyndham Lewis for insights into technology. He did so, I believe, because he believed that, as Wyndham Lewis said:

“The artist is involved in writing a detailed history of the future because he is the only person who lives in the present.”

Considering the accuracy of the observations and predictions he made based on this belief, maybe we would be wise to seek the same sources in our own era.

I’m not sure who else could be considered on McLuhan’s level as a master in the sense of seeing and saying what had previously gone unseen and unsaid. Jacques Ellul perhaps?

It is still widely believed by the avant guard of media arts (students and profs mostly) that McLuhan’s work has barely begun to be appreciated and recognized for what it is. Some use the word “prophet”; in many cases I think that’s appropriate. I guess if you believe as I do that McLuhan was way ahead of his time in thinking and analysis, then you might want to spend some time pleading this case.

This is too strong a metaphor, but you could see McLuhan as source material (scripture) and most others as analysis of source material (commentary)…. and you could make an interesting parallel to how many books we read that are not the Bible compared to how little actual Bible we read… but that’s a bit off-topic.

Francis Schaeffer: “Aping the world’s wisdom…”

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_P8QVEpbcBTg/Ry4YTJes2GI/AAAAAAAAAVE/k4-xKGN6QRo/s400/fs.bmpFrom a recent Crossway Books blog post:

Schaeffer’s following summary paragraph has been especially important (and convicting) to me and something that I pray will always be foundational to the work we do at Crossway.

“Is it not amazing,” Schaeffer writes, “though we know the power of the Holy Spirit can be ours, we still ape the world’s wisdom, trust its form of publicity, its noise, and imitate its ways in manipulating men! If we try to influence the world by using its methods, we are doing the Lord’s work in the flesh. . . . The key question is this: as we work for God in this fallen world, what are we trusting in? To trust in particular methods is to copy the world and to remove ourselves from the tremendous promise that we have something different — the power of the Holy Spirit rather than the power of human technique.”

Review: Shane Hipps – Flickering Pixels

Marshall McLuhan began his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, with the following:

“In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message.”

For nearly a half-century now, students of media have been contemplating the repercussions of McLuhan’s statement.

In Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Your Faith, Shane Hipps attempts to apply McLuhan’s thinking to the realm of faith.  Hipps seems doubly qualified to tackle the content – a former ad exec for Porsche, Hipps turned his back on the lucrative career, entered seminary, and became a Mennonite Pastor.

Hipps writes with excellent pacing, clear prose, and a good bit of humor. Unfortunately, in this book at least, his focus is lacking at times and nonexistent at others. Entire chapters (although they are short) are devoted to issues that have no relation to the topic of the book at all. The first ten chapters, in fact, are a fascinating application of McLuhan’s ideas. After that, however, more chapters than not add nothing to the stated purpose of the book: awareness of the effects of technology on our faith.

In chapter 11 Hipps turns his focus to social media – in his terms “virtual community” – which he claims “inoculates people against the desire to be physically present with others in real social networks”.  It’s at this point that Hipps loses me. He attacks everything from blogs to instant messaging to Facebook and relegates them to the status of cotton candy.

While his concerns are well heeded, in some portions of the book Hipps fails at being a student of modern media and instead becomes a reactionary critic against it.

He describes the digital shorthand of today’s teens as “an invisibility cloak to adult eyes” and “a deliberate teen encryption method,” claiming that, “those who learn it become like medieval scribes, hoarding scrolls containing sacred information.” I can barely resist responding with “LOL.”

“Slang,” McLuhan says in the introduction to Understanding Media, “offers an immediate index to changing perception… The student of media will not only value slang as a guide to changing perception, but he will also study media as bringing about new perceptual habits.”

The main idea of the chapter is that internet technology reverses the order of familial authority by granting young people “startling and unprecedented freedom…the digital space is a land without supervision.” This is proven, but his analysis and prescriptions are flawed. To parents struggling to balance digital boundaries with their simultaneous desire avoid their kids being left out or left behind, Hipps reminds them that “digital space is the most anemic form of social interaction available,” before saying, “maybe being left out of this is a good thing.”

While I take no issue with boundaries and parental authority, if parents are actually capable of keeping their kids entirely free of the damaging effects of social media, surely then a more nuanced and moderate approach is also possible. Similar prescriptions were no doubt giving with the advent of other now common technologies; the automobile for example enabled young adults (and their passengers) to easily travel further from parental supervision than previously possible, where they could get into who-knows-what kind of trouble.

While I sympathize with Hipps’ concerns over the separating effects of technology, I cannot take the view that these technologies should be shunned. I cannot endorse the view – nor do I find if verifiable from personal experience – that these technologies intrinsically “inoculate(s) people against the desire to be physically present with others in real social networks”.

Digital community can be an enhancement and a supplement to flesh-and-blood community. Hipps has taken the tack of using the habits of the immoderate and abusive to prove that the thing abused is to blame – the same strategy that in previous generations failed at eliminating the moderate consumption of alcohol among Christians.

Sin is still at the root of all abuse and addiction, and faith in Christ and reliance on the Holy Spirit is still the only solution.  Creating an awareness of this fact is what will steer both adults and young adults into appropriate and moderate use of their digital resources.

Rob Bell interviews Shane Hipps

I will be reviewing Shane Hipps book Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Your Faith soon. Here’s an idea of what the book is about.


Rob Bell Interviews Shane Hipps About Technology from Deadly Viper on Vimeo.