1. In the case of Democratized media, Keen seems to tie it with the idea of people recycling material made by various artists, designers and creators and using it towards a media that is used in a collage style or used style. He seems to take a side that does not support such a movement in media. He goes on to say that this type of media gives them the opportunity to distort the truth in their choosing and "destroys and kills media." This is also something he advocates in his book that he endorsed on the Colbert Report. His explanations are best exemplified by the website of YouTube. Anybody and recycle, reuse or throw together any footage they want in a distorted or perverse way that is their own spin on such forms of video or film. It will have them form a "creation" that he would most likely feel is stealing art and destroying what is good media.
2. Keen and Rushkoff differ heavily in their view on media. Andrew Keen takes a side that sees new media as the destruction of media as a whole and will continue to diminish and decline in merit. Douglas Rushkoff, on the other hand, views these new media advancements along with newer techonology as a way to enhance and add healthy growth to the new media that is coming to us. Rushkoff believes this will add a human element to media and be able to represent the normal person as they see media and the world. I believe that Keen's view does show slightly more merit when you take a look at the decline in the film industry. Not only have films declined in sales, but the internet has been able to distribute films on user sites for free, illegally. It has seem to construe with the idea that "anybody can be a film-maker or actor" with the internet's wide variety of video hosting sites (most prominent YouTube) and the modern computers run-of-the-mill and standard webcams and editing software. Has this diminished film quality?
No comments:
Post a Comment