NMS2014

Here's info about this year's Wikipedia Art+Feminism edit-a-thon. Turns out that despite being the "encyclopedia edited by everyone" a shockingly low number of women have participated as editors on Wikipedia. Thinking about the gender bias evident in the 1980s Hackers documentary suggests a possible trend echoed online today. At any rate, this is tomorrow, Saturday 9-3 at PSU check it out!

This is a project that could be categorized as design fiction. The artist/architect Mark Shepard explores the possible ways in which the proliferation of 'sentient cities', urban environments equipped with many, many networked sensing devices, might jeopardize privacy and increase unsolicited data collection. He does this using the affordances of fiction, designing and building functional prototypes for an imagined 'near-future' context. This sort of 'critical making' is a strong supplement to traditional modes of scholarship which Shepard also pursues. Mark Shepard "Sentient City Survival Kit" 2010 http://www.survival.sentientcity.net/info.html Accessed January 25, 2014

Here's a clip from the World's Fair of the late 1930s, demonstrating the "voder." This speech synthesizer is one of the inventions referenced in Vannevar Bush's essay this week. He was envisioning ways that it could be combined with other contemporaneous devices to make a sort of auto-stenography possible. The name is peculiar, a variation on the more familiar 'vocoder'. Operationally, it consisted of an elaborate mix of buzzing and hissing blasts of air and electrical vibrations, producing vocal formations by way of pedals and keys! It's voices are familiar, even iconic, but mostly by way of electronic pop music from the 1970s and 80s,bands like Kraftwerk amplifying the connotations of the robotic, and generally, the future. "VODER (1939) Early Speech Synthesizer. Youtube Video. 00:44. Posted by VintageCG on April 4, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAyrmm7vv0

Looking back onto the history of Myspace, the design of the site 10 years ago, in 2004, does look very dated and old. Within today's digital world, simplicity seems to be the dominating characteristic of most online spaces. Myspace circa 2004, however, floods the viewer with link options for browsing, blogging, gaming, listening and other avenues. The color-scheme and grid implementation also seem very elementary. The overall appearance of the site almost has a corporate feeling to it. As though the user might be signing onto their company's server, or company discussion board. Myspace was very link-heavy, though blocks of text are absent from the homepage. The only images that are presented are links to member's profiles, and a few advertisements. Within the abundance of links, many of them do work, and take you onto another part of the website. There aren't any interesting features that require any sort of tinkering to get working on the homepage. A few clicks can take you to the music page, where one would assume that they could listen to some tunes, but they would be sadly disappointed. Many of the featured bands haven't updated their sites since 2005, and their music players don't load. One of the blocks within the homepage reads "cool new people", a headline that I immediately remembered, and made me feel embarrassed all at the same time. The use of the word "cool" seems forced when looked at in this context today, and is not current in the slightest. There also seems to be an abundance of exclamation points within small blocks of text near the bottom of the page, which again, feel forced. Nothing stayed the same between 2004 and 2014. The new Myspace is geared entirely towards music, and seems to almost completely abandon many of the social aspects that they once pushed so relentlessly. The Myspace logo stayed mostly the same, though small differences could be detected.

Thanks this is a fun site for consideration. Early presence in the social network genre, displacing Friendster, then displaced itself by Facebook, only to adapt, as you point out, to a predominantly musically centered audience. I find this interesting to think about in relation to many other user-generated content sites, which have, it seems, ramped up the 'social' aspects in recent years --- survival and resistance--- The excessive use of 'cool' and of exclamation points is perhaps irony long since faded in effect?

Powell's website has gone through a number of changes over the years, one of the most noticed changes is that their icon, remaining in the upper-left corner, has changed multiple times since 1998. The date of the website I posted is from 2000, and I think it fits the time of the technology available. This site does look "old", which is why I think all of these sites have been entertaining to revisit. It's set up in a fairly simple construct, there is nothing flashy or attention-grabbing about the text font. There's a strip of colored tabs at the top of the screen that I feel like I've seen many times before, like on a library or a middle school website. Websites now seem to have more engaging elements whether is motion graphics, or the design is just more complicated and intriguing. This site is pretty text heavy; there are minimal graphics so it just looks like a wall of black text, there isn't a lot that is keeping me interested. Images are small and don't offer visual representation of the store. The text is all in slightly different sized Times New Roman, even in the links or the pages as I'm navigating around the site. I haven't found any sound or multimedia. Toward the bottom of the page there is an option for "free stuff" for either a mac or a pc. The Powell's Bookstore name and icon remain in the same place on the site.

This is an intriguing site for its connection locally to Portland and I think also of the struggles of so many "brick-and-mortar" bookstores in face of online bookselling. More particular as a case study for media archeology, the lackluster design elements of this artifact, as you point out, a (constrained) aesthetic familiar to many early websites --- the 'bells and whistles' arrving via text centric gimmicks--- contests and 'free stuff', rather than visual appeals.

We can see that this website looks like it dates from the late 90s/early 2000s and targets a younger audience due to the style of text used in the header (the 3-D text and the star to dot the 'i') and the overall basic layout that makes use of a more generic type face. All of the information that can be found on the site is hyperlinked on the left side of the page, and when one hovers over each link a colored, square icon spells out the name of the link letter by letter. Compared to contemporary websites, this effect seems to be more of a glitch than a cool, new use of technology. Also to note are some of the terms used throughout the site, including "cool stuff" being listed as the first hyperlink in the left column of the site, as well as the small add for sweet16.com found in the center of the page. A less sophisticated typeface is used in this ad and we see a flower in place of a '.' between sweet16 and com. It is also described as 'The freshest place to party!'. There's only one picture on the right hand side of the text, of a younger Britney Spears in a lace up leather crop top (much different than the fashion style she wears today) and there's a tie dye like pattern in the background of the website that further emotes the style of the late 90s and early 2000s.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis of the design elements --- as you describe, they seem aligned with visual trends of their recent historical context and also point towards a particular audience. The presence of ads is often a helpful hint when decoding the target audience of a website. It's interesting to me, as well, that this early website is identified as Britney's own "welcome to my official website," the use of language implies she is responsible directly for the content. ---more recently I suppose its implied that she's professional enough, or more of a brand than person, to rely on that sort of gimmick to connect with her audience (?)

Comparing the site in 2007 to the way the site is now in 2014, it definitely looks dated and like it is still in the process of being developed. The thing that sticks out as looking the most dated and out of place is the "ways to shop" menu on the left side column that features large and stylistically ill fitting icons with their category names. In comparison to the current version of Etsy that is designed and branded with aesthetics in mind, the basic homepage layout and awkward use of color and icons make it appear bare and the lack of style or design suggest the brand was still new and had yet to develop a distinctive style.

Yes, I see what you mean ---the old site seems a product of the Web 2.0 craze, a rather non-descript template, while the icons , older still, whiffs of geocities sites even! It's interesting to see the development of Etsy's brand as well as to speculate on what other factors were at play. Emerging in mid 00s, it might be fun to trace out other 'genres' of Web 2.0 that bear influence on Etsy's aesthetic genealogy---online auctions? social networks?

Marshall Mcluhan's assertion that "we shape our tools and then our tools shape us" mentioned in class, echoed again in the Nicolas Carr reading this week. Here's a handy web version of Mcluhan's influential text from 1964. Mcluhan's quips, probes and puns were quite popular in the 1960s, resonant then with a youth culture immersed in 'new media' and the social-political intersections thereof. In the 1990s, as the so-called 'digital revolution' ramped up, Mcluhanisms were prominently re-surfaced. There are not chapter titles provided in this rendition of the book, so you might want to cross-reverence a table of contents elsewhere. On the other hand, you can use the 'find' function of your browser to seek out sections on a variety of media from the spoken word to the printing press, money, roads, clothing, comics, telephones, television and much more! First part is theory, second part case studies. "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Marshall Mcluhan (1964)" Accessed January 30, 2014. http://www.lab404.com/242/understanding_media.html

I started my media archeological dig in hopes of finding out when the icons of social media sites (tumblr, facebook, etc) started appearing on websites of official news sites. I chose Salon.com somewhat arbitrarily. Surprisingly, I discovered that salon.com was not always the property of today's news and entertainment magazine. As it turned out, the URL originally belonged to "Salon dot Com a Cyber Community," a hub of salon and beauty professionals, and was established as such in 1997. The oldness of this site is prominently paraded in the design --- brightly and variously colored text against a black background, words underlined to denote hyperlinks, lines of text centered to (presumably) maintain order-- while avoiding the headache of working with framesets and tables in web design of this era. No images. There is a broken link up top, a 'counter', based on surrounding information. The use of the term "cyber" to characterize this community is another bit of faded jargon linking the site to the 1990s. During that decade, the 'cyber' prefix was affixed to many people, places and things to signal 'new media' status. Some versions of this site also link to an "E-Zine," another trope of remediation, aimed at association with 'e-mail', most likely. It seems that some point in early 1999, salon.com shifted to the Salon Media Group, and the early versions of the web magazine that persists to this day appeared (tables and css in effect!)

A comparison of the New York Times website between February 18, 1999 and January 15, 2014 reveals more than a few amusing differences: the older site includes "on the Web" in the title, the increasingly user driven results on the modern page (most emailed headlines, personalized weather reports, customized alerts), the search function on the old site buried halfway down the page, almost as an afterthought. Most telling, however, is the great focus on the digitized version of the paper in the modern incarnation. Specifically, there are ten unique buttons on the front page offering unlimited access to the site, with new and improved usability. The shift from paper to digital media is clear here. Sales of the physical paper are low, as more people choose to access media via personal devices. Naturally, when accessed from one of these devices, the site redirects the user to a mobile friendly version - a stark, pithy version perfect for the instant absorption of a few headlines. In this way, the 1999 version of the site foreshadowed the NY Times' decision on March 2008 to use the second and third pages of its physical copy for article abstracts, as Nicholas Carr points out in his article "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The front page is made up of only abstracts that lead to the longer, less efficient articles. The 2014 site has kept this standard, only now including user defined popularity in articles, as mentioned above. Overall, the trending is as would be expected - greater personalization, monetization of access, and interactivity (a few more imbedded videos). These changes speak to a larger shift in how the user access media - the decline of the paper copy and an old institution rallying to survive modernity.

thanks for the reflections on this news and information juggernaut! The long obsolescence of print seems clear in your observations here. A complementary study might look at the 'migratory patterns' of NYTimes readers in terms of their info-consumption habits, preferences and motivations for adapting to the screen

Apple.com, 1996-2014

The design layout of the page is cosmetically very different from contemporary design practices. The use of color and typography isn't precise or functional in the way that it would speak to the brand's ideology of today's Apple. The landing page is more of a "news" page with hyperlinks to stories of Apple's news. The site is no doubt limited by the web's capabilities but is also a very straight forward, engineered approach; an extension of the culture of Apple at the time; a company of engineers, inventors, and tinkerers, rather than artists and designers. Much more emphasis was placed on the function of the website, rather than the form. By comparison the news section still exists on the landing page, only it has been relegated to a 6pt size link on the bottom right of the landing page. Apple now features products on the landing page, rather than news about events. Although, I do know the keynote speeches are featured on the landing page once a year. From 1996, up until the 1998, the layout was a menu of links on the left side of the page, a cluttered and unfocused aesthetic. In 1998 the iMac is first introduced along with an entirely clean aesthetic throughout the website. Only the necessary information is readily available; shifting the viewer's focus to the product, rather than the company itself. In the year 2000, the top-centered navigation bar is introduced, an design decision still used today on the Apple website. The aesthetic itself is relying heavily on skeuomorphism, with harsh drop shadows and faux buttons abound. Unfortunately, most of the links do not work, limiting me to a view of the landing page throughout time. Interestingly, most of the design layouts remain similar to the established aesthetic in the early 2000's, up until 2013 when Apple began to move away from skeuomorphic design and into a flattened out, more streamlined appearance.

Thanks for these observations on the development and dramatic shifts in the late 90s arrival of the 'clean' or seamless Apple look. Tucking away the old culture of the company, as you say--- the long-haired homebrew computer hacking gets a haircut! Thanks also for comments on the 'skeuomorphic' --- a tie in with processes of remediation.

I used the way-back machine to find this web page about the MIT Rad Lab. The Radiation Laboratory is talked about in the Shifting Politics of Computational Metaphor reading, but this web page gives a more detailed look into Rad Lab. This webpage was published in the Spring of 1991 which means in was published on the fiftieth anniversary of Rab Lab. The web page talks about RLE's experiments with micro-waves and the legacy that it left behind. "The wartime experience in the RadLab showed that talented people from several disciplines could effectively focus on a variety of fundamental and applied research projects with outstanding results. Many of these investigators acquired new skills in order to solve these problems, and their achievements showed how effective interdisciplinary research can be." "The MIT Radiation Laboratory - RLE's Microwave Heritage", RLE Currents, v.2 no. 4, Spring 1991 in 18.4MB PDFInternet Archive copy

Also check out the Rad Lab Series of writings. After the end of World War II, the United States government continued to pay key people who had worked at the Radiation Laboratory for six months to enable them to write about their work. http://www.jlab.org/ir/MITSeries.html

In Open Source as Culture/ Culture as Open Source, the operating systems Linux and GNU. GNU was developed by Richard Stallman in 1983 as an open source operating system which could be developed by many different people working towards the freedom of software. The GNU project was necessary when most software was proprietary in the 1980's. The GNU web page has a great detailed history of the development of GNU from its beginning to how it is being used now Stallman, Richard. GNU Project, Accessed February 12, 2014.

"The GNU Project is not limited to the core operating system. We aim to provide a whole spectrum of software, whatever many users want to have. This includes application software. See the Free Software Directory for a catalogue of free software application programs."

I began my search by seeing what type Media Arts collection the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art has. It appears SFMOMA has embraced Media arts and has procured and archived a site called "learning to love you more." The site was in operation from 2002-2009. The site issued "assignments" for participants to post on the site. Some of the subjects people were asked to post include, "take a picture of your parents kissing, "photograph a scar and write about it," and "interview someone who has experienced war." There are a total of 70 assignment subjects with a lot of submissions for each topic. "Learning To Love You More." Learning To Love You More. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

Thanks this is great example of work bridging online / offline space, opening up a participatory platform. This one originated in Portland, I believe, coordinated by Harrell Fletcher and Miranda July

I selected a name I found interesting in the reading, Ben Benjamin. His website "superbad" launched in 1997 takes participants down a spiral of bazar, unrelated, flashing, digital art loops. Like the article "A History of Internet Art" mentioned, "beware that, seen out of their native HTML, out of their networked, social habitats, they are the net.art equivalents of animals in zoos." So I went to see what one of the mentioned artists work was all about. As the article mentions Ben Benjamin's work was featured in the Whitney Museum Biennial in 2000. Wikipedia also informed me he won a Webby award in 1999. "Superbad." Superbad. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.

As I read 'Web Work: A History of Internet Art' by Rachel Greene, I highlighted some of the websites mentioned to go back to and explore. One of these sites was jodi.org. On my first visit to the site, I just typed in Jodi.org in my Chrome browser, which I will warn you right now: DON'T DO IT! I was brought to a blank black page with no information except that my pop up blocker informed me that it blocked a pop up. Being the fool that I am, I changed the setting to allow pop ups from jodi.org, thinking that maybe the pop up was part of the net.art I would find on the page. Immediately a half dozen or so pop ups popped up and started moving around the page, as I tried to close out of the windows they became more and more erratic and finally I just quit Chrome to get out of there. Then I went to Jodi.org throughout the portal of the Wayback Machine. It seemed like another one of those: "rabbit-hole-look-there-are-so-many-fucking-links-all-over-that-move-and-change-colors-and-shit-aren't-we-so-disruptive-type-sites." that Clae was talking about. Then as I was writing this up, in order to give a better description of the site I went to outside of The Wayback Machine, I went back to Jodi.org and a different page came up! Each time I closed the window and went back to Jodi.org, I was directed to a new and different page. It still seems sketchy and I only visited a few more pages, but I thought it was interesting anyways. "Jodi.org." Accessed February 20, 2014. http://jodi.org.

Aha! JODI, of course! This happened to me too---I couldn't remember which net.artist it was. It's certainly one way of engaging a viewer. This reminds me of something that the writer William Burroughs once said in an interview "If I really knew how to write, I could write something that someone would read and it would kill them" ---- JODI's site doesn't seem so fatal in intention, but there is a strong sense of panic induced by their clever coding!