Patrick's New Media 206 Blog

This isn’t a specific artwork or project, but I know that “denial-of-service” attacks are sometimes used by hacktivism groups to make a certain website unavailable to users. I’m not sure about how a denial-of-service attack works specifically, but it basically leads to a server overload. It’s a crude example of hacktivism for sure, but I thought it would fit because the internet group “Anonymous” has used denial-of-service attacks in the past to bring down websites of organizations of which they find fault with. For example, recently on January 20, 2012, they used denial-of-service attacks on the Department of Justice and FBI websites to call attention to the website Megaupload being shut down.

One of my favorite projects from this chapter was “They Rule,” something that we saw earlier in this class before reading Edge of Art. It shows connections between corporations/very powerful people in a very visual and striking way. It’s a great way to use technology to expose something that was possibly previously unnoticed, and I like the quote from Edge of Art that says “once you get enough information in one place, you can draw connections you might not otherwise apprehend.” I love that concept, and I agree that They Rule is a prime example of hacktivism. It uncovered a lot of connections that weren’t as easy to make before They Rule was created, such as the connection between Coke and Pepsi that Edge of Art points out.

I like the idea that “hacktivism” can foster an environment where people can make bold political statements safely, and that artists are allowed to cross certain boundaries due to artistic license.

I think the most important thing I took from this chapter was the idea of “artistic misuse,” especially since this is a unit on hacktivism. In submitting our intents, it is likely that many of our projects will include a “hack” or misuse of something in order convey a certain message. This chapter focused heavily code as art. In other words, the way in which programmers can purposely misuse code to create something new and innovative. I was struck by the example of Nam Jun Paik installing the magnet on top of a television set to achieve a certain effect. Certainly this is a misuse and a hack on this technology, but it created something completely new. I’ve learned that purposely using things in a way they weren’t meant to be used can be innovative. For example, earlier in this class we watched “As it Happened — A Secret History of Hacking,” where “”phone phreaks” experimented with telephones in ways it wasn’t supposed to be used for, and had never been done before, but it basically lead to computer hacking.

We had an interesting little discussion on the video “As it Happened — A Secret History of Hacking.” One question we discussed that interested me was “what is a scapegoat?” and further, “what does the government use a scapegoat for?” This documentary is interesting in that regard, for example, one of the pioneers of this hacking craze was actually labeled as a “terrorist” by the government. In reality, he was just a bright and talented hobbyist, but he was turned into a scapegoat due to the government calling him a threat and the media bearing a similar message. Since “hacking” was a new thing, many people were misinformed, so it was easy to find a scapegoat in this group of hackers and “phreaks.”

This video reminded me of a story on the internet group “Anonymous” a Fox affiliate news channel in LA that aired in 2007. The reporter called the group “hackers on steroids” and “domestic terrorists,” much like the terms used to describe the subjects of “As it Happened.” The activities portrayed in the report are stupid pranks, but I think calling them terrorists just shows that the people working at this news station aren’t completely in touch with technology and the internet. The report is laughable, and can be found here.

“Theater of the Oppressed”

This article had to do with many different types of theater that can inspire social change. Many of these I had never really heard of or thought of, and I don’t know if anything like this happens in my area. I can see why we would read this after watching “The Yes Men Fix the World” in class. What the “Yes Men” do is basically a similar sort of theater. They either act out things that they wish to happen (like Dow compensating for the Bhopal disaster), or they act out things in a silly way to call attention to how absurd some corporations can be.

I found the aspect of these types of theater using the audience as part of the act to be the most interesting. I can imagine that it is much more engaging for everyone when the spectators are interacting with the actors. In fact, it starts to blur the line between the “spectators” and the “actors.” Which is a main point brought up at the end of the article, that interactive theater can and should “humanize the spectator.”

Although I’ve never seen this type of theater before (to my knowledge), it seems like a good way to work through problems, by examining them visually and physically). Working through problems that way has never really occurred to me, but I was very interested in the “image theater,” where bodies are “sculpted” and language is not even used. It seems like a very different way to express and work out problems. This type of theater, and the others like it, also allow them to examine the many different approaches they could make towards a problem in a safe environment.

The scenario of the man eating the barbecue in the restaurant reminded me of a comedic performance group popular on the internet called “Improv Everywhere.” Improv Everywhere act out rehearsed scenes in public places, and often, the public is very much involved. So, that means that the actors have to be able to adapt to the reactions of the public. So, I suppose that Improv Everywhere act out a sort of Invisible Theater.

“http://rastasoft.org/”

I honestly have no idea what this website is or what exactly I’m meant to do with it. However, I did recognize a forkbomb about halfway down the page.

“How Occupy Wallstreet Changes Everything”

Before reading this article, I’ll admit, I didn’t have much knowledge about the Occupy Wallstreet protests. I was of course aware that it was happening from social news sites like “Reddit.com,” but I really didn’t have any details. I’d also partially forgotten all about it when everything to do with SOPA/PIPA came about and started to overshadow it.

I noticed that this article has some tie-ins to the commencement speech by Pariser. In “How Occupy Wallstreet Changes Everything,” the author explains that, “Our leaders will not fix things for us; we’ll have to do that for ourselves.” This is much like a point that Pariser makes in her speech, that we can’t rely on leaders or so-called “experts.” We have to take on that responsibility ourselves.

This article helped me get a better idea how serious and expansive these Occupy protests have been. Living in Maine, there wasn’t too much activity, and I figured it was similar in other places. However this article showed me that a lot is happening with Occupy in more urban areas. I was most surprised by the novel idea of communicating to many people without amplification. Like the article says, repeating promotes active listening, and there’s no risk breaking any laws against amplification.

“The World Needs You To See It With Fresh Eyes”

I think one of the most important points that Pariser is making in her speech is that everybody is capable of making some sort of positive change. You don’t necessarily have to be an expert, in fact, Pariser argues that there really is no such thing as an expert, seeing as we are always learning and there are “unknown unknowns.” I liked her quote, “we each possess the power to change everything.” It’s very empowering. What I took from this article was that you can’t leave things up to the “experts,” you need to go out and actually do something yourself.

“What is New Media?”

We’ve read this before in previous New Media classes. However, it looks like I had forgotten most of this article. At first it really does sound like semantics, but when Crosbie begins to get into the analogy of land, water, and air, it starts to become rather interesting. The analogy was very helpful, especially in expressing how the new medium has both the benefits of the old media without any of the disadvantages that they have. With the new media, content can be individualized and the communication can be more than one-to-one, two disadvantages of one-to-many and 0ne-to-one communication, respectively.

I also like how Crosbie explained that simply displaying old media on technology like the internet does not pass as new media. For example, putting an electronic version of a newspaper online. Like he said, the new media is not necessarily an “electronic extension” of old media.