The Wonderful World of Memes

 

     In The Language of Internet Memes by Patrick Davison, he brings up the connection, or lack there of, between memes and genes. Davison states that “genes determine an organisms physical characteristics”(121) where as “memes determine the behavior of an organism”(121).  He talks about how genes are something that determine attributions such as short legs, long fingers, etc. and he talks about how there are certain genes that enable its host to be successful. The gene though, is unaware why the host is successful, it just knows that it is and will continue to be. The memes on the other hand, have behavior that is either taught to the organism or learned through experience, it is not something that is just innately known. Davison argues that the genes play a factor in whether a host is more successful physically due to genetics however; the true test is whether the host is better or worse depending on their understanding and ability to learn new things.

            I thought this concept was interesting because I related it to the success of the Internet as a whole. The genes in this scenario would be the creators of different aspects of the Internet, such as its functions, accessibility, usefulness, etc. The memes however, would be the people in society, those who the Internet was designed for in essence.  The success of the Internet is highly reliant on the user feedback and whether or not users feel it is something they would like to “accept” into their society. If society gives it a trial run and does not succeed, it will probably stop trying to use it. Just like in Davison’s example of soccer players, if the player who was genetically inferior to the other person and then was having a very difficult time understanding the game as well as the other soccer player, the genetically inferior player would probably stop playing.

            Another point that was brought up was how memes can be separated into components: manifestation, behavior and ideal. I thought it was interesting how these components formed a sort of circle chain of reaction that started with and in a way ended with the manifestation. There could not be the behavioral component without the manifestation and there could not be the ideal without he behavioral that cannot exist without the manifestation. I also thought it was interesting how there were these three components to a meme when often times the meme itself is subject to interpretation. The creator of the meme could have one definition of the ideal of the meme where as someone reading the meme afterwards could have something completely different.

            This world of memes I feel is something that is ever changing and developing, becoming a society within the world of the Internet.

Mash-up and Remix Crazy

    Girl Talk, mash-ups and copyright. There were so many crazy and amazing ideas that came out of the first video. The three points the author of the documentary discuses are:

1. Culture always builds on the past
2. The past is always in control of the future
3. Our future is becoming less free

All of these points took me by surprise because I had never stepped back and thought about them before. This idea that throughout history the current culture has always built upon the past I had recognized through stories and history class, but never anything beyond that. I had never known that Walt Disney had taken television shows and ideas from years before and just “remixed” them to fit into the times better, then basically put a lock down on them so no one could do the same.

            The point that our culture is becoming less free truly stuck out to me. When the documentary discussed who was in control of culture blew me away. The fact that two major companies control the six head companies who have control over ten still pretty important companies who control the hundreds of other companies that make up Hollywood seems completely unreal. To me, it does not seem as though it should be legal for this type of control to exist, over anything not just what these companies have control over. The author also talked about how Girl Talk remixed music, or collaged it. This made a connection in my mind to art class and how the teacher would instruct us to make collages. We would take newspapers, magazine clippings and what ever else we could find to create a work of art that was all our own. Essentially what the copyright personnel are saying is that the art work we created and spent hours on is in fact not our own and we should be charged for even creating it in the first place. Many popular artists who display their work in art shows do collage work and have developed their skill from learning from those before them. Its not like Picasso is suing artists now a day who have modeled their work after his work because they were a huge fan of his style.

            Essentially, people such as Girl Talk are making an argument that what they do is art, and quite frankly, I agree. They are taking something and transforming it into something completely different and original, where many people would not even be able to recognize the beginning piece. The same comparison can be said for the medical world. There would be so many more developments that could be saving peoples lives if the original developers of certain aspects were less concerned with making money and more concerned with humanity. Both the medical world and the artistic world such as Girl Talk are helping people, both physically and spiritually. The argument can be made that peoples lives are being changed for the better through the work of art mash up artists are creating because peoples pallets for new music and styles of music are forever changing. Just think, not too long ago rap music was not considered popular or worth listening to and now it is pretty main stream where large, different types of people listen to it. It will only be a matter of time before the same is to be said for mash up artists and remixes, but what is going to be put at stake before that time comes. Are those families and people who were sued by large corporations going to get the money back they lost, which did not even go to the artists whose music they were illegally downloading?

The Age of the “Bronies”

 

       Bronies. An ever-growing culture (consisting primarily of while males) that idolizes a television show originally created for young girls. Most would call them perverts or argue how disgusting they must be. However, the PBS video made a good point that at one time in our society it was seen as “gross” for girls to wear pants, the same is to be said about men watching My Little Pony. The fact that there has been a hug subculture built around this entire show was quite surprising. There have been tons and tons of fan art created, conventions and many other types of fan based methods of celebrating the show all over the Internet as well as in real life. One question that was raised from watching these videos was “is it entirely terrible for both men and young girls to be idolizing this show?” This might be the first television show that seems to be around for the long haul that has legitimate role models in it. Personally I would much rather idolize a fictional character who experiences real life problems and has to make decisions just like any other person, than someone such as Miley Cyrus. If you compare Miley to My Little Ponies, most people would pick the ponies. For starters, the ponies are never going to change; they will stay the same age with the same personalities for the entire time. In contrast, Miley started off as a great role model for people, especially little girls when she was in Hannah Montana. Now however, she is up on stage, dancing very provocatively with a man wearing basically no clothes. What kind of example is she setting for all of her fans, no matter what age. The ponies however, can essentially never grow up unless the creators make them, and I do believe that if the creators do have the ponies grow up, they will not be doing anything nearly as close as what Miley has been up to.

            Another point that was brought up in the “Ballad of the Brony” video is the My Little Pony theme of “friendship is magic.” What better way to instill confidence in people then making the theme of the show something everyone wants. The show is using their main line to join all followers together and make the culture of pony lovers even greater. This idea of “friendship is magic” is something eveyone can relate to, no matter what age. Everyone wants friends because having friends makes life easier and more enjoyable. Another way they enforced this idea is when the pony with the crooked eyes was noticed, the show left it the way it was and even praised the pony’s imperfection. They were showing that people can have friends, no matter what one looks like, you will be accepted. What a better way to have a show then to instill insecurities everyone has and acknowledge that they are alright.

            Even though the Bronies culture is seen by some as creepy and pathetic, I believe they actually have the right idea. For once, a very large group of people is idolizing something that is not an embarrassment and something worth worshiping. It is rather ironic that the second a culture starts embracing a show that emphasizes a better way of life, people jump all over it because the not “proper” group of people are celebrating the show as well. Personally, I learned a lot from watching these brony videos and learning about their culture. I applaud the bronies because they are smarter than the rest of society; they are putting their efforts towards idolizing something that deserves to be idolized.

The Long Tail

This concept of “The Long Tail” as discussed by Chris Anderson stuck out to me as a very powerful business model which also surprised me to find out more businesses are not following it. When Anderson stated “the industry has a poor sense of what the people want,” (141) that was very shocking to me because as a consumer, I had always thought the opposite. For myself, it always seemed that places tended to carry the newest trends as well as “staple” pieces that most people were unaware they needed. When Anderson discussed how retailers will “only carry content that can generate sufficient keep” (138) although it makes sense, at the same time that content may not be what the people want and made me wonder if that was the reason most businesses failed. If those businesses did not have the right combination of product the people want alongside with those “staple” pieces that consumers do not even realize they need.

            These three rules that were brought up of:

1. “Make everything available” and
2. “Cut the price in half, now lower it”
3. “Help me find it”

I found very interesting. First we have the rule of making everything available. This section talked about how depending on your wants and needs, that would determine what company you would join into. I thought that it was very interesting how Netflix came to “embrace niches” (143) and that was what has made them an extremely profitable company. If I were a business owner, I do not know that I would give a bunch of no-name directors and companies a chance to see how they do if it could not positively affect the company in the long run. It seemed very unreal to me that Netflix decided to take movies, tv shows, documentaries, and anything else you could think of and put them all into a system for people to explore and watch and hopefully love. They took what was seen as “unprofitable” and made it profitable, ten times over. I wonder, who is getting the last laugh now?

            The second rule discussed this idea of lowering prices on things to make them more desirable to consumers, which I found myself agreeing with. When this article was written, the average price of a song on iTunes was ninety-nine cents. Now, the average price for a song is $1.29, leaving the $0.99 song a deal! I thought the experiment that Rhapsody ran to see if consumers would buy more songs if they cost was less was a very ingenious thing to do. There must somehow be a way to make the prices less while still leaving enough in profit for the companies. I don’t think that people should be charged for distribution or packaging when they are purchasing a song online, in fact they should get some sort of discount. Companies and the creators are saving money by allowing people to purchase just one song because they do not have to recreate everything, and the prices should reflect that accordingly. I also agree with the idea of “pull consumers down the tail with lower prices” (147). I believe that if you start the prices on the lower end for current market items, then lower the prices as the items become older and older, people will buy them and be more willing to buy them. Just because something is older does not mean that consumers lose interest in them, it just means they are less popular and in your face as they once were. By showing consumers that the prices have dropped, I believe they will be more inclined to buy them and continue to make profits for companies in the long run. 

Is Google Actually Making Us Stupid?

    Nicholas Carr addresses the issue of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” After reading his article and watching the video “Is Google Knowledge?” by PBS, I found myself agreeing with Carr. Carr talked about how peoples “concentration and contemplation are decreasing.” Even just writing this piece, I found myself becoming distracted after only a few minutes of concentrating. Carr talks about how because the Internet has trained our brains to continuously need stimulation and being “distracted” by other things, it has made it more and more difficult for people to “interpret text and make connections.” Carr was saying now when people read things, if they even do read it fully, they do not understand that concepts or important information from what they were reading. This effect, results in them rereading the material multiple times only to receive the same outcome.  The PBS video also addressed the same type of logic when it comes to the Internet and technology. The speaker argued that we are “past the age of memory.” I believe that this is actually a valid statement being proved on a regular basis by those who would be considered “digital natives.” Personally I have found myself in recent years being less able to remember information I learned a week ago, where as just a few years ago I feel as though I could almost remember anything.

            One quote that really stuck out to me was at the end of “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” was when it read, “as we come to rely on computers to mediate our understanding of the world, it is our own intelligence that flattens into artificial intelligence.” This quote I felt was so powerful because I feel that it relates to the PBS video when he talked about how there is “so much knowledge out there that even if we wanted to build knowledge, it is so overwhelming so we don’t or can’t.” Is this really what it has come down to? People are going to argue that there is just so much information surrounding them that they cannot handle it? Personally, I believe that to be an excuse for the laziness that I feel has come hand in hand with the growing of technology. Students no longer have to walk to the library to look something up, they can just sit at their desk and in a few minutes have the answer right on their computer.

            Another point the PBS video brought up was this idea if are we getting more knowledgeable by having utilities such as Google. The PBS video argues “facts and ideas are knowledge when they are put into use and relate to other facts and ideas.” Having said that, if a person has an idea about something and they look to Google for the facts about it, aren’t they, in theory, becoming more knowledgeable? I personally believe there is a fine line between becoming more knowledgeable because of utilities such as Google, but there is also a point at which a person becomes incapable of having any other way of solving problems. I also agree with the video when it stated, “[we] never dig deep enough into any one thing to build knowledge.” I do believe that we are now consumed with this idea of instant gratification, we have an idea or a question and we quickly look to Google or some other source for the answer then that is the end of it. Since it was so easy to find the answer, we never question or wonder further into the idea, which I believe, prevents us from learning to our full potential. 

Is there truly no sense of self anymore?

McLuhan raised a lot of interesting points in his book having to deal with the message of the medium and how it effects different aspects of everyday life. I thought it was very interesting how he opened up the book with this idea that we are in this “Age of Anxiety”(9) that has been brought on by people trying to do work with old fashion tools. I thought this idea related exactly to the assignment we first did about explaining our relationship with technology and how most of the class talked about how uncomfortable they would feel without their cell phone for so little as half an hour. I found it interesting how this single, little device could create so much havoc among people and their psyche. McLuhan then goes on to talk about this separation between generations and how technology is in part to blame, which I agree with. New technologies, such as the cell phone, are creating enormous gaps between generations, even small generation gaps such as an older sibling to a younger sibling. There is a severe disconnect that is getting harder and harder to bring together and the new technology is in part to blame.

            Another part McLuhan talked about is this idea of shared guilt and how there is no such thing as personal guilt anymore. He talks about how as a “mass culture we are moving into—a world of total involvement”(61) where basically everyone is in everyone else’s business all the time. To me, this concept is a bit frightening but also spot on as well. If you relate this idea to how people use Facebook and Twitter, constantly on it or updating a status to explain how they are feeling, what they are doing, who they are with, etc. There is no sense of “personal” anymore, people want other people to be in their business because it makes them feel as if they are important, instead of having the self confidence to feel that way on their own. I think McLuhan is alluding to the idea that eventually people are not going to know what it feels like to have a “personal problem” that is dealt with solely, but instead the need for others input is going to be a requirement.

            Another idea McLuhan brought up which runs along with the idea of shared involvement is the idea of sound and how it impacts people. I never had thought about how we do not have earlids so we are forever and continually hearing what others around us are saying. This can be both a good and a bad thing. It is a good thing if we are having a conversation with someone about a topic of interest. It is a bad thing if we want to be alone with our own thoughts but can be unable to do so with the constant noise that surrounds us. McLuhans idea of “the ear world is a world of simultaneous relationships”(111) I think relates to the fact that eventually people are getting so used to the noise that is now serves as a sort of comfort. Constantly being able to hear other peoples voices makes us feel included in something, instead of an outsider. Even if we are not included in with the other voices, we some how feel as though we are and that others care. I think McLuhan is indirectly saying that if people did have earlids or if the noise suddenly stopped, people would start going mad.

            The final point in McLuhans book which really spoke to me was on page 153 when it says “…and who are you?” then continues on the next page to say “I—I hardly know, sir, just at present—at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.” This whole segment was extremely powerful to me because I feel McLuhan is making the point of how there is no sense of individualism anymore. Everyone is falling into the habit of wanting to become someone else or following in the footsteps of someone else. No one is willing to create a new path to follow, all their own. His point is proven by the impact of Apple products. If you look around, it seems as though the second one person bought an Apple iphone, everyone felt the need to own one otherwise they were not considered “cool” or in touch with the newest technology. There are many more followers these days then there are trendsetters and it is sad. People no longer have the confidence to be who they want to be and not care what others will think. 

Is new technology truly creating a stronger society?

McLuhan had an interesting statement which reads “electronic media were “retribalizing” the new generation and encouraging humans everywhere to become emotionally involved in affairs happening around the world in the electronically facilitated “global village”(55, Meyrowitz). After reading Meyrowitz’ entire piece and combining that with my own knowledge, I am not entirely certain I agree. Meyrowitz talked about how in traditional oral cultures, the set up of how people in the community lived was always in a circle, centered around the person(s) who would relay the information and tell the stories. Everyone had the same focal point and was given the same information at the same time, so any alterations to the stories or misinterpretations were almost impossible. Everyone had to be involved in what they were being told or “learning” because it was all they knew and it was the only way they would receive any information at all. Now with the rise in television, radio and Internet, people can receive different information and different stories at any given time on any given day. Since all of these news reports are coming from different sources, there is no guarantee that the information is all going to be the same. For example, one news station could report to that thirty people passed away in a plane crash while another station could report that the same plane landed in a body of water and everyone survived. Those who heard the plane crashed could be mourning the deaths and sending prayers to those who passed while those who heard everyone survived could be taking a deep breath and celebrating that no one was hurt. I agree with McLuhan that all these new medias are creating this sort of “global village” where everyone is connected somehow to someone but is that necessarily a good thing? When oral stories were all that were available, the good part about the villages was that each village had their own stories and traditions to pass on from one generation to another. Now, since everyone can be somehow connected to someone else half way around the world, will people eventually start blending their stories and traditions that have been passed down, eventually creating one big story with no diversity? It was explained in Meyrowitz’ paper that as words and stories began to develop from oral to scribal to written, those living in these societies began to develop and started creating a hierarchal society where not everyone is treated the same in terms of intelligence. Children were treated as children and were shielded from information their elders felt only adults should have access to. By creating this global village where anyone and everyone can have access to the same information at any given time, doesn’t that take away from the distinctions that were put in place by those who came before us? By having this vast village, will that take away from one’s curiosity about people and customs in different areas? May this village also take away ones ability to find their own identity at their own pace instead of pressing upon them the already established identities of others? If there are less and less face to face interactions, a person will be able to create his or her own point of view, but will have no one to express it to or to argue about it against. If and when that does happen, will people be absolved of having a point of view all together? Will the idea of a point of view not even be known anymore? 

tumblr_mkm6dmw89e1r3blbro1_500.jpg