"Web-Based Memorializing After September 11" - Foot & Warnick

Summary Foot & Warnick's paper had a single purpose: "to fill gaps in current scholarship on Web-based memorializing by exploring the online modulation of public and private or vernacular modes of memorializing" (p.73). By developing a conceptual framework (set of constructs between ideas and evidence that can be used in future studies) Foot & Warnick hoped to study a small set of sites and comparitive analyze them and the way they utilized the concept of Web-based memorializing. Like Socolovsky's article, Foot & Warnick focus on the changeability and manipulation of the web medium. They argue that the allowance of the individual to interact, change, and co-create work online in the memorial make web memorials a way for an ndividual to gain a public voice. According to Foot & Warnick, "The Web offers a communication environment in which individuals and networks of individuals can quickly mount sites that are themselves " 'open documents' inviting an unspecified range of visitors (in fact: anybody) to add something of their own" (Geser,1998 section 3, par.7)" (p.77). This point attests to the fact, that unlike physical memorials such as gravesits and memorial services, Web-based memorials provide more opportunities to develop and be manipulated over time (p.78). This, again, enhances the ability for an individual to make their voice heard in ways that mass media does not allow, and in ways that physical memorials cannot. Finally, Foot & Warnick create their conceptual framework from which they are able to analyze the small group of sites they selected. The framework they developed focuses on 7 distinct ideas: 1) the object or focus of commemoration, 2) evidence of co-production, 3) univocal or multivocal based, 4) the speed of the memorial's online posting, 5) how dynamic the memorial is, 6) the memorial's intended audience, and 7) the victims positioning in reality (p. 88, 89, 90). Using this framework, Foot & Warnick were able to distinguish a patter between site developers and the content of the given site. They found that differences between sites created by individuals and sites created by institutions are not clear cut, but that there are suggestions that the sites vary by producer type (p.92). The authors suggest that individually produced sites are created more rapidly following the tragic event than those created by institutions, and that the individually created sites are more open to manipulation and co-production than those created by institutions. From this conclusion, it is obvious that Foot & Warnick intended to provide fellow researchers with evidence to aid them in their analysis of different memorials across the realm of the internet. Inquiry I would like to respond to the evidence provided by Foot & Warnick regarding interaction and co-production of Web-based memorials vs. that of "offline" memorials. Personally, I feel that all memorials in any form are just ways that people cope with their loss, and I find that memorials are a very different way than I would cope. Memorials to me are just that; memories of ones lossed. I now have a new outlook on memorials though, in light of this article and of Socolovksy's article. By changing my perception of memorials as strictly "offline" and based on the heroic or tragic events that occured involving mass amounts of people, I recognize that online memorials have enabled this type of remembrance for individuals as well. While I may not ever create my own online memorial, I think it is an excellent way for people to cope with their loss and to have a place where they can go and reflect on the lives of the deceased. As far as interaction, manipulation, and co production, however, I find this topic to be somewhat disrespectful. I feel that people's need to make themselves a part of another's life is selfish and has no place in the realm of death, grieving and loss. Take funerals for example: a funeral is not a way for the bereaved to popularize or change the life of the deceased, rather funerals are a way to celebrate the life lived by the deceased individual, or individuals. I feel that being able to change online content to better suit one's self disrespects the deceased in the sense that their lives can be defaces by political and social agendas posted online. Examples include hate speech toward terrorists on 9/11 memorial sites, and also gun control advocates on sites that are made to commemorate the lives of the slain students at Columbine High School. Memorials, whether online or off, should be a place to go and simply reflect on the life of a deceased individual, not places where we go and discuss issues related to their death in a socio-political context. Political arenas and forums are a better place for this discussion. I do think Web-based memorials are a good way for people to go and get their thoughts and feelings out, but keep in mind that anyone can access the Web and say anything that they want. For this reason, I feel that death has now been publicized negatively, in the sense that we are leaving ourselves, the bereaved, open to discussion that should not be a part of the celebration of a life once lived. Therfore, in conclusion, I feel that memorials should remain a fixed-content entity and should not be left open to be changed or manipulated by anyone, but rather should be created by the bereaved as an obituary is; to let people know someone has been lossed and if you know that person feel free to leave a comment regarding your reflection on their life and possibly offering condolences to family and friends. Respect the lives of those that have left this world, and don't deface their death by polluting memorials with political and social speech in favor of an ideal or agenda, rather take the example of their death and communicate those ideals or agendas in a different arena, but not in the space of the memorial itself. 1. Do you think that memorials and deaths should be used to gain traction in political fights such as the gun control movement resulting from Columbine or the anti-terrorism movement stemming from 9/11? 2. Do you agree that memorials, online or off, should be a reverant place and that discussion of issues should take place outside of the realm of the memorial, say in a blog or separate arena, yet should still allow evidence from a death to be presented or do you think that death should be kept private and not used at all to progress any agenda? 3. What are the consequences of using digital representations to remember lives of real people that existed in real places? 4. Finally, do you think that it is necessary to analyze memorials, of any form, or is it obvious that they are just ways to remember the deceased and to cope with the loss of them?

Continue Reading

"Cyber-Spaces of Grief" - Socolovsky

Summary In her article "Cyber-Spaces of Grief: Online Memorials and the Columbine High School Shootings", Maya Socolovsky talks about the effects of online memorials on society and our management of grief through these online memorials. Speaking to viewers of online memorials, and to anyone who's experienced loss/death, Socolovsky begins to analyze and explain the effects of online memorials. She quickly starts off by saying that the public desire to monumentalize suggests an anxiety about and an inability to deal with grief (p.468). Emphasizing a resurgence of community and the desire to be heard unanimously in one collective voice, Socolovsky explains throughout her article that online memorialsare places where people can go to accept death, to fill the void of loss, and to even gain "celebrity status" (p.477). These memorials also serve, according to Socolovsky, as archives or storage units of our memory, allowing us to turn over the responsibility of remembering to the "cult of computers"; our mnemonic idols (p.468). Socolovsky continues to touch on various questions she asks of the reader throughout the article, but circles back around in her conclusion by tying in the online memorials of the Columbine High School shooting victims to the ability of internet memorials to fill voids that physical and spatial monuments cannot. She argues that by transcending time and space, online memorials eliminate the silence and absence of death that is created by physicality by way of creating forums that exist for people to discuss collectively about loss (misery loves company) and to share their story with the world, creating a sense of immortality for the deceased, and giving the bereaved a sense of closure and satisfaction knowing that their loved one will be forever marked in history. Inquiry Socolovsky's claim that online memorials fill emptiness or voids created by death or loss is a controversial one indeed. The fact is, no matter what we do on a given day to remember someone we no longer have with us, we cannot wake up the following morning and speak to this person directly, get a response from them, or even physically touch them. As far as Socolovsky is concerned, online memorials are places where one can go and interact with the deceased. Many online memorials through the home site of www.virtualmemorials.com have posts that speak directly to the deceased. While many cope differently, and this is obviously one of many coping mechanisms, in no way shape or form is it possible for the people they are "directly communicating with" to respond. This still leaves us with the absence, or void, of personal interaction. As far as physcially interacting with the deceased; it's not possible. Interactive websites with photos and other simulacra, to also use a term from Socolovsky regarding digital images (p.469) may serve a great purpose as far as remembrance, but don't enable us to interact with the deceased individuals. Though a void may be filled by being able to see an image of the deceased, the fact is that they are still deceased and we cannot truly see them, not in the real. Thus, we are again left with a void of being able to personally interact. Though Socolovsky is correct in saying that online memorials fill some void, they do not fill any void different that that filled by physical memorials, photographs, personal memories, or stories told by other family members or friends. Online memorials are not a place to escape ghosts or absence of an individual as Socolovsky suggests, rather they are simply just another way to cope with the loss of someone near and dear to the bereaved. For this reason, online memorials will continue to pop up, espeically as those around the world continue to grow more and more connected through the medium of the internet, and for this reason new ideas will be generated through this medium to help those who have suffered a loss better cope with it. Questions How do online memorials affect the ways that we understand and cope with loss and grief? Do you think that the ability of the internet to transcend time and space, in the sense that we can view any deceased person whenever and wherever so long as they have a memorial online, has an effect on how we cope with loss? Does this lack of time and space serve as a symbol of disrespect to the deceased; would they be "upset" if they knew that we could simply "close" their memory with the touch of a button? Do internet memorials lack a place for ghosts to reside, as Socolovsky claims physical memorials enable, or are they another place that one can go and get that haunted feeling?

Continue Reading

Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a "Waste of Time?"

Game Experience Summary

For my “game,” I decided to use JacksonPollock.org. Even though this is not your typical game, it can become a game with yourself to create the artwork that you desire. When you enter the website, a blank screen appears. However, whenever you move your mouse paint splatters and creates different lines and shapes based on how quickly the mouse is moved. Whenever you click the mouse, the line color changes, ranging throughout the entire color spectrum. This is more of a form of art than gaming, but the interaction that you have with the screen can classify it as a game.

Summary

“Semiotic Domains: Is Playing Video Games a Waste of Time?” is the second chapter in a book released to justify video games and their benefits to society. Gee uses the term “literacy” and argues that it goes beyond its traditional meaning of “the ability to read and write” (17). In order to be literate in society today, one needs to be able to go beyond decoding and be able to link outside information to understand a concept on a deeper level and produce results in this context, this can be seen in multimodal texts. This gives rise to semiotic domains. Gee explains these to be different forms of signs in different realms of communication (19). For each semiotic domain, there are two ways for it to be viewed—internally and externally. Internally meaning the type of content the domain addresses and externally “in terms of people engages in a set of social practices (27). Gee’s main points go beyond his application to video games. They can be applied to learning in any semiotic domain (41). His arguments are based off of five learning principles: active, critical learning, design, semiotic, semiotic domains, and metalevel thinking about semiotic domains.

He concludes that video games are not a waste of time because they teach the player how to become literate in another domain than what is natural. He gives an example of how the grandfather of a six-year old boy misunderstands video games as a problem on content (22). In reality, “the game encourages him to think of himself as an active problem solver, one who persists in trying to solve problems even after making mistakes, on who, in fact, does not see mistakes as errors but as opportunities for reflection and learning” (36). Even though the content of the video game many be a “waste” to some, the skills learned can be applied to other semiotic domains, making you better off than non-players.

Inquiry

Prior to this reading, I would have agreed with many others that playing video games are a waste of time. However, Gee makes many compelling arguments that have made me agree with him (for the most part). I do think that critical learning can take place when playing video games, although in some not as much as others. Growing up without a gaming system, I think what held me back the most from playing video games was that I was not “in” the affinity group. With every semiotic domain, comes a different content that needs to be understood in order to produce in the domain. Since I did not know the gaming language, I did not succeed or have fun playing games. This held me back from experiencing the learning that Gee says comes with video games.

Although learning can take place when gaming, there are times when it becomes a negative asset opposed to a positive one. An example of this is when the player spends more time in his game world rather than learning in the actual world. Even though with technology improvements communication to other humans occurs when gaming, in each semiotic domain a different kind of learning takes place. In order to succeed in society, one needs more than to just be fluent in gaming. Therefore, even though it is a type of learning process, other types of learning process take precedence.

One of Gee’s main arguments is that in order to be well off in the world today, one needs to be literate in more than just reading and writing of a language. It can be semiotic domains that do not even include words, or it can simply be knowledge needed to understand a written document. Since text messaging has become popular, a new type of language has emerged—text shorthand. If you ask any teenager what “btw,” “brb,” “lol,” etc. mean, many will be able to answer without hesitation. Nowadays, in order to understand an email, text, etc. one would have to be able to decipher this language. Even though a message may be in a familiar language, one would need to be able to decode more than just words.

Questions

1. As a result of New Media, what other types of literacy are needed to understand commonly faced phenomenon?

2. After playing the online video games, do you agree with Gee's thoughts on critical thinking within this semiotic domain?

3. Do you think that the literacy gained from playing video games is useful in society today? Will this change in the future?

Continue Reading