This week’s readings deliver a solid kick to the old-school ego, expanding from the idea of “networks,” and integrating the notion of creativity and productiveness within such a system. Vaidhyanathan offers a nice introduction to “open source” culture, but things don’t start to simmer until chapter 5 of The Social Media Reader in, “What is Collaboration Anyway.” It is an essay with (fittingly) many authors, in which the new ground of digital collaboration is depicted as ignoring unique snowflakes while enthusiastically crystallizing and expanding upon pre-existing patterns and thoughts, creating an ultra-snowflake, made up of many contributors. Wikipedia is referenced as a system that builds upon itself by way of an originating idea/record, an operating strategy that is reminiscent of a virus. The operational pattern is dependent on the encouragement of community through shared ideas and strategies of production. Kutiman’s bricolage of other users’ Youtube videos stands in contrast to Vimeo, a video sharing site known for its community assistance through well-defined individual expressions within the audio/visual medium. Joseph Gordon Levitt has trumped both of these websites in the collaborative sphere with his hitRecord (http://www.hitrecord.org/), a site dedicated to contributing your personal material (video, music, scripts) to share (in the true sense of the word) for purposes of combination works with other users in a fashion similar to Kutiman’s technique, except done with full awareness and permission.
In his essay “Giving Things Away is Hard Work,” Michael Mandiberg discusses examples from his own creative endeavors and how they fared in the eagerly co-opting business world. From his lampshade idea to a reflective bicycle wrap, Mandiberg encounters obstacles as he tries to encourage translation from intangible idea to physical manifestation. Clearly there is still a divide between the two as they relate to the notion of what a “free” idea really means. I was rather fascinated with Mandiberg’s entrepreneurial abilities and found myself wondering how he would actually respond if his reflective bicycle wrap were taken over by a corporation and generated a large profit. And what ever happened with the lighting in the Eyebeam offices?
Finally, there is Ashely Dawson and her essay “DIY Academy? Cognitive Capitalism, Humanist Scholarship, and the Digital Transformation,” as well the articles Dr. Markman linked us to regarding MOOCs, all of which I found rather depressing when considering a career in academia. In a rapidly changing environment of free literature and learning, what is the point of getting official accreditation when anyone can produce work of value, or contribute to work of value? What even classifies as valuable academic research and work if anyone can do it?
Well, my point of gaining higher education is to refine knowledge in deeper level, to understand knowledge in theoretical level, and to have the overall abilities to do the two points that were mentioned early. Education surely reshapes how you process, evaluate, and apply knowledge. As you stated, anyone can produce something regardless its value, credibility, and authenticity. However, without proper training to harness knowledge and transform it into a new work, it is nearly impossible to come up with quality works. Also, as a struggling scholar wannabe who doubts my ability to comprehend anything, I seriously do not think that anyone can do research and deliver the result in convincing manner.
Ha ha! I would like to see Mandiberg’s reaction if the bike wrap took off as well.