Cultural Crossover

Going back to the topic I talked about in week 3, which is the influence of the Japanese Domestic Market car scene coming into Australia, it has in fact flooded more-so into the states. In relation to film, classic American film ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ featured a 1969 Dodge Charger, which is considered to be the one of America’s hailed muscle cars. Since then, Japanese cars have flooded America and in turn, flooded the Hollywood film scene. The saga, Fast and Furious is one the main examples where we see America becoming Asianized. Hondas, Nissans, Toyotas and all other kinds of Japanese cars are the main attraction to see in this film.

“As the Hollywood studios became increasingly export-oriented they began hiring a broad range of Asian film workers, from big-name stars to anonymous skilled craftspeople; sometimes these workers came to Holly- wood, and other times Hollywood went to them.” (Klein, 2004)

In direct relation to that statement by Klein, the movie Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift is effectively a whole side of Asia coming into the Hollywood film scene. The majority of the film is based in Japan where the character of American culture is seen as the minority (obviously, he’s in japan) and has to adapt to their culture and lifestyle. In regards to Klein’s term, “Asianization” this film is a clear cut example of how Hollywood film culture adapted and worked around Japanese culture.

 

On the flipside, “Sukiyaki Western Django”, directed by Takashi Miike, is a Japanese film written and directed by a Japanese man with Japanese clans based in the Wild West. Basically, the movie is based on Japanese cowboys in America. Famous director Quentin Tarantino is actually a character in this film because of how much he respects Miike.

I haven’t watched it yet, but it looks great.

 

Klein, Christina 2004, ‘Martial arts and globalisation of US and Asian film industries’, Comparative America Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 360-384. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-TGaGa3QAc

 

Celebrities

What is a celebrity anymore? We can agree that a celebrity in the 21^st century is someone who is under the public eye for either doing something creative and respected, such as being a movie star or a recording artist, or someone who has done a publicity stunt to land them in the public eye – but for “wrong reasons”.

In a world where we are becoming more conscious of how we present ourselves and how others perceive us (Marshal, 2010), the idea of a “specular economy” is evident because it’s not only celebrities that take that into account when using social media.

When celebrity news was regulated through printing press, appearances at events and tv shows, it was controlled, regulated, owned and accountable. Celebrities had managers who would make the best decisions in the interest of the social status of that celebrity so they wouldn’t lose fans or be scrutinized. For example, yes we all know paparazzi has been around for a long time, but in previous years the photographer would have to make his way to the publishing company and the editor would decide whether or not it was news worthy. However, nowadays everyone who has access to the internet is a ‘journalist’ (maybe not so much qualified or trained in the field) but is in effect, a reporter for the world. When the rise of social media came up such as twitter in 2008, celebrities became more accessible by the public through tweets and small talk.

This doesn’t happen for all celebrities, but some in fact check posts that they are tagged in. For example, fitness model Valeria Orsini likes posts that she’s tagged in on instagram.

Most, if not all celebrities have a team managing their facebook, twitter or instagram account. This means that either a) the celeb uses social media as a front to seem like they are engaging with the community or b) they do this to protect themselves from any unwanted publicity.

Reference List:

Marshal, P.D 2010, ‘The Specular Economy’, Society, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 498-502Marshal, P.D 2010, ‘The Specular Economy’, Society, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 498-502

Interpretation of San Andreas

Raessens explanation of interpretation in video games relates to cultural understandings and cultural studies. Basically in relation to video games, the platform is an open text that different groups of viewers interpret differently, depending on social, cultural, and other contexts (Raessens, 2005, pp:375)

I’d like to focus on one game in particular that has gone down as one of the best video games ever made (in my opinion)  – Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (Rockstar, 2004). The notion of having a game where you as a player are completely free to do basically whatever you want (more specifically what you can’t do in real life) without any consequences. Without waffling on it too much - basically the protagonist, CJ, is a middle aged black male. He is involved in gang warfare and does crime influenced missions playable by the consumer to progress through the game.

 

 

The different cultures who played this game would be so wide that the video game itself would have reached quite a large audience. As of march 2008, 21.5 million copies of San Andreas were sold worldwide (wikia.com, 2012). Let’s assume that people in America got copies, people in Australia got copies, people in England got copies and people in Africa got some too. We’re not going to sugar-coat this, the term “nigger” was used a total of 36 times in the game (kgbanswers.com, 2013) and to the people living in America playing this, yeah it might be funny. To the people playing it in Australia, hey it might raise an alarm here or there. However, the people in Africa who have a copy of this game might not like it at all.

It’s the cultural interpretation of any media form that can either make something great or completely wrong in a certain culture.

 

 

Reference List:

http://www.kgbanswers.com/how-many-times-is-the-word-nigger-said-in-the-game-grand-theft-auto-san-andreas/4186046

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto)

Raessens, J. 2005, ‘Computer games as participatory media culture’, Handbook of Computer Game Studies, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 373-388

Politics and Twitter

It’s no secret that almost every high powered political figure has a twitter account.

In the recent Federal election, both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbot had an account and used it to reach out to those in the community who don’t necessarily read newspapers or watch news. The twittersphere has been a greatly used tool in the political world because of its strong ability to informally address a formal issue.

On August 11, the date of the electoral leaders debate, twitter was swarmed with political business as the debate took place. In fact, Rudd and Abbot had previously started the debate over twitter weeks before even leading into the actual event.

The only ‘downfall’ if you want to call it that – is that the world of microblogging does in fact stray away from the idea of professionalism. Sure the content that is posted on those accounts have to be respectful – but in most cases if the tweet isn’t during the time of a political debate or an election then twitter is used as more of a conversational tool than a political tool. While microblogging in general has evolved towards becoming ‘more conversational and collaborative’ (Honeycutt and Herring, 2009: 10) retweeting and the engagement of the community with the political figure doesn’t always happen.

image: google images

Studies have found politicians to mainly use blogs as ‘campaign gimmicks’ (Lilleker and Malagón, 2010: 26) which takes away from the genuine and humanised feel of their twitter accounts. For example, Kevin Rudd and Barack Obama still use their twitter accounts on a daily basis. Possibly because they are already established political figures. Others who are in the political world do not use their accounts to interact with the community – only when need be.

As a global media form, twitter in the 21^st century is just as important as the daily printed newspaper. Society is ever changing and this leaves us with updated forms of global media. What once was television reaching to the world, is now a single tweet that millions can see within seconds of uploading.

Reference list:

Honeycutt C and Herring SC (2009) Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawaii.

Lilleker DG and Malagón C (2010) Levels of interactivity in the 2007 French Presidential candi- dates’ websites. European Journal of Communication 25(1): 25–42.

Olorf Larsson, A. and Moe, H., 2011 ‘Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign’ New Media and Society, vol. 14, no.5 pp.729-747.Olorf Larsson, A. and Moe, H., 2011 ‘Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign’ New Media and Society, vol. 14, no.5 pp.729-747.

Prosumption - the 21st century reality

How am I a Prosumer? Simply by being an active member of the world in the 21^st century – whether I realise it or not.

The word prosumption according to Ritzer and Jurgenson “involves both production and consumption rather than focusing on either one (production) or the other (consumption) (Ritzer & Jurgenson, 2010).

If we put this into context and relate it directly to the use of Facebook, does this not make all of us prosumers?Within the space of 24 hours, you scroll through thousands of status updates and photo uploads – which makes you a consumer. However, at the same time you are uploading your own statuses, photos and commenting on everything – which makes you a producer.

Image: via Google (link provided)

This left me baffled to say the least because I never really thought about it in that sense. I saw myself as a consumer of Facebook because I would log on to it and use the features that they provide me. But in relation to the definition that Ritzer & Jurgenson provide in the reading, it really makes sense to see yourself as both a consumer of Facebook but at the same time a producer.

Let’s take it further and focus directly on the week 5 topic question: “How I consume and produce my own identity”. Realistically, every individual has created a persona online. Disagree if you must, but we select what we post on Facebook and Twitter – so we manipulate what people perceive of us in the online environment.

In effect, you ultimately consume the identity you put online of yourself and it will (effectively or not) eventually mould your life. That is exactly the realistic approach of consuming your own identity that you produced.

Quite a freaky realisation if you ask me.

Reference List:

Ritzer, G & Jurgenson N, ‘Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’’ Journal of Consumer Culture, 2010, SAGE Publications.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=z5qLXYW6DXHNDM&tbnid=RF6WBB9RbymjIM:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbillmullins.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F12%2F06%2Fthe-best-stay-safe-on-the-internet-app-your-brain%2F&ei=NkdEUt2mHcqfkwXoyID4Cw&bvm=bv.53217764,d.dGI&psig=AFQjCNE7GgbsaDqMnEmiQ8_8iGoRqkJ-mQ&ust=1380292777062148

 

 

 

J Dilla - Sampling

One of my favourite producers of all time spent quite a bit of time in his career as a sampler. Which would mean he would take fragments of well-known songs and mash them together to make something new and fresh. James Dewitt Yancey, or more commonly known as ‘J Dilla’ worked with high profile names in the hip-hop and soul music scene in the 90’s. Dilla worked tracks for artists such as D’angelo, Quest, Busta Rhymes and the list goes on. As much as he is known for producing the music that so many people know and love today, he is also very known for his work as an MC. Thousands of well-known tracks have a J Dilla remix where he puts the spin on something that nobody could touch. It is argued that Dilla crossed copyright lines but realistically he hasn’t done anything illegal. Copyright refers to “a set of laws that governs the creation, reproduction, and distribution of original works that can be perceived” (Dames 2007, p25) What Dilla did was retain all the rights to the original artist, but used that track as a base to make something new. Has anyone really invented anything? Or have famous inventors used other inventions by other inventors to “invent” something new? Making something completely new is one thing, but using the tools that everyone has access to, to find a new use in conjunction with another tool is a different story. In relation to music, yes, sampling is illegal. But it’s a very grey area because the argument of what is directly stealing something and taking an idea and changing it gets confusing. One of the Beastie Boys, commented on the issue of sampling on an article. He says "It's a context issue, because not every sample is a huge chunk of a song. We might take a tiny little insignificant sound from a record and then slow it way down and put it deep in the mix with, like, 30 other sounds on top of it. It's not even a recognizable sample at that point. Which is a lot different from taking a huge, obvious piece from some hit song that everyone knows and saying whatever you want to on top of that loop.” (Beastie Boy, 2013 - lifeportal.com) That quote basically sums up my position on sampling. Reference List Lisasmusz, 2013, retrieved 26 September 26, 2013 Dames, K 2007 ‘Understanding PLAGIARISM AND How It Differs from Copyright Infringement’, Vol.27, Issue. 6, pp.25-27.

Devaluation versus Validation – The music industry.

Being a person who records music and wants the world to hear it – I agree with the idea of file sharing. I’m sure I speak on millions of peoples behalves when I say I have downloaded a song before. It’s not a tabooed action and it sure isn’t first degree murder. The article talks about the idea of what a criminal is. What makes the stereotypical criminal? In a nutshell they’re bald, have tattoos all over their body, has killed someone or thought of it and is most likely out to hurt you if you look at them wrong. Now if we look at the average Joe, he works 9-5 through the week, might be studying and is most likely you reading this. I’ll put the bet out there that the person reading this post has once downloaded a song, movie or even programs off the internet before. So… apparently that makes you a criminal? Wrong! I believe that the idea of file sharing is a network where people who are willing to share their content with the world, put it on a silver platter and watch as thousands happily download and are most likely happy as a result. Again, as a musician, artist or whatever – I make songs and I want people to hear them. If I put it on Facebook, law constitutes that my song then belongs to Facebook. If I share my song with the world, even though proceeds don’t come to me, the recognition of the song still holds. The international Federation of Pornographic Industries says “record companies invest as much as 20 per cent of their turnover in developing artists — investment which is funded by legitimate sales of recordings” (IFPI, 2009) In relation to that – no… I’m not involved in the porn industry. But if you look at it in the sense of the music industry, people don’t need funds to have their songs recorded. I understand the complaint of official producing industries having their files shared and losing funds. But that’s just how it is. Reference List: Martin, B, Moore, C and Salter, C. 2010, ‘Sharing music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry’, First Monday, vol. 15, no. 12, [available: HYPERLINK "http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680" International Federation of Phonographic Industries (IFPI), 2009. “The Pirate Bay trial — IFPI Chairman John Kennedy outlines the damage to the music industry” (25 February),